I bought FOF and Disliked It , How about this game?

[Rocko911]

I bought Forge of Freedom hoping it would wet my appetite for the Civil War and I was disappointed by it. I found it to be too dry and could not really get into it. Needless to say it has sat collecting dust since it came out. What I would like to know is if this game is
1) Easier to get the feeling of being involved
2) Easier than FOF
3) Enjoyable fighting ( I mean when your units meet , you feel satisfaction from the conflict , not a feeling of unattachement as I felt in FOF)
Of course the main thing is that it is fun [:D]. I mean no reason to sit and grind away in my free time , it would feel to much like work . Thanks to all , I just do not want to get burned like I did with FOF. The Matrix budget has had 5 increases in the last 6 months ,with all the games I have bought from them and I am getting picky on the next one.

[Gem35]

Interesting question as I am curious the other way around.
This game is more of an operational strategy game. You coordinate and position your troops for battle. Alot of thought goes into who's commanding your forces. The mechanics take some getting used to.
There is ALOT of depth to this game and it is very enjoyable so far.
I am sure I will purchase FoF at some point but for now this is the game for me as far as civil war titles go.

[scout1]

Like any answer, it depends on your experience/preferences. I too got FoF and didn't take to it. More like a game of Civilization. Granted I didn't give it alot of time. Just didn't care for it. I am an avid WitP player. Grand scale game with its own problems. I have recently gotten ACW and the more I look into it, the more I like it. So many strategic choices plus what appears to be a good leadership model ..... Right now, I'm overwhelmed, just like my early WitP days. But this too shall pass with time. I never could learn against the AI. No fun. Have to screw up against a mammal in a pbem game.

Just my experience.

[Rocko911]

I guess I will list my war games and rate them a 1-10 on fun for me, perhaps this will help you get a feel for my tasts:
  FOF= 3
  Comm Europe at War= 8 and climbing
  Carriers at War= 7
  StrategicCommand2= 9
  Close Combats=9
  Total War Medieval2= 9
  Uncommon Valor= 6
  World at War= 7.75
  
I think that is a good enough list , If I list anymore  I will begin to wonder if I need another war game, LOL.[:D]
  
 
  

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Like any answer, it depends on your experience/preferences. I too got FoF and didn't take to it. More like a game of Civilization. Granted I didn't give it alot of time. Just didn't care for it. I am an avid WitP player. Grand scale game with its own problems. I have recently gotten ACW and the more I look into it, the more I like it. So many strategic choices plus what appears to be a good leadership model ..... Right now, I'm overwhelmed, just like my early WitP days. But this too shall pass with time. I never could learn against the AI. No fun. Have to screw up against a mammal in a pbem game.

Just my experience.

My thoughts exactly considering FOF and WitP. I bought this game about two weeks ago and promptly became busy as hell at work. Between work and my WitP PBEM's I managed to read the manual at least. [8|]

[von Beanie]

I've got both FOF and AACW. AACW appears to be a much better PBEM game because is doesn't focus on the detailed battles, but rather the strategic situation. I find it to be much more realistic too, in that your strategic choices are very similar to the ones both sides faced historically. I started out with BOA, so it was not such a big jump to understand this system. Once you learn the system the game is a lot of fun, and I've been involved some very good PBEM games already. The AI is decent and the developers keep improving the game every week based on player feedback. I really don't think you will be disappointed with AACW.

[Brooksie]

For strategy and running a nation during a war there isn't much that can compare to A-ACW. The battles are calculated and all you will get is a results screen, but there is always a sense of dread the turn before if what choices you are making are good. It is an addictive game especially when you start to deal with PBEM games.

[Hairog]

What I need to know is if the demo of ACW anywhere close to the real thing?  I downloaded the demo and would like to save my comments until I know if the demo is even close to being representative of real game play.

I have asks this question a number of times in other forums and no one seems to know or bothers to answer the question.  I have bought FOF and enjoy it very much.  I like fighting out the battles I get myself into.  I love strategic games that let me fight on a operational level or even tactical level.  They are few and far between.

