What a Fantastic Game

[Anthropoid]

What a terrific game [;)]. I'm impressed by how difficult this game is, and how effective the AI is! I'm not sure if it is the latest patch, or just that I'm playing the standard scenario instead of the Coming Fury, but the game I'm playing now with the 1.10.10 patch on First Sarge difficulty seems to be very nicely balanced.

The combination of strategic level decisions, disposition of forces, building, politics, and tactical battles is just a terrific mixture for a totally engrossing strategic war game. Now if I can just keep from losing my job before the glint wears off . . .

I'm an old "Civil War Generals II" player, so I had some 'un-learning' to do for the tactical battles in this game, but overall I think that this system is just as good if not better than the tactical battle system in that game. Certainly the importance of generals, terrain, unit attributes, morale, weapons, etc., are all very well represented in the system. The only thing I wonder is the effect of height, and cover, and the existence of sunken roads.

In CWGII, high ground, cover (forests as well as buildings, tall grass, etc.) all had a significant, and quantified benefit for defense. Maybe my reading of the manual has not been close enough yet, but I do not get the impression that there is much defensive benefit to these terrain types in this game, whereas swamps ARE highly protective? And there do not appear to be sunken roads at all?

There was one small matter I noticed that is not a bug per se, but it did perplex me for a while. One of the senators wanted an Engineering College. I ignored it or did not see it for a while, until the first time I noticed it it said: "Insists Engineering . . ." that was all I could read. For a while I was puzzled since there is no way to change settings to focus on "engineering" research. Then I finally realized that he was asking for a college, but the text did not all fit on the one line. Not a big deal, but maybe could be fixed so that text wraps there?

[Gil R.]

Thanks! We're glad you like it so much.

You're definitely right about the standard scenario's balance -- we designed the game to start in November because that seemed the optimal time, but the July scenario seems most popular.

The hexes you mentioned -- heights, woods, buildings, etc. -- definitely do have defensive values. As for sunken roads, we did want to have them (along with railroad tracks, stone walls, etc.) but adding them would have been a lot of additional work. Believe it or not, adding a single new terrain type can involve an enormous amount of work, not only in terms of graphics but also time spent training the AI how to deal with it. One day, either in an expansion pack or a FOF2 we'd like to add these terrains, but can make no promises.

[Anthropoid]

I know there is a thread here where one of you guys describe the different scenarios a bit, but I frankly was baffled by what the different scenarios are supposed to represent.

The Coming Fury starts in July, and is setup for the CSA to be more powerful compared to the Standard Campaign which starts in November?

I find I like a couple of the Advanced Game settings turned off too, such as random general stats.

Another thing that I think impacted my first try being a lot more difficult was more population and more wealth, which I think must tend to benefit the CSA more than the Union?

One of the things I like about this system as compared to the old CWGII "campaign" system is the benefit that leaving a tactical venue has on troops. They actually get better, particularly when they win, and replacements clearly can have a negative impact on quality too. This I think is a critical dimension in a four-year long war of diffuse attrition which gradually evolved into a 'total war' like that one did.

Do you get booty when you over-run supply caissons? Does this include weapons or just "supply" (meaning primarily ammo)?

ADDIT: I don't think the lack of sunken roads is a serious issue, I was mostly just curious if height and cover afforded defensive benefit. Clearly (inferring from battle outcomes) hasty entrenchments DO have a significant impact. Using only two units that had the digger skill (out of a total of about 25 brigades in a battle in 1862) to prepare a pallisade, I was able to repulse about 1.75 times as many CSA brigades!

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Thanks! We're glad you like it so much.

You're definitely right about the standard scenario's balance -- we designed the game to start in November because that seemed the optimal time, but the July scenario seems most popular.

The hexes you mentioned -- heights, woods, buildings, etc. -- definitely do have defensive values. As for sunken roads, we did want to have them (along with railroad tracks, stone walls, etc.) but adding them would have been a lot of additional work. Believe it or not, adding a single new terrain type can involve an enormous amount of work, not only in terms of graphics but also time spent training the AI how to deal with it. One day, either in an expansion pack or a FOF2 we'd like to add these terrains, but can make no promises.

