Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WBTS vs ACW Question

 
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 >> WBTS vs ACW Question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WBTS vs ACW Question - 11/19/2009 11:45:24 AM   
Leeds

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 3/5/2003
Status: offline 		Please advise a potential buyer.....which game is better and easier to play.

Personally, I prefer WW2 Time of Wrath to Hearts of Iron as it easier to jump in to and I like hexes!

I played Forge of Freedom and liked it except for the combat which was either too simple or too unwieldy. I have bough ACW but am overwhelmed by the game board (map) and minutae.

Is WBTS a better game?

Also, and importantly as the screenshots dont show it, can one use Nato symbols in lieu of the pony sprites?

Thanks
Post #: 1
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 11/19/2009 1:54:34 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		WBTS is not a simple game, but it is probably the least overwhelming of the three excellent ACW grand strategy games we currently offer. I should note that FOF also has options to significantly reduce the complexity, though you already have and enjoy FOF so I assume you are already aware of that.

WBTS is an outstanding game and a faithful simulation of the ACW. Of the three, which each have their own strengths, I would say WBTS can be played through the fastest but is still quite immersive.

Yes, NATO symbols are definitely available as an in-game option.

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 Leeds)
Post #: 2
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 11/21/2009 4:58:13 PM   
skshrews

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline 		I have WBTS. I played the demo of AGEOD's ACW. I've never played FOF. I play primarily single player.

The AI in ACW wasn't particularly challenging. The battle resolution in FOF was tempting, but AAR's seemed to confirm that the AI was not particularly good on the tactical maps.

WBTS AI is reasonable, though as the Confederates it tends to "turtle"-dont't expect any Gettysburg like thrusts into the North. It also tends to parallel the historical war in that the eastern front is a slog, and most of the interesting action is in the western/coastal fronts.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 3
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 11/24/2009 11:14:33 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		@ Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

WBTS is not a simple game, but it is probably the least overwhelming of the three excellent ACW grand strategy games we currently offer. I should note that FOF also has options to significantly reduce the complexity, though you already have and enjoy FOF so I assume you are already aware of that.

WBTS is an outstanding game and a faithful simulation of the ACW. Of the three, which each have their own strengths, I would say WBTS can be played through the fastest but is still quite immersive.

Yes, NATO symbols are definitely available as an in-game option.

Regards,

- Erik


Well, I own all three games. You can not compare them. They are too different.
But I'm interested in your answer.
From your perspective what are the strengthening of the three games?
And also very interesting - what are weakening?

The opinion of other players would also be very welcome.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 2/28/2010 7:26:19 PM   
Knavery


Posts: 286
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		I'm also looking for an answer on this topic. I'm looking into buying one of the three, but overall, I'm looking for fun factor.

_____________________________

Windows 7 Home Premium (x64)
3.4 gigahertz AMD Phenom 965 Quad Core
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 1024Meg
4GB RAM

(in reply to Templer_12)
Post #: 5
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 3/1/2010 4:44:31 PM   
runyan99

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/21/2008
Status: offline 		I played ACW for a long time, and I find WBTS does a better job of simulating the war in a reasonable manner, and works better for 2 players.

(in reply to Knavery)
Post #: 6
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 3/1/2010 10:41:31 PM   
htuna


Posts: 591
Joined: 1/19/2009
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline 		WBTS is not easy.. actually none of them are.. FOF is probably the easiest of the three..

I bought WBTS during the holiday sale, and could not get into it (will try again in the future)... AGEOD and FOF I enjoyed both.... FOF a lil more cause of the tactical battles.. FOF is the reason I picked up Crown of Glory during the Holiday sale! ... lol still haven't tried to play it yet.. but if it's at all like FOF, I'm sure I'll love it..


(in reply to runyan99)
Post #: 7
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 3/1/2010 11:14:52 PM   
Knavery


Posts: 286
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

WBTS is not easy.. actually none of them are.. FOF is probably the easiest of the three..

I bought WBTS during the holiday sale, and could not get into it (will try again in the future)... AGEOD and FOF I enjoyed both.... FOF a lil more cause of the tactical battles.. FOF is the reason I picked up Crown of Glory during the Holiday sale! ... lol still haven't tried to play it yet.. but if it's at all like FOF, I'm sure I'll love it..





I read the complete opposite in several places--that FoF is the most complex of the three and AGEOD the easiest. How is FoF with the fixed resolution?

_____________________________

Windows 7 Home Premium (x64)
3.4 gigahertz AMD Phenom 965 Quad Core
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 1024Meg
4GB RAM

(in reply to htuna)
Post #: 8
RE: WBTS vs ACW Question - 3/1/2010 11:45:34 PM   
htuna


Posts: 591
Joined: 1/19/2009
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline 		I got into FOF the quickest of the 3... AGOED took awhile to understand all the grouping of divisions and everything... WBTS.. I tried, was playing for while. but didn't seem to be clicking.. couldn't motivate my troops even though I'd build supply depots and have right Generals.. but it just wasn't fun.. you know when a game becomes like work and stops being fun, then it's not worth your time... For some people it is fun, for those people it is well worth the time..

I don't know.. the Tactical Battles in FOF, when you turn the battle in your favor, and run the NME from the field.. It's just good old plain fun for me, and worth the time!!!

Like I said, I'll probably try and get into WTBS again in the future, I bought it, might as well try to like it!

(in reply to Knavery)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> WBTS vs ACW Question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.941