Graphic's...anyone?

[madgamer2]

Like the poster who mentioned Tactics II I go way back when wargames were played with paper maps, unit counters, rules disagreements, and in any game with more than Inf. Art., and Cav. units used NATO icons. I have heard that some of the players state that WbtS is ugly and plain.
Many seem to favor some kind of Period graphics (whatever that means)such as what you find in AACW. I have problems with the map in a game like that because after about 2 hours I get a headache. Now period it may be but I find it a total state of confusion as to where I am and where I am going.(A touch of Civil War reality perhaps?)

I think the younger "WE want Period graphics" Will win out over the "KISS" crowd (Keep It Simple Stupid) folks but what do you people think. Do graphics you do not like keep you from buying a game. They did me because I had a friend who invited me over to play Panzer General with those awful plane,tank,and Infantry Icons.

[m10bob]

I'm an old NATO counter wargamer, but these nice graphics remind me of the old American Heritage game released for the Centennial of the Civil War in 1961..........[:)]

[heroldje]

graphics can be simple and still be good, or pleasant to look at.  graphics only become a hinderance when they are graphics for the sake of graphics, instead of adding to the experience/gameplay

[ryan1488]

game looks plenty good for me

[hgilmer]

    If I know a game engine is good, the graphics don't stop me.  If I don't know, the graphics sway me.

[tran505]

The graphics look fine to me too. The retail shelves are full of games stressing graphics over gamplay. The graphics are reasonably nice, clear, and easy to follow. (I do play fully zoomed in. Choices like this are good once you are over 50!) The game is extremely well designed and executed. Works for me....