[Gil R.]

Essentially, there are two types of scenarios available: "balanced" and "imbalanced." In both cases, our economic and demographic numbers are based on sounds historical research. However, in the "balanced" scenarios whenever there were different numbers available we went with those favoring the CSA and disfavoring the USA, with the effect being that the CSA is closer to the USA in wealth and population, but certainly not equal to it. The "imbalanced" scenarios use 1860 census figures, which have a much sharper difference between the two sides. There is no scenario that gives both sides equal wealth and population, though anyone who wants to can create a mod like this.

So, those are the two types of scenarios, and we currently have July and November (for which "Southern Steel" is the more imbalanced). We do plan to add additional scenarios, and have a Dec. 1862 (= Fredericksburg) one partly ready, but any scenarios set in 1862 or later would require a good amount of extra coding, so we'll probably wait for an expansion pack for them.

I'm glad that you like the effect of hasty entrenchments. I read a whole book that was devoted to field fortifications during the Civil War (Earl J. Hess, "Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War: The Eastern Campaigns, 1861-1864"), and that impressed on us the need of making them play an important role. We also decided based on that book that units should not start off knowing how to entrench at the start of the war, since this skill was only being learned during the Peninsula Campaign of spring 1862 -- that book saved us from a significant historical inaccuracy.

As for caissons, I don't believe that destroying them gives one any material gains. Perhaps something to consider, though I'm not sure if it's necessary. On a related note, way back pre-release I had the idea of showing on the map where each side's camp was, so that if the army overran the camp it might raise the morale or disposition of soldiers who just got some extra food, coffee and tobacco. This idea was chopped because though nifty it was nonessential, and we couldn't put every last good idea in the game.

[ericbabe]

Thank you for the kind words.

Swamps have a defensive penalty.  You take more casualties if you are attacked in swamps.  (Unless the unit defending has the Swampwise special ability.)

Heights have a defensive bonus: artillery do -33% against units on heights, other units do -20% against units on heights (unless, of course, those units are also on heights).

[Anthropoid]

You guys have really done a good job on this. It is a pleasure to explore it. Making a game that combines all the necessary elements (historical accuracy, user interface, different levels of difficulty, playability, visual appeal, unknown 'random' factors, balance of it all) into a really compelling work of art is no simple feat. You guys have done it.

I'm guessing you must have played CWGII back in the day? Maybe there were other Civil War games about which I am not aware, but that one was a good one for its era. This game strikes me as being a highly worthy 'descendant' of that game, in that it combines tactical and strategic, but also adds the civilization style stuff, and politics.

If you have not played CWGII, it is now freeware if I understand correctly, and there is (or at least used to be a couple years ago) a TREMENDOUS amount of stuff (maps, scenarios, and such) out there in cyber-storage.

http://willisnyc.tripod.com/

I cannot now find the link to the site, but at some point I found a site that had literally a hundred or so DL-able maps for specific historical battles.

This is the one area where CWGII and FOF differ. In CWGII, many if not most of the battles of the actual civil war have a map in existence, and the starting units and reinforcement schedules for each battle are determined by the specific path one takes in the 'campaign' game. Having played it through on the hardest difficulties, I don't think there really was quite enough capacity for ahistorical fluctuation in the alternate flow-charts afforded, but in any event, that is how it worked.

Maybe you guys are intimately familiar with this old game, and I'm just preaching to the choir, but if not, it might be worthwhile food for thought for future installments, else for a kernel to promote fan-generated scenarios, and/or brief campaigns involving pre-made maps of historical areas.

ADDIT some more links I scrounged up:

http://pettigrew100.tripod.com/HQ/index.html

IIRC, that one above has tons of DLs

The following link has a bunch of other links that I have never really explored. In sum, I really loved CWGII, but found that after I maxed on the learning curve against the AI, it was not much fun any more, and because it is like a 15 year old game, there does not seem to be a PBEM community any more. I have been looking forward to your FOF as a possible 'upgrade' to my old CWGII fascination since I first saw it here on Matrix a couple years ago. The opportunity was finally right, and I'm really delighted to get back into it

http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/S ... ,_Sherman/

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Thank you for the kind words.

