Confused ????

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Confused ????

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 >> Confused ????

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Confused ???? - 5/8/2008 1:01:29 AM

gunny3013

Posts: 154
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline

Why is it that a historical game allows Freemont to move freely and Grant and Sherman are frozen with their units?
What is the best way to fill a "container" or "Vessal" (geesh! I can't get used to that term for a unit size) ? I put 4 Inf 1 Art and hope for the best.
What is it that keeps killing my amphibious units when there is nothing there?
What is the best ratio (and rank) for units to leaders?
Why do I get an automatic promotion each turn for my leaders irreguardless of any activity?

Thank You
I appologise but as an old VG Civil War player, I find this thing doesn't function anything like I'm used to.

Post #: 1

RE: Confused ???? - 5/8/2008 5:16:24 AM

Gil R.

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

(Moving to the main part of the forum, since this thread belongs there rather than in the AAR's area...)

Response #1
I can't answer about Fremont/Grant/Sherman without knowing the situation. It could be that weather was a factor. Could be time of year (if you tried to move in winter). Could just be a "bad dice roll." Have you checked the "unit history" to see what happened that turn?

Response #2
Four infantry + 1 artillery is a perfectly good approach. There's no "right" answer.

Response #3
Are you keeping a fleet off the coast, to ensure resupply?

Response #4
Not sure I get the question.

Response #5
You get the chance to promote generals until every 5/4/3/2-star slot is full. If at the end of each turn you're being asked to promote someone to, say, 2-star rank, that means that at least one division doesn't have a 2-star general.

You're right that this game takes some approaches that are different from other games, but you'll get used to them pretty quickly. Heck, you might even one day think nothing of using the term "container"!

_____________________________

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 gunny3013)

Post #: 2

RE: Confused ???? - 5/8/2008 6:01:50 AM

Ingtar

Posts: 82
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline

I'm a programmer. Container is a perfectly suitable term to me.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 3

RE: Confused ???? - 5/8/2008 9:43:28 AM

GShock

Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

Gunny, a container is an Army/Corps/Div/Fleet.

Obviously Armies can contain corps and Divs while corps may only contain Divs. In all three cases these containers can contain bdes. Fleets can only contain ships, ironclads and frigates. Each of these ship types has different attributes. As Gil said there's no fixed rule here, you need to learn your way up to filling them with the best units for the job ahead (which also means you have to learn in advance how to best use your primary nation sources to build the buildings that can produce those units).

If by anphibious (or is it aMphibious?) units you mean the troops, i don't think they can be supplied forever when on board, so you should make them land and possibly occupy an enemy city (you can't conquer a region if it's not adjacent to a friendly region so amphibious (or aNphibious?) landings are risky, time-taking and rewarding only if successful. Remember that troops can only be supplied if they are in a container (send DIV or bigger, not unattached bdes). I'm afraid i don't exactly get your situation can you be more specific? If so we can surely help you :-)

(in reply to Ingtar)

Post #: 4

RE: Confused ???? - 5/22/2008 2:20:40 AM

gunny3013

Posts: 154
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline

A "container" does not resemble any form of military formation at all. Yet the designer is trying to call a container by military formations despite this. This is causing confusion because I'm never certain what kind of a formation I'm building and without a reference I'm just building to beat all hell...

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 5

RE: Confused ???? - 5/22/2008 2:47:40 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 31363
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Hi Gunny,

Welcome to FOF - getting through the learning curve is well worth it, it's a great ACW game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny3013
Why is it that a historical game allows Freemont to move freely and Grant and Sherman are frozen with their units?

Every time a leader moves, he has to make an initiative check. For armies, this is a composite initiative based on all the leaders (though heavily weighted towards the guy at the top). Even Fremont can pass such a check and even Grant can fail it, but over time Grant should end up being a lot more mobile.

quote:

What is the best way to fill a "container" or "Vessal" (geesh! I can't get used to that term for a unit size) ? I put 4 Inf 1 Art and hope for the best.

That's just a generic term. Some "containers" are divisions, others are corps, others are armies or fleets. If it helps, just call them by their specific names rather than focusing on the generic term. 4 Inf and 1 Arty brigade in a division works well, it's up to you how to fill them, the main thing to watch out for is supply.

quote:

What is it that keeps killing my amphibious units when there is nothing there?

Sounds like lack of supply?

quote:

What is the best ratio (and rank) for units to leaders?

Well, you'll want a leader for each division, corps or army (two, three and four star respectively rank wise). You can then add up to one 1 star per brigade in each division and they can be useful especially in detailed combat. Depending on the "more/less/normal" generals setting you chose, you may not have enough to have extra 1 stars, but as a rule have one for each formation (or "container" ;-).

quote:

Why do I get an automatic promotion each turn for my leaders irreguardless of any activity?

