What a Fantastic Game

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

In short, why did ACW battles happen where they did? Since there are not that many major ACW battles (60? 90?) it might not be that hard to simply categorize each one by one or two categories of "WHY IT HAPPENED WHERE IT DID." Lets say you come up with three categories (a) Opportunistic; (b) Strategically-Important location; (c) Choke-point.

What would Gettysburg rate as then? Shoes can hardly be ruled out under any of the abc's you listed [:D]

For every battle that fits into category (a): why bother with creating a map. Create maps for the other two only. Some provinces might have no (b) or (c) type maps on them. Some might have two (b)s (Strategically Valuable Locations) that are linked by one (c) (Choke Point). If you win the scouting, you can choose to force the battle at the b1 site. If you win it, then you are in a position next turn(or maybe in the same turn, depending on number of troops, and their mobility) to try to take the (c) battlefield site (the choke point that links B1 and B2). Win the battle for the choke point site, and you are then in a position to take the B2 site . . .

Will not this force you too keep on attacking no matter? I usually play the South, and there are times when I am satisfied just throwing those Yanks back into the Potomac, and having no desire to press the counterattack. Reason tends to be one out of two, a) I need to rest, resupply, and bring my numbers back up. b) I need my forces to stay on the defensive as the enemy would otherwise invade the area I am currently in.

The other interesting thing which this approach could facilitate is to build off of the existing AI tendencies which some of us have complained about a tad bit (e.g., your comment about repetitive Union AI attacks on Fredricksburg). Right now, the AI has a tendency to just attack anywhere it can, which I think a few of us have argued is not very realistic. If certain provinces were more strategically important as "doors" into additional areas, or as highly valuable strategic caches of some sort, then the AI might not behave quite so ahistorically.

Well is repetetive AI attacks on Fredricksburg that hard to understand? I would not move the Army of Potomac south unless I could force Bobby Lee out of Fredricksburg. Sure, I might bypass him and head for Richmond, but then he is free to head north and take Washington, and we are back to square one.
I think what might be an issue is that the AI focuses on destroying the enemy forces in the field (Montgomery comes to mind) while most players I guess goes for territory (Rommel comes to mind). So I do not think you would need to make some areas more important, but maybe change some parameter for the AI?

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Etc, no doubt -- and it would add a lot to the game if one found one's self deciding how to deploy on a battlefield that was recognizably Antietam.

Now this is something I would like. Let us look at how most my games as the South plays out;

-Army of Virginia is located in northern Virginia under command of R.E.LEE and some 120k men
-Army of the West under Johnston with 100k men are all defending Island#10
-Central Army under Beauregard advances through Kentucky with his 80k men sezing what northern territory they can

The AI will keep on attacking Lee who tends to spend 3 years in the same area. He also tends to have 5 CAV brigades and usually wins the scouting check. To me this would indicate that I am aware that the North is invading, and I know to some degree were they are going, and I am gonna defend, not attack. Yet I do not get to place my brigades on the battlefield. Would it not make sense that if I see 100k men marching on Somewereville and I want to keep said town I would take up defensive positions and keep the enemy moving in on me? If so, would it also not serve me well to arrive there and start digging in PRIOR to the battle, and not when the union army is 1000m away?

So what do I suggest? Well if your units have been present in an area for some time, maybe be allowed to place your army brigade by brigade before the battle starts, even allow to dig in without losing "Fresh" status?

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: takati97realm

In regards to generals getting killed off, and tactical battle in my previous post there was a reply  "Um, how much FOF have you played? Generals are regularly lost in detailed combat."

I hardly lose generals in detailed combat, however I do not dare to chose Instant combat, that ALWAYS leave me with 1-3 generals wounded or killed, and preferably 3stars with the odd 2stars. Lost Jackson and Stuart in one and same quick combat! [:@] And still they claim I won the battle...

[Missouri_Rebel]

I have never fought an engagement using Quick Battle. If I don't choose do do a Detailed Battle or have grown tired of the outcome I tend to resolve it instantly. Am I missing some of the game by not electing the QB's at times? I think I'm just too afraid to trust 'others' at the critical hour.

Maybe I should look into them just for fun.

As to the main topic. Glad so many others got the chance to get into a game I have enjoyed since it's release. Dang, has it already been over a year and a half? Not too many make it on the HD for that long. Havent played in a couple of months now, but am gettin' the itch to again. You are quiteright Anthropoid, it really is a Fantastic game.

mo reb

[Randomizer]

Hi All, haven't even made noob status yet, am just downloading Forge of Freedom now.  Have lurked around here for some time trying to decide which ACW title would get the nod and FoF won out.  Looking forward to conquorering the learning curve and then seeing the elephant.
"Forward into Battle"

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Rule number 1
Never underestimate the A.I. , it does some amazing things sometimes.

Rule number 2
Welcome and have fun

[Greybriar]

OK, OK. You have all convinced me--I just ordered the retail boxed version of Forge of Freedom.

[Ingtar]

heh - playing as the Union, Kentucky remained uncommitted.  I built up along the border waiting for good weather in 1862 to snatch it and hit the South.  The weather clears and 2/3 of the Rebel army hits me in Missouri.  It is great fun.

[Gil R.]

Randomizer and Greybriar,
I hope you enjoy the game. Don't hesitate to come by with questions or seeking tips.

[Randomizer]

So far so good, after spending (probably too much) time over the weekend, have managed to at least scratch the surface of FoF.  Perhaps a mistake but decided to bash right into the Advanced Game complete with Detailed Combat to learn the system, nothing like wandering into the deep end for swimming lessons.  Actually have won my first three DC battles (as the Union)!  No questions as yet, some parts of the UI seem counter-intuative at first but soon become second nature, observations to this effect have appeared in a few posts around here.  Wanderering through the stickies and other threads has been a great help as has keeping the manual open in the background and referring to it often.  For sure am missing things and making errors that might come back and haunt but that's all part of the fun.  All in all, I think I bought a winner.  Thanks for the welcome.
Cheers

[Anthropoid]

So how are you guys comin' with the "Hundred Years War" version using this game engine? [:D]

[Anthropoid]

Talk about replayability. I binged pretty hard on FoF last year and pretty much figured it out. Left it for several months, but then got reenthused and started in an FoF ladder over at Blitz. I'm refreshing what I knew, but also learning to new depths. One of the best wargames ever.

[GShock]

It is indeed one of the best wargames in the history of wargaming.

Considering the very very very fast declaration of end on this project a true tragedy for all the CW fans i believe we will sooner or later see something fit or be retrofitted in this game by WCS and i wouldn't exclude a few surprises.

Once you get the specific set of difficulty/historicity applicable to your skill, you will face a real challenge whatever side you pick and whatever combat style you prefer. This game is a masterpiece. The graphics, the concepts, the choices all add up to make it a gold medalist.

Couldn't agree more, and still, be a bit sad. I'd chain ericbabe to the chair for more if i could. [8D]

[Anthropoid]

Much like MO Reb says above, for the first phase of learning the game, I dove straight into Advanced, and tackled Detailed Combat. Got that pretty well figured out last winter and had 4 or 5 exceedingly fun games against Elmer winning as both sides, and ratcheting up to about Sarge Major. If you want a game that is a fun stategic wargame against the AI, I can think of no better game than this. Learning and then mastering the Detailed Battle engine will give you many scores of hours of fun.

Having got to a plateau with the Detailed Battle Engine, but frustrated by not being unable to beat the computer on higher and higher difficulties (another dimension to replay in months and years to come ) I had the "spring hiatus" from FoF. Since I've now delved into PBEMs with FoF, I have now got into the Quick Combat part, which is of course what you are limited to for multi-player. Initially I had not realized this and thought MP games would be unwieldy with Detailed Combat. Also I was not interested in the Quick Combat engine because it seemed to me to limit my ability to harness my tactical abilities. Once I learned that Quick Combat was the way it worked for PBEMs, and heard some guys at Blitz talking about the nuances of setting up your forces to prepare for Quick Combat, I was intrigued.