[Joram]

Without knowing if the demo reflects some of the patches, the demo does give you a nice taste of the gameplay.  There have been considerable improvements in AI and also in how Divisions work.  If you liked the demo, then you will almost certainly like the full game.  If you have a beef with the demo, you should just ask the specific question so someone can let you know if that has been addressed in a patch or not.

[Grotius]

The AACW demo does not, however, give you a real sense of the "epic" scope of AACW. This game really shines in the grand campaign, when all its parts come together. I didn't really "get it" til I played a full game.

I liked FoF, but AACW has a different emphasis, which might appeal more to the original poster. The interface in AACW is colorful and fun to use; I never tire of moving the little "chess pieces" around. The focus is squarely on operational and strategic warmaking, so if you disliked the "Civ" like aspects of FoF, you may prefer this. (Me, I like the Civ-like aspects, and indeed I'm now playing the latest expansion to Civ. )

[SittingDuck]

Agree with Grotius.  The true game depth is in the campaign.  There is much you cannot do in the demo (perhaps they needed to have a turn limit on the campaign so people could experience that).  I'd say the demo gives you lie maybe a  50% feel for the game.  I don't know - just trying to illustrate.

I bought FoF, read 1/4 of the manual, looked it over and moved stuff around, and have yet to play an entire turn on the basic game.  I fought one hex battle - kind of interesting.  Maybe I'll get around to the game, maybe not.  I agree with what was said - FoF is dry and gives me no sense of being joined to it.  AACW I am immersed in and has atmosphere - FoF has none.  Maybe at some point I'll feel differently.  FoF, to me, seems a game on the downslide already, and that's a shame.

[madgamer2]

First let me say that I have both games and they each have there good and bad points. I bought FoF first and found it to be a very difficult game for me because I do not do well with build/economic type games. To me Fof is more an operational level game. You have a great deal of choice about how you want to play either side. I think that it is a bit like "civilization meets the civil war" kind of thing.
The thing that was hard for me was the way the game is played. When you move the game shows you where you want to go but during the regular movement lots of things can happen. In short getting used to how the game is played was hard for me. I do like it but it will not be a game I will be good at for awhile. It has one major advantage in that in can be played over the internet not just PBEM.
ACW on the other hand is designed from a more historical mold. It is a true strat. level game and many of the WitP players like me really do like it. Because it plays a little more like history given 2 good players the game will turn out to be much more like history. With FoF with the way the victory conditions are the game can be weighted so both sides have an equal shot.
I have a lot of problems with understanding certain parts of FoF like the victory conditions. I would like to see some changes in the detail combat and I like the standard Nato unit symbols but all in all this is a game i will play
The hardest thing for me in ACW is the map and unit symbols but it is fun to work with and not to hard to learn, SO all in all I like both. If you have the money get both.

Madgamer

[Missouri_Rebel]

I must admit that I do not share the same experience as some of you. I too had bought both titles when they were released. FoF came out first, as you all know, so I have had more time with it. For me, AACW just didn't do it. The map is nice, as is the ability to zoom in and out, but a little too cluttered for my taste. Yet the biggest drawback for me was the lack of immersion. The game consisted of going through the motions of preparing for a battle that left me feeling a bit disappointed when it was actually executed. Almost no input from my part to alter the outcome. Zip,bang,boom, and there were the results. After so much time preparing for the upcoming battle, they were over in an instant. Kind of like renting a nice tux for the prom and then spending the night on the bleachers.

In FoF there are so many factors that can be chosen by the player that changes the flow and conditions of the fight. One might be able to choose the defending terrain in the 'province' they occupy for the battle, i.e. Wooded with many rivers,swamps, clear with hills,city and fortifications....etc. You can get certain choices before battle depending on your scouting ability sometimes that include Surprise, cavalry reserve, avoid battle, screen terrain, raid supplies...etc. The choices give a percentage chance, depending on the action, for success and for fatigue. All of this with a simple click of the mouse before the battle.

In addition, there are so many cool aspects and decisions a player can make such as besieging forts, (again given a choice of what kind of siege and the ramifications of your selected action). The ability to choose what kind of battle you, the player, would like to play out (Instant battle, quick battle, or my favorite, detailed battle). Others include conscription, foreign intervention, emancipation, economy, weapons upgrades, research....etc. that adds to the enjoyment imo.

