WHERE IS THE ENEMY IN DETAILED COMBAT???

[XLegion]

I am fooling around with this game trying to learn it. I must say it is a completely frustrating experience and I'm already thinking of getting rid of it.

I finally got into a "detailed combat" called the Battle of Osage or something like that and nowhere on the board do I see the enemy. I have no idea what direction they are coming from and all I find myself doing is moving all over the board just looking for the enemy.

This seems completely ridiculous. Armies moving on the strategic level have at the very least an idea of what direction the enemy could come.

What is going on here? I am playing the Confederate and there isn't a yank in sight although the computer warned me the battle would contain at least 4000 men to 1000 men.

I'm getting ready to give up on this one already. I wanted a strategy game on the American Civil War but this one seems a complete mess. It's like it's a 'city building game' meets 'tactical game' meets 'Strategy game' and does not seem to succeed at anything.

I am extremely disappointed in this product and if I knew then what I did now I would not have purchased it.

xlegion

[Gil R.]

This is all easily explained. If you're fighting in Osage early in the game, and have 4K vs. 1K, then you're talking about two brigades trying to find each other on a massive map. This will take time. To be honest, detailed battle really isn't intended to be used for brigade vs. brigade match-ups -- fight those in quick combat. Detailed battle should involve much larger forces. That will be far more fun, and it will be far easier to find the enemy.

Also, if you are playing with the "Far Start" option toggled on, then your forces will always start much farther apart from each other -- which is good if you want time to set up before a battle.

Obviously, I'm part of the development team and therefore biased, so perhaps someone else can chime in and urge you to give FOF more time. I only wanted to point out that you were making an error trying to fight a detailed battle involving only two units.

Before giving up, why not force some battles out east, between the ANV and AoP?

[Gil R.]

P.S. Go look at Hard Sarge's "AAR III" in the AAR area and you'll see what detailed battle is meant for -- battles involving tens of thousands, not a total of 5000.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: XLegion

This seems completely ridiculous. Armies moving on the strategic level have at the very least an idea of what direction the enemy could come.

One final point. In detailed battle armies always start off at roughly opposite sides of the map (one upper-right, the other lower-left), so one always has a general idea of which direction to strike off in.

But a key factor is whether one is attacking or defending -- if defending, then stay where you should (e.g., defending a victory hex), but if attacking, then look for the enemy (who is most likely to be in or near a victory hex).

[Alan_Bernardo]

ORIGINAL: XLegion


What is going on here? I am playing the Confederate and there isn't a yank in sight although the computer warned me the battle would contain at least 4000 men to 1000 men.

I'm getting ready to give up on this one already. I wanted a strategy game on the American Civil War but this one seems a complete mess. It's like it's a 'city building game' meets 'tactical game' meets 'Strategy game' and does not seem to succeed at anything.

I am extremely disappointed in this product and if I knew then what I did now I would not have purchased it.

xlegion

This is a bit of an extreme opinion, wanting to give up on a game which you're not playing in the way it was intended. Such small battles are better played using quick combat: reading the manual would have told you as much.

It's like you've purchased a car, and want to return it because it doesn't run on diesel.


Alanb

[Hard Sarge]

give em a break, if he wants to start out detail battles small, it is his choice

(there is no right or wrong on how you want to play)

I have fought some pretty bigs ones and also some pretty small ones, and I will admit, it can be HARD to find the other side when they don't want to be found, it is really much easier when they want to be found !

[Alan_Bernardo]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

give em a break, if he wants to start out detail battles small, it is his choice

(there is no right or wrong on how you want to play)

I have fought some pretty bigs ones and also some pretty small ones, and I will admit, it can be HARD to find the other side when they don't want to be found, it is really much easier when they want to be found !

Kind sir, I am giving him a break. I never said that he could not use detailed battles. I said that if he uses them under circumstances not intended then he shouldn't expect something different. The game was not made to play detailed battles with small forces-- that is clear enough. If someone decides to do so, then they should know what to expect. And when a person gets what was expected, to complain about wanting something else is absurd.

