Matrix Games Forums

Anyone remember this game, from about 1995?
Man I thought it was the best game ever, but it always crashed halfway throught the campaign.
No patches ever came out for it, so I eventually abandoned it.
But it is obvious someone at Matrix liked it also.
Several features from that game are VERY similar to FOF, especially the upgrade of weapons.

BUT, the good thing in that game is you could also DOWNGRADE weapons also. So if had one unit with muskets and one with Henry rifles, then you could take the Henrys away from the units and reissue them Springfields, that would give you back the extra money from those expensive rifles, which you could then spend buying Springfields for the other unit so they would both be equal.

I think FOF should have the same thing. Sometimes there are terrible units with good weapons, and I want to downgrade them to muskets, but I can't. That would give me back some "gun" resources which I could then spend on other units who deserve an upgrade.

JIM

The same occured to me, but I never got around to posting it.

Hey jsaurman, why don't you re-post in the wish list if you haven't already. This is one I would like to see also.

I have a copy, although I've never played it. (I sort of collect games and one of my family members gave me a copy they picked up somewhere when they heard I was making a civil war game.)

I'd be happy to sell it, if anyone was interested. Has CD, manual and reference card.

ORIGINAL: pixelpusher

I have a copy, although I've never played it. (I sort of collect games and one of my family members gave me a copy they picked up somewhere when they heard I was making a civil war game.)

I'd be happy to sell it, if anyone was interested. Has CD, manual and reference card.

Emphasis added. And you call yourself a collector... did you mean to say dealer? [:D]

The reason i do not like this idea is it will allow players to use sharps in a battle out west and then next turn ship the sharps to another unit out east getting ready to do battle.

That's a good thought, bird. Perhaps be able to downgrade weapons, but not recoup 100% of the cost? So if it were REALLY important to you to swap weapons around, you could...but it would not be 'free'.

ORIGINAL: regularbird

The reason i do not like this idea is it will allow players to use sharps in a battle out west and then next turn ship the sharps to another unit out east getting ready to do battle.

I think instead of a routing unit dropping its weapons and another unit picking them up, you should just get an amount of weapons supply based on the routing units that you can spend at your liesure.  I find it kind of silly that an entire brigade would drop its weapons all at once unless they were to surrender.

not as suprising as you would think, a truly routed unit has only one thought, run.  Drop that heavy rifle because you have no intent to use it.   In game not every routed unit drops its weapons, im not sure of the math the game uses but it seems only when you have allot of men running do you get weapon drops.   So to represent all the weapons drooped one or two brigades, have not seen three yet, lose there weapons and are downgraded to junk. 
 
To be honest any battle where you hold the field and the enemy took say 10k casualties, you would salvage 8k or so rifles.   You could translate that into 40 weapons and spend as you wish, shrug.   But, big but, salvaged weapons were taken by the units that did the deads so to speak, and they didnt like giving what they considered there spoils.  So if they found better weapons they kept em.

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

But it is obvious someone at Matrix liked it also.
Several features from that game are VERY similar to FOF, especially the upgrade of weapons.

Believe it or not, we came up with the system of upgrading weapons on our own. I know that I've never played the game, and am pretty sure that Eric and Mr. Z haven't. And Pixelpusher is obviously keeping his copy in "mint" condition so that he can command the highest price on E-Bay...

ORIGINAL: Malagant
Perhaps be able to downgrade weapons, but not recoup 100% of the cost? So if it were REALLY important to you to swap weapons around, you could...but it would not be 'free'.

I agree, maybe get back 75 percent of the weapon value plus lose .25 disposition on that unit. That sound about right?

That accounts for the cost to crate up all the weapons and ship them back to the armory, then the cost of the armory to ship them to the new unit.
Plus the unit you took the good weapons away from will be pissed off for a while, so that lowers their dispostion a bit.

JIM

ORIGINAL: Gil R.


Believe it or not, we came up with the system of upgrading weapons on our own.

Well I hope you get to play a copy of the game sometime, you will be amazed at how similar the weapons upgrade looks!
Also the way the tactical battles look is VERY similar also.
I'm surprised you didn't try out all the Civil War games that came before, each one had at least one good idea you could have "borrowed"!

Whoops, did I say that? Heaven forbid, I'm certain no game designer would ever borrow any ideas from a previous game put out by someone else, whatever was I thinking? [:)]

JIM

I'm not sure how necessary this is. If you're buying good weapons, you're first going to buy them for your best brigades. So the only way a lesser brigade would get them would be if it picks them up on the battlefield, which sometimes does happen. If so, that unit instantly becomes more effective, so why not buy it an attribute (Zouaves, Medical) to make it even more dangerous in battle, so that after a few battles its quality will have gone up?

And I don't think units should be able to swap their weapons in a single turn. As jsaurman righly indicates, there would be all sorts of bureaucracy involved back then, so whenever a unit wants to turn in its weapons they shouldn't go right away into the hands of a nearby unit, but instead should go through the quartermaster's system.

This would only be necessary at the very beginning of the game, when a lot of units have "improvised" weaponry.   I might want to downgrade several units that have springfields, give them minies, and try to get everyone on the roster up to at least muskets. 
 
After the economy starts to roll, this isn't an issue, but it is a big issue for me at the beginning.  I can't in good conscience send troops into battle armed with only sabers and pistols.
 
JIM

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

This would only be necessary at the very beginning of the game, when a lot of units have "improvised" weaponry. I might want to downgrade several units that have springfields, give them minies, and try to get everyone on the roster up to at least muskets.

After the economy starts to roll, this isn't an issue, but it is a big issue for me at the beginning. I can't in good conscience send troops into battle armed with only sabers and pistols.

JIM

You're talking about the weapons that are in the hands of particular troops when the game begins? I wonder if we could add some code that automatically gives the best weapons to the units with the highest quality. Would that appeal to people? It would seem to solve your problem without the (more complicated) process of coding the game to allow weapons transfers.

You should build a start of game quartermaster (sort of a one time thing) and let us decide who gets what. This could add variety to PBEM games where one wouldn't really know where the power might be. Adds more fow to the initial start of the game I think.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

You should build a start of game quartermaster (sort of a one time thing) and let us decide who gets what. This could add variety to PBEM games where one wouldn't really know where the power might be. Adds more fow to the initial start of the game I think.

I have no idea how easy that would be to program, but please add it to the Wish List.