Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Not in the Flow Yet

 
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 >> Not in the Flow Yet Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 4:00:59 AM   
O.O. Howard

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline
New player here. I was attracted to this game because it reminded me of an elegant boardgame of the American civil war that had similar ratings which allowed army commanders to react into or away from an enemy who moved into adjacent hexes. Its been 25 years. I was good at that game and was thinking I would master this one quickly.

I appreciate the theatre/army leader concept and so I thought I would play this game at a decent level after glancing at the rulebook and looking at the tutorials. That was an unrealistic expectation. Gary's game is a little more complicated than that. Most gamers dont want to invest a lot of time in learning a game unless the game will pay back long term. I do anticipate that this is a good game which will pay back. But it requires more investment than I thought it would.

This is my evaluation of the learning curve/time for this game: I have spent 3 or 4 hours reading rules/tutorials/playing. I have started two games but quit from several odd mistakes such as accidently clicking the wrong thing or forgetting to check the whole map during my reaction phase and missing an opportunity(yeah there is a control-d or something to show all opportunities, I forgot to use it), or not realizing I had a poorly planned turn...yes, that one was my own mess and nothing else. But I feel i should blame the game for it anyway... the interface complications distracted me from my strategy! Yeah thats it!

Again, this is not an easy game. It looks simple but it isnt. After 4 hours i understand whats going on but i am not in the flow yet.

Maybe in the old days it took a long time for me to get the hang of that old ACW boardgame? Cant remember if so or not. Golden memories of our favorite games do tend to leave out the mundane business of learning rules.

I am getting the hang of this game, just have to slow down and work that learning curve once or twice more. Maybe go through the tutorials etc again. Or maybe just play and make (shudder) mistakes and learn that way instead.

The game still looks good. ACW gamers should buy it. Just dont expect to play it right out of the box.

In summary: This game is rated as 'intermediate' difficulty for good reason. The prospective new player should anticipate an investment of several hours(lets guess 4 to 6 hours) learning time before attaining proficiency.

I do think its going to be worth it.







_____________________________

Viva Carlotta!
Post #: 1
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 5:09:51 AM   
Champagne


Posts: 356
Joined: 9/28/2004
Status: offline
Are you referring to the board wargame of the same name WBTS? Way back when, it was a great game enjoyed by many.
I never met anyone who ever played that game into 1865 or even late 1864. I have a number of friends who played that
game religiously for years. Also, there were a few rules issues that were never completely resolved, so, it might not
be wrong to say that not many people played the game completely correctly according to the rules.

This version of WBTS has neither of those problems. The rules are controlled by the computer, and, we know that the game
can be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

Still - I wonder why this computer game is called WBTS. Those of us who expected it to be a computer version of board
wargame WBTS will note that computer WBTS is not much like board wargame WBTS.

Of course, none of these issues detracts from computer WBTS's value as a great game on its own merits.

What do veterans of board wargame WBTS think? Is computer WBTS very much like the board wargame WBTS?

I'd like to read your thoughts on this.

_____________________________

Only the dead have seen the end of War.

-- Plato

(in reply to O.O. Howard)
Post #: 2
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 7:08:39 AM   
John Neal

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 8/29/2005
Status: offline
quote:

reminded me of an elegant boardgame of the American civil war that had similar ratings which allowed army commanders to react into or away from an enemy who moved into adjacent hexes.


Our group added 'reaction move' to the circa 1980 SPI War Between the States game. It wasn't in the original rules. But many other people did the same thing. Was it a huge map, 3 SPI sheets worth?

_____________________________


(in reply to Champagne)
Post #: 3
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 7:13:52 AM   
John Neal

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 8/29/2005
Status: offline
Or maybe the Victory Games version? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2081

_____________________________


(in reply to John Neal)
Post #: 4
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 9:28:09 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
While I miss playing many of my old favorite board games- the computer has almost every aspect of the game trumped- save the lack of a face to face taunts<or jokes> and maybe seeing the fear on your opponents face as his line breaks- or the comraderie. Not to mention lots of snacks, mostly probably bad for you.  I like the portability factor of a computer- you can play a game - put it away and come back to it- it doesnt stay set up somewhere. Technically the game rules are always followed. And cheating the system is not usually possible. I actually played the old games to the 1864 election and have seen Lincoln loose- very horrible- and also saw Foriegn Invasion triggered in one game and had British Toops Invading New York.
  The game is more complex than the old board game. Yet looks at first very basic. It's not. One of my kids thought the mass of rules was daunting; and to learn the game- 6 hours with reading and tutorials- but lots of additional hours battling the AI and then doing what I call learning games with your first human opponents.

I recall all sorts of Erratas and what ifs for WBTS- I seem to recall a Feb/April 1862 Invasion of New Mexico and Colorado modual in a magazine somewhere that had troops and a leader assigned. Historically it was the Confed Gen Sibley with 1 inf Brigade, 1 militia brigade and one field arty. One Militia brigade was free in W Texas to do this Invasion and was added, the rest of these units had to come from Existing confed on map stocks-. Only the full compliment of a leader+ 1 Inf , 1 militia and 1 arty could launch the Invasion- nothing less or more. No other troops then the ones mentioned here could be sent as further reinforcements- it was a sideshow as far as both sides thought.
  They  were sent to an off map box area in Jan 62 to the west of the map called West Texas. This off map box had three other named boxed- Southern NM/ Northern NM/and Colorado. 