What I'm now learning is that, there is yet ANOTHER level to this amazing game in learning how to build, move, augment, allocate, supply, and otherwise manage your brigades and containers in order to optimally influence your Quick Combat outcomes. What I had discounted as being "not interesting because it would not allow me to make tactical decisions" is in fact perhaps MORE fascinating because of how you have to set things up at the strategic/theatre level, and then allow / wait for them to get set in motion at the level of the battlefield.

In short, what this game offers most types of wargamers what they might be looking for. Single-player fun against a challenging AI. SP games that involve integrating strategic and tactical thinking, as well as fascinating highly detailed tactical battles. The capacity to build historical scenario sims with the Detailed Engine that have non-random (or perhaps semi-random) OOBs as in the old CW Generals II (meaning: replay Gettysburgh, or Shiloh, or The Wilderness in either SP or MP mode). And last: an excellent PBEM game.

My only disappointment with this game?

The ACW only lasted 5 years and I IMPLORE you guys to apply this engine to additional conflicts so that we can explore them with a similarly beautiful and subtle game engine (Hundred Years War; Vietnam; The Korean Conflict; etc.)

[silber]

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.

I think it would be good, especially for the battlefields in Northern Virginia, and around Richmond, where there were multiple battles on the same ground. It would be pretty cool to see the same battlefield which you saw a year before. I would also recommend that major cities such as Washington, Baltimore, Kansas City etc. eventually get maps, as well as fortresses likes Vicksburg.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: terje439


What would Gettysburg rate as then? Shoes can hardly be ruled out under any of the abc's you listed [:D]

Strategically important.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Randomizer]

Am not convinced that recreating maps of the historical battles for FoF is desirable but do think that MR over on the Expansion Pack thread, has hit the nail on the head regarding the Valley and its strategic importance to the Confederacy.  As noted already, the North can effectively ignore the province for the duration if need be and so modeling its particular economic and strategic characteristics would be great.

[Gil R.]

Much like MO Reb says above, for the first phase of learning the game, I dove straight into Advanced, and tackled Detailed Combat. Got that pretty well figured out last winter and had 4 or 5 exceedingly fun games against Elmer winning as both sides, and ratcheting up to about Sarge Major. If you want a game that is a fun stategic wargame against the AI, I can think of no better game than this. Learning and then mastering the Detailed Battle engine will give you many scores of hours of fun.

Having got to a plateau with the Detailed Battle Engine, but frustrated by not being unable to beat the computer on higher and higher difficulties (another dimension to replay in months and years to come ) I had the "spring hiatus" from FoF. Since I've now delved into PBEMs with FoF, I have now got into the Quick Combat part, which is of course what you are limited to for multi-player. Initially I had not realized this and thought MP games would be unwieldy with Detailed Combat. Also I was not interested in the Quick Combat engine because it seemed to me to limit my ability to harness my tactical abilities. Once I learned that Quick Combat was the way it worked for PBEMs, and heard some guys at Blitz talking about the nuances of setting up your forces to prepare for Quick Combat, I was intrigued.

What I'm now learning is that, there is yet ANOTHER level to this amazing game in learning how to build, move, augment, allocate, supply, and otherwise manage your brigades and containers in order to optimally influence your Quick Combat outcomes. What I had discounted as being "not interesting because it would not allow me to make tactical decisions" is in fact perhaps MORE fascinating because of how you have to set things up at the strategic/theatre level, and then allow / wait for them to get set in motion at the level of the battlefield.

In short, what this game offers most types of wargamers what they might be looking for. Single-player fun against a challenging AI. SP games that involve integrating strategic and tactical thinking, as well as fascinating highly detailed tactical battles. The capacity to build historical scenario sims with the Detailed Engine that have non-random (or perhaps semi-random) OOBs as in the old CW Generals II (meaning: replay Gettysburgh, or Shiloh, or The Wilderness in either SP or MP mode). And last: an excellent PBEM game.

My only disappointment with this game?

The ACW only lasted 5 years and I IMPLORE you guys to apply this engine to additional conflicts so that we can explore them with a similarly beautiful and subtle game engine (Hundred Years War; Vietnam; The Korean Conflict; etc.)

Thanks for your post. We're certainly thinking of ways to use the engine for future products...