Swamps have a defensive penalty.  You take more casualties if you are attacked in swamps.  (Unless the unit defending has the Swampwise special ability.)

Heights have a defensive bonus: artillery do -33% against units on heights, other units do -20% against units on heights (unless, of course, those units are also on heights).

All makes good sense I also think not having the hasty entrenchment ability uniform in the game at start adds a LOT to the game. Indeed, it is the 'patchiness' of abilities dotted in different brigades and generals throughout ones forces that creates a really interesting link between tactical and strategic levels, and affords a player an opportunity for operational creativity. (e.g., so what if you got a kick-ass division or even corps, if it is not in the right place in the right time, it is a worthless source of expense). Not many games manage to create that sort of dynamic in a basic game mechanic the way you guys have done with many such mechanics in this game.

Were you guys influenced at all by Civ4? I think that game and FOF must have come out at about the same time, some maybe some of the similarities are just interesting synergies (e.g., 'attributes and abilities' in FOF and 'promotions' in Civ4). Both I think are advances in how games are representing military operations, while still remaining playable, fun, and marketable.

[pixelpusher]

Hi Anthropoid,

Glad to hear you're enjoying Forge and welcome to the community! Tell your friends![;)]

I'm guessing you must have played CWGII back in the day? Maybe there were other Civil War games about which I am not aware, but that one was a good one for its era. This game strikes me as being a highly worthy 'descendant' of that game, in that it combines tactical and strategic, but also adds the civilization style stuff, and politics.

A few people have asked us that: actually no, I don't think any of us really played that one much. The inspiration for the FoF detailed battles were the excellent paintings of battles in the American Heritage New History of the Civil War, by Catton, (paintings by David Greenspan), plus a bunch of lessons learned from making the CoG gfx.

worthwhile food for thought for future installments, else for a kernel to promote fan-generated scenarios, and/or brief campaigns involving pre-made maps of historical areas.

Being able to plug in pre-made historical or user-made maps into the detailed battle part of the game is something we have definitely talked about for Forge 2, currently in the planning phase. Certainly on my wish list, but I don't have to program it, either. So, no promises yet!

Were you guys influenced at all by Civ4? I think that game and FOF must have come out at about the same time, some maybe some of the similarities are just interesting synergies

We all like the whole Civ series, and play it from time to time. (Eric usually wins, even with a huge handicap!) The upgrades and abilities came more from a desire to give more detail and 'personality' to the various units... same thing w/ the weapons and flag customization. All swell features that make the units less homogeneous, and in ways that would resonate w/ civil war fans. You think twice before throwing your legendary unit into harms way! Same thing w/ the generals...

[ericbabe]

I researched CWG while designing FOF (along with about a dozen other CW products), but haven't seriously played it.

FOF did come out after Civ4, but honestly we had already designed everything in FOF by that point.  I grit my teeth when I saw that Civ had added the abilities to its units, as I knew people would think of those when they saw ours, but in all honesty our system was already up and running when I first saw Civ4.

The main change I wanted to make from our first game COG to FOF was to provide much more customizability to the units, so we added Disposition, Strategic Supply, Firearms, customizable flags, Special Abilities and Attributes.  I had in mind players who like to dream up different ways of organizing and customizing their brigades.

[WallysWorld]

This may sound stupid, but I bought FOF way back in May and haven't played it yet for one reason or another.

Finally started reading the manual and now I'm really looking forward to playing this game.

[Anthropoid]

One thing to consider on the detailed historic battles issue: Like I said, there is (or at least was a year and a half ago) a _TON_ of user made maps for the CWGII game out there in cyber-storage. Also the game itself had the majority of the major battles made up as hex maps. I'm pretty sure all of this stuff is freeware now.
 
I have no idea about making maps or importing old files or whatever, but if there is a will, I reckon there would pretty readily prove to be a way for earnest FOF fans to use publicly available resources to produce specific battle maps.
 