You then diced out the regional battle, one zone per month starting with Southern NM. This happened at the beginning of each turn month. One dice roll for the battle outcome. That could be done as battle in our system I suppose.

The Union had, I think, Gen Canby?, and 1 regular Inf Brigade that started fortified in the Southern NM box- the Rebs first turn is to move on to the board from the South, out of W Texas into S NM, in Feb,62.  That is all that happens- no other move can be made- just one Region a turn by the rebs- even cav are so restricted. .  2 other Union brigades < an Infantry and then a Militia come in as reinforcements>  one each month to total 3 brigs by April. They arrived wherever the Union had a leader or troops- or the southern most still controled Union box. So the combat force pool was 3 to 1 favor confed in Feb, 3 to 2 confed in March, and 3 to 3 in April. In May 62 the situation was over for the rest of the game.
   Once a month a dice was rolled, indexed against a monthly combat table. The rebs had a 2/3 chance of winning in Feb, then it was 50/50 in March and 2/3 possible Union in April on a six sided dice.  Victory points could be awarded for each of the battles to each battles winner for a total of three.  The leaders could be killed- and an extra colonel was added to temp command to take the lost leaders place- he never appears after this invasion is over- he cannot be transfered out of the region he was in offmap.. 

If the Union lost a round he retreated north into the next box above, If retreated from Colorado the union troops were concidered defeated and fled to Oregon and California. The Invasion would then be a total confed success. If The Rebs loose they fell back south to W Texas. If the reb looses in any prior Battle he can call off the invasion in the next month and its all over. Once called off it can not be reopened.
 
Or he could retreat south one region, even to the offboard start hex in W Texas, and could try attacking again the next month. Once the Confeds called off the Invasion, the 62 New Mexico campaign was over.
Calling off the Invasion costs -5 Confed political points for the Confeds- big PR defeat for the home front..
Union only gains any battle experience and whatever points came from the fighting- if any. Otherwise it again becomes status quo as it was before invasion. The extra Troops of the South, if any survive- minus the 1 unit that started in west texas and stays offmap forever- can return to the main map arriving at Dallas the next month. If all units were lost in the invasion a confed militia brigade must be removed for the map to replace it.
  The Victorious Union Troops all stay off map fighting Indians and watching the rebs in West Texas the rest of the war. except the Leader- he may return to the main map.
 
The UNion loosing Colorado caused a special award of +5 political points gained for the South, and -5 political points off the north also. For a gap of 10 PolPts. Also the confed gets the two captured resource points and the Union looses two resource from their pool. This extra resource is available for the rest of the game in the Confed Trans Mississippi. Confeds had to leave a garrison point behind permenantly to gain the future reasource- it was considered in supply but subject to attrition- units could be moved in and out of the garrision point box- but only 1 brigade could be there at any time. If The Dallas Texas region was ever lost the confeds the Garrison in NM was also considered immediately lost. 

The Battle experirences gained were retained by the units/leaders. If a militia turned regular that held, the counter would stay upgraded. If the militia was turned to cav, it was counted againt the entire turns allowances and supply points would be paid- Just like it was part of the overall game.  New Mexico had two regions- one with nothing important, 0 pop/0 resr- Southern New Mexico, <Ft Craig>.  Then the next region with 1 population and 1 reasource, Northern NM, <taos/Albuquerque>. Finally one Region north of those, Colorado the great prize, which had 0 pop and 1 resources. All start Union and the Confed must try to invade to gain them.
 
The Confed- if he did not move the force into West Texas< off Map holding region - in Jan 62-> then the Invasion never happens. A one time deal.  Neither side gets any more reasource as the Colorado mines were already figured into the Union Reasource pool.

  The thinking was if the confeds win all three victories they had put a serious dent of confidence in the Unions western holdings, some mining areas did try to secceed at that times- most of the west was not inhabited much- but New Mexico was long established, and had a political and resource value- and more importantly Colorado had newly discovered Gold/Silver mines that were very valuable to the Union. Plus there were many Southern miners working in the Colorado Fields, they were sure to rise up, if the rebs won.

This disaffection also was happening in California. Many regions in 61/62 actually did technically secceeed- and one county in California- Sonoma- voted out- but it was never recognized by the state government, who put in some loyal Miliitia companies and restored the area to an uneasy if unwilling Union participent.  If the New Mexico and Colorado areas were Confederate, Arizona would have gone Confed also- they actually tried to- and a group called the Arizona Rangers tried to establish a Southern State but troops from Union California restored order after the failure in New Mexico of Sibley's invasion. The idea is it would take a long time for the Union to recoup the loss- and may even have damaged the Union positions in other Western States. The Western Indians were a huge problem at that time for the Union also- 1862 to 68- the Red Cloud War- one of th efew Indian wars the USA basically gave up- signed a peace treaty- and ended the Fighting several years after the war ended in 65- The USA broke the treaty later.

