|
Grotius -> RE: Since some of you never venture out of this forum... (6/15/2008 6:42:59 PM)
|
Well, I'm enjoying WTBS. I'm surprised at how well the GGWaW engine works with it, and I especially like the new layer of complexity that is leaders.
Leaders have a dozen stats, all of which have a noticeable effect on gameplay. It's not just the stat governing how many units a leader may command, though that is certainly important here. Every other rating is important too. There is of course a generic attack rating, and a generic defense rating, and those really matter. After that things get really interesting. Leaders also have a rating for how well they "train" infantry, and for how well they train cavalary. The training mini-game alone is a great innovation: you simply must commit some leaders to training militia or you won't win. (I wish WITP had something like this leader-based system for training.) In addition, leaders are rated for how well they command infantry -- not just in battle, but also in moving infantry around -- as well as cavalry, arty, and naval units. Leaders have an "army mod" rating that governs how well they lead armies (as opposed to smaller formations). These ratings can be hidden or randomized, to make things even more interesting. Also, leaders get an Admin rating that affects how cheaply they can build a fort, and how likely they are to gain initiative. Leaders have a political rating that matters a lot, given that "winning" and "losing" is governed solely by a political score -- a good way of judging victory in this context. Finally, leaders even have a Mortality rating; old guys tend to retire or die, and risk-takers have a somewhat higher mortality rating. To win this game, you have to manage your leaders carefully.
The scale is "grander strategy" than AGEOD's game, with one-month turns instead of two-week turns, and there are none of the tactical battles in FoF. I kinda prefer the livelier graphics of AGEOD, especially the hand-drawn pics of leaders on counters, and I find I have to squint a bit at the WTBS map to see city names and the like. All that said, the scale here may well be helping the AI. I'm playing against the Union AI, and it's in the process of encircling me in Tennessee and has pushed me out of Manassas -- this on the Normal level. I'm not at all confident I'm going to win.
I know some grognards look at non-hex-based maps and think: "Axis and Allies." I used to be the same way. But as with WaW, there's much more depth here than that.
As for historical fidelity, WTBS seems pretty good to me. The pace of operations seems about right. Casualty numbers seem realistic. The political victory system feels right to me. The designers made some compromises in the name of simplicity, for example with the rank system for Union generals, and by omitting any chance of European intervention, all of which seem sensible to me.
Anyway, if you liked the WaW games, it's hard to see how you won't like this one.
|
|
|
|
