Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:15 pm**

What do you guys think? COG was a major frustration regarding the learning curve. That said, and having "had" experience with COG, is FOF easier to get into?
Does it work well enough to justify buying pre-patch? I no longer just jump in on a newly released Matrix game anymore, especially the first day[;)].

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:22 pm**

Not having played CoG, I can only answer from reading the manual and having watched the AAR's. I don't see any problem getting started in this game as long as you follow the progression from basic - intermediate - advanced. From what I have read I can compare this to the two Matrix games I have: much shallower learning curve than WitP, and only slightly steeper than CotA.

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:25 pm**

JUMP

yes it should be much easier to understand

plus, there is many more choices you can set if you want to play a basic game to learn and then advance as you go

which to be honest, from the beginning I played with almost all the bells and wistles turned on, and it is easy to understand and follow

(the resourse pages are much easier to follow and understand what you will be getting)

I started while it was still in alpha and thought it was great back then, and think it has gotten better all the way though testing

(in fact, now that the testing part should be finished until we get to work on the next phase, I started up a new game, just so I could "play" it)

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:27 pm**

England just declared war on me......[X(][X(].......hmmmm need to re-read the manual.......

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:29 pm**

As well they should bluebelly!

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:29 pm**

LOL

if your the Union, move some troops to the north, if your the CSA, man you in trouble

if your France, no biggy, the English don't like to land many troops

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:13 pm**

ORIGINAL: fabertong

England just declared war on me......[X(][X(].......hmmmm need to re-read the manual.......

I havent played much into 62 yet, but it seems awful easy for CSA to sway Europe and France and Britian. One way to slow them down is to emancipate, but be aware your going to be giving the South about 15 or more Brigades by doing that. ( 50 percent my arse LOL )

Even paying full out to sway England and France AND doing emancipation by Feb 62 ( in the Nov 61 start) one or both countries will have completely reverted to CSA favor. In other words with a 52 percent chance to sway them you still, in a matter of a couple months, lose 3 standing with them and usually CSA has one standing to their side.

Thats 100 money down the drain for almost no effect. Dont pay it and it is even worse.

Ignore Europe, just accept that they will give tons of crap to the CSA. But France and Britian you HAVE to try and sway, as I understand it, once the CSA gets 7 standing with them they declare war?

Personally I think this is way to generous to the CSA. It is bad enough for play balance that money wise and resource wise the North is barely better than the South. That simply is not historical. I can live with that, but the run away faction for Britian and france too?

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:14 pm**

I don't know....I'm still printing out the blasted manual. That's been 4 hours now!

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:42 pm**

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: fabertong

England just declared war on me......[X(][X(].......hmmmm need to re-read the manual.......

I havent played much into 62 yet, but it seems awful easy for CSA to sway Europe and France and Britian. One way to slow them down is to emancipate, but be aware your going to be giving the South about 15 or more Brigades by doing that. ( 50 percent my arse LOL )

Even paying full out to sway England and France AND doing emancipation by Feb 62 ( in the Nov 61 start) one or both countries will have completely reverted to CSA favor. In other words with a 52 percent chance to sway them you still, in a matter of a couple months, lose 3 standing with them and usually CSA has one standing to their side.

Thats 100 money down the drain for almost no effect. Dont pay it and it is even worse.

Ignore Europe, just accept that they will give tons of crap to the CSA. But France and Britian you HAVE to try and sway, as I understand it, once the CSA gets 7 standing with them they declare war?

Personally I think this is way to generous to the CSA. It is bad enough for play balance that money wise and resource wise the North is barely better than the South. That simply is not historical. I can live with that, but the run away faction for Britian and france too?

play the game, it swings back and forth, and the CSA needs to spend 150 to keep it up, and it is HARDer to get to higher levels then lower levels, I once had France at 6 for over a year, and never got them to go to 7

also, you mis see what is going to happen if and when you free the slaves, there is a chance for the CSA to gain troops, but the area has to first pass the die roll and second, needs to have the manpower to have troops, and since a number of the CSA Cities only have a 1 manpower to start with, they will never give up troops for this

build up your naval reseach and keep the runners down, and keep your Gov's happy and they will join the Diplo party and give you bonuses

in all my tests, I only had the English Join the war twice, and never got the French to

in my current game, I have pulled all my money to England out, just so I can build a troop of Inf before the spring comes

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:01 pm**

Then again

the Union just hit me

I picked up 12 troops

to one side, really bad timeing, the spring is coming, so I will gain alot of manpower back, on the other hand, it totally cripples me as far as the Diplo war goes (not to mention all the Job Wanted signs I am going to have to put up)

