Is new better?

Matrix Games Forums

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Is new better?

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] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Is new better?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Is new better? - 7/25/2007 11:09:16 PM

madgamer2

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline

I have been following the discussion on the ACW forum on Forge vs. ACW and if one goes by the number of posts on the two forums the ACW wins hands down. I have played the ACW demo and came away with the feeling that this was not my kind of game for the ACW era. I think it is a grest looking game but the artempt to give the map a period look does not win any points with me as I find it a bit cluttered with all the small provinces. It is as others have said a game for true lovers of the Grand Strategic civil war game. I was not very comfortable with the game system in general but it is just not my type of game.
Forge on the other hand allows gamers to create there own mix of rules and options. Also having the three types of combat is good because each one has its place in the game. I found that the quick or instant comnbat was good in gattles where there was already a winner and playing out in detailed comnbat was a waste of time.
Detailed combat was to my experience best when a large North army fought with a much smaller south army. When I had 240K Yanks meeting 170K Rebs and
instant combat always went to the Rebs I could win in detailed combat. I think that it was the ability to give units attributes anf the will to win made the difference.
So in the end it really comes down to what you want in a grand strategic ACW game. If I ever gat the money I will buy the ACw game also as it does have its good points.

Madgamer

Post #: 1

RE: Is new better? - 7/26/2007 1:44:04 AM

Joram

Posts: 3193
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

To be fair, this is FoF's primary forum while AACW has it's own forum at AGEOD. But I think you summarize very nicely the high-level differences between the games and rightly point out that both are worth getting. But with limited funds, your gaming style certainly does affect which one you get first! Not sure if you actually had a question there so if you did you'd need to restate it!

(in reply to madgamer2)

Post #: 2

RE: Is new better? - 7/26/2007 3:53:13 AM

General Quarters

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

Having played FOF virtually non-stop since the day it came out, I have been trying to get to like AACW, for a change of pace. I like operational games, and AACW, with all those little counties, is really strategic-operational. And it is certainly a carefully crafted game.

But, so far, I have to admit the game tedious. Most of each turn is spent moving little units around (a sharpshooter unit raised in Albany has to be dragged to the army you want it to be part of), merging 2 militia into one, repairing railroads, dragging ships into the boxes, and endlessly organizing one's divisions, corps, and armies. One player said that the key to whether you like the game is whether you like organizing your forces. It has a toy soldiers feel, and I can see why people find that enjoyable, but for me it gets in the way of its being a really good strategy game. FOF, by constrast, has chess-like strategy: if I move here, and they move there, then ...

Many players praise AACW's AI, but many of them report actually winning the game by 62 or 63, or even 61! This will probably improve with time, since Pocus is constantly responding to player feedback and improving the game.

Since many players really enjoy AACW as it is, it is probably just not quite my cup of tea, and I would not want to criticize it for not being my particular kind of game. I notice that many of their players are WitP and Uncommon Valour fans. If you liked those, you'll probably like AACW. I tried UV for some weeks and all that attention to detail (e.g., deciding which pilots to rest each day) is just not my cup or tea, and not my personal conception of a strategic game.

As I say, I am trying to get to like AACW, since I am a dedicated Civil War buff and, as I get better at it and the game itself is improved, I may sing a different song later on.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 3

RE: Is new better? - 7/26/2007 8:27:14 AM

Mus

Posts: 1757
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

I really like the larger more detailed map in AACW, but find the overal interface of Forge of Freedom to be superior, plus FoF has detailed combat.

In the future, for CoG 2 or FoF 2, it would be neat to have a larger map and get into more strategic maneuver warfare, but CoG and FoF are superior games IMO.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 4

RE: Is new better? - 7/30/2007 12:40:26 AM

madgamer2

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline

I guess having a different opinion is what makes horse races and ballgames not to mention computer game likes and dislikes. For me all the extra litle areas in ACW make the map look cluttered and remind me to much of HOI 2 with endless little areas going on and on.
On the other hand FoF could have a few more but I still like FOF based on playing the ACW Demo and have never been a chess fan myself :-). I will most likely get AACW one of these days. and yes I am a big fan of WitP.

Madgamer

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 5

RE: Is new better? - 7/30/2007 1:34:38 AM

General Quarters

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

Yes, what is great that there are games out there for every player's particular taste. I always hate to see someone on a forum badmouthing a game just because it is not the kind of game he happens to enjoy.

With regard to the maps of the two games, I think the AACW map with counties is about right for a game that is as much operational as strategic. The FOF map seems right with a strategic game. For example, from a strategic point of view, Middle Tennessee was one region. New Orleans was single region. Etc. You either made a strategic decision to go in there or to stay out. Whether to go into this county or that, was an operational, not a strategic, decision. So it seems to me that the size of the FOF areas is about right, and the particular selection of areas is about right.

(in reply to madgamer2)

Post #: 6

RE: Is new better? - 7/30/2007 7:45:30 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 9560
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

I really like the larger more detailed map in AACW, but find the overal interface of Forge of Freedom to be superior, plus FoF has detailed combat.

In the future, for CoG 2 or FoF 2, it would be neat to have a larger map and get into more strategic maneuver warfare, but CoG and FoF are superior games IMO.

We were afraid that with too many regions armies would have a tough time finding each other, and also we had to make provinces large enough to fit multiple containers, units, generals, forts, etc. So those are the two primary reasons we don't have more of them. Maybe we'll be able to add a few more one day, since in some areas it would be nice.

_____________________________

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 7

RE: Is new better? - 7/30/2007 4:29:36 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 10299
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: online

I'll add a bit to what Gil said: early in development of COG the COG map had about 4x as many provinces as it currently does. However withour WEGO system of movement, armies very frequently just slipped past each other. We considered all sorts of complicated contingency-movement-orders and interception-movement commands, but in the end it seemed like a better solution simply to reduce the number of provinces. Also, in COG, the economic management was quite a lot to handle when there were so many provinces.

_____________________________