Brother against brother

[spelk]

Well done spelk...!  I appreciate the effort in putting together these video aar's and reviews. They assist in making game buying decisions; both for and against a purchase.  Thanks.

Thanks for the kind words Rayfer, its the positive feedback I get for messing about with these things that keeps me going. I watch someone like Das24680 or Agrippa Maxentius and they knock out videos at the drop of a hat, so confident and fast talking - I don't know how they do it. I guess they just get to a point where they can fluently explain what they're doing, whilst they are doing it - and their sleek Oz or American accents seem to make things all smooth and easy to listen to. If I go through my efforts afterwards, I hear every "erm" and deep breaths and fumbling and bumbling words, as well as my rather amateurish effete northern accent. Still, I'm NOT in the business to compete with those "professionals", I just want to get across the interesting and exciting parts to wargaming - and hopefully get new players up and running without having to wade through manuals for hours on end.

I was a bit nervous over doing a game on the American Civil War, because I don't know the conflict all that well, I've dabbled here and there, and I've picked up most of what I know from a few films, or the games I've played. It was never taught to us over here in Blighty as a matter or course, although later on I believe it was part of the history curriculum for some examining boards. So my ACW efforts will be more mechanics and hopefully tactics than any history lessons. But I easily become attached to my units as they take a pounding or seemingly perform heroics on the battlefield.

Should continue the AAR this weekend, and have some more up. Might try and do them in 20 minute stints because 40 minutes seem overly long in one sitting (for the viewer, as opposed to me making them).

[spelk]

Armchair General Review
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/brother-against-brother-pc-game-review.htm

[spelk]

Second part to my Video AAR is up

http://sugarfreegamer.com/brother-against-brother-video-aar-part-2

Its another 40 minutes I'm afraid, but at least we get some action this time :)

[Toonces]

Kind of a weak review.  The end came awfully abruptly.  I wanted to read more on replayability.

[Gil R.]

A development:  I've just posted the full text of the Modder's Guide, with information for modding files and using the scenario-editor, to the BAB forum here:  http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3873728
If this sort of thing interests you please take a look and let me know if you have any questions.

Also,  I should mention that a new public beta, 1.06, will be posted later today.

[Labbug]

I have not seen any postings about this game on Grogheads  lately.  What are the opinions about this game at this time?  I am trying to make up my mind about buying the game or not. 

[JasonPratt]

It has too many Confederate flags to be a legitimate application.

>:D

(I haven't played the game yet.)

[panzerde]

Aside from the proliferation of Confederate flags, I found it to be a very playable and interesting game. The AI is better than the AI in JTS games (granted, that's damning with faint praise) and the scenarios have some decent replay value. I didn't get a chance to try MP with it yet, but hopefully will after my current Napoleonics fascination ebbs.

While it doesn't cover a huge number of battles, there are several variants for each and the AI seems to change up it's approach. The maps are very attractive and once I'd turned off the ugly unit graphics and was able to use NATO symbols - which the devs enhanced in a recent patch - I found the game pretty visually appealing.

It is a genuine wargame, with all that entails. If you like being concerned with command and control, supply, formations, and the like, you'll enjoy this. If you don't like that stuff, avoid this.

I would like to see more battles covered, and I think this would make for a great Napoleonics system. If a wider variety of battles and eras were available, this would probably become my go-to solo 19th century wargame engine.

[Labbug]

Aside from the proliferation of Confederate flags, I found it to be a very playable and interesting game. The AI is better than the AI in JTS games (granted, that's damning with faint praise) and the scenarios have some decent replay value. I didn't get a chance to try MP with it yet, but hopefully will after my current Napoleonics fascination ebbs.

While it doesn't cover a huge number of battles, there are several variants for each and the AI seems to change up it's approach. The maps are very attractive and once I'd turned off the ugly unit graphics and was able to use NATO symbols - which the devs enhanced in a recent patch - I found the game pretty visually appealing.

It is a genuine wargame, with all that entails. If you like being concerned with command and control, supply, formations, and the like, you'll enjoy this. If you don't like that stuff, avoid this.

I would like to see more battles covered, and I think this would make for a great Napoleonics system. If a wider variety of battles and eras were available, this would probably become my go-to solo 19th century wargame engine.

Thanks.  I think I will wait to buy to see if more battles are added in the future.  The use of this system for Napoleonics is an intriguing idea.

[bobarossa]

I believe the devs have stated they will be releasing expansions to cover more battles as well as an editor at some point so people can add ones they're not interested in pursuing.  I'm not sure but there may already be an editor for units but they're holding off on map editor until they get there money back selling expansions.  I can't fault them for wanting to pay for the engine development. 

[magnus]

If you were looking for a game that might replace Age of Rifles, this is it.

It is a great game,but also has huge possibilities.

[panzerde]

If you were looking for a game that might replace Age of Rifles, this is it.

It is a great game,but also has huge possibilities.

I agree. I think there is a lot of potential in this engine. I also agree that it's completely fair for the devs to earn their investment back selling expansions before releasing editors.

[bbmike]

Definitely a game that could replace Age of Rifles, but it isn't anywhere near that yet. We'll see...

[dinsdale]

If you were looking for a game that might replace Age of Rifles, this is it.

It is a great game,but also has huge possibilities.

I agree. I think there is a lot of potential in this engine. I also agree that it's completely fair for the devs to earn their investment back selling expansions before releasing editors.

I wonder if they could be more mod friendly and make money.

If they sold new maps as add ons, modders could create battles with those maps and improve re-playability. WCS could then  work on full expansions which are more than just a map and OOB. The incentive to buy a WCS made Shiloh, for example, would be a custom ruleset, not the OOB and map.

It took so long for this game to be completed, I'm still on the fence about getting it as I don't want to learn a system and then wait 5 years for the next expansion, or 2 years for a patch. It seems like a great game, and the concept is similar to MMP's series games, but I just can't see anything being delivered for years.

[magnus]

 I was a beta tester from the beginning.

I really believe that the development time was, because of WCS also trying to get the " Conflict of Heroes " game and add ons out.

We are talking about a very small designing team.

Now, that BAB is the only game on their plate. I believe you will see a much shorter time until the next BAB battles etc..