Another fence-sitter here

[WallysWorld]

Been reading this forum for quite a while and also have been enjoying the AAR's. But I'm still sitting on the fence at to whether to purchase FOF or not. I purchased Ageod's ACW game and haven't gotten into that game much yet , but I have enjoyed Ageod's game engine.

Reading about FOF, I seem to like the political and city building aspects of the game, the tactical game, but on the strategic side, I have some questions.

1) The scale of the map seems to be on the big side. I mean the map looks great and is quite large in size, but the fact that the regions appear to quite big makes me question purchasing the game. Look at Virginia and see that Richmond is only two regions away from Washington makes me wonder if there is any type of manoeuvring going on with the forces. Compared to Ageod's engine, the regions appear almost too large with FOF's Kentucky only consisting of about 6 regions instead of the 12 or so in Ageod's ACW game.

2) I've read that a lot of the additional features and options of FOF can be turned on or off and even automated, but with the typical option settings, how long does it take to complete one turn? I read somewhere on this forum that it takes about 30 minutes to do one average turn. Is that true?

3) Does the naval war and blockade play a meaningful part in FOF? From most of the AAR's I've read, the naval war is almost ignored. How is the naval aspect of the ACW played out in FOF?

I'm pretty close to buying FOF, but would like some players' opinions on my above questions.

Many thanks to any and all replies.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: WallysWorld
1) The scale of the map seems to be on the big side. I mean the map looks great and is quite large in size, but the fact that the regions appear to quite big makes me question purchasing the game. Look at Virginia and see that Richmond is only two regions away from Washington makes me wonder if there is any type of manoeuvring going on with the forces. Compared to Ageod's engine, the regions appear almost too large with FOF's Kentucky only consisting of about 6 regions instead of the 12 or so in Ageod's ACW game.

Maneuver in FOF is on a more strategic rather than operational scale. You still have the Shenandoah as a separate region, as is Rappahannock and Petersburg, etc. but the Eastern Theater at this scale is relatively static, as it was historically. By that I mean the lines don't tend to shift radically. There's no two ways around the fact that Richmond and Washington were pretty darn close. Even if we added more regions, it would also require a whole slew of new game rules to make sure armies can't just dance right by each other when they wouldn't have historically, since each turn is two weeks of time. Now the game map as a whole has plenty of room and maneuver does happen on a larger scale. There are a lot of decisions to be made about your directions of advance, locations to defend, whether to try to avoid or engage the enemy and where, etc. I don't feel there is a lack of maneuver in the game, but it's strategic rather than operational maneuver.

2) I've read that a lot of the additional features and options of FOF can be turned on or off and even automated, but with the typical option settings, how long does it take to complete one turn? I read somewhere on this forum that it takes about 30 minutes to do one average turn. Is that true?

It takes me about 30 minutes to do the first turn. Honestly, it takes me 10-15 minutes per turn after that, but I'm at this point an extremely experienced player. I think it's fair to say that a new player would need 20-30 minutes per turn. Honestly though, once you've completed your initial force organization, done your recruitment/conscription and decided on your basic economic goals, it does start to go much faster in my experience. I have a pretty good mental checklist as I go through the turn and on most turns I can skip half or more of it.

3) Does the naval war and blockade play a meaningful part in FOF? From most of the AAR's I've read, the naval war is almost ignored. How is the naval aspect of the ACW played out in FOF?

As the Union, blockading the South is very important. You not only earn victory points, but you seriously crimp the South's economy. This requires a significant investment in new fleets and ships on the Union's part though, but I can generally get a full blockade in place by mid to late 1862. As the South, your blockade runners and the goods they bring back (which wax and wane based on your relationships with the European powers) are crucial to your economy. I have had runners on a given turn double my monetary income, or double my guns, etc. Runners can be caught and destroyed by the Union navy if they are in the same sea zone and the South can build more of them (though they are expensive) if that happens. The North can eventually get enough Espionage to predict where the Runners might go and have fleets waiting for them in the most lucrative sea zones for runner goods, etc. Similarly, the South _could_ build a navy and contest control of the seas. It can build the same ships the Union can, but the difference is that the South generally has its economy over-committed just meeting the needs of the land war and diplomacy, such that building any kind of fleet generally requires neglecting either the land war or diplomacy or both. Similarly, the Union fleets can go ahead and attack Southern ports (though this can be costly) if they see the South trying to build up a fleet and keep it in harbor before sending it out to do damage.