If you look at the Military screen, you have a number of available "slots" for each rank. As long as there's an open slot for a rank, the game will give you a chance to promote someone to the highest open slot. You can just ignore it if you don't want to promote anyone and promotions/demotions can also be done manually during your turn.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development and Business Relations

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to gunny3013)

Post #: 6

RE: Confused ???? - 5/22/2008 4:51:28 AM

Gil R.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny3013

A "container" does not resemble any form of military formation at all. Yet the designer is trying to call a container by military formations despite this. This is causing confusion because I'm never certain what kind of a formation I'm building and without a reference I'm just building to beat all hell...

"Container" is not meant to resemble any military formations: it's a generic term for something in the game that has other things (mostly units) put into it. Since armies, corps, divisions, cities, forts and fleets can ALL have units (or smaller containers) put into them, it would have made the manual insane if we kept writing "army/corps/division/fort/etc." all the time, so we're using the term "container." That's all it is.

I'm not sure what you mean by "formation." When putting together an army, what matters is the hierarchy -- e.g., you have an army inside which there are three corps, and inside each of this are 2-4 divisions of 4-5 brigades each. If fighting a detailed battle, THEN you care about formation, and as the manual states you want to keep brigades from the same division together for maximum effectiveness.

Does this clear it up?

_____________________________

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 gunny3013)

Post #: 7

RE: Confused ???? - 5/23/2008 6:35:50 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

I see that if I buy telegraphs they double my camps output in the area they are in. It also says that they double the replacements coming into an area. If I were to put more than one telegraph in an area with several camps would each of them double the output of the camps? Or only one?

Is there someplace on this forum, or anywhere else, that explains the supply system in this game? The disjointed nature of the rules makes it hard to find a specific answer.

I've yet to figure out how there is a strategic supply of as much as 5 and the brigade supply that shows at least 9. What is what with supply?

Do port attacks affect anything other than ships in the port?

Is there a way for the navy to attack the fort itself? To help reduce the fort during siege?

Do Universities affect the level of research for all research buildings or only those they are in the same area with?

Enough questions for now. Thanks in advance.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 8

RE: Confused ???? - 5/23/2008 11:12:42 AM

jkBluesman

Posts: 795
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

The navy may neither attack a fort nor help during a siege.
Universities only affect the town they are in.
I do not really understand your supply question. Brigades have a maximum of 9 during battle (unless they get certain upgrades).
As far as I know it is not replacements that are doubled from telegraph but reinforcements during battle.

_____________________________

"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 9

RE: Confused ???? - 5/23/2008 2:45:36 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman

The navy may neither attack a fort nor help during a siege.
Universities only affect the town they are in.
I do not really understand your supply question. Brigades have a maximum of 9 during battle (unless they get certain upgrades).
As far as I know it is not replacements that are doubled from telegraph but reinforcements during battle.

What reinforcements during battle? We use QC to resolve our battles in PBEM. Do battles get reinforcements during the fighting? Do the telegraph buildings then affect that?

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to jkBluesman)

Post #: 10

RE: Confused ???? - 5/23/2008 2:55:51 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

The supply rules are all over the rules booklet.....

I see references to strategic supply, I see little supply indicators on the brigade information screen. Those two do not match up. If Strategic supply is only a max of 5 why then all the little supply indicators that go out way past 5?

We don't use anything but the QC.

Reading all the various sections in the rules that cover supply doesn't help. On page 93 it says that you can have a strategic supply of up to 10. Yet the strategic supply shown on my supply report doesn't go above 5.

And how can brigades in the same container have different supply levels when they do everything together?

Let's just say the supply representation in the rules is challenging.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 11

RE: Confused ???? - 5/23/2008 6:08:24 PM

jkBluesman

Posts: 795
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

Artillery for example needs more supply than the average infantry unit. How much supply a unit needs depends on teh weapon it uses. When a unit already consumes three supply each round it will be very difficult to get a higher strategic supply level. How much supply will be distributed depends on the priority. If it is low the container (division, corps or army) will get less than with high priority. But beware higher levels cost much more. Especially as CSA it is the key to victory to know when to spend money for supply and when not.
Regarding reinforcement in QC. I think with telegraph more units will arrive too although you will only once per battle be able to reinforce your troops.

_____________________________

"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 12

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 1:07:34 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

Thanks for your quick response.

