ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
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.....
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.