BoA or FL?

[Valgua]

Hi! As far as I know For Liberty and BoA deal with the same historical period. I've heard that both games are nice and I have a hard time making a choice. Can you help me? I suppose that at least someone here owns both games and can give me an advice. Thank you,

Filippo

[MarkShot]

Since both are available from Matrix and it is generally in bad taste to criticize other products or inordinately praise your own, this thread will probably not be very productive.

In any case, I think if you are only buying one game, then the choice is largely a matter of game play format.

FL - is a hex/turn based game. (I believe a turns represent one week of alternating play/orders.)

BoA - is a WEGO region based game. (Each simultaneous resolution of combat orders represents one month.)

Usually it seems that people are pretty attached to one style of play or the other. So, perhaps that will help you with your decision. If not, reviews, manuals, and demos for both games are available. BoA's demo is a little out of date and FL's demo is of the 1848 Hungarian war based on the same engine. But both let you see enough of the game to get a sense of it.

I hope that helps.

[Valgua]

Thank you for your advice. I suppose you're right (btw I love Panther Games [&o]). I've heard that both games are excellent but my main concerns with all games are AI and the variety of situations the player has to deal with. How does BoA behave in these departments? Thanks again,

Filippo

[Hidde]

I have them and like both. Haven't played neither for a while and not after the last few pathes. I will not go into details because thoose pathes might have changed things. BoA feels to me like a more polished game. Everything is very well thought out and there are no real flaws with the system as I can notice.
On the other hand I really enjoyed the tactical battles in FL even if they are bit easy when you learn the system. It makes the game more time consuming though(they can be auto-resolved).
The AI is one of BoA strong features. Crank it up and you have too work for your independence(or the continued control of your colonies as the case might be). Buy both.[:)]

[MarkShot]

ORIGINAL: Valgua

Thank you for your advice. I suppose you're right (btw I love Panther Games [&o]). I've heard that both games are excellent but my main concerns with all games are AI and the variety of situations the player has to deal with. How does BoA behave in these departments? Thanks again,

Filippo

Well, since you obviously know me already. Then, you should know I wouldn't beta test or formally associate myself with any game or company which wasn't setting new standards for the industry. BoA and AGEOD are just such a game and company. Despite the stunning beauty of the interface, don't be misled. A major portion of the development effort was invested in AI coding, testing, and tuning. Additionally, the lead developer is somewhat obsessed with the AI (he refers to "it" as "she" - scares me sometimes) and is continuously tweaking it even when working on it is not officially on the schedule. I think you'll have a good time with BoA.

[Gresbeck]

I don't own FL, but let me say BoA has at least two beautiful and revolutianary concepts that I don't remember in any other game.
1. The way the games manages the control of the provinces: where every province (at least in Anglo American War scenarios) is rated for military control and population control.
2. The way the game manages military control: where every province is not necessarily "black or white"; both sides can have a certain percentage of military (and population) control. I think this is an excellent way to represent the nuances of military control in real life.

BTW, I assume you already read the NWI review.[:D] Ciao

[korrigan]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
Additionally, the lead developer is somewhat obsessed with the AI (he refers to "it" as "she" - scares me sometimes)

[:D][:D][:D]

Well, if you really want to be scared just ask Pocus about Dominion... [8|]

NB: Sure, the AI is a person, her name is Athena.

NB2: Cherchez la femme! [8D]

[jimkehn]

I don't have FL, either, but I am playing BoA. The game is simply elegant. And the graphics are gorgeous (IMHO). What I like about the game, is that the depth of it doesn't hinder the play of it. There is a lot going on in this game under the surface. For example, they have programmed into the battle sequence the concept that a front may be 3 regiments wide in rougher terrain, and 10 regiments wide in clearer terrain. You don't see this in the battle reports, but knowing it is taken into account adds richness to the game.
 
BTW, I am NOT related to, married to, work for, beta test for, or in any other way affiliated with AGEOD. Just enjoying one helluva good and innovative game. Can't wait for the Civil War game.

[vertical]

Haven't played FL.  But can say I'm having a great time with BoA, both in PBEM and solo.

vertical

[Valgua]

Thank you all for your opinions. I'm pretty much convinced. I'm going to finish my PhD thesis in a few days and I'll take some (well deserved, I think) days off. It will be nice to have BoA to try.

Filippo

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: vertical

Haven't played FL.  But can say I'm having a great time with BoA, both in PBEM and solo.

vertical

Second that !! And don't forget the very good AI.

[Lord_Stanley]

I just got BoA and also played the For Liberty! demo. I really like BoA better. For Liberty! is a good game, it is very easy to get into and play but it just doesn't have "it" for me, where as BoA does. If that makes any sense? I like the map and graphics of BoA compared to FL.

[jimkehn]

"Second that !! And don't forget the very good AI."
 
