Thinking of buying WBTS

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Thinking of buying WBTS

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 >> Thinking of buying WBTS

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Thinking of buying WBTS - 8/25/2009 8:08:49 AM

Noakesy

Posts: 193
Joined: 5/26/2005
Status: offline

I regularly play SSG games and they are excellent, but I think I would like to try something a bit different, and someone on the Run5 forum suggested WBTS was an excellent game (and I've always had an interest in the carnage of the ACW). Could someone just give me a few pointers on this:

1 - Is it an easy game to get into, or will it require me to read a 400pp manual (I can appreciate to understand the intricacies some reading is required)?

2 - Can this be played meaningfully against the AI or is H2H essential? I play H2H with the SSG games, but just wondered.

3 - How long does a full campaign game last (assuming there is such a scenario in here)? Is each turn a number of hours play (if playing PBEM)?

4 - Does it play realistically do you think (given that I think this includes economics etc)?

5 - What do you think are the weak points in the game (not wishing to focus on the negative elements, but I guess that most people on here will be fans anyway)?

Many thanks in advance for your help/guidance.

Post #: 1

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 8/26/2009 1:35:13 AM

skshrews

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline

1. Reading is definitely required. The initiative command system is not standard gaming fare, and takes a while to figure out.

2. Can be played meaningfully against AI as understanding system will take several attempts, in any case. H2H is always better, of course.

3. My experience is about 10-12 hours for entire war. Some turns go very quickly, if you have little initiative on your side.

4. Reasonably realistic for a grand strategy system and an area (as opposed to hex) map. System prevents ceaseless battles, and command rules stress the influence of individual commanders. Abstracted battle resolution though does limit those "Pickett's Charge" moments.

5. Limited tutorial makes the initial experience a little frustrating. Initiative rule in particular is critical, but not stressed enough in tutorials or rules. Juggling many units is a challenge. As above, abstract battle resolution eliminates some of the Civil War "flavor" of the game. Eastern/Virginia front often has WWI feel to it, which is realistic but can be tedious.

(in reply to Noakesy)

Post #: 2

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 8/26/2009 2:00:26 AM

Frido1207

Posts: 456
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Lower Saxony, Germany
Status: offline

Hi Noakesy,

will try to answer your questions, although i didn�t played this game for quite a while (hopefully some more engaged forum members will stepp in)

1. Yes & no. The basic game mechanics are quite easy to learn, & you don�t have to read 400 pages of the manual, but some rules are quite tricky & will
require to refer to the manual sometimes.

2. I think the AI will give you a good fight while you�re learning the game & getting comfortable with it. H2H is possible, but i don�t know how many people actually play WBTS H2H.

3. Game pace is reasonably fast. At the start, planning & organisation of your troops will take some time, but afterwards a turn will take no longer last than ~30-45 min., depending on the situation you�re confronted with.

4. Not sure, what you mean. Huge advantage for the Union. South cannot win (against a somewhat skilled human Union player) by occupying the northern territory. South`goal & only chances to win the war is just to delay the advance of the North.
Production is handled quite basic, & mainly reflects the economic advantage of the Union. South has no chance to match the Union regarding its economic capacities.

5. There are no weak points.

Knowing the early SSG titles (KP, BiN, BiI), i think the first difference is, that WBTS is a strategical game & not operational.
But far more important are some game concepts of WBTS which aren�t really comparable to the mentioned SSG Titles. E.g. in WBTS Leaders have a huge impact not only on how your troops perform, but they have to gain "Initiative" (a main concept, how leaders are handled in WBTS), to be able to act with your troops on offence. So, sometimes you cannot do, what you like to do, because your leaders / troops stands iddle, & you have to wait for another opportunity.
Overall i would (surprisingly ?) say, that you can�t go wrong with WBTS. It offers alot of fun, without fiddeling too much with economical & other stuff, so that your main focus can be always concentrated on the military action. Its still a great game.