All of the supply costs are in the manual. The hard coded answers are all in the manual. What I can't seem to get out of the manual is how it all ties together. There seem to be supply rules in about 40 different places in the manual. A bit here and a bit there...no place does it give examples. Just straight out comments and most of those very vague in nature.

It seems extremely uncharacteristic to me that wargames have progressed greatly on computers while at the same time the rules manuals have deteriorated in clarity by about that same degree.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to jkBluesman)

Post #: 13

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 6:50:01 AM

Gil R.

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

Telegraphs don't impact the level of output from camps. Perhaps there is some confusion over "reinforcements" vs. "replacement troops." The former refers to forces entering a province and then a particular battle, while the latter refers to men who are added to existing units to add strength.

Regarding the manual and the way some information is scattered, we knew that FOF would be a difficult game to master at its most advanced level, so we decided to aim the manual at people who want to start off with the basic game and, after mastering that, move on to more and more advanced options. As for supply issues, I just looked over the manual, and I'm not sure what the issue is: discussion of supply has to be distributed throughout the manual because there are supply issues pertaining to "containers" on the main map, supply issues pertaining to detailed battle, supply issues pertaining to supply lines, etc. If we had concentrated all discussion of supply in one part of the manual it would have left others with significant gaps.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 14

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 7:50:37 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Telegraphs don't impact the level of output from camps. Perhaps there is some confusion over "reinforcements" vs. "replacement troops." The former refers to forces entering a province and then a particular battle, while the latter refers to men who are added to existing units to add strength.

Regarding the manual and the way some information is scattered, we knew that FOF would be a difficult game to master at its most advanced level, so we decided to aim the manual at people who want to start off with the basic game and, after mastering that, move on to more and more advanced options. As for supply issues, I just looked over the manual, and I'm not sure what the issue is: discussion of supply has to be distributed throughout the manual because there are supply issues pertaining to "containers" on the main map, supply issues pertaining to detailed battle, supply issues pertaining to supply lines, etc. If we had concentrated all discussion of supply in one part of the manual it would have left others with significant gaps.

Ok, after that post I see what a large part of my problem is.

I never intended to play with the advanced tactical models. This is a strategic combat game. If I want tactical combat I'll buy a tactical level combat game. A good 1/3 of this manual is about how to do advanced tactical combat in an strategic level game.

Not all wargamers are going to want to walk up through the steps.

"....and I'm not sure what the issue is: discussion of supply has to be distributed throughout the manual because there are supply issues pertaining to "containers" on the main map, supply issues pertaining to detailed battle, supply issues pertaining to supply lines, etc. If we had concentrated all discussion of supply in one part of the manual it would have left others with significant gaps."

You had to do nothing. This is a choice you made when deciding what your target market would be. You could have just as easily made the manual follow a more conventional style, where each topic had it's own section, and listed how each subject affected each model of the game.

How the manual is laid out currently is a detriment to anyone not playing the detailed combat system and not working up the game levels that you have at some point predetermined how most gamers will play the game. With subject matter scattered in all directions an index of some sort would be extremely helpful.

This is by far one of the most detailed ACW games I've ever played. It is also one of the hardest to play at the optimum level because you are having to look through the rules, over and over, to find where the little bits of information are tucked away. Whether they only apply to that particular model of the game or if they apply to all of them.....very time consuming and it's extremely easy to miss important pieces of information.

I guess that's what my overall issue is.

There are some other minor niggly things but they are just minor irritants. They don't really do anything but catch your eye because the level of detail is so much in depth in this game that the few areas it's doesn't follow through on are very noticeable.

So, what you are telling me then is that telegraphs have no use in a PBEM game using QC. That's fine. I'll stop buying them.

Great overall effort and as usual the level of support is up to Matrix's usual high standards.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 5/24/2008 7:56:54 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 15

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 7:54:46 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

What the rules do or do not do is a moot point. They are what they are. Matrix is not about to go back and redo them now....is there a chacne that there could be an index done for them? That would help tremendously!

MR

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 16

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 8:16:51 AM

Gil R.

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

First, about telegraphs, I don't know this for a fact -- since only Eric knows for a fact what's in the code -- but I'm pretty sure that they would give a boost to quick combat. (I just e-mailed Eric to ask him, so we'll know soon.)

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 17

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 8:24:17 AM

Gil R.

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

Oops, hit "OK" prematurely. Well, on to the supply/manual issue...

You hit the nail on the head about manual-writing: different people approach learning how to play a game differently, which means that there can never be a perfect way of writing a manual for a game that is (at the "advanced level") this complex. And I have to admit, when I was editing the manual I never asked myself "What would a person who ONLY plays at the strategic level think of the manual?" I think that the ultimate solution might be a wiki, as AGEOD's customers created for AACW, since something like this really begs for hyperlinks. (This was actually something WCS considered doing for FOF instead of the detailed manual, but for reasons I won't go into it was decided against.)