I have pulled all my money away from France and England

Posted: **Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:37 pm**

Salute Chaps,

a CoG to FoF comparison it is ?
I am as much in the "exploratory" phase as the next guy - first game in full Monty as "US" - but a few things are obvious to me:
a - The Manual.
First class act. All the statistics you may need - so far. And a clear picture of relationships. From unit statistics to "the works" of the economic system.
b - The components
The Military, the economy/building and deplomacy and their impact on the war are much better "connected" and driven much more by parameters (as opposed to dice or "luck") than in CoG. You just get a feeling of being in control, while in CoG "events" drive the game. Stuff in CoG like: You make war on a minor power, besiege a city and all of a sudden another power declares your intended victim a protectorate - like as Prussia you go for Mecklenburg, and all of a sudden Spain - no less - intervenes without any prior indications.
c - Economy/Building
Much more complex and fun because it takes planning. Things like: Your army in the field needs replacements. To come by reinforcements you need camps - which require a certain combination of commodities (money, horses etc.). If you need more reinforcements you can either build more camps - or build a "booster" structure in your province - a telegraph - to increase the yield of your camps in a province with camp(s). And the "booster" building needs a quite different mixture of commodities than the camps etc. Of course, if your planning is faulty, you just build a camp in city and you have exhausted the cities capacity to build more infrastructure, hence you may have to build a structure to increase the upgrade capacity of this city, before it can hold the booster. And there are a few relations of basic and booster buildings. Very cool.

d - Micro Management
Lots of it. And it looks like being worthwhile. Some with large and some with smaller impact. Like supplying your brigades whith men, weapons and supplies plus some additional "traits" and capabilities. But when battle is joined your generals - or your management of general officers - may have a huge say. Since before the battle takes place, the combination of generals traits and the "characteristics" of troops under their command will determine, which side has the choice of the battle field and/or may deploy its forces first. Lovely. That means: You may opt for more men or more "hardware" to bring to the battle - or better Generals, or both. An intriguing concept.

In short: The learning curve of FoF is way steeper - and longer - than in CoG. However, relationships of all factors are more logical, better explained - and more complex.
FoF is a quantum leap in comparison.

Cheers

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:18 am**

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Salute Chaps,

a CoG to FoF comparison it is ?
I am as much in the "exploratory" phase as the next guy - first game in full Monty as "US" - but a few things are obvious to me:
a - The Manual.
First class act. All the statistics you may need - so far. And a clear picture of relationships. From unit statistics to "the works" of the economic system.
b - The components
The Military, the economy/building and deplomacy and their impact on the war are much better "connected" and driven much more by parameters (as opposed to dice or "luck") than in CoG. You just get a feeling of being in control, while in CoG "events" drive the game. Stuff in CoG like: You make war on a minor power, besiege a city and all of a sudden another power declares your intended victim a protectorate - like as Prussia you go for Mecklenburg, and all of a sudden Spain - no less - intervenes without any prior indications.
c - Economy/Building
Much more complex and fun because it takes planning. Things like: Your army in the field needs replacements. To come by reinforcements you need camps - which require a certain combination of commodities (money, horses etc.). If you need more reinforcements you can either build more camps - or build a "booster" structure in your province - a telegraph - to increase the yield of your camps in a province with camp(s). And the "booster" building needs a quite different mixture of commodities than the camps etc. Of course, if your planning is faulty, you just build a camp in city and you have exhausted the cities capacity to build more infrastructure, hence you may have to build a structure to increase the upgrade capacity of this city, before it can hold the booster. And there are a few relations of basic and booster buildings. Very cool.

d - Micro Management
Lots of it. And it looks like being worthwhile. Some with large and some with smaller impact. Like supplying your brigades whith men, weapons and supplies plus some additional "traits" and capabilities. But when battle is joined your generals - or your management of general officers - may have a huge say. Since before the battle takes place, the combination of generals traits and the "characteristics" of troops under their command will determine, which side has the choice of the battle field and/or may deploy its forces first. Lovely. That means: You may opt for more men or more "hardware" to bring to the battle - or better Generals, or both. An intriguing concept.

In short: The learning curve of FoF is way steeper - and longer - than in CoG. However, relationships of all factors are more logical, better explained - and more complex.
FoF is a quantum leap in comparison.

Cheers

My take is slightly different. I think if you go straight into the Advanced game, then FoF and CoG are roughly equal in complexity (though in many subtle ways, the strategic options within FoF are deeper as you suggest). What makes FoF seem so overwhelming though is that there are only 2 sides. In CoG, you could choose a minor power such as Sweden and learn the game before attempting to play France. In FoF, there is no such option and you find yourself suddenly in command of an entire map's worth of troops with an almost endless array of options.

However, I think the Basic / Internediate / Advanced game options give an excellent avenue for learning the game in a controlled manner. And the more basic games are actually fun! You don't feel as though you are playing hald a game - it really is a fulfilling experience. As you master the game, you can proceed to the next level and you'll find that it isn't the same game with a few more choices to make - the strategies you were using won't work any more (before the entire dynamic of the game changes).