Hope i could help you a bit. And many excuses for my poor english.

_____________________________

(in reply to Noakesy)

Post #: 3

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 8/26/2009 7:54:21 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

I've been at this one a while so will give a few thoughts.

You should read the game manual-do some tutorials and then play the AI-
Its hard to grasp some of what seem to be simple concepts at first, like spotted and unspotted units in combat- but quickly become clear and is vital and so you learn-LIKE THE IMPORTANCE OF COMBAT MODIFIERS, like leadership values- command command structure - supply status and spotting- OR the proper use of cavalry- and the concept of initiative in 19th century operational warfare. Just like in the real war- Generals would sometimes just sit, for not much real good reason.

I found reading old forum posts gave me a lot of background on what was happening in the game as it developed over the last year and a half. .lots of tips on play there.

You have to learn that each battle in a month is an end result of all the combat taking place in the region There could be a half dozen small battles in a month in one region- or just one big one-you see the end results of all the clashes displayed. Tracking the ebb and flow of these operational combats eventually decides who controls the regions- regional control is the key to gaining political ponts in the game- because the amount of political victory pointts you have is critical- especially for the UNION- IF THE UNION PLAYER DOES NOT EMMASS 1000 POINTS BY NOVEMEBER 1864 LINCOLN LOOSES THE ELECTION AND THE SOUTH WILL WIN. It is simple- but getting there can be a struggle- for both sides.

Building supply depots is important for attacking- but you dont draw supply from the depots you build- instead they support you gaining initiative-(Think of them as being the extra stuff - the ammo and such you used in offensive operations) your basic supplies needed to maintain the forces daily in the field are broadcast each turn down the vital rail lines and by river and sea transport chains. Which makes the disruption of those supply chains disasterous. When supply depots are reduced - besides loosing the supplies- you loose the dice modifiers for gaining initiative. And the offensive stalls.

This game is best played Head to Head- I have been playing it that way since before it was generally released. I have seen the South win as many times as the UNion- in fact probably more often than the Union when two players who know the game play against each other. The Union can be delayed and thwarted in so many interesting ways-

While the game can have an almost WW1 static feel at times, as it does show the first great industrial age war- once major forces are built up it is never quiet or static long. At times great battles and campaigns errupt in quiet regions with incredable fury. Against competant players who understand the rules no front goes quiet for long. And while I have never seen the South invade into true Northern Territory successfully, that is go up there and stay long- I have seen West Virginia and Northern Virginia and the Atlantic and Gulf coatsts fought over estensively. And bloodily year after year. Naturally the real war is fought in the West.

The South often attacks Northern Armies in games I have played in. The South has good attacking Generals. Though The North has some good defensive Generals to offset that advantage, as well as competant Attackers.

It is an operational game- with production and a naval war thrown in. So it is also Strategic.

It takes me about an Hour a turn to do an average H2H turn and get it out- It can take as long as two hours but rarely less than 40 minutes to do a turn- which is one month. There are 41 monthly turns from July 1861 to November 1864- the game really doesnt have to go on past that- though it can for final satisfaction I suppose. I have both surrendered and had my opponent give up long before that- especially when you are in the early learning stages of playing this game. Mistakes happen- occassionally really bad ones- that makes each game interesting and a learning experience. There are so many variables. In a perfect turn around pace of a turn a day it would take a month and a half to finish a PBEM game H2H. That is in a perfect world- I'd say a game can last with delays and real life and such against another human player- two or three months.

And in fact there is a full campaign game- just start in 1861- it will take you the full game

I have started the canned scenarios at the beginning of 1861/ 62/ and 63- and each was interesting and exciting- and I have seen the South Win taking the 1863 start- though it is a real challenge. Once you start it takes you all the way to 1865 regardless of which scenario you start at- the games are not set up to just do one year- the scenarios just plop you down at whatever point they were at historically in the beginning of that year. So if you wish to have the greatest effect on production and grand strategy I would suggest starting at the beginning, in July 61. This is for H2h play- I have not played against just the AI in a long time so I cannot really comment much on that- other than it is good for learning the game- but plays nothing like a human. The tutorials were helpful when I started - but that was also a long time ago.