I'm sure others will chime in as well, but that's my opinion.

Regards,

- Erik

[Paper Tiger]

1. Yep manouver definately happens. Have not played the other game you refer to but this one is effectively 2 games in one with the strategic game playable without the hex war battle game which it incorporates.
 
2. Depends how complex you make the game, can be 15 minutes can be a lot more if you are playing hex war battles.
 
3. Not normally, the South can build a fleet but rarely does, mostly it is just the north playing ships, can blockade ports and that reduces the souths income of both raw materials, money and technology and can also add victory points to the north. The south can buy blockade runners to also try and pick up resources. Both sides can buy ironclads if they have the money and iron and I tend to think it is probably worth the south spending some $ on a fleet just to keep the north busy.
 
A lot of the complexity is semi hidden, the generals ratings give bonuses, but so do the staff and logistics ratings of the various divisions, corps and armies. Everything requires supply and that costs, more so the more supply you need. Sitting still during winter in a well supplied province you can cut your costs back, moving and fighting will drain supply and you will either need to ease up or rack up the supply levels to replenish. Pushing too many fancy gun types into a single division will also make that division hard to supply, it will eat supply fast and cost a lot to maintain. Your staff and logistic ratings can go up either by the higher officers training or through experience or the effects of military academies but this is dependant on the quality of the officers and the number of academies that you have built (expensive).
In all it is a very good game, much better since the latest patch, but for an old grognard like myself who normally learns games then wipes the floor this gives me a good run for my money without even racking it up to the point where the AI gets ridiculous bonuses.

[Gil R.]

One more thing about the Virginia maneuvering issue: armies/corps/divisions can be set on "avoid battle," so there is some fun in seeing if you can set one of your forces to do something and go somewhere and not get intercepted.

[roth]

And yet another fence sitter.

I posted a set of questions a week or more ago on the Wargamer site. Erik impressively answered many of my questions. His responses have kept me interested in this game, but I'm not yet ready to purchase it. What it comes down to, for me, is the extent to which the tactical battles are reasonable representations of actual civil war combat. I realize that I can turn the tactical battles off, but my positive purchase decision will nevertheless depend on the answer to this question.

One of the reasons I found CoG not to fit my tastes was that the tactical model didn't resemble my view of tactical Napoleonic warfare. There were other issues I had with CoG, but Erik's responses have allayed my concerns regarding how many of these are handled in FoF.

When I first posed this question on the Wargamer site, the consensus was that the FoF tactical module, while better for the ACW than CoG was for the Napoleonic wars, was still a far cry from a reasonably accurate representation of ACW tactical combat. A lot of the comments reacted to gross discrepancies in casualties, which I gather have now been resolved by a patch.

Also, since I first posed the question, I have done due diligence and read the AARs and more of the posts in this section. Based on these readings, it appears to me that the tactical module does not reflect my conception of ACW battles, for what that's worth. There seems to be a lot more cavalry than was historically the case, which I take to be the consequence of cavalry being more effective than was historically the case. In looking at an ongoing AAR, I see multiple "Armies" all over a single battlefield. Now, I grant that these may be the result of how an individual player chooses to organize his forces -- something that you would not necessarily want to be constrained by history. I presume that having so many Armies running around is advantageous either for some command and control reason or because creating more armies allows either side to appoint more patronage generals. But that there are so many "Armies" in each battle suggests to me that something is being incorrectly modeled. This may not affect the fun of the game, but it does trouble me, as does what I perceive to be the cavalry-infantry imbalance.

Keep in mind, I'm not looking for the tactical module to be as accurate or detailed as MMG's Second Manassas, or even the HPS games. But I am looking for something that properly rewards me for using historical tactics. The AARs have not persuaded me that this is the case, so I'd welcome your observations.

