|
roth -> So Which One? (12/29/2008 5:27:16 PM)
|
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.
|
|
|
|
