So Which One?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

So Which One?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> So Which One?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

So Which One? - 12/29/2008 5:25:37 PM

roth

Posts: 41
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline

First, please forgive me for posting this in all three ACW game forums (GGWBTS, FOF and AGEOD) but I wanted to get responses from readers who may not visit any particular one of these.

I own all three games, but so far have played none, and I'd welcome recommendations on which to try first. Each game looks like it has its own take on the war as well as its own charms.

I would probably play the Confederacy against the AI, at least initially (unless there was some consensus that, for the recommended game, starting as the Union would be preferable for learning.) If I invest as much time in a game as any of these seems to require, I'd like to have at least a reasonable hope of winning. If the war goes on for any length, I assume this would mean either winning foreign support for the CSA or slowing down the Union advances long enough to cause Lincoln to lose the 1864 election.

At first I was leaning toward FOF, largely because of the ability to fight tactical battles. After reading AARs, however, it looks like FOF produces lots of frequent, large battles -- far more than occurred historically. Not that this wouldn't be fun, but in general my preference would be for the game that more closely models historical limitations and constraints, so that the decisions I make would tend to produce the same results as might have occurred historically had the actual politicians and commanders in those circumstances made the same decisions.

Also as a result of reading the comments in these forums, it seems that GGWBTS may have marginally more complications inherent in the program -- more i's and t's that have to be dotted or crossed to make things work the way you intend. Each of the games seems to have its share of these, so my perception may be wrong about WBTS, but that's a negative for me with any of the games.

I hope eventually to play each of them, but I'd appreciate your comments on where to start.

Post #: 1

RE: So Which One? - 12/29/2008 5:37:38 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

I think we're definitely fortunate in that the real question is "which to play first?". All are excellent games, each have their own strengths which mean playing one doesn't make the others redundant and all are well supported, well designed and full of great gameplay.

FOF has three different complexity levels, so it's a pretty easy game to start with and scale up. WBTS is probably just as easy to get started with, but as with Advanced FOF it's a game with a lot of depth and becoming a very good player will take dedication. AACW is a very detailed game and while it's easy to learn how to play it, there's a lot to do in each turn and it probably requires the largest time investment of the three. In terms of the time it takes to fight out the entire war, I'd say WBTS is the fastest, FOF next and AACW takes the longest, but AACW also has a lot of additional detail down to the operational scale so it can be arguably more immersive. As I said above though, all three are truly excellent ACW games and should be in every ACW gamer's collection.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to roth)

Post #: 2

RE: So Which One? - 1/18/2009 2:08:56 AM

tran505

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline

Roth:

Your question is, of course, a matter of personal taste.

For me, GGWTBS is the best of the three. Very manageable once you learn the system, and still with many layers of complexity that work well together, and provides a large "fun factor" -- at least for me.

AGEOD's product is a close second, however it will take longer to play and is not good for in-person f-t-f sessions because the turns can take a while if you are the meticulous sort. But the game provides a nice operational feel in exchange for the added detail and time commitment.

I never really warmed up to FOF -- for me it comes across less polished, with some strange choices for levels of abstraction that do no really add that much to the game. The detailed combat mode does not work for me at all; comes across as an unpolished minigame rather than something you would want to play through.

Personal opinion. Your mileage may vary....

- P

(in reply to roth)

Post #: 3

RE: So Which One? - 1/18/2009 2:43:59 AM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

I own AGEOD's game, and though playable, I found the organizational aspects daunting. What impresses about WBTS is the ability to give justice to the multitudinous aspects of the war- supply, generalship, cavalry, production, politcal trade-offs, the blockade and riverine combat- at a zoomed out level. You get the big picture but retain much of the detail.

On the other hand, if you're a PBEMer, the AGEOD game due to its WEGO format, enjoys the advantage of tamper-proof file exchanges.

< Message edited by Pford -- 1/18/2009 2:44:52 AM >

(in reply to tran505)

Post #: 4