On the topic of similarities between FOF and other games, I wouldn't sweat it. Great minds think alike! In science, when more than one lab or scientist independently arrive at the same solution/conclusion it is taken to be more solid proof of the truth/beauty of the finding. The same is true of artists, though for whatever reason, there is some kinda taboo about being influenced by other artists [:-]

[Gil R.]

If we do one day do a map editor -- either for the expansion or a FOF2 -- we would certainly be seeking the help of volunteers to help us put the maps together. My guess is that some of them will take advantage of this resource. (Me, any map I work on I'll use as an excuse to visit the place. Heck, for me it's even tax-deductible!)

I know that Eric spent a bit of time studying other Civil War games (which is important for any lead designer to do), but for my own part, I've not played any of them, so all of the ideas I contributed came from reading books and websites and trying to apply what I was reading to our game. (And there are a heck of a lot of ideas that didn't get implemented; somewhere, several pages down, there's even a thread about this.) Of course, the most important factor in game design was that we were using the "Crown of Glory" engine, and wanted to create a game that would work well with it, instead of starting from scratch.

[Gil R.]

While we're discussing the issue of adding historical maps to FOF in a future incarnation of the game -- which, I stress, is just an idea that we have kicked around, and not something we have decided to do -- I'm curious about how popular a feature this would be. If FOF came with a bunch of maps for historical battlefields and you had a chance of fighting a detailed battle on one instead of a randomized map, would people like that? My concern is that people might be disappointed when a battle fought at Gettysburg is nothing like the actual Battle of Gettysburg, even if the hexes correspond to the actual terrain. After all, the forces that would meet there would never be the same -- it might just be a few brigades fighting, one army might be twice the size of the other, the battle wouldn't necessarily begin north of the town and move southwards, etc. Or, a battle fought at Chickamauga in 1861 before Union troops know how to construct field fortifications is going to be very different from the real battle. Moreover, it's important to note that games that are devoted to a single battle tend to have highly scripted AI's that help battles to unfold roughly the way they did (or might have), whereas we wouldn't be able to do that. So the question is, would it be fun to fight battles on historical battlefields when the ONLY thing that corresponds to the historical battles would be the terrain? I'd hate to put an enormous amount of work into this, only to find people are disappointed by it.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

While we're discussing the issue of adding historical maps to FOF in a future incarnation of the game -- which, I stress, is just an idea that we have kicked around, and not something we have decided to do -- I'm curious about how popular a feature this would be. If FOF came with a bunch of maps for historical battlefields and you had a chance of fighting a detailed battle on one instead of a randomized map, would people like that? My concern is that people might be disappointed when a battle fought at Gettysburg is nothing like the actual Battle of Gettysburg, even if the hexes correspond to the actual terrain. After all, the forces that would meet there would never be the same -- it might just be a few brigades fighting, one army might be twice the size of the other, the battle wouldn't necessarily begin north of the town and move southwards, etc. Or, a battle fought at Chickamauga in 1861 before Union troops know how to construct field fortifications is going to be very different from the real battle. Moreover, it's important to note that games that are devoted to a single battle tend to have highly scripted AI's that help battles to unfold roughly the way they did (or might have), whereas we wouldn't be able to do that. So the question is, would it be fun to fight battles on historical battlefields when the ONLY thing that corresponds to the historical battles would be the terrain? I'd hate to put an enormous amount of work into this, only to find people are disappointed by this.

I think that would be really cool and I'd pay for an expansion pack that included it.

[Missouri_Rebel]

To me it sounds like way too much effort for effect. While actual fields would be welcome, the work of getting them 'right' would seem to be difficult at best. With FoF's abstracted locations inside a rather large province the battles can  take place wherever ones imagination guides them. Will every battle in Tenn. be Shiloh? Or every one in Ole Miss be Corinth? Personally I think resources should be spent on other areas.


You have a great game no doubt. One that has consumed much of my free time, and still does. I guess what I am trying to say is that you have a good thing going and  imho,now is the time to take it to the next level. I should probably read the wish list thread and see what has been touched upon, but my view is that you spend time on engine improvements and added terrain rather than actual battlefield locals.

