Big disappointment

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

if we do a FOF2.

If you do an FOF2 why would anybody buy it?

You're saying that the gamers that bought the first game, and have now playtested it for you, and pointed out where it was lacking, are going to get to buy another game rather than you patching this one, to have it be where it should have been in the first place?

I never buy a second game, for the exact same gaming situation I have already paid for, by the same game developer. If the game you sell me in the first place wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, with a limited number of patches, I'm not interested in paying for another version. To pay $80 - $100 for a game when you buy it twice is something I've never done. I don't see myself doing that for FoF/FoF 2 either.

That's my $.02 worth on a FoF 2. Others may not agree with my attitude.

Good Hunting.

MR

Mad Russian,
You should take a look at what we're doing for "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition." As you'll see, if WCS does a second version of a game we put enough new features and major changes into it that no one who owns the original and is buying the new & improved version has any reason to feel cheated. I think that we can safely stand on our record. (Or, at least, the record we will have once COG:EE is released!)

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Couple comments about the game giving the southern soldiers higher morale.

To give the Southern soldiers higher morale across the board is incorrect.

The historical reality was that SOME of the Northern recruits were lower 'morale', the reasons for this were several.

Soldiers recruited out of heavily urban centers had less experience in handling weapons and firing them than the typical southern recruit, they were less experienced in being out in the outdoors, camping, hunting, etc.  The recruits from the backwoods farms were more self reliant, and used to seeing blood, (animals slaughtered) etc. This made them more a home and at confident in the army.  There were also quite a number of new emigrants mustered or conscripted into the Union Army from the big cities who had problems with language etc. which gave them a disadvantage in communication on the battlefield.

The above factors did give the mostly rural southern recruits a combat advantage over the northerners recruited IN CITIES, but they DID NOT give them an advantage over the large number of northerners who were from the mostly rural Western states or even the upstate parts of the Eastern US.  Recruits from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc. were just as much a product of the backwoods as any southerner, and it showed when they met the southerners on the battlefield, as we all know from Shiloh, and all the battles in the West where the Western Union soldiers beat the southerner's handily.

If the game is represent things better, it should have lower starting morale levels for Union recruits who start in heavily urban areas, but not those who start in rural states.

The advantage the Confederates had was in the overall level of leadership.

The problem the game has is in the ability for the Union player to promote its good generals too fast. The Union player can cherry pick the best and promote them, so the Union has its leadership problems solved relatively easily.

The game should prevent Generals from being promoted unless they have had success in the field. There is also the issue of seniority, which was a factor in who got promoted.

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: *Buzzsaw*


Recruits from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc. were just as much a product of the backwoods as any southerner, and it showed when they met the southerners on the battlefield, as we all know from Shiloh, and all the battles in the West where the Western Union soldiers beat the southerner's handily.

[&o] And lets not forget the "Iron Brigade" in particular

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

if we do a FOF2.

If you do an FOF2 why would anybody buy it?

You're saying that the gamers that bought the first game, and have now playtested it for you, and pointed out where it was lacking, are going to get to buy another game rather than you patching this one, to have it be where it should have been in the first place?

I never buy a second game, for the exact same gaming situation I have already paid for, by the same game developer. If the game you sell me in the first place wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, with a limited number of patches, I'm not interested in paying for another version. To pay $80 - $100 for a game when you buy it twice is something I've never done. I don't see myself doing that for FoF/FoF 2 either.

That's my $.02 worth on a FoF 2. Others may not agree with my attitude.

Good Hunting.

MR

Mad Russian,
You should take a look at what we're doing for "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition." As you'll see, if WCS does a second version of a game we put enough new features and major changes into it that no one who owns the original and is buying the new & improved version has any reason to feel cheated. I think that we can safely stand on our record. (Or, at least, the record we will have once COG:EE is released!)

In September we stopped playing FoF because of 2 major bugs that affect game play. As of yet, 5 months later, there is no patch for the game to play correctly. One of those bugs affects PBEM play the other affects all types of strategic play. Neither, to my knowledge, affects game play in the tactical combat system.

That's not the kind of record I would want for touting a newer version of the game for another $60.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Gil R.]

I stand by my statement.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

The South had a definite advantage in Cavalry morale.

That was because riding and hunting on horseback was a southern tradition amongst the leisured Upper classes.

When the war started, many of these types formed Cavalry regiments, and the southern system required them to bring their own horse, saddle, etc.

They had a big advantage in that they were ready to ride immediately, they were at home in the saddle, they had good horses and equipment. Their only disadvantage was in having not particularly good long weapons, but in the early days, most of the combat was Cavalry vs Cavalry, and the pistols and shotguns the Southern Cavalry were equipped with were good enough.