Thanks

[Gil R.]

Regarding the armies issue, my guess is that the AAR is for the July scenario, in which there are several divisions that are called "Army of XXXX." Could that be what you're seeing?

Cavalry are mainly effective when attacking disorganized or routed units (in addition to scouting, of course), so they play a secondary role in combat.

[roth]

I'm referring mainly to the "I'll Show Them" scenario, where multiple armies appear on battlefields that are now up to 1864. The player (Grey Hunter) seems to face lots of cavalry that seems to be successful against flanks and in pursuit, as you would expect, but also -- unless I'm misreading his reports (always a possibility) -- sufficiently successful against lines to disrupt or defeat Union forces.

[Gil R.]

I'm a bit behind in reading that AAR, but in glancing at it just now I did see one side get the Dragoon Tactics upgrade, which makes cavalry more effective. Perhaps that's what you were seeing?

[roth]

On re-reading, I may have misinterpreted some of what I read about the cavalry. It's entirely possible (though I couldn't tell from the way the report was written) that significant cavalry successes came from attacking troops (on the flank of the union line) on their flanks -- my initial belief was that, although the troops were on the flank of the line, they were not hit primarily on their flanks.

In other instances, cavalry are indeed handled more roughly.

There's still at least two armies (Confederate, I believe) on many major battlefields.

[roth]

I'm not knowledgeable enough about FoF either to recognize or appreciate the "Dragoon Upgrade" tactics. Does this relate to ACW cavalry's propensity to dismount?

[Gil R.]

It's always possible that some of those armies arrived as reinforcements from an adjacent province.

[Erik Rutins]

Cavalry were slightly more effective than they should have been, as they were getting a skirmishing bonus but not a skirmishing firepower penalty. That's been addressed in the version we're currently testing internally, but otherwise they are not unusually potent in my experience. The biggest determinant is really unit quality and morale.

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: roth

I'm not knowledgeable enough about FoF either to recognize or appreciate the "Dragoon Upgrade" tactics. Does this relate to ACW cavalry's propensity to dismount?

per the AcwUpgrade.txt file the upgrade for Dragoons allows them to move after firing.

[WallysWorld]

Thank for the replies.
 
I must say that I'm leaning more and more towards a purchase, but the comment above that the Confederate AI does not really build a navy has me a bit concerned. I usually like to play the Union side in ACW games and with no Confederate navy to face, does the naval war become a sideshow with the Union just capturing runners and blockading without worrying about Confederate naval forces such as gunboats and ironclads? I'm talking about both the sea and the Mississippi campaigns.

[Gil R.]

I almost never play as the Union so I can't tell you what the AI is doing, but I can say that the game can easily be modded to add some Confederate naval units at the outset.

[ChuckK]

ORIGINAL: WallysWorld

Thank for the replies.

I must say that I'm leaning more and more towards a purchase, but the comment above that the Confederate AI does not really build a navy has me a bit concerned. I usually like to play the Union side in ACW games and with no Confederate navy to face, does the naval war become a sideshow with the Union just capturing runners and blockading without worrying about Confederate naval forces such as gunboats and ironclads? I'm talking about both the sea and the Mississippi campaigns.

FWIW, in one of my early games when I was still finding my legs as the Union I split up my initial fleets to blockade an increased number of ports. Several turns later an AI Confederate Fleet emerged on the East Coast and tore through my squadrons. It liberated a good portion of the eastern seaboard in a turn or two. I was rather impressed to say the least.

Best, -Chuck <--Happy owner of FOF, AACW, and I will grab Grigsby's ACW game as soon as it's available.

Support the genre--buy 'em all.

[Drex]

Have you got Take Command: Manassas< chuck? Its by Paradox.

[ChuckK]

ORIGINAL: Drex

Have you got Take Command: Manassas< chuck? Its by Paradox.

Actually, I wasn't aware of the title till a couple of days ago <blush>.

[WallysWorld]

Well, I've given in and bought FOF.

I've already got AACW, but I'm also looking forward to playing FOF with the tactical engine.

Again, my many thanks to for all of the replies in this thread.