Game questions.

[stormbringer3]

I am trying to decide between getting this title or COGEE as I posted in the COGEE forum.
I have a couple of questions about GG's War Between the States.
1. I have AGEOD's American Civil War and a big negative for me was the cavalry raiding where they went so far behind the lines, ripped everything up, and turned a lot of the game into whack a mole. How is War Between the States in this issue?
2. War Between the States is a mature game with multiple patches. Unless it has changed, each AGEOD patch downloads everything from the beginning, leaving a dialup user like me (no broadband where I live) with many hours of download every patch and if disconnected, a restart from the beginning. Other game companies stack patches so you download them in sequence making the process more user friendly if you get disconnected. How does Matrix handle patches?
Any other thoughts about War Between the States, pro or con, would be appreciated.
Thanks.

[Joel Billings]

1. Cavalry raids and protecting against them are a big part of the game (as is scouting with cav). But it tends to be more a steady supply drain and impact on Union leader initiative then it is that they are destroying rear areas. You have to worry about having cavalry to protect your main armies and their depots, but I don't think it is out of line with their importance in the Civil War.

2. In most cases the patches are comprehensive in that you only have to download the most recent patch to get all the updates. That's the case with WBTS and the latest patch is pretty small in size (about 4 MB).

[Erik Rutins]

In WBTS, you don't generally have cavalry roaming around in your rear and staying there on an ongoing basis. There's a raid mechanic that lets them ride out, conduct a raid (possibly across several areas if successful) and return. Your main counter to that is to keep your own cavalry in place to screen your front line areas and diminish the effect of raids. Just having enough cavalry in the right places takes care of reducing raid effectiveness, you don't have to go chasing them down.

AACW is at a more operational scale map and unit-wise, so it has the players actually controlling the cavalry during the raids and it has enough territories that units can slip through the front lines fairly easily. WBTS is arguably the most strategic in scale of the three ACW games (AACW, FOF, WBTS) in that it has one month turns and fewer units to deal with overall, hence the cavalry mechanics involve less unit management and movement and are a bit more abstracted.

The most important effect of cavalry in WBTS is really scouting and screening and the resulting impact on the battles in the game. Having good scouting is a very key factor in winning battles.

[Mike Parker]

I really like the Raid mechanic in GG:WBTS.  There are two things that cavalry need to do, scout and raid.  They are not useless in combat but they are by far the least useful combat arm.  You have to make good strategic decisions involving cavalry, both in their placement, formation, and training.  But the actual mechincs of cavalry raiding is simple as the guys above explained.  If you choose you raid with cavalry and it has a chance of damaging (or destroying if already damaged) rail lines, destroying and stealing supply, and disrupting supply depot's (as a function of destroying/stealing enough supplies that the depot just doesn't have enough on hand to operate its special abilities as depot).  The cavalry can raid deep behind enemy lines, its not uncommon to have Reb Cavalry in Manassas raid DC, Gettysburgh, and Harper's ferry all in one turn damaging rail in one or more provinces and destroying alot of supplies.
 
Its less likely to see the union doing this as they are much more likely to be outnumbered in cavalry, and they in general have less well trained mounted forces.  So I think a simple dynamic is realistic, reasonable, and easy.  The cavalry comes back to friendly territory and there is no need to chase them all over Penn and Ohio
 
 

[Treefrog]

I concur with Mike.

The cavalry scouting/raiding element is distinct and clean. It adds realistic historical texture without being a drag on the game.

[Doc o War]

Also concur- cavalry is a very useful tool to the strategic war. This game does it well.
 
this one is worth the investment, it will be around for a long time I think. But be warned- the mechanics are multi layered-each time you increase the complexity through adding options the game gets harder- not from anything wrong with the game- but from the challenges you will face and overcome as a commander on a grand scale. 
   I think this game is now is very close to how the Civil War was fought strategically.  You will learn as you play that many of your old concepts about things have to change- the game demands a lot from the commanders. You really have to learn how to play this one- and its worth the time, money and effort. Very enjoyable game- especially the head to head version.

[henri51]

Before I bought this gamne last Thursday I had been playing COG:EE for a couple of weeks, and I had been reading the forums trying to decide whether to buy this game, Forge of Freedom or Kharkov. The forums were saying that all the civil war games were good, but none of them pointed out the essential difference.

Nos I don't have FoF, but I understand that it is a civil war version of COG, so it is an operational game with an embedded tctical game for combat. To be clear, GGWBTS is a grand strategy game at the operational lelvel and nothing else. There is no tactical element at all, because all battles are fought automatically by the AI. There is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to fight the civil war battles yourself, get another game.

The game is also much more complicated than any other game I have played (and I have played hundreds).As expected, you have to manage production, recruitment, blockades, cavalry scouting and raids, generals and political aspects.

Although there are over a dozen video tutorials and three on-hand tutorials, there are not enough of the latter, and although I have gone through all the tutorials and most of the manual, I still havent played through more than two moves of the game. What is missing is a detailed move-by-move tutorial of the first few moves of one side or the other. along with explanations (it is still unclear to me why cavalry is required to move and take control of an adjacent region). For a game of this complexity, much handholding for newbies is required. I am worried that many players will try the game for a few hours and give up because they cannot get a handle on the game.