On the other hand, the Northern Cavalry regt's were formed from ordinary recruits, they had their horses and equipment supplied by contractors. Because of corruption, many of the horses were sub-standard, and the equipment also. Many of the recruits had no idea of how to ride a horse, and had to start from scratch.

All of these factors gave the Southerners huge advantages in their initial Cavalry forces, it wasn't till the Northern Cavalry was thoroughly re-organized and re-equipped that they were able to compete. And when they started to get Sharps Carbines, or other effective weapons, they began to outclass the Southerners, who were often still equipped with rifled muskets.

Early Union Cavalry should have lousy morale. The Confederates should probably also get a few of their recruited brigades as Cavalry at the start, and they should be pretty decent morale.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

if we do a FOF2.

If you do an FOF2 why would anybody buy it?

You're saying that the gamers that bought the first game, and have now playtested it for you, and pointed out where it was lacking, are going to get to buy another game rather than you patching this one, to have it be where it should have been in the first place?

I never buy a second game, for the exact same gaming situation I have already paid for, by the same game developer. If the game you sell me in the first place wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, with a limited number of patches, I'm not interested in paying for another version. To pay $80 - $100 for a game when you buy it twice is something I've never done. I don't see myself doing that for FoF/FoF 2 either.

That's my $.02 worth on a FoF 2. Others may not agree with my attitude.

Good Hunting.

MR

Mad Russian,
You should take a look at what we're doing for "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition." As you'll see, if WCS does a second version of a game we put enough new features and major changes into it that no one who owns the original and is buying the new & improved version has any reason to feel cheated. I think that we can safely stand on our record. (Or, at least, the record we will have once COG:EE is released!)

As I understand this, you are currently working on a 2nd version of "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition". While FoF has major bugs for more than 5 months with no patch.

You then seem to think that when "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition" number 2 comes out, it will be worth another full game price, to those who paid for the original game.

You apparently, also, think I should be willing to do the same for Forge of Freedom, while I wait for you to patch this current version of the game. Then, if you decide to fix it's issues, I should be willing to pay you for a second version?

I stand by my earlier statement too.

Good Hunting.

MR

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: lawbreaker

1 i'm not exactly sure how to train my troops and gain morale. is it just by assigning generals to them and then their training and morale raises slowly over time automatically?
2 and by mustering, isn't it only 50 percent chance i'll receive a voluntary brigade? we hardly ever use that or conscription, because sometimes the states really get upset. so you think i should use that more?
3 one more thing, i know this is way off topic so forgive in advance. a couple times my wife playing the south has attacked with her armies, and she tends to go hog wild on artillery, and when her army shows up, a lot of her artillery brigades are improvised instead of the guns she has bought. were playing with all advanced rules, is this because of a supply deficiency? we cant really figure out why this is. is it because she has to much artillery? anyways thanks for your assistance.

1: keeping generals will slowly increase your troops, but the fastest way is to get them involved in combat. Building a training ground in the state you build a unit will also increase its effeciancy when it is built.
2: The chance to successfully muster changes. Each city will tell you how high the chance is when you enter the city and look at the muster "button". Yes, mustering tends ot upset GOVs, so look for any GOV that supports muster/conscript. If a GOV does so, you can muster with no risk.
3: not seen that before, bug?

[Gil R.]

Lawbreaker,
That sounds like it could be a bug. Do you know whether this happens in the same turn, or have the units already clearly had guns for a while and then suddenly lost them?

By the way, I assume the two of you use the hotseat option? If so, you'll like the new "z-screen" feature we've added to the patch, which hides the screen from the other player until he/she has hit the 'z' key. I'm posting the (incredibly boring) screenshot below. Someone on the forum who plays hotseat asked for such a feature -- perhaps you? -- so we added it to the patch. (Turned out to be pretty complicated, too, and added significantly to the length of time it took to finish the patch. But it will be worth it, no doubt.)

Mad Russian,
No one has ever said that current owners of COG will pay the full amount for COG:EE, so I have no idea why you claim this as fact. Nor has anyone ever suggested this for a hypothetical FOF2. The fact is that in recent weeks I have very clearly stated regarding COG:EE that I did not know what Matrix would do in terms of pricing, since I had not yet been informed of any decision, and therefore could say nothing about the matter. As it turns out, it is now official that anyone who owns COG will get a discount on COG:EE. And should we one day produce a FOF2 I am sure that a similar discount will apply.

