Generals and Quick Combat

[decaro]

I've got a handle on the basic game, and intend to unconditionally move on to the intermediate/advanced modes like Grant took Vicksburg.

However, I doubt I will use Detailed Combat because: (1) it looks like it takes too long and (2) I can always fire-up my dusty TC2M disk.

So aside from rallying, what other contribution do generals make to Quick Combat or the other aspects of FoF? Is it worth using generals even if you're not going to play Detailed Combat?

[jkBluesman]

Generals with a high initiative rating make it more likey for containers to move. So on the strategic level they have an impact. During sieges the highest general in a fort may make a critical hit against besiergers. Also by promoting and demoting generals you will influence the governor attitude.
And without generals you might miss all the great bios!

[Gil R.]

I'd add that generals train their troops and teach them abilities that do have an impact on quick combat as well as detailed combat. Plus there's the satisfaction of equipping your units with sharpshooters and killing some enemy generals.

As for detailed battles taking "too long," you can always fight out battles until it's clear which side will have the upper hand, and then hit "quick resolve" (which lets you watch the battle finish at manic speed) or "instant resolve" (which lets you find out instantly who won). Having the "instant resolve" option lets you begin a battle, look over the terrain and the units and decide whether it will be an interesting engagement to fight, and if not just finish it right away and move on. So you might want to give this approach a try at some point.

I know that a lot of people play FOF just for the strategic game, but there is definitely something satisfying about shaping your individual brigades and whole armies the way you think best and then using them on the battlefield, and people who just play quick combat miss out on that.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman

... And without generals you might miss all the great bios!

Looking forward to reading those bios.

Yes, Gil, at some point in my life I will attempt detailed combat just for the thrill of it, but for now I'll stick w/Quick Combat; it 's still better than watching AACW's Battle Meter swing this way and that.

[wwhitman]

Joe, I'd urge you to give detailed battles a try and see if they grab you.  Yeah, they take a while, but using the fast slide and Set Center options while deploying can save a lot of time.  For me the strategic part is enjoyable and demanding, but the detailed battles allow me to actually take that army I've so meticulously built up into the drama of combat.  That's the full realization of the game, right there: watching Wheat's Tigers defiantly hold the line as the brigades around them are crumbling, cheering Longstreet for keeping them from panicking, and cursing yourself for not buying them an artillery battery last turn.  "Pour down smoke and fire!"
 
Cheers,
Will

[Conny D]

Exactly, FoF is my favorite CivWar game so far because on the one hand you control the strategic level and on the other your brigades actually can fight it out instead of abstract battle resolves without any real fight. I don't give a dime for CivWar games where there is no fight and only battle abstaction, what means having a war game without fighting the war - totally lame. FoF detailed combat Rulez

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Conny D

... I don't give a dime for CivWar games where there is no fight and only battle abstaction, what means having a war game without fighting the war - totally lame. FoF detailed combat Rulez

Another true believer; I'm so lazy that if there are too many brigades in Quick Combat, I hit the auto set-up button.

I know Detailed Combat is hex-based, but isn't it turn-based as well? IGO-UGO or WEGO?

[Gil R.]

Lest there still be any doubt that it's good to play with generals, here's another reason. At the start of the game the CSA has better generals than the USA (though as the war progresses the USA starts to get more good generals appearing than the CSA). So, playing as the CSA without generals means giving up on one of the South's key advantages, while playing as the USA without generals makes the game less of a challenge.

Detailed combat lets you make a certain number of moves before your opponent gets to make a certain number of moves, with that number varying based on various calculations. So it's not like you make a move, then your opponent does -- it's more uneven than that.

[ericbabe]

Detailed combat is IGO-UGO, but each brigade gets its own initiative segment on which it moves (brigades in the same division all have the same initiative and can move together). So the moves are somewhat interleaved between players.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Conny D

Exactly, FoF is my favorite CivWar game so far because on the one hand you control the strategic level and on the other your brigades actually can fight it out instead of abstract battle resolves without any real fight. I don't give a dime for CivWar games where there is no fight and only battle abstaction, what means having a war game without fighting the war - totally lame. FoF detailed combat Rulez

hmmmm....let's see...strategic game resolved with tactical game system...maybe not everybody that bought the game to be Lincoln wants to try his hand at being McCellan.

