From: Vermont, USA
I understand it was a design choice.... I'm for historical "like" maps. I feel the strategy map scale is perfect to include several predesigned maps, and then based on a "choice" open, wildernness etc. . One has certain battle map options.. entire battle site or certain section of a battle site.
That's the plan under discussion for a possible expansion, yep.
This could allow for more choices/options that make the game feel more civil war. Like the defender gets to choose where victory point locations are at perhaps with certain parameters (not that you couldn't do that currently with random map).
Well, that's really the point. Right now, the random maps do work just like battlefields did for the real civil war. The historical battlefields were not pre-destined in the sense that everyone knew the war would be fought there. They ended up as the battlefields based on the choices made by the opposing generals and the lay of the land and the position of the armies. That's what the current battlefield choices represent and once you actually get to the battlefield, most battles usually end up resolved over part of it rather than the whole, based again on the choices you make during the detailed battle. It feels very historical to me, even though the maps themselves are representative rather than exact historical battlefields.
handy... And as mentioned I think by others, I believe the civil war general maps are freeware...and even if they weren't, who wouldn't want to make a little extra money by using that evil word of license....As for the scale of those maps and the current... i'd say near identical....
Personally, I think the Talonsoft Battleground maps were the best made for those battlefields. CWG was a great game, but I don't see the point of going back and trying to re-use their maps or graphics. I think our graphics are a darn sight better and we can make more historical maps as well if we decide to do that. In a grand strategy game where all of history takes an alternate path once play starts, I think it's understandable why including the historical battlefields doesn't seem to be a requirement. At the same time, I think it would be a cool addition.
My other beef is the battle objectives.... They make no strategic since in relation to the terrain...The terrain layout makes no sense....It makes no sense to be fighting here... where is here... Is this even the civil war? Lets be honest, anyone who has played civil war generals I or II knows that the map is simply a historic map, and the historic similarities end there for the most part. But for some reason "being" there was all the difference.
Hm, I can't agree with that. I've fought on a lot of maps in FOF that reminded me strongly of historical battlefields in the area where they were fought.
only one to two hexes of "reserve" space. I never understood why the random maps where so large anyway... Yes this would cut down on pursuit losses.... but I've always felt pursuit losses in the civil war games were more fiction than fact....deaths and captured units I feel were always something at or near the point of engagement (for majority of either)...Granted most deaths came to disease of wound infections if I'm not mistaken....
Pursuit losses includes stragglers, which were very much a fact of any defeated and retreating ACW army. The maps are so large to allow you to choose your ground as the historical generals did and to allow you room for flanking maneuvers, second lines, reserves, etc.
While were're talking about civil war generals II... I miss the Corps leader/headquarters unit and how it was seperate from fighting units...don't have to waste fighting forces on someone who really is just "leading" and not fighting....do Corps leaders/division leaders even have any ratings affects on subordinates in detailed battle in forge of freedom? I remember there was a fire multiplier...but I don't recall seeing any other visual aid or influence over troops or subordinate commanders...
Yes, turn on the combat reports and you'll see. The manual also describes the wide variety of effects leaders have in detailed combat in FOF. You can also assign a Corps Leader to a supply unit or a rear area unit if you want to keep them out of the way, just use the "G" key.
and speaking of influence and generals =)... ah...the days your brigade/regiment commander or division commander got shot and had to be replaced by none other than that lothsome leader that provided negative traits to all the subordinates in the heat of battle....where is the cutscene of the general walking in the woods and getting sniped when you need it...No not that one...noooo that's not the right general either.... NO I don't want cutscenes...but it was morbidly enjoyable losing so many generals in battle.... particularly when the battles got fierce and contested....
Um, how much FOF have you played? Generals are regularly lost in detailed combat.
But forge of freedom has superior AI battle intellegience(perhaps the best overall that I've seen, arguably, for any hex game...(battle maps to big though, particularly for being random), it has the campaign/strategic map that generals II doesn't have (no offense but AGEOD's strategy map has the best strategy scale in my opinion, regarding civil war...only to date though =)......). I'd also say forge of freedom has the best order of battle that I've encountered. It has ease of use and scale regarding size units and number of units in a container for each side. Perhaps the design allows one to build Corps and "Armies" to soon but I like how one gets to choose and move around it's generals...I don't recall if it does... but perhaps a feature where generals stats could fluctuate depending on losses of soldiers in battle/obtaining victory/is he leading men wounded...I think it was Hood who wasn't exactly sane after he lost an arm... sure there are other examples...add some emphasis of finding the right man for the job...but keeping it somewhat historical...
I'm glad you like those parts of FOF. Playing with hidden/random stats really duplicates the search for a good general for me at least. Adding in something like "semi-random" might work, also your suggestion about allowing some fluctuation of stats based on battle results might be interesting to implement as well. Right now, if random stats are on, stats can fluctuate when a general is promoted - which gives you the "Hood effect".
Well, I hope I didn't come across as bashing,that was not my intent, merely constructive.
Well, your last paragraph I felt was far too negative. Lacking the historical battlefields is hardly something that torpedoes the game as a whole. It still "feels" like the entire Civil War to me, just one where I get to fight it out so it does turn out somewhat differently. Heck, I'm fighting a PBEM now where the CSA player is about to besiege Pittsburgh! Which historical battlefield would I choose for that? In any case, thanks for the feedback, it's good for us to know what you did and didn't like about the game.