ORIGINAL: janh
FoF in my eyes seems to be really good and I think now it might be worth a try. There are but (very) few points, which I hope would (soon?) be adressed in another patch.
One thing is this thread - there should be the option to micromanage brigade command! It gives a sense of presonality to the units and may give a kind of respect if you send in "Gen. Jubal Earlys brigade against Col. John Gibbons black hats".
There are over 1000 commanders in the game. There is a option that gives more generals than "normal" If u play with that u certainly going to have more generals than bde's in general. This means u do have the option in DC to assign a general to each and every unit.
Since this is micromanagement and not every1 would like that. U might have to do a bit of micromanagement to get right generals to right bde, but if u wana spend the time on that micromanagement, it is alrdy in the game. It just isnt a "nesessity" atm to accomandate the less micromanagement inclined.
Another thing seems to be the sometimes barely sensible use of cavalary in DC, which I read about a few times now.
Its situasional really. Yes there are times where AI seems to be a bit to overaggresive with cav and doesnt use it in the best way to say it mildly. Other times it uses them with much more finess and ability. Striking supply wagons, flanking and such. Neither thing is some thing that always happens so over many battles u would see both.
Also I have a few more questions: How does resupply work in DC?
Unit in DC have supply according to how much supply they have strategicly. Also there are supply wagons for resupply. Again how many depence on which tech upgrades u have and the combined strategic supply of the container(division normaly) the units belongs too.
And how can I cut off major formations of their supplies on the strategic maps?
Its a long discussion that i have tried answer in some of the very recent threads. U cant per say do it. Supply works differently than normal boardgames focusing on the economics but it is possible for units to go out of supply if they move into enemy territory without ganing provinces.
Can I place forts on exact locations on the map andf can I move units into exact spots (i.e. pixels) or do provinces only serve as a kind of "map squares"?
The latter. The provinces represent a fairly large area.
How would a "Jacksonian Shenando Campaign" or "the pensinsula campaign" with like 6 separate battles against 3 armies in a single week and single province work out in the FoF engine?
Each turn is 14 days so some thing like that would usually be representing in 1 battle with reinforcements. There are options determained by rolls modified by leaders and such pre DC. 1 is that enemy reinforcements come in at a slower pace. If moves are exact right u could end up with more than 1 battle in 1 province in a turn, but that isnt the norm.
And how is the setup of starting positions managed for player and AI in DC? Would AI be able to behave like a Hooker at chancellorsville, i.e. keep several corps mostly stationary in a more or less suited defensive line for serveral days or would it start moving them around earlier or later?
In theory it could happen. I have to say most battles are over in max 2 days some going to 3 through. Generally speaking each side set up at each end of the DC map.
What happens from there is largy depending on terrain and such. If u expect very historical recreations u might get disapointed, but i find the battles are fairly varied. Different maps and tactical option before DC. Setting up flanking, supprise attack and 10 more or so. In general the AI is fairly aggresive. Some times the AI do make mistakes and split its forces in effect leading to a Hooker manuver but its not as much design as the way the battle plays out by the AI.
I started my "Civil War career" with SSI games on a Commodore 64. That was Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Shiloh and Antietam. Really cool games at that time! I loved the features of having brigade, divisional and corps officers that could be transferred and impacted effeciency significantly and I loved being able to divide brigades into two halves to form wider fronts etc.
Commander means alot in DC and u can throughout ur turns organize ur armies deciding which leaders go where. U can split large bde, over 2500 men, into 2 during DCs.
Afterwards I of course was "captured" by Sid Meiers Gettysburg and Antietam, which like todays MadMinute Games 1st and 2nd Manassas being 3D with detailed regimental formations and single guns are still great. However, I hate that the multi-days battles like gettysburg & 2nd manssases are broken down into single small scenarios or even large battlefield in smaller maps. Ok, you don't need such a refined AI if you only put like 2 corps fighting against each other for 2h over a limited ground, but I really miss the feel of decisions TRUELY impacting the whole next day(s) fighting, deciding upon keeping units in reserve etc...I hope you know what I mean.
Since the DC in FoF is at a higher level units being bde and that the game isnt solely focused on battles the HW is ofc not quiet as detailed as MMGs Mannasas for example. That said IMO it plays out fairly historical by the design, but no i wouldnt i say that HW in FoF is as detailed and rich as MMGs Mannasas game battle wise, cuz of above. U do get lots of options and deciding which units get which weapons and such that is out of scale of the more tactical games. Commander, command ratings of divsion and so on. So it isnt simple just not as detailed as the games that focus soly on the tactical.
Because of the upping of scale u do see the DC from a higher POV. That ofc alters how it plays.
Of course what I would dream of would be a combination of FoF and the MMG engine, i.e. playing detailed combat on randomly generated -or even better sometimes historic - 3D battle fields with detailed units, weapons, weather, visiblity, and generals that can have their own minds and need not to be "steered into the exact locations" but "get their orders". Is there any chance in the future that FoF might extend into that direction? Or might it be possible to write a kind of export/import function that may export FOFs detailed battles into a MMG scenario file and afterwards reimports the battle results and losses?
Yes that would be a dream, but if im to look at it realisticly. That would almost require the resources to make 2 games. I think its going to be hard to ever find a game that has a broader scope, incooporating both the strategic and then be tactically and be as focused on the tactical part, as a game made solely for the tactical part.
Hope it helps,
Rasmus