Better than FoF?

AGEOD’S American Civil War - The Blue and the Gray is a historical operational strategy game with a simultaneous turn-based engine (WEGO system) that places players at the head of the USA or CSA during the American Civil War (1861-1865).

Moderator: Pocus

Post Reply
User avatar
diesel7013
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 7:21 am
Location: Texas

Better than FoF?

Post by diesel7013 »

Well - for those who have both games - what's you opinion? Is one better than the other?

As much info as possible, to help out buying decison! [;)]
Image

We few, We happy few, We band of brothers
User avatar
Primasprit
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Primasprit »

Hi diesel7013!

Take a look here: fb.asp?m=1491805
AGEOD Dev. Team
User avatar
Hertston
Posts: 3317
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:45 pm
Location: Cornwall, UK

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Hertston »

I prefer the AGEOD game, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily 'better'. I prefer messing about with army structures rather than messing about with the economy and production, particularly when the latter is handled in such abstract fashion. I also didn't think much of the FoF tactical combat and the absence of any equivalent in AGEOD was no great loss. It's a personal preference thing, really.

User avatar
sol_invictus
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Kentucky

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by sol_invictus »

Yeah, I prefer to manage units of men and horses instead of units of cotton and iron.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
User avatar
Queeg
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:33 am

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Queeg »

I own and enjoy both. The real strength of the AGEOD game, in my view, is the map. The number of provinces is near perfect, allowing for substantial maneuver over varying terrain. Though I very much enjoy the detailed battles in FOF, I find the campaign map too abstracted. The AGEOD map offers just the right level of detail.
General Quarters
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by General Quarters »

The question isn't so much, which one is better, as how do they differ. They are very different games, trying to achieve different things, and each one pretty much succeeds at what it is trying to do.

FOF is strategic with the option of tactical battles. AACW is strategic-operational.
This results in very different maps. The FOF map has the major strategic zones, e.g., Middle Tennessee, Shenandoah, key stretches of river such, etc. AACW subdivides the same zones into "counties" that allow for operational maneuver. Some say that the choice between the games depends on whether you want tactical battles, but I totally enjoy FOF without ever having played the tactical battles. Others say it is the icing on the cake.

Both games have micromanagement, but of different aspects of the game. In FOF, you manage the economy, diplomacy, even the selection of weapons for your troops. In AACW, there is a somewhat complex army organization; there are many actions that are perhaps sub-strategic such as destroying and repairing railroads, and returning your ships to port fairly frequently for repair and supply.

In FOF, there are many options, so you can let the AI do almost anything, as well as fine tune certain aspects of game play, such as how long sieges take. AACW has a few options, such as FOW at different settings, one of which reduces the micromanagement of the naval aspects. Even at full micromanagement, I find I can play a turn of FOF in about half the time of AACW, since the latter has more units to attend to than the latter.

One of the major differences is that AACW is much more historically scripted, with leaders and armies arriving when and where and in the precise command they did historically, and events somewhat driving the action. FOF is more open-ended, which I happen to like, but many like more scripted games that have a bit of the flavor of historical reenactment. For example, in FOF, you place any available general (with sufficient stars) in any army, corps, or division. In AACW, they appear as they did historically, though you can subsequently reassign them.

In my experience, both games have really excellent AIs.

They are very different experiences, and both illuminate key aspects of the American Civil War. If you can, get both!
User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 1317
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:17 pm

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Pocus »

Amen [:'(]

Depends of what you call script... For example we have a political rating attached to each general, so that you just can't name Sherman in command of the AoP when he was just an unknown leader. So yes, AACW is more stringent than the game mechanic of FOF on this matter. There is no wrong choice here, some people prefer one way, some the other way. You can buy both [:D]
AGEOD Team
User avatar
Crimguy
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Cave Creek, AZ

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Crimguy »

I have to say I'm enjoying AACW more, but Fof is a very good game as well.  I found the tactical battles in FOF to be plodding and difficult to control (and I'm not exactly new at hex-based combat).  If the system of battle was a bit more intuitive, I might prefer FOF.

Nonetheless, I'm only in my first AACW campaign, it's Nov, 1861, and I don't seem to be having a hard time keeping the Rebs at bay.  Joe Johnston keeps throwing his corps at mine in Manassas, and is losing horribly.  I just started making a push for Fredricksberg, will pause for the winter while my army builds up, and come March hope to have Richmond in the East and most of the Tennessee valley in my control.

TJ Jackson is eyeballing Harper's Ferry though with a very large force, so he might spoil my plans.  The map has great options for stragetic maneuver.
________________________
www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>
Berkut
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 7:48 am

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Berkut »

Meh, I care not about games against the AI.

Which one is the better PBEM game?
User avatar
ETF
Posts: 1766
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by ETF »

I would have to to say AACW is the better buy if you can only support one of the two...............yes have to change my signature :)
My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer
MorningDew
Posts: 1144
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by MorningDew »

I say "Thank you" to both. Two great games on the same subject in such a short period of time.
User avatar
Crimguy
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 6:42 pm
Location: Cave Creek, AZ

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Crimguy »

I did a brief stint doing PBEM in FoF.&nbsp; It had no turn replay, and was difficult to ascertain what had transpired the previous turm.&nbsp; Not sure how AACW handles pbem.
________________________
www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by denisonh »

I have a couple PBEMs going. I find it really enjoyable. As the "non-hosting" player, I do not get a replay, but find that it is not all that much of a problem given the nature of the game log.

Can't imagine playing the AI anymore........
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
Titanwarrior89
Posts: 3282
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:07 pm
Location: arkansas
Contact:

RE: Better than FoF?

Post by Titanwarrior89 »

For me its AACW.&nbsp; I own both.&nbsp; But enjoy AACW more.
"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"
Post Reply

Return to “American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray”