The "other" game

[Gil R.]

I now understand, based on Gibbon's post and a private message, that he was not implying that we on the FOF development team were nervous about the appearance of AGEOD's AACW and the impact it would have on sales of FOF, but that we might be concerned about that game being discussed on the Matrix site (and specifically within our own forum). So, I of course take back what I wrote challenging that assertion (though I've left my original post, so that the thread won't be interrupted). I'm sure you can all see why I read his post that way, but you can also see that his post can indeed be read the way he intended it to be read.

Anyway, since Matrix is distributing BOA it is within the realm of possibility that they would distribute AACW as well sometime down the road, so discussion of that game seems not inappropriate on the Matrix forum.

Moving on...

[Titanwarrior89]

I think its a very good game but for me I have a hard time of getting into it but I have not given up yet[:)] When World at War came out I bought it but I really didn't like it. It was a good game as well. When World at War Divided, came out I bought it and think its great and still play it.

So I am still plugging away hopeing to get the most out of it(FoF)[:D]. I am looking forward to buying the civilwar game from Mr. Pocus and company.[:D]

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

FOF is the best strategic ACW computer game ever created and, in my view, the only one worth playing. As a Civil War buff, I am really enjoying it. And the developers are listening to players and will shortly be making it even better.

That being said, I look forward to the one based on BoA as well. In my experience, games that appear to cover the same ground are usually so different that each is interesting and illuminating in its own way.

On what settings? Surely you're not suggesting that I can get a historically believable outcome on the default settings using either scenario that shipped with the game. As chris0827 has already pointed out, the General database is way off and it does affect the game. It's nice to say that there are 1000 generals included in the database but if the large majority of them have wrong start dates and random ratings, what's the point? If nobody really cares about the "unheralded" generals then why even include them? Other companies seem to have no problem getting things right. Take FL or BOA for instance. The historical situation was very similar. The Americans were overmatched and outclassed by the British. That's something that AGEOD and Hussar portrayed very well in their games. Now let's look at FOF. The developers decided to "balance" both sides instead of giving us a historical setup. Then when they took heat for doing so, they became very defensive and even suggested that some mistakes were not mistakes at all but worked as intended. In my opinion, FOF in it's present state is not very historically accurate at all. Hopefully the next patch/new scenario will fix that but right now the game doesn't play like the Civil War. I'm not looking for a 100% historically accurate simulation with the same historical outcome but I would like to get a feel for what Lincoln or Davis actually faced as they lead their respective nations. One last thing, you claim to be a Civil War buff so let me ask you a serious question. Where the hell is Harpers Ferry on the map and why is Fort Monroe located in the wrong place? Both locations were very important and apparently one is completely missing and the other misplaced.

[USS Yorktown]

AGEOD has now opened up the general's ratings for review and possible corrections. So if you're tired of your favorite ACW general getting shafted by the ratings systems, head over and let them know. But you'll have to convince them you're right... Very nice and educated discussions going on, I'm learning a lot actually. I'm an happy ACW fan, this is going to be another great game!

The forum is here.

[Gil R.]

tevans6220,
Fort Monroe is in the "wrong place" because forts in FOF do not go in the precise spot on the map where they were located, but in the approximate area. This is done because of the need for units to fit in provinces in a certain way. We on the development team know where Fort Monroe really was, but it is not possible to put it there for programming/graphics reasons that are beyond my pay grade to explain. (These same graphics-related factors are the reason that Richmond is not on the banks of the James River, but several pixels away, for example.) Ours is by no means the only computer game to take a little bit of necessary liberty with a map in order to make the game function properly.

As for generals:
1) Start dates are getting more and more accurate for this upcoming patch with each passing day. You will not be displeased in that department.
2) As I've explained, we of necessity gave the 940 or so "unheralded" generals random ratings because spending months researching them before releasing the game seemed to be a dumb decision, especially in light of public pressure on us to release the game ASAP not too many months ago. (To have done it right pre-release would have taken about 400-500 man-hours, in my estimation.) We already have put a ton of effort into getting the historical ratings for the sixty or so most famous generals accurate, soliciting input on the forum and engaging in a great deal of research ourselves. The ratings for the remaining 940 generals, too, are being made more accurate over time as bios for them get written. We make absolutely no apologies for the fact that we decided to do it this way, and think that the end result -- informative bios coupled with historically based ratings for hundreds of generals (perhaps even all 1000?) -- will be well worth it. I have little doubt that the average player prefers our way of handling generals, even if it's currently a work in progress, to something less ambitious (i.e., excluding them, as you seemed to suggest doing).

[tevans6220]

Gil,
I'm not suggesting the exclusion of any general provided that you (WCS) can come up with reasonably accurate ratings instead of the randomization of ratings that we have now. I just don't see how it's going to be possible. Rating the big names such as Grant, Lee or Jackson isn't a big problem. Rating the likes of Winder, Patterson and Holmes is going to be a monumental task. Some of those 'unheralded' generals saw little to no action. How do you rate them? I think it would be better to redo the database and only include general officers who commanded divisions or higher. I really think you're spinning your wheels with the bios. It's a nice touch but in the end it's all about the gameplay and how historically accurate the game is. One other question I have is if it was going to take 400-500 man hours to do things right pre-release, how is it going to be any faster now that the game has been released for a few months? It's going to take the same amount of time no matter when you do it and any pressure for release was self-inflicted due to all the aar's, forum talk and advertising that Matrix and WCS was doing.

[a white rabbit]

..please be our guests, you can even discuss t3* here..

..*and toaw-acow and even BioEd..

[bartholimew]

.....And I thought this was a thread about Theatre of war [:D]

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: bartholimew

.....And I thought this was a thread about Theatre of war [:D]

..aren't they all , really ? ..

..sorry, i thought you meant toaw*, the (operational)Art of War..

..[8D]..

..* pls note, i am not being paid by Matrix to publicise the only game you should have on yr computer, along side which the rest are just , errr, games. i am only endevouring to help you in yr understanding on war..

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Gil,
I'm not suggesting the exclusion of any general provided that you (WCS) can come up with reasonably accurate ratings instead of the randomization of ratings that we have now. I just don't see how it's going to be possible. Rating the big names such as Grant, Lee or Jackson isn't a big problem. Rating the likes of Winder, Patterson and Holmes is going to be a monumental task. Some of those 'unheralded' generals saw little to no action. How do you rate them? I think it would be better to redo the database and only include general officers who commanded divisions or higher. I really think you're spinning your wheels with the bios. It's a nice touch but in the end it's all about the gameplay and how historically accurate the game is. One other question I have is if it was going to take 400-500 man hours to do things right pre-release, how is it going to be any faster now that the game has been released for a few months? It's going to take the same amount of time no matter when you do it and any pressure for release was self-inflicted due to all the aar's, forum talk and advertising that Matrix and WCS was doing.

The difference is that since volunteers are writing the bios I can quickly determine ratings -- which I then run by the writers -- based on those bios. FAR less time to get ratings than if I had to research each guy myself.