I for one don't. As Lincoln I set the direction of the war not fight the battles. In my limited recollection of the ACW I can't think of a single battle that Lincoln was the general in charge.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Lest there still be any doubt that it's good to play with generals, here's another reason. At the start of the game the CSA has better generals than the USA (though as the war progresses the USA starts to get more good generals appearing than the CSA). So, playing as the CSA without generals means giving up on one of the South's key advantages, while playing as the USA without generals makes the game less of a challenge.

That's only relevant if the game has a use for the generals outside the combat model. If you are using quick resolution or not the generals attributes should still factor into the fight.

I would think a generals ratings would actually mean less in a detailed combat model. In the detailed combat model I'm the general and all I need are the modifiers they come with.

In the less detailed combat models, IMO, the generals modifiers should be a large part of the resolution.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Conny D]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

hmmmm....let's see...strategic game resolved with tactical game system...maybe not everybody that bought the game to be Lincoln wants to try his hand at being McCellan.

I for one don't. As Lincoln I set the direction of the war not fight the battles. In my limited recollection of the ACW I can't think of a single battle that Lincoln was the general in charge.

Get your point. Still my remark not invalidated. Simply as that: A wargame with army buildup, assigning generals etc and then abstracted battle resolving or whatever i mean come on. Here's the troops okay, and where's the combat operations they are actually carrying out? Where are they fighting? Sorry, thats invisible, those matters are abstracted (Which means its basically the numbers that would decide the outcome, a formula that is untrue, because f.e. great leadership at countless instances lead the smaller, inferior equipped force to victory). Bah. I dont see it as playing solely the parts of Lincoln or Davis; during the combat sequence it is assuming the parts of the nation's military commanders in the field as well.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Conny D

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

hmmmm....let's see...strategic game resolved with tactical game system...maybe not everybody that bought the game to be Lincoln wants to try his hand at being McCellan.

I for one don't. As Lincoln I set the direction of the war not fight the battles. In my limited recollection of the ACW I can't think of a single battle that Lincoln was the general in charge.

Get your point. Still my remark not invalidated. Simply as that: A wargame with army buildup, assigning generals etc and then abstracted battle resolving or whatever i mean come on. Here's the troops okay, and where's the combat operations they are actually carrying out? Where are they fighting? Sorry, thats invisible, those matters are abstracted (Which means its basically the numbers that would decide the outcome, a formula that is untrue, because f.e. great leadership at countless instances lead the smaller, inferior equipped force to victory). Bah. I dont see it as playing solely the parts of Lincoln or Davis; during the combat sequence it is assuming the parts of the nation's military commanders in the field as well.

I also get your point. Why go to all that trouble to put the tactical model together and then not include it in the game.

I was just commenting on your question of who would buy a strategic wargame that didn't involve the tactical model. Far more people than you think.

Good Hunting.

MR

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

...maybe not everybody that bought the game to be Lincoln wants to try his hand at being McCellan.

I for one don't. As Lincoln I set the direction of the war not fight the battles.

Agreed, although when I click on Lincoln's portrait, I'm not sure if I'm playing him or simply choosing a side.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

In my limited recollection of the ACW I can't think of a single battle that Lincoln was the general in charge.

But he did threaten to "borrow" the Army of the Potomac from McClellan if the good general wasn't going to do anything with it.

[decaro]

Sorry for the double-posting.

[Mad Russian]

So what then? You're going to base your entire defense on a single threat from Lincoln that he never carried through with? [X(]

Besides Lincoln never said he would borrow it to use himself. He may well have been going to borrow it so one of us could have used it! [:D]

When I buy a wargame it's with the intention of taking whatever command level of game I buy. If it's a tactical level game I'll be a Colonel. If it's an operational level game I'll be a General. If it's a strategic level game I'll be the overall commander.

Generally, I don't play below the level of commander that I've bought the game for. If I want a tactical level ACW game they are out there by the dozen. Again, I can see where for some gamers they get a 2 for 1 here. They can have their cake and eat it too.

It's just not everyone who buys the game may see it that same way.

Good Hunting.

MR

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Lest there still be any doubt that it's good to play with generals ...

No more doubts from me! I'm somewhere between the intermediate to advanced level as I didn't choose detailed combat and advanced supply, but the presence of the generals and governors greatly improves the historical flavor of the game.

The great thing about FoF is that you can take from it what you want, and only what you want: i.e., you can go tactical, or simply stay operational.