so how good is it?

[gregbcs@yahoo.com]

i am sure this has been asked before.... but how good is this game.. I see a lot of replies detailing the game....but i don't hear if it is better than you expected.

How is the AI?

I assume this is more of a strategic game then a tactical game. How much fun is the tactical part of the game?

I have never bought a Matrix game but it seems they really care about their product.

They remind me of the company called "The gamers" they made great board games.

Anyhow i am a big civil war buff and was just curious how this game rated with the other civil war games made in the past.

[Dasara II]

I am a bit of a ACW buff also and I love this game. I must admit that the new patch (beta available right now) has made all the difference, mainly in the AI department, for the better.

The game is both strategic and tactical with what you do at a strategic level influences that tactical level (E.g. Weapons and attributes). That makes for really absorbing game play where you care about each little detail knowing that it all makes a difference when it comes to the battlefield.

[Gray_Lensman]

My opinion, once the next official patch comes out, this should be one of the best strategic civil war (ACW) games ever produced. Meanwhile, there is a pretty good "beta" patch out to sink your teeth into, especially since it has a pretty good learning curve. The official patch is supposed to add even more improvements to an already outstanding ACW game concept.

[Yogi the Great]

I agree, this is great game that is getting better.  I have had little time with the last patch but could see the improvements from the first turn.

I find the AI quite challenging on both the tactical and strategic level,  The game is quite involved so it takes time and effort.  Not so much that it is difficult, more that there is a lot you have to remember to do.  So it is not for the casual gamer.  Tactical battles take quite awhile, but most wargamers are use to that. And of course you can quick or instant resolve battles when you want too.

The answer to your question is actually quite simple.  If you are an ACW buff, this is a must have game.

[General Quarters]

I found this to be not only the best strategic ACW game, but for me the only one actually worth playing. The AI is solid, and it is also a game very well suited to pbem. I find it fully absorbing without playing the tactical battles but you can see from the thread that asks how many play detailed battles that many say it's the icing on the cake. If you are a civil war buff, then this is certainly a game for you.

[ChuckK]

Hi all,

I think one of the game's strong points that may have been over looked is how many options we have to customize the complexity of FOF.


I play a mix of intermediate and advance settings. Personally, I have no interest in handing out rifles and deciding who gets a Sharp or Spencer rifle, so off goes the upgraded weapons toggle. I still get an approximation of technological improvement by leaving the global upgrade module of the game active. I like the advance supply rules but I don't want to micromanage dividing up the Army of the Potomac every winter to avoid the black plague of death from ravishing my forces. So off goes unit attrition and I'll just pretend I broke up the army till the Spring thaw. Yet in detailed combat I like all the complexity toggles enabled--go figure. [8D]


best, -chuckk

[ChuckK]

Ack, I forgot to mention generals.  I got to have generals enabled with randomized and hidden stats.  It's not a Civil War game if I'm not pulling out my hair trying to figure out who to put in charge of the Army of the Potomac.   

[pzpat]

  I love playing with max generals.  I tried hidden and random stats until I figured out that from the Confederate standpoint it is mostly a technique to affect game balance.  I have stats on 106 Confederate generals which I know is not exhaustive, but should be statistically representative.  The following small table indicates how many CSA generals have the highest individual ratings:
 
Initiative              leadership             tactics                 command
 
8-3                          8-6                     8-7                      8-2
7-2                          7-15                   7-22                     7-6
6-7                          6-17                   6-21                     6-16
 
And of the 106, there are 19 who have no number lower than 5 (good).
As you can see, the South is hurting for generals with initiative; otherwise they are in great shape.
     When I played with random, hidden stats, the Confederate edge in leadership completely evaporated.  Their stats were nowhere near the historical levels, and every general had at least one number below 5 (good).  Their advantage over the North disappeared.  And it changed somewhat the military portion of the game.
     Random stats seems to be another technique, like European diplomacy, that the player can use to balance out the game.  I love to use hidden stats, with their thrill of discovery, but am not willing to sacrifice one of the South's major advantages on the battlefield.
     That said, yes it's a great game.  And unlike a number of people who post on this forum I enjoy the detailed battles more than what happens in between, and the larger the better.

[ericbabe]

We actually lowered the CSA's advantage in random stats in one of the patches because several people complained about their random advantage (thought it was too high...)  Maybe I can make this moddable -- or we can just tweak back to the old advantage levels and see if anybody complains again

[ChuckK]

ORIGINAL:  ericbabe
We actually lowered the CSA's advantage in random stats in one of the patches because several people complained about their random advantage (thought it was too high...)  Maybe I can make this moddable -- or we can just tweak back to the old advantage levels and see if anybody complains again

Well...it would be great to have a toggle to give the CSA their traditional advantage in generalship with randomized stats.  I doubt I'm the first to state if you remove that advantage from the South they really have little or nothing else to fall back on.

Best

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: ChuckK
I think one of the game's strong points that may have been over looked is how many options we have to customize the complexity of FOF.

Excellent point and I must agree. It is surprisingly rare to find a game where the basic design structure is so flexible and can accomodate so much customization. Not only does this support a much broader range of customers and preferences, but I found the game much easier and more enjoyable to learn when I could layer in the additional complexity a bit at a time. I am still somewhat surprised we didn't see more reviews of this game. And I think that is a shame in that more positive press for its exceptual use of options might have provided additional impetus for other developers to do the same.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: jchastain
And I think that is a shame in that more positive press for its exceptual use of options might have provided additional impetus for other developers to do the same.

I do have to agree with that 100%. What surprises me even more is that in some cases we were knocked for something that can actually be changed with one of the options. [8|] Anyway...

[Reiryc]

To answer the original poster, the game is a lot of fun and well worth your money.  If you haven't bought it yet, my only thought is 'why deprive yourself'?  [:)]