Regarding an index, I'm not sure that's necessary simply because if one uses the .pdf version of the manual one can just use the "search" function. People who rely on the printed manual would be at a disadvantage, but unless your computer is long in the tooth it should be possible to have the manual open in the background when playing and ALT-TAB there when an issue comes up.

If/when we do a FOF expansion I have a hunch that we'll take a different approach to the manual, though I'm not sure what it will be. We'll definitely keep in mind comments such as these, so thanks.

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 5/24/2008 8:27:15 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 18

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 7:04:13 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

What about forts.

That manual says that there can be containers in them as well as garrisons. I've yet to see another reference other than that one.

Is there a size limit on the container that can be in a particular size of fort?

If a container was in the fort at the time of a siege would it have to stay in the fort or could it unattah and show up in the zone to do battle?

And yes my computer is long of tooth. I have to run FoF on low res..not that I care about that. The graphics are outstanding and the game play is flawless.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 19

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 7:20:39 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

And I have to admit, when I was editing the manual I never asked myself "What would a person who ONLY plays at the strategic level think of the manual?"

You never considered what a person who only plays the way the game was designed would think of it?

IMO, this is one of the great failings of computer wargames compared to the old board games.

In a compute wargame we want EVERYTHING! So, here you have a strategic wargame on the ACW with an extremely tactical combat model added in.

So, then, what is this game? Is it primarily a strategic wargame on the ACW or is it a tactical gaming system that has a strategic aspect?

In this regard it is striving to do both. But IMO, you lose some things when you don't focus on one or the other.

I didn't buy FoF as a tactical game. That's not what it's presented as either. The first sentence in the rules booklet reads:

Forge of Freedom is a turn based strategic wargame of the American Civil War.

Nowhere in that statement is a tactical combat model even mentioned. That leads me to believe that I've bought a wargame on the strategic struggle in the ACW. And yet fully 1/3 the manual is taken up with the tactical combat model. The tactical combat model which is responsible for at least two of the different complexity levels in the game.

Now some will view this as buying a strategic game and getting more than they paid for by getting the tactical combat as a bonus. I view it as paying for something I didn't ask for and don't want or need in a strategic level game.

It's all in perspective. I really wouldn't care about the tactical stuff in the game if it didn't take up so much of the rules.

Maybe the rules could have been presented for the strategic FoF game and if you wanted to play a more detailed combat system go and find that in the addendum we added in the manuals section...or something like that.

Again, it's all perspective and the game plays very well as it is. At the moment the rules detract from the game pleasure by not supplying the answers I'm looking for. I wasn't aware that the pdf rules were searchable...I've yet to open that file. Why should I need to when I have the rules manual in my hand? So then, should there be a disclaimer in the rules that the pdf is much more detailed than the printed rules? I though they were the same so I never even looked at the pdf.....

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 20

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 8:56:34 PM

Gil R.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What about forts.

That manual says that there can be containers in them as well as garrisons. I've yet to see another reference other than that one.

Is there a size limit on the container that can be in a particular size of fort?

If a container was in the fort at the time of a siege would it have to stay in the fort or could it unattah and show up in the zone to do battle?

And yes my computer is long of tooth. I have to run FoF on low res..not that I care about that. The graphics are outstanding and the game play is flawless.

Good Hunting.

MR

The manual does say what the limits on brigades are for Fort I/II/III, and so long as a container's number of brigades doesn't exceed that limit it will fit. The manual might not make this specific point, but it's something that can be figured out through experimentation. And yes, in a siege those guys would fight.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 21

RE: Confused ???? - 5/24/2008 9:08:28 PM

Gil R.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

And I have to admit, when I was editing the manual I never asked myself "What would a person who ONLY plays at the strategic level think of the manual?"

You never considered what a person who only plays the way the game was designed would think of it?

IMO, this is one of the great failings of computer wargames compared to the old board games.

In a compute wargame we want EVERYTHING! So, here you have a strategic wargame on the ACW with an extremely tactical combat model added in.

So, then, what is this game? Is it primarily a strategic wargame on the ACW or is it a tactical gaming system that has a strategic aspect?

In this regard it is striving to do both. But IMO, you lose some things when you don't focus on one or the other.

I didn't buy FoF as a tactical game. That's not what it's presented as either. The first sentence in the rules booklet reads:

Forge of Freedom is a turn based strategic wargame of the American Civil War.

