Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison - 4/2/2012 6:35:46 PM   
jscott991


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline
I know that many people have addressed this, but I wanted to ask and see if anyone was still around to answer whether a disillusioned FoF gamer like myself might enjoy War Between the States more.

I've gotten many hours of play out of FoF, but I'm in the mood for a Civil War game and I don't want to go back. My specific problems with FoF were:

1. The army containers had way too low of a cap, so you could never create units the size of the actual Army of Potomac without resorting to the contrivance of having several armies (which, of course, meant that McClellan or whoever might not be the commander of the over all force if it was attacked).

2. FoF was essentially McClellan's dream game: It was all about sieges. Too much of the game as the North was spent in long, Petersburg-like sieges of every key Confederate post. Sieges that in real life took days, take months in FoF (just try to take New Orleans the way the Union did historically).

3. The AI could not manage to fight on two fronts at once and simply turtles in Richmond in most games.

I do love the container system (except for the low brigade cap) in FoF and would like a Civil War game with something similar.

How does War Between the States compare? Can you create actual Armies of the Potomac? Are the leaders modeled well? Does it accurately convey the fact that the South was facing 2-1 odds in virtually battle (if not worse)? Is the economic system intuitive?

Thanks.
Post #: 1
RE: Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison - 4/4/2012 3:10:19 AM   
Treefrog


Posts: 503
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline
I haven't played FoF, but have a familiarity with GGWBTS.

Leadership is central to the latter. Lil Mac (or any Army Commander, and each side has 4) can influence units as follows:

1. If he gets initiative he can move any number of corps stacked with him. Initiative depends on supply status, his offensive rating - Mac 2, REL 4, and whether his theatre commander is activated. Winter hurts initiative and late war increases initiative.

2. In combat (started by moving into an enemy occupied region) a leader only influences a number of brigades (game unit building block) equal to his Command Rating. RELee quickly reaches maximum of 24, Grant hits 20, Lil Mac struggles to get above 16 most of the time. Increases in CR are based on promotions, training successes, battle successes of units under command, and being the winning commander in a battle.

So to answer your question, you can put the entire Federal army in one region (Washington City) with Lil Mac and if he gets initiative he can move them all and help a small percentage of them. However, the game mechanics on leadership depend on more than must that for a good outcome.

If in doubt, try to catch it on sale.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to jscott991)
Post #: 2
RE: Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison - 4/4/2012 3:25:37 AM   
jscott991


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline
I did buy it.

The army sizes are hopelessly too small. :(

I'm surprised no one noted this anywhere. I can't possibly see that its possible to get to the historic army sizes, particularly for the Union in 1862. McClellan put 120,000 men onto the Peninsula, while McDowell, Banks, and Fremont had 40,000 plus operating against Stonewall Jackson.

I've tried a few times and I'm not getting anywhere near those numbers by mid-1862. Militia production just isn't high enough.

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 3
RE: Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison - 4/4/2012 11:06:22 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 503
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline
to obtain large forces one must use the draft early and often.
the first draft usually produces about 56 militia (112,000 troops) first turn and about 33 the second turn (66,000) troops, which I don't think is too small.

Draft again in 6 months.


Good luck.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to jscott991)
Post #: 4
RE: Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison - 4/5/2012 1:25:20 PM   
jscott991


Posts: 528
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline
Thanks. That will help. I misunderstood how drafts were supposed to be used.

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 5
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Yes Another FoF v. WBtS Comparison 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

0.064