<t> like i wrote in another post...why?&nbsp; why should i spend my time "practicing" strategy for an old version of&nbsp; a game if the new version is completely uncompatible?&nbsp; sorry....but thats not fun.&nbsp; maybe it'd be more fun then waiting for patch for 30+ days....dunno.&nbsp; heck ...

<t> well, with all due respect, and with no intention to rain on anybody's parade...thats great sarge.&nbsp; you have a game you can play.&nbsp; i'm happy for you.&nbsp; really, i am.&nbsp; meanwhile, the rest of us who were hoping for a historical game are left instead with a half finished, romp ...

is there an actual end date for the patch to be released? since old saves aren't compatible with the patched game....theres not much motivation to start a new game. I know you guys have been working, but it seems as if the patch has been in production for over a month....

but whens the patch expected???&nbsp; old saves aren't compatible...so at this point, FoF is doing little besides taking up room on my hard drive...

terrific idea....


agreed that it would certainly add to the flavor of the game.&nbsp; a similiar suggestion was made in the legendary units thread as well....

<t> Meaning that the legendary units are based upon the in game actions/results?&nbsp; I think thats a terrific option if not too hard to implement, kind of keep a running tally of unit achievements...reach a certain number or value and the unit becomes legendary.&nbsp; I like that. <br/>
<br/>
I ...

<t> Erik-<br/>
<br/>
I definitely appreciate how responsive, you, and everyone else thats had a hand in this game is.&nbsp; Thank you.<br/>
<br/>
But, to be honest, at this point, FoF is becoming more frustrating then fun.&nbsp; I want to enjoy this game...I really do, but I can't get over some ...

<r> Just to chime in...this was posted in Jackerson's just wondering thread from I think Eric in response to why Jakerson as the North was sustained something like 40:1 (not kidding) battle losses:<br/>

<QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>My suggestion for the future would be to focus on the defensive ...

<r> <QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>My suggestion for the future would be to focus on the defensive, particularly in the East, as the Union and force him to pay for each engagement<e>[/quote]</e></QUOTE>
<br/>
Well...isn't that sort of the problem that ppl are having?&nbsp; I mean...Jakerson is playing as ...

jchastain- thanks!&nbsp;

<t> Its not the difference between instant and quick battles that botheres me, but the fact that I can have the defensive ground, have brigades with top of the line weapons, have a good leadership, outnumber the enemy about 2 to 1, and not only lose, but get whipped, on a consistent basis. <br ...

any progress on this mod? i'm quickly growing to hate the concept of mansions...

After battles, sometimes my brigades are down to 1k or 0 men. Their supply level is either on high or normal, but it doesn't seem to help keep the numbers up. So, I'm forced to keep shuffling brigades in and out of my army... Any ideas? Thanks.

<t> Has anybody else found the results of instant battles a bit out of whack? For example...playing as the usa, on easy level (still learning) my 80k+ army lead by Gen Lyons was attacked by a csa corps of approx 40k. I lost. And not only did I lose the province, but I lost 30k men. This was actually ...

thanks for the help!&nbsp; tried it this morning using your advice, no substantial losses.&nbsp; i'm going to try and add some siege guns tonight.&nbsp; may also try and read the manual a bit!

normal siege..... so i guess that, combined with a low priority for resupply would explain the outrageous losses?

<t> So I was playing with Wm Amos' 1861 mod, as the North, easy settings, because, well, frankly, I got the game via digital download and don't have the patience to print up the manual so I'm learning as I go...and anyway, I began a siege of Memphis with about 9k men. All died in 3 turns. A siege of ...