I could go on quite a bit on the influence that each player can exert on the outcome of the overall game and of the many options, but this post would be far too long. There are that many. Yet the very best part is the player may choose the level of depth they want to manage in their game. If one doesn't want to handle the economy then they don't have to. Same with research, governor requests, emancipation,several advanced rules....etc. Just check what rules you want to play with in the opening screen and start what is a basic game or add the depth you want. Talk about customizing. It is just these choices that add up to make a far more pleasurable, and more importantly to me, a more immersible game.

I really cannot put down AACW because they did a great job on it. It is nice to have two War Between the States games. My advice, buy both if you can afford it, but don't let the perceived complication of FoF scare you. It is as deep as you choose it to be and incredibly fun.

Mo Reb

Edit. I should also mention that reinforcements can sometimes be called in during battle, even from farther points by rail. But be careful not to weaken an area.

[Widell]

I have FOF and like it very much. I have been through the demo of AACW and will most likely end up buying that one too (when the dark times of the autumn comes to Sweden...). They are very different games in terms of approach, so I assume you either like them both, or you prefer one of them. There's a thread at the FOF forum where the different aspects of the two games are discussed tm.asp?m=1455076. The thread also reference antother thread at the AGEOD site where the same topic is discussed

[general billy]

The only reason i didnt go for FoF was because its an I GO U GO turn base and ACW is WE GO. I think wego system is alot more realistic in terms of game play.  

[General Quarters]

Perhaps I don't understand the WEGO etc terminology. FOF is a game in which both sides decide what moves they want to make, and then the moves are played out simultaneously. So figuring out what your opponent is going to do on the next turn is the key to winning, and that is a great trait in a strategy game IMO, and true to the Civil War.

I think AACW is also a first-rate game, but for a less-detailed type like me, spending the greater part of each AACW turn on moving units to the front, ships to their boxes, etc., is a drawback. For other players, this is a very enjoyable part of the game.

I am delighted at Pocus has provided an option for cutting down micromanagement of the naval game, and have high hopes that he will do something similar for a couple of other aspects of the game.

One other positive feature in both games is that, given how extraordinarily difficult it is to program an AI to make reasonable strategic decisions, both games are quite good in this regard.

[39battalion]

I have both games and they are both a credit to their developers

Immersion is difficult to define as I guess it is a subjective thing. But I find AACW to be generally more immersive with one exception---the battles lack immersion as they are over pretty quickly and you just get a results screen. I would prefer to see more information on the see-saw progress of the battle as it rages ( like HOI 2 does). Battle immersion in FOF is excellent due to the tactical battle option.

However AACW is a deep and challenging game with plenty of detail ( and yes my favourite game is WITP [:D] ) I particularly like the map with its numerous provinces and the use you can make of rivers.

On balance I prefer AACW at this stage but FOF is also a fine game and if you have the funds I would recommend getting both.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: 39battalion


Immersion is difficult to define as I guess it is a subjective thing. But I find AACW to be generally more immersive with one exception---the battles lack immersion as they are over pretty quickly and you just get a results screen. I would prefer to see more information on the see-saw progress of the battle as it rages ( like HOI 2 does). Battle immersion in FOF is excellent due to the tactical battle option.

I agree with your observation on the battles 100%. I really like AACW but the battles do nothing for me. I don't mind the strategic nature of them but you get no sense of accomplishment and it's difficult in my opinion to determine the significance of the result. There's all these symbols of what is going on but it is quite confusing in what it means. Other than that aspect, I too enjoy this game very much. If they could somehow increase the immersion in the battles, perhaps by simply providing some more detail to them, then I think this would be a near perfect game system.

[39battalion]

Yes I agree with you absolutely Joram.

I find it difficult to understand what happened in a battle, especially when the apparent victor retreats ! There are symbols on the battle results screen to give you some information on what happened but I don't always understand the significance of the information in relation to the outcome of the battle.

If they could make the battles more immersive this would be a truly great game.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: general billy

The only reason i didnt go for FoF was because its an I GO U GO turn base and ACW is WE GO. I think wego system is alot more realistic in terms of game play.  

FoF is WEGO, as ACW is.