Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Better than FoF?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray >> Better than FoF? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Better than FoF? - 6/21/2007 10:42:51 PM   
diesel7013


Posts: 244
Joined: 5/2/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
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!

_____________________________



We few, We happy few, We band of brothers
Post #: 1
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/21/2007 11:31:03 PM   
Primasprit


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hi diesel7013!

Take a look here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1491805

(in reply to diesel7013)
Post #: 2
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/21/2007 11:38:35 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3434
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to diesel7013)
Post #: 3
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/22/2007 6:02:55 AM   
Arinvald


Posts: 1770
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 4
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/22/2007 6:11:07 PM   
Queeg


Posts: 325
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Arinvald)
Post #: 5
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/26/2007 5:07:57 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 6
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/26/2007 5:52:55 PM   
Pocus


Posts: 684
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

AGEOD Team - Lead Developer
Check our historical strategy games on the American Civil War, the Roman Republic, Frederick the Great, War of American Independence and others!

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 7
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/26/2007 6:41:01 PM   
Crimguy


Posts: 1340
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Pocus)
Post #: 8
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/26/2007 8:51:08 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
Meh, I care not about games against the AI.

Which one is the better PBEM game?

(in reply to Crimguy)
Post #: 9
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/26/2007 10:32:01 PM   
ETF


Posts: 1181
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Hamilton Area, Canada
Status: offline
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)CMANO 2) War In the East/Pacific AE 3) Ageod's ACW 4) Panther Games

Twitter PC Wargamer
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer

www.facebook.com/wargamesimulations

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 10
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/26/2007 11:25:39 PM   
AndrewKurtz

 

Posts: 527
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
I say "Thank you" to both. Two great games on the same subject in such a short period of time.

(in reply to ETF)
Post #: 11
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/26/2007 11:32:31 PM   
Crimguy


Posts: 1340
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline
I did a brief stint doing PBEM in FoF.  It had no turn replay, and was difficult to ascertain what had transpired the previous turm.  Not sure how AACW handles pbem.

(in reply to AndrewKurtz)
Post #: 12
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/27/2007 12:03:24 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2186
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Northern Virginia
Status: offline
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........

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Crimguy)
Post #: 13
RE: Better than FoF? - 6/27/2007 1:31:47 AM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3079
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
For me its AACW.  I own both.  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"

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> American Civil War – The Blue and the Gray >> Better than FoF? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.090