need input from game fof game owners...

[Terp /]

1. does game work fine with microsoft vista?


2. have not bought this game yet, but looks pretty good (top of my list to buy at the moment)
and looking for something new. long time matrix fan and after 2 years of witp looking for
something different.

so....

is fof better than american cival war? ( i like depth, elegant graphics, economics and micromanaging)
something i can waste away all winter on...lol

or....

should I maybe have a look at birth of america or for liberty. (which i am also considering)

[jchastain]

1.   Yes.  Vista isn't "officially" supported, but works fine.  The only reported problem I've seen is a potential PBEM load issue (though it has not been established yet that it is definitely a vista related problem, the potential remains as that is one of the avenues of diagnosis).
 
2.  The game is a good choice for witp players (I too am one) as it is one of the more detailed games in the catalog. 
 
I don't know that you can reach a consensus of FoF being better or worse than ACW.  Different players have different perspectives and preferences and both are good games.  I think the points you list are the ones that might generally be listed as the comparitive strengths of FoF - though the micromanagement required is far lower than witp.  This is a game that a reasonable player can finish within a week of concentrated effort or a month of casual play.
 
As for the revolutionary games, I do not own either.  The conflict itself is less interesting to me.

[Joram]

1. I don't have Vista but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of tech questions about it. Take that for what you will but as jchastain said, it's not officially supported and there has been feedback that it does work. Unfortunately no demo exists to be sure.

2. I like the style of AACW graphics quite a bit (no offense PixelPusher!) but other than that, I'd say you will have more depth and micromanaging in FOF than AACW. Economics are a bit trickier to compare because they took entirely different approaches. But I guess the crux of the question is that there's more micromanaging in FOF as you have to build specific buildings to get what you want out of the economy.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Joram

I like the style of AACW graphics quite a bit (no offense PixelPusher!)...

For whatever it is worth, I find the AACW graphics to be a bit cartoonish myself (though they subdivide Virgina in a way that tends to promote more maneuvering). Especially in the tactical portion of the game, I find the graphics in FoF to be outstanding. But it only goes to show that different people have different visual preferences and the good news is that the screen shots of both are fairly accurate in showing the graphics to a potential buyer.

[Joram]

Absolutely and also to be fair, I think the tactical battle graphics are pretty good.  Something AACW doesn't even have.

[kirkterry]

Since your last post of 9/17/07 saying that "forge of Freedom" works with vista, did you mean to include the 64 bit version, also?

[ericbabe]

FOF likely does not work with any 64-bit operating systems -- we've had critical problems reported both with XP-64 and Vista-64.  These are likely compatibility problems (the 64 bit OS's run 32 bit apps in a "compatibility mode") so it's possible that Microsoft has fixed whatever problems were causing FOF to crash, but we just don't know for sure (and presently we don't have any 64-bit OS's on which to test/develop.)

[olperfessor]

[font="times new roman"] I love WitP, too, and cannot compare FoF with AACW. Although I prefer in general making strategic/resource/diplomatic decisions to tactical-level matters, I have to say that the FoF tactical combat ("detailed" combat mode) is extraordinarily engaging. Tense, demanding, never quite the same as the previous battle, especially as better weapons are available and operational goals change. As in life, a command blunder can be very costly. The AI is remarkably good, and if it sometimes predictable, well, so are some human commanders.

FoF is a superb game, not to be missed, if your taste for micromagaing includes such tactical matters as whether or not to hold that copse of trees, or release a shaky reserve unit to relieve pressure on an enveloped artillery brigade, or whether to put your muskets or longer ranged weapons in that farmhouse, etc.

These battles become very intense, espcially the ones with relatively even forces. Watching to see which unit breaks first, whether a desperately needed cavalry unit can survive a charge against artillery, discovering that a critical general has been wounded, trying to survive until nightfall allows resupply . . .  incredibly rewarding. [/font]

[Gil R.]

That's great to read -- thanks!

[Johnus]

Terp:

I have been wargamming since the 60's. In my opinion FOF is the best historical wargame extant.

It is a perfect blend of strategy and tactics; and, if you so desire, you can micromanage to your heart's content.

Everybody says it works fine with Vista. Buy it yesterday.

[06 Maestro]

Does this game play in a "window" mode, or can it be minimized while playing, thus avoiding the need to save every time you need to switch monitors or access the desktop?

[hadberz]

I choose FoF over American Civil War because I like tactical battles. I also have For Liberty for the same reason.

I have Vista 64 and FoF runs flawless for me. I don't even use the compatibility modes. For Liberty on the other hand will work, but not very well.

[Wardyr]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

FOF likely does not work with any 64-bit operating systems -- we've had critical problems reported both with XP-64 and Vista-64.  These are likely compatibility problems (the 64 bit OS's run 32 bit apps in a "compatibility mode") so it's possible that Microsoft has fixed whatever problems were causing FOF to crash, but we just don't know for sure (and presently we don't have any 64-bit OS's on which to test/develop.)

I have Windows Vista 64 and have just started to play around with this game and thus far I have had no problems with it.