While I think it is a very good simulation of the aspects present in 1861 to 65- and like the feel of the game- once you use CSC, Limited Point Recovery and Fog of War the game gets to where it is supposed to be- that is the best simulation level- fully on.
- I don't like using Random leaders I use Historical- but some players like the random leaders rules- matter of taste there. Most of the players I have played played with Historical leaders, plus Fog, LPR and CSC. CSC is brilliant and really gives a historic feel to the structure of the armies; Limited Point Recovery slows the game down a bit- but makes you more effecient with your movements and actions- Each General can only do so much- has so many command points- qnd each turn may only do x amount of things until he uses up his command points- then he is done for the Turn. and Fog of War is really manditory/ necessary once you get past the beginner stage.

The play testers and the developers had hours of lively and at times amuzing discussions regarding the economic and production/supply side of the game. Some have posted on the forums their beliefs that the game allows too much supply overall for both sides. These things have been adjusted along the way from th estart of this until now- Stats and charts and links to web sites have been posted to prove one side or another's beliefs on this subject and overall the basic statement by the players is the system is fine. Though it is true some forum posters think the amount of supply potentially available is too high.
Frankly that is probably true when playing strickly against the AI because the AI isn't as agressive as a real human. I have found in a full on H2H fight against a competant player- north or south- you will use up great amounts of supply and find things 'tight' at times. Though a well played game should have the North slightly pushed for supply early in the war- but have plenty once the new factories kick in after March of 1862- wereas the south- if it is blockaded and squeezed and looses ground should begin to hurt a bit for supply later in the war.

That basic model follows history- The North was a bit confused and handled supply of their armies poorly at first but were very professional by late 1862- wereas the South actually basically had enough ammo and supply through 1863 (in general)- and only started hurting when the Union cut them apart. The Confederate Armies mid war were fed and armed and supplied just about the same as the Union. It depended on what Southern State regiment and which army they fought in- some southern armies were better supplied than others-more often because of corruption and poor management. Also the regiments from states that fell early to the North- such as Tennessee- were not supported well by their now occupied states - and being a nation built on the concept of States Rights- the Confederate National government was a poor second to supply the state troops- Troops from States that were in affect well off- such as North Carolina- tended to be well equipted and supplied through out the war.
I hope that covered some of the economic question.

All in all- I find this a challenging and well done game system- once you learn how to play the system- it will bring you a lot of fun gaming experience.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Frido1207)

Post #: 4

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 8/26/2009 8:06:11 AM

Noakesy

Posts: 193
Joined: 5/26/2005
Status: offline

Thank you for your comments, they are very helpful, and I reckon I'll give this a try. I love the SSG titles, and appreciate this is entirely different in many respects (I also bought Guns of August which looked great but I never really got into it, maybe I'll look at that again too).

Many thanks once again for taking the time to respond, I'm sure I'll be back here in a few weeks asking some newbie questions

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 5

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 9/9/2009 5:27:18 PM

McGlu

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/18/2007
From: Texas
Status: offline

How's this historical accuracy as far as the states are concerned? I have Ageod's AACW and one thing that annoys me - starting in 1861, West Virginia is a state even though it didn't separate from Virginia until 1863.

Getting a feel for the political as well as the military situation at the time is very important, IMO.

