Do you play detailed battles?

[christof139]

I don't like the 3D combat in FoF for the following reasons: it's way too slow and 'klunkly, and takes WAY TOO MUCH TIME!!!

Chris

[christof139]

don't like the 3D combat in FoF for the following reasons: it's way too slow and 'klunkly, and takes WAY TOO MUCH TIME!!!

Chris

To reply to my own quote listed above:

I got rid of some of the klunkiness and/or slowness in HW (DC) by discovering that hooking-back-up my diconnected printer help smooth things out, as it being not connected befuddled and bogged down system resources even though I had closed the 'disconnected device icon' down. Ta-da. It's the simple things in life sometimes that do it for you.

Also, I have 3 DIMM's of 1GB memory, ywo of one brand-make and 1 of another, and I made sure I had the two of one brand in slots next to each other. All three DIMM's have been tested by me with memory diagnostics and are good, and the BIOS and WinXP show that I have 3GB's of RAM, however FoF, EA BFME2, and my Creative Soundblaster Card diagnostics show only 2GB's. Wierd, but I have a 2002 Acer AX45-V Mobo and one online diagnostc showed I had 3GB's of RAM and 4-RAM Slots, when I have only 3-RAM slots. Therefore, my memory is good now and properly working and it helps a lot. I did have a bad ACP-Add-on 1GB DIMM but they replaced it quickly w/o any problems as it had a lifetime warranty. BFME2 and RotWK run good with some settings on ultra high and high, some on low, and some on medium. FoF runs very quickly now with music and sound and all. The smoke in HW still slows things a bit, not much, and I intend to shut-off the smoke as I did before, and maybe also the 'jiggling'-wiggling of the little unit sprites. Too much stuff like that slows even fast compooter, ties up RAM memory usage, adds to data processing bottlenecks, etc. which all adds-up to speed loss and slowness and bogging down of the system.

I only have a PNY GeForce FX5200 256MB 8xAGP card running at 4xAGP, and it works very well. My old Acer Mobo won't support anything above 4xAGP, but it will support 4xAGP and lower, which is nice so then you can buy cheap older video cards to use like I did.

The 478 pin 2.5GHz P4 late stepping (latter production with minor improvements usually) Northwood Core CPU I have overclocked to 2.8 to about 3.1GHz (believe it or not the processing speed can vary) with only a 112 x 4 = 448FSB instead of the stock 100 x 4 = 400FSB, and it runs nice and cool with stock factory cooling fan and heatsink, and it is fast. EA's BFME2 identified this CPU as running at about 3.1GHz once, with Hyper Threading (and it does not have HT), so the EA diagnostics must sometimes identify Intel's Net burst Architecture as Intel's HT. [X(] These diagnostics also id this with a 2.0GHz Northwood I have, and it was overclocked to 2.2GHz or so. The diagnostics correctly identify CPU's with the factory set speed, and what you actually overclock their speed to, which is very nice to know, although this is also shown in WinXP and sometimes the BIOS. Northwoods were and are great CPU's.

My new system will have 4GB's of 400, 533 or 667 MHz DDR2 RAM on an Intel Mobo that can support Dual Core (not Core Duo) P-D's, and any 775 Socket P4, so I am using a P4 571 3.8MHz with 1MB L2 buffer/cache memory and HT, and of course the Mobo also supports HT. So, this thing will smoke playing any strategy/historical game and running regular day to day prigrams.

Chris

[Drex]

Very impressive. Unfortunately I didn't understand any of it. Please speak Civil War, that I can understand.

[christof139]

Very impressive. Unfortunately I didn't understand any of it. Please speak Civil War, that I can understand.

OK.

1) 'Klunkiness' = Slowness, bogginess, game gets bogged or bogged-down.

2) 'Klunkiness' can be caused by either one or a variety of variables, either sindularly or in combinations.

3) Examples of variables that cause 'Klunkiness' would be not enough RAM, a slow CPU, or having a device such as a printer on your compooter but not having it connected, and even disabling it or shutting its program off, can still cause it to hog some memory or cause a system glitch. Solution is to reconnect the device and then shut it down.

4) Another example of a variable that can cause 'Klunkiness' is to have too many special effects running in a game, and having many of those efects set to high quality. An example of this in FoF is the smoke on the game screen. I have 3GB RAM and a fast and good CPU, yet the smoke really hogs memory etc., so I turn the smoke off and ta-da!, game runs much faster and smoother. Plus, i can't see through the smoke because of my 4-year old prescription bifocals. [8|] Time to finally get another updated pair of dual eyeball monocles or eyeglasses.

