American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Ok,

I know that there may have been some talk on this before but I am at work and did not have time to research this. I got some extra cash and it is burning in my pocket.

I want to know if you were me which one of the new games to get:
Forge of Freedom, War Between the States or American Civil War The Blue and Gray.

I don't know which one is the best because I am not that sure on what I am getting into. I have all the Talonsoft and HPS series.

So I was wondering where to go next. Any suggestions my fellow gamers.



Willie Tisdale

"The Gray Fox"
General
Chief of Armies - CSA

ACWGC Cabinet Member



"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."



Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.

I can't speak on FoF as I don't have it. I have both AACW and WBTS and I like them both. To me the difference comes down to how much you want to manage. Both have a lot of depth to them but I think AACW requires more management. In AACW you've got to decide what troops to recruit and where, what type of naval forces to build and where, who to promote and when with a cost if you promote outside of seniority. You've got to manage your supply lines more closely. I believe it has a steeper learning curve. WBTS offers many of the same features but just not to the detail of AACW. I think WBTS is easier to get into but just as hard to manage. After playing both, if I could only keep one I'd probably keep the AACW.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

I only own WBTS, and really like it...


General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/

I have all three now but it has been a while since I played FoF and I am still battling my way through AACW but here is my current opinion on them:

WbtS - Definitely the simplest and easiest to learn. It also has the advantage of being very PBEM friendly. You can complete a move in under an hour once you get use to it. Turns are monthly so the game moves quickly. It basically covers the period from June 1861 to about July 1865 although it may end earlier or whenever you give up. Play is on an area type map. Turns are you go, I go, but contain a reaction phase at the beginning so you can respond to the enemy players move. There is a Production phase for allocating your resources but it is very simple compared to the other two games. You can allocate your Factory, Population and Resources toward building ships, artillery or supply. Forces are stacks of brigades of infantry, artilery, and cavalry with leaders. Victory is through Political Points which mainly affect Lincoln's election which is the key to victory.

FoF - This game steps up the complexity quite a bit. It uses two week turns. It has more detail in the production requiring you to build infrastructuer before you can build advanced units like cavalry and artilery. The big thing the game brings that the others don't is a Tactical Battle game. If you want, rather than have the game resolve combat, it will jump you into a Tactical map and let you fight the battle on the brigade level. It has been to long for me to give more detail than that.

AACW - Is complex, very complex, but it has the potential to do an excellent job of simulating the Civil War at the strategic level. But plan on spending some time learning how to do even basic things. Also, don't go by the demo. It is to short and shows the game system at its worse. It's other problem is very busy graphics making it hard to tell what is on the map. It like FoF uses two turns to a month. The map uses regions but the areas are broken up into many more regions than WbtS. This can make a campaign quite complex. It also has an extensive supply system which in many ways controls the game. Production likewise is very complex allowing you to allocate resources to recruiting, replacements, and production. Play is both sides plot and game executes moves simulataneously. Units are represented in detail. You have the full command structure from Armies, Corps, Divisions and Brigades. Even smaller units are represented like Signal, Balloon, Medical, etc. I am not sure how the game will play as a PBEM. I not sure I will ever learn how to play it.[:D]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

AACW plays really well as PBEM. Andy Burke and I are on the last turn of our campaign. You can find my AAR thread somewhere. About the only thing I'd do to AACW is tweak the final Victory levels somewhat.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

I have all three as well, only just recently got AACW but I am a recent ageod convert. All three are good games, but more and more I am becoming an ageod fan. I really like the WEGO system, the amount of regions on the map to have a more open feel, and ageod's attention to historical accuracy. The other plus in ageod's column is their support and community efforts to continually improve the game.

It also depends if you are looking for a singleplayer game or multiplayer. AACW and WbtS are both great for multiplayer, but out of the three FoF is my pick for singleplayer. The downside for FoF is that tactical battles are not available for multiplayer. If this becomes an option down the road for FoF or CoG, that will definately make me revisit those games.

All things considered, the ageod games have become my favorites and I own AACW, NCP, and BOA2:WIA and really enjoy them all. As a company, I am very satisfied with ageod, they are quick to help on their forum and release patches. There are great AAR's for all three games that might help your decision as well.

Lt. Bill Stokes
3rd Brigade, 3rd Division, I Corps
Army of Alabama

WbtS is a very good strategic simulation, and much less "zoomed in " than the other two. no sieges, for example. I really, really like it and think it makes you think pretty historically about troop allocations, calling up drafts, and when to build what...

Ageods game is my favorite of the three, even if it can be pretty detailed. All three of these games are area movement games and Ageod gives you the most areas and therefore the most manouver by far which, for me, is a lot of fun and adds a level of complexity beyond "do I send this division East or West..."

I am not a big fan of FoF. I played it a lot when it came out but never could get into the tactical battles, found the interface much more work than Ageod (and it has a bit more detail, as you have to build things in the cities like banks, horsefarms, etc). The killer for me was not enough areas, so the game has no manouver. While lack of areas works fine in WbtS because of the detail scale, I want more from Fof. in Fof you have to assign weapons type to each brigade. For that level of detail I want to be able to outflank Richmond. But you can't, so to me it grew old quick.

I know FoF has made some changes so maybe the battle game is easier to figure out and, if so, that could make it a lot better.

ok, inspired by this thread, I reinstalled FoF and am remembering just how detailed it is! Although this is my least favorite of the three this is a great game. I played it a lot when it came out and am only now trying the tactical battles (which I heard are much better than when it came out)...

I am guessing this game will eat a lot of spare time inthe future (that and my three PBEM AACW)