(in reply to Noakesy)

Post #: 6

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 9/9/2009 11:12:44 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

WV didn't join the Union till 1863. They repealed the ordinance of secession back in 1861.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeling_Convention

The 1861 Wheeling Convention was held at West Virginia Independence Hall in Wheeling. The convention was a series of two meetings that ultimately repealed the Ordinance of Secession passed by Virginia, thus establishing the Restored government of Virginia, which ultimately authorized the counties that organized the convention to become West Virginia. The Restored Government was recognized by the Union, including President Lincoln, as the State of Virginia with its capital in Wheeling.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 9/9/2009 11:14:06 PM >

(in reply to McGlu)

Post #: 7

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 9/9/2009 11:30:10 PM

McGlu

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/18/2007
From: Texas
Status: offline

True, true. But, even in 1861 there was still a lot of disagreement and nothing was official until Lincoln issued the proclamation. My WV education taught me that state was founded on June 20, 1863. :)

The point of my initial post is to ask are these types of events pointed out as the game progresses or are they pretty much up to the player to know outside of the game? It's very interesting to hear of these political developments, and even if it's a simple newspaper pop-up as events occur, it really adds to the historical authenticity of the game.

< Message edited by McGlu -- 9/9/2009 11:31:54 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 8

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 9/10/2009 2:47:42 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Well, perhaps one of those events in red that are in the mail box would suffice. Suggest it to Gray Lensman, more than likely a simple fix.

(in reply to McGlu)

Post #: 9

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 9/28/2009 7:30:50 AM

NicoDavout

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/28/2009
From: Poland, Warsaw
Status: offline

Hello,

I am thinking about buying this game, but since there is no DEMO I'd like to ask some questions.

1) Is there a lot of micromanagment in this game? I disliked AGEOD ACW where I have to choose what kind of troops I built in each state, I have to move every battery/single regiment and so. I prefer games like old ACW from 1993 made by Interactive Magic.

2) Do I have to run manually blockade runners in this game or is it done automatically?

Thanks for any reply!

< Message edited by NicoDavout -- 9/28/2009 7:32:39 AM >

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 10

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 9/29/2009 6:16:12 AM

Torplexed

Posts: 305
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: The Pacific
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NicoDavout

Hello,

I am thinking about buying this game, but since there is no DEMO I'd like to ask some questions.

1) Is there a lot of micromanagment in this game? I disliked AGEOD ACW where I have to choose what kind of troops I built in each state, I have to move every battery/single regiment and so. I prefer games like old ACW from 1993 made by Interactive Magic.

2) Do I have to run manually blockade runners in this game or is it done automatically?

Thanks for any reply!

1) This game doesn't have nearly as many geographical areas or troop types as ACW. Here is an old AAR (after action report) you can read here to get a feel for the scale and turn sequence of the game.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1731304

2) There are no blockade runners per se in WBTS. Depending on the number of Union ships outside a Confederate port and what type they are, and the quality of their commander, a certain percentage of supplies from abroad are prevented from entering Confederate ports. In addition, the Confederates have commerce raiders they can buy, but their effect on Union trade is also abstracted as a percentage cut.

(in reply to NicoDavout)

Post #: 11

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/2/2009 6:04:47 AM

NicoDavout

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/28/2009
From: Poland, Warsaw
Status: offline

I bought the game. It looks pretty good :). Many things, like production, similar to the old ACW game.

BTW I have found one historical mistake unless it is some kind of game balance setup. ASJohnston in July 1861 was somewhere between California and Texas in his way to Richmond. He had taken command in TN in November 1861.

---

Two questions:

1) Do I have to apply all the patches or the last one has all the changes?
2) What is the "historical" difficulty level? Easy or normal? Normal seems to be logical, but computer gets 200% bonus for rail capacity....

< Message edited by NicoDavout -- 10/2/2009 11:41:22 AM >

(in reply to Torplexed)

Post #: 12

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/2/2009 12:34:54 PM

Torplexed

Posts: 305
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: The Pacific
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NicoDavout

I bought the game. It looks pretty good :). Many things, like production, similar to the old ACW game.

BTW I have found one historical mistake unless it is some kind of game balance setup. ASJohnston in July 1861 was somewhere between California and Texas in his way to Richmond. He had taken command in TN in November 1861.

---

Two questions:

1) Do I have to apply all the patches or the last one has all the changes?
2) What is the "historical" difficulty level? Easy or normal? Normal seems to be logical, but computer gets 200% bonus for rail capacity....