The most useful tutorial of this type is a tutorial that proposes alternate opening moves for the Union (first message on the top of the War Room forum). Although it is well-written and detailed, I failed the second move capture of one of the Mississipi forts last night probably due to unclear instructions on exactly how to carry it out. But at least this tutorial will show you how to easily capture Missouri and a bit more complicated way to capture West Virginia on the first move. I will post more comments on that tutorial on the AAR forum.

So there it is: if you are looking for a complex grand stretegy operational game of the Civil War, this game should not disappoint you.

Henri

[parusski]

henri51 I agree with you about there not being enough move by move, turn by turn tutorials. I have owned this game since it was released and I have not played it yet. Never have I been more frustrated by any game, ever! My feeling is one of "sadness," for I know I must be missing out. I just don't understand how to play GGWBTS's.

[Rexor]

WBTS, like Doc said above, is a brilliant game that renders its immense depth very subtly. I can see why GG is so highly regarded in the gaming industry--he and his team have crafted a game engine that takes an astonishing amount of realistic detail into account without burdening the player with excessive management. But the devil is in the details. Example: WBTS's movement rules are, in my opinion, revolutionary, and like few other wargames. You'll need to read the manual, and read it again. But overall, I feel the rhythm of this game most accurately simulates the Civil War itself with all its frustrating and nail-biting choices.

AACW is an ingenious creation, but still something of a Frankentstein's monster in my opinion. I love what the guys at AGEOD are doing, and I'm one of their biggest fans, but I think they bit off more than they could chew with their CW game. Many people think it's a real classic, but I wish they'd patch it up a bit more.

I love FoF, largely because it's the only game I know of that allows me to actually choose the precise gun designs I'm using to defend my forts, arm my cavalry, or equip my infantry--and all within a realistic sim that takes into account foreign aid, technological advances, and so on. It's also the only one with a tactical battle option, and a magnificent one at that. In my humble opinion, this is the gem of the bunch if only because I like micromanagement. But the AI needs further work (not much, mind you).

Hope this helps.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: parusski

henri51 I agree with you about there not being enough move by move, turn by turn tutorials. I have owned this game since it was released and I have not played it yet. Never have I been more frustrated by any game, ever! My feeling is one of "sadness," for I know I must be missing out. I just don't understand how to play GGWBTS's.

Start by playing the Confederacy against the computer, and note the computer's first-turn moves. Stop. Playing the Confederacy is harder.

Now play the Union against the computer, using the computer's first-turn moves as a starting point. (You can do better. Think about clearing all of West Virginia and Missouri. Put an army commander in Baltimore with at least a couple of corps so that if you get initiative in the next turn, you can land on the off-shore islands. Start building cruisers for the blockade and to chase Confederate raiders.) Just let things happen and try to advance, particularly in the West.

Do this three or four times, and you'll learn how to beat the computer. Save often. Now play the Confederacy.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: parusski

henri51 I agree with you about there not being enough move by move, turn by turn tutorials. I have owned this game since it was released and I have not played it yet. Never have I been more frustrated by any game, ever! My feeling is one of "sadness," for I know I must be missing out. I just don't understand how to play GGWBTS's.

Yeah, I was pretty much of the same opinion until a couple of weeks ago. I bought the game a year ago, but just couldn't get into it. I always tried to play the South and all I ever saw was hoards of blue bellies swarming all over the place. I was heavily involved testing COGEE, so I just put GGWBTS aside.

Now that I've had time to play it, getting creamed the first few times, I realize how good it really is. One thing that needed to sink in was that, as the South, I could lose massive amounts of territory and troops and still win. It's all about the political point total. Keep the Union below 1,000 at the end of October, and the game is essentially over with the South winning. I don't have to keep the Yanks north of the Mason-Dixon. (Although the last game I played on "easy" I came pretty close.)

Like the real Confederacy, I've learned to trade space for time and take my shots when I can. I keep supply coming as much as possible. And, I can usually keep the Union from using the Mississippi as a gunboat freeway. It can be done.

So, keep playing. Each new game try to learn one new thing. There are a lot of rules, but they fit together nicely. Start a new game often, once you've learned something that would have been critical to your success had you known it earlier. The AI really doesn't care if you start over.

I'm not a master player by any means, but I know enough to be able to look back and think that it really isn't that hard of a game after all. It's quite enjoyable and doesn't take forever to play.

[parusski]

Thanks to bjmorgan and herwin. Today I decided not to work. Instead I watched every tutorial, read the entire manual and played as the North instead of the wonderful Confederacy. I know report that 14 hours after I started I am in love with the game system. For now that's all I have time to post. I must get back to GGWBTS's.

[morganbj]

Good show parusski!   Keep playing until you get it all down.  It's a great game.
 
(I know it stinks playing the Yank.  But, look at it this way, there's some consolation for losing when you're the "enemy.")  [:D]