Nowhere in that statement is a tactical combat model even mentioned. That leads me to believe that I've bought a wargame on the strategic struggle in the ACW. And yet fully 1/3 the manual is taken up with the tactical combat model. The tactical combat model which is responsible for at least two of the different complexity levels in the game.

Now some will view this as buying a strategic game and getting more than they paid for by getting the tactical combat as a bonus. I view it as paying for something I didn't ask for and don't want or need in a strategic level game.

It's all in perspective. I really wouldn't care about the tactical stuff in the game if it didn't take up so much of the rules.

Maybe the rules could have been presented for the strategic FoF game and if you wanted to play a more detailed combat system go and find that in the addendum we added in the manuals section...or something like that.

Again, it's all perspective and the game plays very well as it is. At the moment the rules detract from the game pleasure by not supplying the answers I'm looking for. I wasn't aware that the pdf rules were searchable...I've yet to open that file. Why should I need to when I have the rules manual in my hand? So then, should there be a disclaimer in the rules that the pdf is much more detailed than the printed rules? I though they were the same so I never even looked at the pdf.....

Good Hunting.

MR

First, I was speaking for myself: before the game was released, I don't recall having the conscious thought, "Some people will never try the tactical game, better try to view things from their perspective." To me, the game is at its best when one is playing both strategic and tactical. But of course, you're right, it works quite well as just a strategic game. As for what it is, though, it is a combination of turn-based strategy and turn-based tactics, regardless of that sentence you quote. And that's why the manual was written primarily for people who play both parts of the game (i.e., the majority of players). As I said, though, we'll probably take a different approach in the future, so it's good to know your perspective on this.

You misunderstood me about the .pdf. The .pdf is the exact same thing as the printed manual. That's why it makes sense to have it open and search for key terms.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 22

RE: Confused ???? - 5/25/2008 2:25:01 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

Thanks Gil. Your comments are quick and very helpful.

My comments about the fort fighting was not the garrison but the container inside. Could the container actually come out and fight? Or would it be considered as part of the garrison? Could I give it orders to leave the fort and fight a battle outside?

Good Hunting.

MR

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 23

RE: Confused ???? - 5/25/2008 2:29:55 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

As for what it is, though, it is a combination of turn-based strategy and turn-based tactics, regardless of that sentence you quote.

Okay, but theres not demo, so am I not to go by what the developer and the manufacturer tell me the game is?

It says right there in a single sentence........lol....I'm giving you a hard time. I don't care beans about the tactical add ons one way or the other. It's just if all that tactical stuff wasn't in there the rules MIGHT BE clearer.

I'm in no way going to stop playing this game. It's great just like the other Matrix titles I own.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 24

RE: Confused ???? - 5/25/2008 4:24:46 AM

bjmorgan

Posts: 2904
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

Mad Russian,

FOF IS a strategic game of the ACW. But, the tactical combat component is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game. Sure, you can play the game without it, but there NOTHING like taking on an army three times your size and beating it, driving the invaders away. That just doesn't happen in Quick Combat.

So, play for a while using QC, but migrate over to detailed combat when you get to the point that you want something more. You'll be glad you did. FOF is clearly the best "Strategic" ACW game on the market.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 25

RE: Confused ???? - 5/25/2008 6:46:04 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 10238
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Mad Russian,

FOF IS a strategic game of the ACW. But, the tactical combat component is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game. Sure, you can play the game without it, but there NOTHING like taking on an army three times your size and beating it, driving the invaders away. That just doesn't happen in Quick Combat.

So, play for a while using QC, but migrate over to detailed combat when you get to the point that you want something more. You'll be glad you did. FOF is clearly the best "Strategic" ACW game on the market.

The whole idea of a strategic level game is NOT to play out the tactical battles.

If want that I'll get a tactical level game and do it.

IMO, what you tactical guys are looking for is nothing more than a random battle generator for the ACW. If that works for you good.

It doesn't work for me and I'll not be migrating anywhere. FoF seems to be all I'm looking for in a strategic ACW game. It was nothing I was looking for in an operational or tactical game because I didn't come to FoF looking for that.

Enjoy whatever your style of gaming is.

I enjoy mine.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 5/25/2008 6:48:06 PM >

(in reply to bjmorgan)

Post #: 26

RE: Confused ???? - 6/1/2008 3:41:38 AM

bjmorgan

Posts: 2904
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

Gee, I was only making a suggestion ....

< Message edited by bjmorgan -- 6/1/2008 3:43:08 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 27

RE: Confused ???? - 6/1/2008 5:34:13 AM

Gil R.

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

This is starting to remind me of the "Tastes Great!... Less filling!" debate of the early 1990's...