Chris

[moose1999]

Well, to me, detailed battles are a big part of the experience.
I love the variation you get with jumping from strategic to tactical level.
I simply would not buy FoF if it did not have detailed battles.

[christof139]

Well, to me, detailed battles are a big part of the experience.
I love the variation you get with jumping from strategic to tactical level.
I simply would not buy FoF if it did not have detailed battles.

< Message edited by briny_norman -- 2/16/2007 12:57:36 PM >

Yeah, I like them now that my compooter is compooting faster, but they still take a lot of time. I like the old TalonSoft system for detailed battles, it was very efficient, if a bit unrealsitic with units being able to fight to their extinction, even though they did rout and cause other units to rout, but could rally and still fight to the end. i like the IGOUGO type of play for mid to large detailed battles.

Chris

[roboczar]

ORIGINAL: tiredoftryingnames
After playing it and seeing the AI charge with 1 brigade at a time and me easily winning any battle I only play with Quick Combat now. Poll again after the patch.

QFT

I was really excited about detailed combat until I had a few battles, and realised I had to goad the attacking AI into battle with a single brigade; drawing them back to my lines one at a time. Occasionally I'd get two or so, but there was no concerted advance, just a dozen enemy brigades standing around picking flowers (and their noses).

[Wahoo]

I found the computer attacking after being cut to pieces time and time again.&nbsp; The&nbsp;aspect I like the most is the chance to loose or kill enemy generals.&nbsp; Was shocked to loose Jackson chasing routing soilders...

[Gil R.]

(Bump)

[christof139]

Detailed comat works much better at a higher level of play, and at Lt. Col. level it is functioning well.&nbsp; Chris
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[cesteman]

I am only playing as Sgt right now so I do not use the detailed combat as of yet. I am still trying to learn the game. I don't even know if there's an option to play a detailed battle or skip it with a quick one (not there yet!).
Christian

[Kingnothinb]

I would play detailed if there was a prebattle set up phase. Having my divisions scattered all over just drives me nuts.

[Erik Rutins]

Hey King,

Note that as your divisions get better, they actually do have a chance of a pre-battle setup.

[Kingnothinb]

oh yeah?
Interesting... Is that a function of the command staff?

Time to read the manual. [:)]

[Walloc]

For every level of command rating a container has a added 10% chance of u getting the choice where to place it pre battle. Superb having a 80% chance if u so lucky to get those [:)]

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Odox]

Gentlemen,

I have to confess I also don't do detailed combat in FOF, for the simple reason that's not why I bought the game.

As I'm sure everyone recognizes, to have a strategic-level American Civil War game is outstanding. The fact that you have even attempted to do this is phenominal, and that you've actually made a very respectable 'go' of it is wonderful. My hat is off to you all.

To be honest, 'hex wars' harken back to my early days and playing so many of the Avalon Hill-type wargames. With the advent of the computer, I'd hoped we would be seeing the last of hexes et al. Especially with such excellent examples as Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam/South Mountain and (for my money) Mad Minute Games' Take Command Second Manassas, it demonstrates what can be done with the computer.

I can't stress this enough - that I mean no disrespect - but I don't play hex wars in FOF simply because there are much superior wargames that handle the tactical level.

In the end, I see the detailed combat option as just that, one option among many.

I am not circuitously meaning to imply there are any changes that I advocate for FOF. Perish the thought! But to reiterate, that's not why I bought the game. You Norb and Adam have done an outstanding job; far be it for me to aim any criticism directly or indirectly when I have such an exceptional game as is. I have absolutely no criticism whatsoever, and will not presume to question in any way the way the game is designed. You have my gratitude and respect.

With abiding admiration,

Odox

[Gray_Lensman]

ORIGINAL: Odox

<snip>

I can't stress this enough - that I mean no disrespect - but I don't play hex wars in FOF simply because there are much superior wargames that handle the tactical level.

<snip>

Wouldn't it be cool if somehow they could utilize a Rome Total War/Medievil Total War campaign style map and somehow blend the currently developed tactical rules onto more of a 3-D tactical battlefield?

Just a thought... maybe next after FOF...

[Queeg]

I frankly don't have time to play the detailed battles. A challenging campaign game soaks up all the time I have to play.

(On a side note: Are the quick battle results with the beta patch less lopsided than in the initial release? The frequent 5000 to 50 outcomes really bugged me.)

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
(On a side note: Are the quick battle results with the beta patch less lopsided than in the initial release? The frequent 5000 to 50 outcomes really bugged me.)

Yes, that's an issue of the past now.

[Gil R.]

(Bump)