Forge of Freedom Screenshots

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Artillery screening is handled as in Crown of Glory: an enemy unit adjacent to one of your formed infantry units cannot charge one of your artillery/supply units.  This lets infantry protect artillery from nearby hexes.

thank you - seems a good choice.

Can the attacker still suppress that enemy artillery brigade with an adjacant infantry brigade firing their rifles so morale on the artillery breaks after taking some casualties? Off course the attacking infantry will also get shot by the artillery.

[helop5]

Wow! The screen shots look great. I am in agreement with an earlier post, "I have not been this excited about a game for a long time." Can barely wait!

[Gil R.]

A few more screenshots, this time from Sea Battle. Sadly, I hit CTRL-PrtSc at just the wrong moment, so I didn't get ships firing at each other. So what you'll see is a shot of the two sides before the battle, then one side after it's been set up, and then the aftermath. Luckily for the CSA, it had the weather gage...

Here's the first:

[Gil R.]

Next, the USA after being set up:

[Gil R.]

Finally, the aftermath:

[USSLockwood]

Wow, I haven't been this excited about a game since WITP!

[genie144]

What is this weather gage that allowed the CSA to be victorious?

Sam

[USSLockwood]

I believe it is the wind direction and speed.  Primarily the direction.  Most ships were steam and sail powered.  The ironclads, of course, carried no sails aloft. 

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Okay, I checked the manual (now the the relevant part of the manual is written), so here's the deal with March Attrition. Infantry and artillery brigades serving in "container units" (= divisions/corps/army) that have a Logistics Rating of "Fair" or worse will lose 5% strength per province. (I had wrongly said 5% per march.) If the governing logistics staff is rated "Good," "Great" or "Excellent" then attrition is only 2.5%, and "Superb" leads to no losses. Such land movement also has a chance to lower unit's disposition.

This is one of those things that can easily be changed once the game is out -- we'd certainly entertain arguments in favor of lower (or higher?) rates of attrition.

Gil, at first blush your numbers strike me as very reasonable and realistic. Most every wargaming analysis I've ever read puts normal attrition in that same ballpark - in dire, hazardous environments attrition can even exceed combat losses.

The key appears to be having a good logistics infrastructure and staff. I'm assuming we can build things to help with the infrastructure - is there a way to enhance the staff and management part of the equation?

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: genie144

What is this weather gage that allowed the CSA to be victorious?

Sam

Good old Wikipedia: Weather Gauge

To have the weather gage describes the favorable position of a sailing vessel relative to another with respect to the wind. The term is from the Age of Sail, and is now antiquated. It is any position upwind of the other vessel. An upwind vessel is able to maneuver at will toward any downwind point, since in doing so the relative wind moves aft. A vessel downwind of another, however, in attempting to attack upwind, is constrained to trim sail as the relative wind moves forward and cannot point too far into the wind for fear of being headed. In sailing warfare, when beating to windward, the vessel heels under the sideward pressure of the wind. This restricts gunnery, as cannon on the windward side are now elevated, while the leeward gun ports aim into the sea, or in heavy weather may be awash. A ship with the weather gage, turning downwind to attack, may alter course at will in order to bring starboard and port guns to appropriate elevations.

[andysomers]

Oldguard,
 
Good point about attrition, and I never got over that "first blush" as you put it.  I was thinking about the historical example of Lee moving into southern PA in summer '63 and started thinking say 3 provinces X 5% = 15% attrition, and that seemed harsh.  But, I assume Lee would be a superb commander, which would severely limit or negate the attrition - makes sense.  A doofus like Van Dorn in the Pea Ridge campaign would lose a lot more (as he historically did).  Good call on your part, and I am now satisfied on this one.
 
AS

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

Gil, at first blush your numbers strike me as very reasonable and realistic. Most every wargaming analysis I've ever read puts normal attrition in that same ballpark - in dire, hazardous environments attrition can even exceed combat losses.

The key appears to be having a good logistics infrastructure and staff. I'm assuming we can build things to help with the infrastructure - is there a way to enhance the staff and management part of the equation?

You can build up railroads, so that when moving in provinces with rail-lines you can ride instead of march. Also, the logistics rating of containers (armies, corps, divisions) can be improved over time, and if one invests sufficiently in "Academy" infrastructure and then produces new container units they will be better (i.e., the more academies, the higher the average ratings of new containers).

When I start a game, I go through my armies and find the weakest containers and then either disband them or stick them in forts (so they won't need to march). One usually starts the game with a few more divisions than one needs, so culling them is a good strategy.

[*Lava*]

Hi Gil,

I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "container" is, but could you expand on exactly what it is and its importance in FOF?

Thanks.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hi Gil,

I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "container" is, but could you expand on exactly what it is and its importance in FOF?

Thanks.

Ray (alias Lava)

Lava,

"Containers" are all-important in FOF: they are the military groups into which one puts units. The full list (from memory) is: divisions, corps and armies; forts; fleets. None of those has any strength or value if it doesn't contain "units," which include infantry/cavalry/artillery brigades or, in the case of fleets, ships. Units can fight indepedently, but are much more effective when fighting within a container because multiple units fight in a coordinated manner. Containers all have Logistics and Command ratings, which affect the performance of the contained units. Also, generals can be attached to divisions/corps/armies, giving bonuses (or, in the case of more than a few, penalties) at both the strategic and tactical levels. Containers do, of course, have a limit, so forts or divisions, etc., only hold a certain number of brigades, just as fleets can hold a certain number of ships.

Further questions?

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Containers all have Logistics and Command ratings, which affect the performance of the contained units.

At the risk of sounding a bit dense..

I would imagine that the containers ratings are based on the units you put in them, for example, a good general. But the way I read your posts it seems that the container "itself" can also have its own characteristics. Is this due to research and if so can you expand a little bit on that?

Ray (alias Lava)

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Lava
At the risk of sounding a bit dense..

I would imagine that the containers ratings are based on the units you put in them, for example, a good general. But the way I read your posts it seems that the container "itself" can also have its own characteristics. Is this due to research and if so can you expand a little bit on that?

Ray asks a good question - not a dense one I'll chime in just to see if I grasped what Gil said. What I think he said was that brigades operating alone are not as effective as they are when assigned to a division, meaning divisional organizations have intrinsic value that enhances the sum of their parts. Adding a commander further enhances (or not) the divisional value.

That about right? If it is, that makes complete sense to me. I only have one problem - the more I read about FoF, the more anxious I am to play

[Gil R.]

I'd add just one thing to what Oldguard wrote. "Forge of Freedom" has no officers lower than generals in the game, but officers of lower rank are there in the abstract. The fact that containers have Logistics and Command ratings represents the staff officers at HQ, who can vary in ability.

[Gil R.]

Finally, ALL of the graphics are done, so we can show you what the main/strategic map looks like. This is a pretty generic scene here. Note that those dratted British supply depots have finally been replaced by real fort-looking forts. The circles with stars are state capitals, while the really big stars are the national capitals. Circles with circles within are non-capital cities (e.g., Lynchburg, Petersburg, Norfolk, etc.).

The divisions/corps/armies are still shown as flags -- which you've seen -- but now you can also see the free-standing infantry and cavalry brigades (represented by a soldier and horse, respectively).

Our final testing build will go up tomorrow or Friday, and will implement these graphics, so then the testers and I will be free to take screenshots of just about anything.

Here's the screenshot:

[Zort]

In the picture above I don't see Fort Monroe. Thanks for the great info. Unless it is the fort over the name Rappahanick.

[Gil R.]

Yes, that's Fort Monroe. For graphics reasons it can't be precisely where the real fort was.