Matrix Games Forums

Though I only have AACW for now, I do own CoG and FoF seems to be it's big brother.
I, as a consumer, am happy to find that both titles on the civil war seem to offer up enough flexibility as to make just about any civil war fan content.
Both games seem solid and that's nothing more than a win win situation for all of us.

ORIGINAL: Walloc


FoF is WEGO, as ACW is.

I guess they must have stated it wrong on this page

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=333

If FoF is like CoG, it's more or less wego, your initial deployment orders can be affected by initiative, terrain and weather which is all unfolded during the reso phase of the game.

So I think basically what everyone is saying is if each game had a little bit of the other one they would be perfect.

I think FOF needs more detail with the map and units and AACW needs more detail with the battles.

ORIGINAL: general billy
I guess they must have stated it wrong on this page

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=333

Hm, I'll go fix that, thanks for the heads up.

Now that I have both the AACW and FOF , I can said this two games are very good thoguh FOF could do with more smaller scenario to ease newbie into the game [8D][8D]

ORIGINAL: heroes99

Now that I have both the AACW and FOF , I can said this two games are very good thoguh FOF could do with more smaller scenario to ease newbie into the game [8D][8D]

For FOF, the best training tool is to start with the Basic Game, then move to the Intermediate Game, and then to the Advanced or to your own personal selection of options. That way you are first introduced to how basically to play the game, then to one set of more advanced elements, and then to them all (or your own selected subset of them all).

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

ORIGINAL: heroes99

Now that I have both the AACW and FOF , I can said this two games are very good thoguh FOF could do with more smaller scenario to ease newbie into the game [8D][8D]

For FOF, the best training tool is to start with the Basic Game, then move to the Intermediate Game, and then to the Advanced or to your own personal selection of options. That way you are first introduced to how basically to play the game, then to one set of more advanced elements, and then to them all (or your own selected subset of them all).

But playing the whole campaign even on basic game will be overwhelming and the newbie will often left with no idea what to do first ?

It is better to have smaller scenario so that newbie can focus on much smaller objective and less things to do. Each time they lose the scenario , they will refer to the manual , learn something new , play again trying to win. Once they are comfortable , they can move on to a much larger scenario or repeat the same scenario with extra one or two advance rules .

To the points made by Missouri Rebel about FoF and AACW are well taken and perhaps it comes down to the kind of player you are because the 2 are very different.
The basic difference is that some players (like me) want to play a game within the frame work of history and be faced with the same kinds of problems that were there when it happened. AACW does this in a big way because it is much closer to the real events. I did not think I would like it because there was no tactical or even any real "I play the game and I want to fight the battles" kind of thinking. You did not haver exact control over what your generals would do or not do. You are forced to deal with the poor leadership just like history.
I also like AACW because it makes sense and I can handle the play of it much better than FoF, It also looks and feels like the civil war.


FoF on the other hand is a more total control "roll your own" type of game loosely based on the civil war. As a game I found it hard to understand in parts like the victory conditions and the production/economic parts were very hard for me to deal with.
One aspect of the movement just did not sink into my old brain. You moved your units and the game would put them there, so you could arrange leaders and what units went with what containers and then you watched the game move and things would be a total mess at the end of movement. You would have parts of containers all over the place. The only way i found I could do it was to move everybody to where I wanted them and THEN do the who goes where and who commands what and that could take some time.
I never have figured out how the victory conditions work in FoF. I was in Nashville with several armies with a total of 500K and sent one down the Mississippi and the rest into Virginia I saw my 17 pt. lead go down to about 5 at one point. I fought large battles and even when I won I never got more than 1 VP and if I lost my points and will to fight took a noise dive. Victory seemed to be tied to what the great powers thought which was random.
As for the combat well fighting a battle with 300K vs. 225K on the tactical map with each Brigade having no Div. or Corps leadership was not my idea of a civil war battle.
And lastly the companies who make the games. AGEOD is a very good company and keeps coming out with new patch's and will soon add a LAN game as well.
So in the end it just depends on what you like. I will play FoF in the future but I have to figure out how that game works and why no matter how many losses you inflict on the South even with just a few areas around Richmond they keep coming back full strength. Between Nashville and Richmond I captures at least 12 containers and at least 7 leaders but the Reb army never got much smaller. I will given some time learn to play FOF but not till I have had some fun with AACW.

In the end having 2 great Civil War games is really good so enjoy which ever you like.

