Weapons

[Hard Sarge]

Buzzing, Hmmm
 
maybe if the gag order was lifted a bit, there could be some buzzing made
 
oops, got to duck, I feel a hammer coming
 
 
 

[Gil R.]

Lava, you were by no means the only one with such a reaction, which is why we've made most of the complex features optional. That way, people can play a very simple game in which they don't have to worry about supply rules, meddling governors, influence of population on production, etc., or they can play a game that is far more complex by turning on all of the advanced options (which is what Marecone and countless others prefer).

Once we've locked the code I plan to post a screenshot of the options screen so that everyone can see the full range of options. I think you'll see that pretty much everyone will find a way of playing the game that's right for them.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I think you'll see that pretty much everyone will find a way of playing the game that's right for them.

And that will be very Kewl!

Thanks for your patience in answering my questions. You know, it could turn out that if folks end up liking FoF, they just might then try CoG.

Anyway.. thanks again.

Ray (alias Lava)

[ezzler]

As someone else who never really enjoyed COG for various reasons I would really like to know the main differences between COg and FOF FOf . If FOF is just a Civil war CoG then I think I'll pass , however if as it seems there are significant differences then I'm sure that it will be worth a look. I always felt that I was playing more as a group of Joined provinces than as a nation in CoG { a bit like all the Universalis series .. } and hope that this won't be the case again 

[Gil R.]

ezz,
FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game.

Since many of these changes have been discussed in other threads, you should first look through those and then see if you have questions -- it would take a very, very long time for me to type up a detailed description of how the games are different. Overall, I'll state that the economic system is much simplified, diplomacy is minimized (since it wasn't as essential in the Civil War as the Napoleonic wars), trade is likewise minimized, and, most importantly (and obviously), there are only two sides to the fight.

I think it would be impossible to play FOF and not be reminded of COG, but I also think it would be impossible to play FOF and see no differences from COG.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ezz,
FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game.

My opinion - like some others, COG didn't succeed in obsessing me for the stated reasons. Great game, lots of potential, but there was a feeling of unneeded complexity for me.

That said, the thing that I absolutely loved about COG was the detailed battle interface. If that's in FoF, even if unchanged, it will make this my Dream Game of the Decade. I love the sound of the other changes mentioned, but it's the Detailed Battle interface that has me really salivating.

[pixelpusher]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
state that the economic system is much simplified, diplomacy is minimized (since it wasn't as essential in the Civil War as the Napoleonic wars), trade is likewise minimized, and, most importantly (and obviously), there are only two sides to the fight.

I'd say dealing with the state governors is sort of like diplomacy. But you can deal with that at your chosen level of complexity / micromanagment.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ezz,
FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game.

My opinion - like some others, COG didn't succeed in obsessing me for the stated reasons. Great game, lots of potential, but there was a feeling of unneeded complexity for me.

That said, the thing that I absolutely loved about COG was the detailed battle interface. If that's in FoF, even if unchanged, it will make this my Dream Game of the Decade. I love the sound of the other changes mentioned, but it's the Detailed Battle interface that has me really salivating.

Oldguard,
Any changes to the detailed battle interface are improvements. Many are based on suggestions for COG from the forum that would be too difficult to implement (in the very near future, at least), and others are changes that stem from the nature of combat in the two wars being somewhat different (e.g., we now have an "Entrench" button that lets infantry units dig hasty entrenchments, something that became routing in the Civil War beginning in 1862).

Drink a lot of fluids so that all that salivating doesn't make you become dehydrated.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ezz,
FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game.

Since many of these changes have been discussed in other threads, you should first look through those and then see if you have questions -- it would take a very, very long time for me to type up a detailed description of how the games are different. Overall, I'll state that the economic system is much simplified, diplomacy is minimized (since it wasn't as essential in the Civil War as the Napoleonic wars), trade is likewise minimized, and, most importantly (and obviously), there are only two sides to the fight.

I think it would be impossible to play FOF and not be reminded of COG, but I also think it would be impossible to play FOF and see no differences from COG.

I do hope one of the differences in detailed battles is the AI. Even with the improvements you've made, it's pretty easy to manhandle the AI. I'd be disappointed if I could defeat it so readily again if I played this game.

[Gil R.]

If you don't find the AI challenging enough one solution might be to drink several beers before you start playing...

But seriously, there have been changes to the AI, but I'm not competent to discuss them, since I don't do any of the programming.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

If you don't find the AI challenging enough one solution might be to drink several beers before you start playing...

But seriously, there have been changes to the AI, but I'm not competent to discuss them, since I don't do any of the programming.

ROFL

But I play it so often that would probably turn me into an alcoholic! [:D]

[dh76513]

• Mortars
Mortars were short-barrelled pieces, mostly smoothbore, which fired a shell with a small powder charge at a steep elevation. Shells were usually grapeshot or hollow shells set off by percussion or timed fuses.
• Howitzers
Howitzers fired large projectiles at higher elevations than guns, but lower than mortars.
• Smoothbores
Smoothbores were standard guns at the start of the war, but they were soon outdated by the invention of rifled guns, which added spin to the projectile, creating a longer range.
• Columbiads
Columbiads were large caliber smoothbores which fired a large projectile at high elevation over a great distance.
• Parrott Rifles
Parrott Rifles, as the name implies, were rifled guns made of iron with a strap of wrought iron wrapped around the breech. These guns unfortunately had a tendency to burst at the muzzle.
• Whistling Dick
One of the most famous gun of the war was "Whistling Dick", a banded and rifled 18-pounder Confederate siege and garrison weapon. "Whistling Dick" began life as a iron smoothbore Model 1839 which had been rifled. Because of some erratic rifling all shells fired from the gun made a peculiar whistling sound, thus the name "Whistling Dick." The gun was part of the river defenses at Vicksburg, Mississippi in 1863, and is credited with the sinking of the Union gunboat Cincinnati. "Whistling Dick" disappeared after the surrender of Vicksburg and remains unaccounted for today.
• Brooke Rifles
Brooke rifles were essentially a Confederate version of the Parrott gun. However, the Brooke rifle might have 1, 2 or 3 wrought iron bands around the cast iron breech.
• Dahlgrens
Admiral John A. Dahlgren designed many types of naval guns for use in the war. Of the heavy variety were his large caliber smoothbore shellguns, two of which were the only armament of the Monitor.
• Whitworth Rifles
Due to the lack of sufficient foundries, the Confederacy had to rely on imported guns, run through the blockade, for many of its heavy varieties of guns. The Whitworth rifle could fire a hexagonal bolt nearly 10,000 yards.
• Blakely Rifles
Another import, Blakely rifles came in various calibers with barrells made of cast iron strengthened with steel.