1) Just using the latest patch will apply all the changes
2) It's normal for the AI to get a transport boost on the normal setting. You can adjust it manually to 100 if you wish by clicking on the box.

(in reply to NicoDavout)

Post #: 13

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/5/2009 8:31:21 AM

NicoDavout

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/28/2009
From: Poland, Warsaw
Status: offline

After weekend of playing I can only say that this is *great* game

.

I am playing on easy level, is AI more agressive on higher levels? Currently I am playing Union, it is January 1863 and CSA has not made a single offensive.

(in reply to Torplexed)

Post #: 14

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/5/2009 7:32:19 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

The CSA AI will counterattack when it sees the chance, but it's not very interested in going North if that's what you mean. At the easy level, it's probably not seeing a lot of opportunities for a good counterattack.

(in reply to NicoDavout)

Post #: 15

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/5/2009 9:26:19 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Yes, it will definitely counterattack more on the harder levels as it will feel that it has a better chance of success with more troops and supplies.

_____________________________

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 Joel Billings)

Post #: 16

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/6/2009 6:43:40 PM

NicoDavout

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/28/2009
From: Poland, Warsaw
Status: offline

Question about designing?

1) Why is KY so pro-CSA in game? CSA has lower chance and costs for invading KY. Historically population was in favor of USA, in game it is very pro-CSA (look at Union aligned state and Confederate aligned state KY).

2) Do CSA rails detoriate with time?

3) Are there pro-Union partisants in CS territories? Knoxville area, northern Alabama and parts of North Carolina were full of Union sympathizers.

< Message edited by NicoDavout -- 10/7/2009 8:32:12 AM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 17

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/7/2009 4:18:43 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

1) Because the game is IGOUGO, the Union always gets the first chance to move in, but the point cost drops each player turn. If Union takes advantage of moving in first, they pay more. Historically Confederates moved in first.

2) No, but the Confederates can have supply problems maintaining all the rails later on, especially if the Union Cav does a good job raiding.

3) No, although this has been mentioned before, the system was not set up to easily handle Union partisans. Ideally you'd have some kind of Confederate garrison requirement in Knoxville and possibly other areas. You can always make a "house rule" to cover this for human players.

(in reply to NicoDavout)

Post #: 18

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/7/2009 5:06:52 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Also, make sure you read through the various post-release changes that tweaked Kentucky a bit.

_____________________________

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 Joel Billings)

Post #: 19

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/8/2009 12:15:00 PM

NicoDavout

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/28/2009
From: Poland, Warsaw
Status: offline

Thanks!

Question. Does the number of depots increase the chance for activation or one depot has the same effect as ten?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 20

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/8/2009 3:08:51 PM

Bangui

Posts: 22
Joined: 9/8/2004
Status: offline

A single full depot is all that is required for the initative bonus. Most players build two depots so that at least one full depot is present after a calvalry raid. The loss of one supply point from the depot eliminates the initative bonus when only one depot is built. It is important to remove depots as the front advances so that the supply points are released back into the national pool.

_____________________________

The Ancient Gamer

(in reply to NicoDavout)

Post #: 21

RE: Thinking of buying WBTS - 10/12/2009 11:04:18 PM

Treefrog

Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline

My meagre appreciation is that the USA wants at least two depots, preferably 3 or more.

Chance of gaining initiative is improved if you are (1) in your home country region, or (2) have a depot in an enemy region. So that is one depot so far.

Chance of initiatve under the patch is increased if you have an "extra" depot in any region you are in, which explains why CSA has depots in the regions their AC and the rapid deployment force is located in. That is now two depots.

CAvalry raid and capture and destroy supplies. As stated, even a single supply loss eliminates the effectiveness of the depot; it is common to lose 20+ supply point loss even when you have a cavalry/mounted screen. So that is now three or four depots.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Noakesy)

Post #: 22