[lawbreaker]

 to the best of our recollection, i had taken a province in tennessee, and she attacked with about 80,000 men and six brigades of artillery. she had purchased mostly ordnance rifles, napoleons and howitzers. her army had definitely set there a while before she attacked, maybe one was a recent addition. when we got to battle almost all of them were improvised. we think that one of the brigades was elite and came with 12 pound howitzers when she made it, that one still had it's guns. once i had an ordinance rifle brigade show up in combat improvised also. it happened to her one other time too, but not as bad as that main battle.
   about the hot seat mode, i don't think it was my post that asked for the ability to hide our combat moves, but i did read somebodies thread about it. we definitely will use it to hide our troop movements from each other, thats a great addition. to terje 439, thanks for that info on the training ground. i'll definitely apply that. and i'll start looking for governors who are cool with the muster.

[2ndACR]

Build instead of mustering.......mustering you will get a level 2 unit..............building you can get a level 4 or above. Much better unit and just costs time and some goodies.
 
Muster is next turn, but the unit level is the same as a garrison unit at game start........couple good shots and they will flee.

[Pistachio]

I'm not disappointed with the game - nor am I a Civil War expert - but for what it's worth would like to add that I've never lost when playing as the CS (even on hardest difficulty setting against AI) and never won when playing as the US, even on the easiest setting. Expand the Southern infrastructure and defend defend defend.

I'll keep practicing at playing the Northern side, but I think there's a definite advantage in playing the South and using that defender bonus, especially against the computer. As often as possible, especially if there are no objectives to defend in the detailed combat map, I pick out some nice high ground, give mah boys overlapping fire (like a Whitworth unit shooting over a musket unit), and let the Yanks come and get it.

Someone else raised a good point - detailed combat and quick combat are decidedly different. In my very humble opinion, there is a flaw in the game in that the cheater's way to win is to always go to detailed combat when defending and always use quick combat when attacking - since throwing superiority of numbers at the enemy is apparently the only way to dislodge him. Otherwise those red zones - even the yeller ones - will ruin your day pretty quick.

Anyway - just my opinion. Git thar fustest with the mostest....

[Hard Sarge]

I don't think your really trying HARD, if you can't win the game on Easy as the Union (I even took over one players game as Union that he said was unwinnable and won the game)

when your winning as the CSA, are you holding in place or are you attacking ? the Union also gets the same bonus you complain about for the CSA

[Mutation2241]

Although I always play the CSA normally simply because I can identify with them struggling for independence I might be playing the Union next just to see if I can smash the rebels. I'm sure it can be done in FoF

[Hard Sarge]

I am sure it can, I have some AARs done on it during testing

[jkBluesman]

Make sure to check the War Room on this forum to get the right hints for playing the Union. On the lower levels it should not be a problem to win.

[Hard Sarge]

Shouldn't be too HARD on the Higher Levels either, but that takes some time to get the hang of

but then again, most people disagree with how I set up my troops and upgrades

[Mutation2241]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I even took over one players game as Union that he said was unwinnable

Interesting! Why was this considered to be unwinnable? Capital lost? New England conquered ? All European powers at war with you? Which disaster had struck you m8

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.



Mad Russian,
No one has ever said that current owners of COG will pay the full amount for COG:EE, so I have no idea why you claim this as fact. Nor has anyone ever suggested this for a hypothetical FOF2. The fact is that in recent weeks I have very clearly stated regarding COG:EE that I did not know what Matrix would do in terms of pricing, since I had not yet been informed of any decision, and therefore could say nothing about the matter. As it turns out, it is now official that anyone who owns COG will get a discount on COG:EE. And should we one day produce a FOF2 I am sure that a similar discount will apply.

I agree, you never said you were going to charge full price. Other developers in the past have. You seem to be following that path and since you didn't say you weren't going to charge full price for the upgraded versions of the original games that was an educated assumption on my part.

The industry standard for Beta testers is that they get a copy of the game for free. Following that line of logic, that could also mean that you are going to give free copies to anyone who has made a suggestion that makes it into the 2nd version of your games.

Making another educated assumption I rather doubt that will happen.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: lawbreaker

 to the best of our recollection, i had taken a province in tennessee, and she attacked with about 80,000 men and six brigades of artillery. she had purchased mostly ordnance rifles, napoleons and howitzers. her army had definitely set there a while before she attacked, maybe one was a recent addition. when we got to battle almost all of them were improvised. we think that one of the brigades was elite and came with 12 pound howitzers when she made it, that one still had it's guns. once i had an ordinance rifle brigade show up in combat improvised also. it happened to her one other time too, but not as bad as that main battle.

Do you happen to have save files from the game that Eric (= designer/programmer) can look at? If so, please zip them and e-mail them to him at ericbabe@west-civ.com. If not, please be on the lookout for the problem in the future, and save the files then. No one has reported such a problem before, so there might be a cause other than a bug -- which Eric could probably figure out from the files.