WBTS vs ACW Question (Full Version)

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



Message

Leeds -> WBTS vs ACW Question (11/19/2009 11:45:24 AM)

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



Erik Rutins -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (11/19/2009 1:54:34 PM)

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



skshrews -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (11/21/2009 4:58:13 PM)

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.



Templer_12 -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (11/24/2009 11:14:33 PM)

@ 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.



Knavery -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (2/28/2010 7:26:19 PM)

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.



runyan99 -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (3/1/2010 4:44:31 PM)

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.



htuna -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (3/1/2010 10:41:31 PM)

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..




Knavery -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (3/1/2010 11:14:52 PM)


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?



htuna -> RE: WBTS vs ACW Question (3/1/2010 11:45:34 PM)

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!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.046875