Not sure how one would implement it, but I would like to see battles that didn't  include every troop in the whole province? A strategic posture of some sort or a way of allowing only portions of the troops to be in the same area. Instead of dumping large numbers of troops into a province and overwhelming the enemy, how about a way to show dispositions and areas of operation.

How do you accomplish that? More spaces/provinces? I'm not sure. Maybe we are not talking FoF anymore if we do. Or maybe there is added another level of battles that isnt at the current detailed battles scope. Could also add something along the lines of introducing command points that allow differing levels of troop shiftings and reinforcements, possibly based on other factors such as the results of previous battles in the province. ie. ground gained or lost. Could be event triggered too.

But I guess my point is that I would love to see this title grow and given the limited resources a developer has, realistic fields would not be high on my list of improvements.

sorry for the spelling

mo reb

[Gil R.]

To me it sounds like way too much effort for effect. While actual fields would be welcome, the work of getting them 'right' would seem to be difficult at best. With FoF's abstracted locations inside a rather large province the battles can take place wherever ones imagination guides them. Will every battle in Tenn. be Shiloh? Or every one in Ole Miss be Corinth? Personally I think resources should be spent on other areas.

If we did this, the way it would work is that each province would have a database (or whatever one would call it) of historical battlefields, and each time one fights a battle there one would have a chance of getting one of those instead of a randomized battlefield. So fight a battle in "Fredericksburg" and you might get to be at Chancellorsville, The Wilderness, Spottsylvania Court House, or even Fredericksburg itself, among other sites. Maybe we'd even let the player select which historical battlefield to fight on.

As far as the work involved goes, the graphics (for new terrain) and coding would certainly be a good amount of work, but the battlefields themselves would have to be made by volunteers, since there's no way our development team could handle such a project. So this feature is not impossible -- but as you point out, adding it would come at the expense of other new features and improvements.

Regarding your other suggestions, I think that we might be able to institute a system that would achieve that result. For example, if we gave generals their own "Logistics" ratings then maybe those with better stats would have a chance of getting more of their men into a battle. Do you think that might work well?

[Missouri_Rebel]

I would like to give this some further thought. It seems that there certainly can be a system that might add to the feel of flow and ebb of operations.Contested provinces that have their own rating of control which can sway by events of the previous turn. Both armies stay in the province after a battle while the game tracks who is gaining ground and who is losing, and ultimately, who has control. Might have some choices to make during the strategic portion of who to commit to the 'area of operation' while giving up some province ownership/control at the same time. The opposing player might then choose an attack from a more quiet sector that could spin another smaller battle or choose to shift its weight around, also affecting stances and/or control. This tied in with 'Logistics' might add a whole new level of strategy. Are the troops spread out, on their heels, out of steam? Is this a main attack, a feint or do they move in to take a defencive(sp) stand? Hasty fortifications, troops trickling in? Reserves, second and third lines set up that might take some troops away but also slow down the stronger army? etc.....


just my

[Missouri_Rebel]

ps...I do like what you have proposed as far as choosing what battle if you do go the route of hitorical locations though. I just dont want it to take from the rest of the engine. But these are only my views. Curious how others feel.

[Tanaka]

Another option perhaps?

Historical Maps or Random Maps [:)]

[moose1999]

While I like the proposed method of implementation, I personally have no desperate need for historical battlefields.
Especially not if it comes at the expense of the evolution of other parts of the engine.
I'm sure I would find it interesting the first couple of times, but I think it would loose it's appeal rather quickly as the unpredictable terrain is one of the things that make the detailed battles exciting.
You never quite know what you get and, theoretically at least, have to play each map differently.
Random terrain is one of the things that keep me playing detailed battles.
The dynamic nature of the random battlefields system is a much more appealing feature than having historic ones, and while I'm sure I would enjoy historic battlefields I'm also sure I would rather quickly start to ignore them and keep choosing the random ones.
While apparently a neat and sympathetic idea, in the long run I don't think historical battlefields would be worth the effort.

But on the other hand, I'm sure the community would love having a map-editor to play with. A map editor is a pace-maker for grog-level wargames - can seriously lengthen their digital lives.
So in that sense, there is some long-term sense in the idea too.