If a result of just taking Northern New Mexico, but not the big prize, Colorado, the Confeds Got Two Political Points and 1 resource for the War effort- and would still have to leave a garrison to gain the resource. The Union would loose 1 resource point permenantly until the south either lostthe garrison and didnt replace it, or Dallas Texas fell to the union.
   If the Confed just takes Southern NM the INvasion is a failure and the reb looses 2 Victory points. Nothing else is accomplished- except the casualties.

After the Invasion is over in MAy 62- the troops and leaders could re-deploy back onto the map- except the 1 point of garrison required to gain the resource If so desired.

That was just one of many what ifs. 

I went on here- but the other thing about computers is you could reprogram and shift things to new configurations easier. In the old days you had to wait for printed Errata and sometime had to resort to house rules to settle the bugs that now we have done by Matrixes crew here.

I seem to recall another what if civ war mod that had the Indian Territories<Oklahoma>  in 63-65, union and confed indians, and US Black units also. I believe there was also a mod that the 1862 Souix Indian war in Minnesotta happens that required Union Troops and leaders be manditorily send there< Historically they sent Pope after he was defeated by Lee at 2nd Mannassas.>- I think it was 5 Brigades- it was steep as I recall, and most of Minnessotta fell out of production while the first Souix war lasted. The Souix actually destroyed several large American towns, and killed a lot of civilians. It happened because every military aged man around was off fighting. Th e Souix saw it as a way to hasten the destruction of their enemy- the white settlers. 

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Champagne)
Post #: 5
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 2:40:46 PM   
O.O. Howard

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline
Well spotted, friends.

Yes, John, the version I played was Victory Games.  I still have that box somewhere. Such a simple concept made a great game. I dont remember many rules problems.

I live out in the countryside and so dont get to play boardgames. I agree the computer has given a rebirth to wargaming, Doc. I hated the bookkeeping and complication of counters getting jostled.

Champagne, I think this game is similar. Not the same. One interesting thing about Victory Game's WBTS was that you never knew how 'long' a month was going to be. There could have several chances to move or just one or two. The Victory Games WBTS was not a monster game, we finished many times.

Time to give Gary's game another try. I think I need to play and make mistakes instead of reviewing everything again.

_____________________________

Viva Carlotta!

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 6
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 3:44:17 PM   
Champagne


Posts: 356
Joined: 9/28/2004
Status: offline
Mr. Howard: The SPI game "War Between The States" and the Victory Game "Civil War" were two different games by different companies on different scales.

The SPI WBTS had a paper game board that was about four times the size if the VG CW game, which had a thick cardboard game board.

Did you ever see the boardgame WBTS set up and played? It was an awesome sight indeed, and looked nothing like this computer WBTS game board.

The VG Civil War game is probably the better of the two, though.

Doc o War! Great info! Great fun to read your post! Thanks!

< Message edited by Champagne -- 8/17/2008 3:50:40 PM >


_____________________________

Only the dead have seen the end of War.

-- Plato

(in reply to O.O. Howard)
Post #: 7
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/17/2008 3:51:06 PM   
Bo Rearguard


Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline
I still have my battered copy of Victory Game's Civil War about too. Appearance-wise, the first thing about Gary Grigsby's WBTS that reminded me most about that game is that like it, the Union areas are blue and the Confederate areas grey.

Memories...



_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to O.O. Howard)
Post #: 8
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/19/2008 12:07:14 AM   
John Neal

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 8/29/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: O.O. Howard

Well spotted, friends.

Yes, John, the version I played was Victory Games. I still have that box somewhere. Such a simple concept made a great game. I dont remember many rules problems....


That game did have clear rules. SPI's WBTS on the other hand required many clarifications. We made many rules changes to that one, including an interception rule, that improved the game tremendously. I played the Victory Games version many times. It seemed to depend greatly on initiative die roles. What was the turn time? If memory serves it was 3 month turns, too long.


_____________________________


(in reply to O.O. Howard)
Post #: 9
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/19/2008 2:41:03 AM   
O.O. Howard

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline
John, I dont remember how long of a time a turn was. I do remember that the number of segments in that time was variable.

Now a question for you(and anyone else). Why is that all leaders have a chance to react EXCEPT a leader that is being attacked? In the boardgame the army being attacked had a chance to 'react' and move away. Why not in this game?

Its a philosophical question really. We can guess but only the devs can tell us for sure.

_____________________________

Viva Carlotta!

(in reply to John Neal)
Post #: 10
RE: Not in the Flow Yet - 8/19/2008 5:38:07 PM   
dakjck

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 10/22/2006
Status: offline
I have to say that Victory's ACW represents to me the ultimate in board wargaming.  In fact, I just recently took it and another ulitmate game, Victory's Panzer Commander (another Eric Lee Smith design), from my attic and am planning to play them.  Back when ACW came out, we created our own random leader rules where we used a double-blind method to keep the identities hidden from both sides. 

(in reply to O.O. Howard)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Not in the Flow Yet 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

1.953