For those that really want to start with the basics, there is even a tutorial scenario that significantly limits the number of units on the board so you can learn the flow of the game without having to deal with so many units. That really is a great way to quickly learn how the turns progress and to learn the mechanics of the game without devoting so much time to each turn.

So, overall I find the complexity to be similar at the hardest levels. I agree that FoF has more strategic depth. But the mechanism for learning this game in chunks is not only different, but far better in my mind. Anyone complaining about complexity probably did not start with the Basic game. And for the reasons mentioned, it probably is best to start there for all but the most hard core grognards.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:41 am**

I went right to the Advanced game, and while I'm making mistakes, I still find it a lot more intuitive than CoG. Maybe it's because I know this conflict better, or because I've follow the AARs here more closely? But I think it's because this game is more accessible. I'm loving it.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:38 am**

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Personally I think this is way to generous to the CSA. It is bad enough for play balance that money wise and resource wise the North is barely better than the South. That simply is not historical. I can live with that, but the run away faction for Britian and france too?

I was saying this all of last week. Where were you then?

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:01 pm**

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Personally I think this is way to generous to the CSA. It is bad enough for play balance that money wise and resource wise the North is barely better than the South. That simply is not historical. I can live with that, but the run away faction for Britian and france too?

I was saying this all of last week. Where were you then?

You were? Really? I must have missed it.
[:D]

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:46 pm**

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

What do you guys think? COG was a major frustration regarding the learning curve. That said, and having "had" experience with COG, is FOF easier to get into?
Does it work well enough to justify buying pre-patch? I no longer just jump in on a newly released Matrix game anymore, especially the first day[;)].

I found cog to be real easy to get into and understand thus FOF is just as easy to me. It's just getting used to how the turn works and once that happens all the other stuff falls into place.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:11 pm**

Frankly I agree that we're too generous to the CSA's economy.  Our original economy, lovingly researched by Mr Z., was much more stringent for the South and a bit more generous for the North.  Play testers -- to a man -- hated it: they had all sorts of options and could barely afford to do more than one thing every three turns.  In response to this we scaled the economies a bit closer to parity and added some additional economic options, so players can increase or decrease the scale of either economy.  By adjusting these power settings before one plays he can effectively adjust the economies to have any relation he wants, and so those who enjoy playing a very impoverished CSA still can.

When we develop these games, we do consider them to be games first and not strict simulations (using the term in the strict mathematical sense), though we hope that for most people the simulation is a robust enough model.  I'm a mathematician / physicist by training; physicists use different models for the same thing based on what they are trying to do or know concerning that thing.  When they need to get a very detailed answer, they use a very detailed model; when the result they need does not need to be as detailed, they use a simpler model that is easier with which to work.  The canonical joke among physics students is the sentence (found in many physics tests) "Assume that Bob is a 1 meter radius sphere filled with water" -- this is actually a great approximation in many cases, though obviously it's terrible in others.  Anyway, the goal of Forge of Freedom is not to give detailed military answers to military planners, it's to provide an enjoyable experience to people who are interested in a manageable recreation of the Civil War.  As such, I don't believe that the model needs to have a very high threshold to meet this goal, and -- as I found with COG -- often the details of the model can make the game not enjoyable to players.  In COG, the equations for the economy were derived from my macroeconomics texts, and there are some people who appreciated that, but there were many, many more who found that level of detail completely unnecessary.

For what it's worth, we found with COG, is that before the game was released, most of the feedback we got was from people interested in the accuracy of the model, but that very shortly after the game was released there was much more feedback that was concerned with the enjoyability and playability of the game.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:20 pm**

What settings would you suggest to approximate the original economy?

Thanks

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:49 pm**

ORIGINAL: Concord Dan

What settings would you suggest to approximate the original economy?

I second the request...

Given that players can adjust the "power settings", ideally I think the default settings should be those that simulate reality as closely as feasible. Presumably people buy this game with the intention of simulating the real war (otherwise, there are hordes of other games out there).

However, I suppose it's not a big deal as long as we can simulate reality somehow.

The worry is if we can get a balanced game only by using unrealistic power settings. I may be wrong, but I don't think this should be necessary. In the real world, the CSA seemed to come fairly close at times to gaining its long-term independence; if it had sold its cotton when it had the chance, it would have had a better chance.

If you allow cotton sales and still need to handicap the North in some other way, I feel there must be some factor that isn't being simulated correctly. But I admit it's difficult to understand how the CSA did so well given all the disadvantages it suffered.

Posted: **Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:03 pm**

I don't know offhand which power settings are most accurate. Perhaps one of the testers might have looked into this.

But I do know that our decisions were not arbitrary: we went through months of play-testing, and many of the economic settings reflect what beta-testers, those noble tribunes of the plebs, told us would make for a better game. That said, it has always been our intention to make further tweaks in the economy once the game was out and we were receiving input on game-balance from hundreds of players rather than a dozen.

Matrix Games Forums

So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?

RE: So...is it easier to grasp than COG?