I am having my clock cleaned in a campaign against the AI. Normal settings. I am leading in points, but he is killing me everywhere and has mosta my strat and objective cities. Don't really see how I can have more points, but if he finds my hidey hole in the hills and forests, I am toast. Hardly have anything left. 15 leaders to lead 4 regiments. [;)]

[genie144]

I received BoA as a Christmas present - accidentally.  I have to say I am very very impressed with the AI.  And the region system.  A lot of hard work and research went into this game - and that is apparent. 
 
However, I personally don't like the game.  You have no control over economics.  No control over politics.  No control over battles.  No direct control (that I can find) over raising troops - when or how many.  No control over direction of retreats.  It appears to me that the best strategy for the Americans is to gather your forces into three armies.  One in Philly, one in Manhattan, and one in Camden area.  Then sit tight until the british seasonally land the troops and then ambush a couple of the smaller armies in order to prep for the big fight.  After the big fight send out an army with 2 or 3 regiments to convert all the towns back.  Sit tight until next landfall...  Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't find much enjoyment in the game.
 
Sam

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: genie144

You have no control over economics.  No control over politics.  No control over battles.  No direct control (that I can find) over raising troops - when or how many. 

One of it's major attractions, IMHO. It concentrates on what it does best without adding the superflous. I have nothing against games that include those things and there are certainly plenty of them, but the economic and political components are purely abstract even in the best of them. In these conflicts what control did the commanders of US, British or French forces have over economics, politics, or raising troops? In the case of the US forces, minimal and in the case of British and French, none. I suppose there is a case for a tactical engine, but that's not something I miss much, either.. they are usually no more than sub-games that don't compare to dedicated tactical games. I can't comment on the For Liberty! tactical engine as I don't own the game but CoG and FoF are good examples of that.. they have one of the better tactical layers for strategic games, but still nowhere near as good as the dedicated tactical games I would rather spend the time playing.

I also have a certain fondness for games where I can play a scenario in a few hours rather than a fortnight!

[Executioner Five]

BoA from Gamestop for the win--it's $29.99 in the store.  Why pay $20 extra to subsidize Matrix?

[korrigan]

Executioner Five,

This subject is already being dealt with in the General discussion forum.
Please do not spam the Birth of America forum.

Thanks,

Korrigan

[Lightsfantastic]

ORIGINAL: Executioner Five

BoA from Gamestop for the win--it's $29.99 in the store. Why pay $20 extra to subsidize Matrix?

Well in my area the shelf space for PC Games at the Gamestop's and EB's is usually one, 3'x3'x4' rack buried in the back of the store. Their idea of a war game is Blitzkrieg, Combat Mission, or Panzer Claws.

Since you seem so hell-bent on saving $, why not wait for another year or two and pick it up in a bargain bin? Nothing incentive's the gamestores into giving over shelf space to war games more than a title that they lose money on. Better yet, don't buy it and watch the companies that make really good, strategy war games go belly up so all we are left with is console game crossovers? Twenty extra bucks is nothing to support a company/publisher that actually design and support games that don't appeal to the twitch and trigger crowd. If you can't afford that, I'd suggest foregoing the Double-cheeseburger meals for 4 days and you'll have enough to cover the extra cost with a little something left over, plus clear your complexion a bit.

I for one am tired of your whining.

[Wargamer39]

Twenty extra bucks is nothing to support a company/publisher that actually design and support games that don't appeal to the twitch and trigger crowd. If you can't afford that, I'd suggest foregoing the Double-cheeseburger meals for 4 days and you'll have enough to cover the extra cost with a little something left over, plus clear your complexion a bit.

I for one am tired of your whining.
[/quote]


I agree with Lightsfantastic up to a point. While I agree about us needing to support companies such as Matrix (I own 3 of their games and am looking at BOA, FOF or WITP), IMHO I don't think the zinger (attack) at Executioner Five about fast food and his complexion was called for.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Wargamer39


Twenty extra bucks is nothing to support a company/publisher that actually design and support games that don't appeal to the twitch and trigger crowd. If you can't afford that, I'd suggest foregoing the Double-cheeseburger meals for 4 days and you'll have enough to cover the extra cost with a little something left over, plus clear your complexion a bit.

I for one am tired of your whining.

I agree with Lightsfantastic up to a point. While I agree about us needing to support companies such as Matrix (I own 3 of their games and am looking at BOA, FOF or WITP), IMHO I don't think the zinger (attack) at Executioner Five about fast food and his complexion was called for.


[/quote]

I agree also the zinger (attack) at Executioner Five about fast food and his complexion was uncalled for as well. Plus I agree with Executioner Five, some people like to save money as much as they like to game, there's no harm in either position. I look for bargains all the time. I didn't sign any documents that stated I had to support anyone that I recall. Been around too long seen developers come and go and when they go there's always someone else to pick up in their place....so, no need for this revolution of support your favorite game developer just because even if the games are crap. lol I'll never fit into that crowd of idiots.