Madgamer

AACW > FOF for me, to put it simply.
 
AACW is much more polished, accurate and historically "correct" than FOF.
 
Although i prefer detailed battles, the battle results in AACW are compiled very good, and the background computing seems pretty correct to me, another plus is that you dont have AI opponents in the computing but you have in tactical battles, and as far as i observed for FOF, goes the same as for COG : If you want to win the game, play tactical battles (include moving armies and pulling the dumb AI into the offensive for getting the defensive bonus, FOF battles are rather gamey and exploitable, even good old "civil war generals" does it better).
The strategic AI seems flawed too, 500k union soldiers not attacking my measly 50 k defenders in richmond....
 
FOF seems replaceable, the ACW background exchangeable, there is no atmosphere like in AACW.
I discarded FOF pretty fast, the potential of FOF is very good, but it it doesnt reach its potential (yet), AACW i liked from the first turn on.

One thing I'll note here is that FOF on release was more focused on a balanced rather than necessarily strict historical game. Although it included a historical July scenario, the standard scenario started in November and took some liberties with force and economic balance. In hindsight, that was probably not the best call and left a lot of folks with the impression that the game was not historical enough. Anyway, I've seen a lot of commentary since that seems based only on that first version of the game.

However, since release each update has progressively improved that - now there are two strictly historical scenarios with both historical force and economic balances and each has been improved again for the next update. In addition, the historical units and historical biographies for the generals of each side have been further expanded, etc.

I enjoy both AACW and FOF (as I've posted before) and I think both are essential to any ACW gamer's library, but I would encourage those who played the original FOF as released but haven't tried the latest FOF updates to also give it a second look at some point in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

So Erik, when will we be able to try the third Matrix published ACW game? [:D]

Hehe, well this year for sure but I can't get more specific than that yet. It's coming along very nicely though. [8D]

I am not sure about this but I hear Gary Grigsby ACW will be coming out ? It is based on World at War Engine ..this will be a must buy for me !!!

For me too. This AACW thing is too detailed for the few hours I can spend on playing! [;)]. Will I be able to play GG ACW without doing the tutorial nor the manual, as 90% of the players do (not...) [:D]

I always find it funny how these things go in cycles.  No strategic CW games for ages and then boom, boom, boom!  Can't you game designers get together and like, anti-coordinate or something!   

ORIGINAL: Pocus

For me too. This AACW thing is too detailed for the few hours I can spend on playing! [;)]. Will I be able to play GG ACW without doing the tutorial nor the manual, as 90% of the players do (not...) [:D]

Hmm..so should we suppose Gary Grigsby is a now making simpler games so that he can play them more ? Sure he hadn't much time to play WitP ... [:D]

Congratz...I admire anyone who has the personal will to actually play WitP with another human person. I love that game but I can barely
beat the computer. Maybe one of these days I will get a handle on that game and try playing with another person.

Madgamer

I disagree with this statement. The first thing I look for in any game is what I call flow. How do the various parts and actions of the player and the game seem to fit together.
On this basis AACW comes out on top because no matter how you feel about the game it does play very smooth and the AI is always doing something different. To say that each needs a bit of the other to me is totally wrong. If I want a more civ like game with a tactical feel in the battles then I play FoF. If I want a more strategic feel where I give the orders and see what happens then I play AACW. The one thing I don't want is total control that is the ability to do everything in a game. AACW puts you at the top of the command chain and you give orders and plan moves you never quite know the out come. I do not need the detailed combat to feel like the civil war period. I also do not need the ability to produce every little item as in FoF. For me AACW gives me more of a feeling that I am dealing with the same problems of the real war and FoF with its "Roll Your Own" approach with being able to choose your own rules at times gives me the feeling that I am fighting the civil war BUT I am not within the framework of the civil war. AACW for me is much more the latter and FOf more the former.
All in all however I like them both and feel that both will be improved with time. Which I play depends on my mood. Each game has its own look which will improve but not change the basic way each game chooses to portray the civil war. AACW will always be more strategic and FoF more operational (tactical), but to each his own...I like them both

Madgamer

Yeah I pretty much agree to what you are saying. I have spent a lot of hours playing FoF when I wrote the post you are replying to. I think,like you, that FoF will get better with time.
I have now been playing AACW for awhile and it is very nice. I have hopes for FoF but it will take some time. You put it much better in your post than I.

Madgamer