I found the guy's post totally insulting; and not being in any way affiliated with Matrix Games or Forge of Freedom, my reply doesn't have to be tempered.


Alanb

[Gandalftheredskin]

Well, as someone who has yet to purchase the game, but was planning to as soon as the first inevitable patch is released, the ability to fight every battle is important to me, at least in the beginning stages of learning the game. In most games of this nature, I've found that the smaller battles are excellent for learning the ropes.

In that vein, I appreciate Sarge's response as opposed to the preceding post quite a bit. From my viewpoint, there was nothing insulting in the OP, merely the opinion of a frustrated gamer.

[Gil R.]

Sure, but a battle in which one brigade squares off against another is going to be a disappointment for 99% of the people playing. You really do want more than two units in a detailed battle.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: XLegion

This seems completely ridiculous. Armies moving on the strategic level have at the very least an idea of what direction the enemy could come.

The same sort of idea you would get if you had read the manual, maybe (p.115 & 119)? With those size of forces that's a very debatable statement, anyway. As has been said, the tactical engine wasn't designed for what amounts to little more than a skirmish.

I'm getting ready to give up on this one already. I wanted a strategy game on the American Civil War but this one seems a complete mess. It's like it's a 'city building game' meets 'tactical game' meets 'Strategy game' and does not seem to succeed at anything.

Actually it succeeds very well at just about everything, but like all good strategy games it needs just a little effort on the part of the player to get to grips with it.

[Gandalftheredskin]

Sure, but a battle in which one brigade squares off against another is going to be a disappointment for 99% of the people playing. You really do want more than two units in a detailed battle.

Sure, and I hear ya Gil, after I get the basics down I'm sure I'll bypass the majority of the smaller battles myself. Merely noting that some may like the ability to fight them.

As Sarge noted, and as I've found over 40+ years of gaming, and would hope is the case with FoF, there is rarely a right or wrong way to play a game, as long as it's fun.

BTW, I've been lurking these forums since the original WaW, so feel like I already know some of you lot, pleased to "meet" y'all.

[ericbabe]

One thing I regret we didn't have more time for was to add more options to make Basic/Intermediate versions of detailed combat.  (The options take a lot of work.)  For instance, it would have been nice to have a Basic version of detailed combat where there is no FOW, so players can get used to where the setup areas are.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: XLegion
...I wanted a strategy game on the American Civil War but this one seems a complete mess.

...and does not seem to succeed at anything.

I am extremely disappointed in this product and if I knew then what I did now I would not have purchased it.

I find those comments a little insulting...and I'm not one of the developers. It seems to me he hasn't read the manual (ok...not everyones cup of tea to do so) and jumped in here and has been a little insulting.

I haven't read the manual either...and I too had a battle experience the other day with very few units....prob the same as him...maybe even the same battle....I found it frustrating not knowing what to do...but then I hadn't read the manual either...so I didn't need to, nor want to, come on here insulting the developers because of something I couldn't understand.

So exactly the same thing happened to me, and I persevered...but more than that, I didn't choose to tell everyone how crap the game was and how I wished I had saved my money! Purely because I knew I had not read the manual or taken enough time to learn the game!

[moose1999]

How about the option to choose near/normal/far start with each different battle?
That would solve the problem and make small battles more doable.
I know I would very much appreciate such a feature, although I'm having no problems with the way the battles work now.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

How about the option to choose near/normal/far start with each different battle?
That would solve the problem and make small battles more doable.
I know I would very much appreciate such a feature, although I'm having no problems with the way the battles work now.

I don't know whether it's possible, but please put this in the Wish List thread. Thanks!

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Sure, but a battle in which one brigade squares off against another is going to be a disappointment for 99% of the people playing. You really do want more than two units in a detailed battle.

[X(]I love them all...small or large...it's just damn fun!

[Gil R.]

Okay, here's my formal challenge to the forum: someone should play a detailed battle involving a total of 5000 men (most likely two brigades) and post an AAR that disproves my theory that such battles won't be all that exciting... unlike this... .