Vista

[pzpat]

No one seems to have mentioned this so far, so I will. Loaded FOF from disk to my new Dell with Vista, no problems, although the computer said it didn't recognize the second disk. Pushed all the buttons I could find and nothing worked, and when I closed them all the computer said it was finished installing the second disk.
I downloaded 1.94 at work (using XP) onto my flash drive, took it home and it installed just fine.
BIG difference from 1.23. In that, after some DESPERATE fighting I routed a federal force almost twice as large as mine (in HW--what does that stand for?). In 1.94, As the Confederates when I volley I take more casualites from counter-volley fire than I cause. This in Nov. 1861. I'm wondering if troop quality should be given more consideration in this area.
In my first 1.94 game, on turn 1 the Union attacked in the West. In that province we each had about 9,000 troops, so I was looking forward to the battle. Imagine my shock when only one of my divisions appeared on the map (no corps containers for the South in the West on turn 1). They were sliced and diced pretty quickly. I was not allowed to ask for reinforcements, perhaps because the other troops were in the same province, not an adjoining one. Is that a bug? Then the AoP attacked the ANV. I had lost 2 detailed battles by then so I did a quick one. I lost that, too, suffering 1,400 casualties to the North's 900+ (seemed pretty bloodless for such a large engagement). The computer recorded all battles, even the one involving over 165,000 troops, as small battles.
In the second 1.94 game I did the small battles in the West and West VA instantaneously and lost both, so I decided this time I would fight the AoP-ANV myself. The AOP attacked and I (as the defender) formed battle lines. It couldn't go around my right because I anchored it on the edge of the map. When the initial attacks were repulsed (mostly) I found myself attacking through the end of the day and all night. It seemed the computer would only approach me if it sensed a tactical advantage, rather than trying to make one. Most of the way through the battle my casualties were higher than the computer's. Was this done to make the computer a stronger player? Even the green Union brigades that were surrounded and out of supply were inflicting more casualties per shot than my regular and seasoned troops. Didn't seem right. Even counting the four Union brigades that surrendered to me I had 11,700 casualties compared to 11,100 or so. And even though I had the field and the captured brigades I didn't recover any Yankee weapons, no Yankee units lost supply, and at the end of the turn none of my brigades anywhere had learned anything from anybody.
Lastly, unless I think of something else quickly, my supply wagons refused to resupply some of my troops. One wagon was labeled "Supply," with no unit designation, and still refused to supply some troops that were right next to it. Is that a bug? Sorry, don't mean to whine.
Oh, and, 2 Union generals surrendered with their brigages. Are surrendered generals paroled in the early part of the war, or are they out of the game for good?
These forums still need a spellcheck.

[dude]

HW = hex war.... ie Detailed Combat.

[Erik Rutins]

pzpat,

If you have questions about how detailed combat is working, you can in the update turn on the new Attack Report in the advanced options to see how it is calculating casualties and morale loss.

Thank you for the report.

Regards,

- Erik

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: pzpat
Lastly, unless I think of something else quickly, my supply wagons refused to resupply some of my troops. One wagon was labeled "Supply," with no unit designation, and still refused to supply some troops that were right next to it. Is that a bug? Sorry, don't mean to whine.
Oh, and, 2 Union generals surrendered with their brigages. Are surrendered generals paroled in the early part of the war, or are they out of the game for good?

Were those units that could not be supplied shaken or disorganized? Supply units cannot resupply units that in which discipline has broken down.

Once generals are gone, they're gone. To have a system for exchanging captured generals would have required an awful lot of work for something that wouldn't add a great deal of fun.

[christof139]

Some of my Generals get gone for good, they get killed the dummies. Poor Generals.

However, they only get killed or captured, yes, they do get captured because generals do surrender in the game, every now and then, which overall this is a real nice aspect of the game.

perhaps we could have captured General and troop exchanges in the future?? [:)]

Chris

[ericbabe]

Did the enemy execute a Feint at the start of battle as one of the scouting options?  That causes some of your units not to appear in detailed battle right away.


"HW" is the development name for "detailed battle", and does stand for "hex war" -- though we don't actually call it this in the manual.  "HW" : "detailed battle" :: "Longhorn" : "Vista". [:)]

[pzpat]

The units that could not be resupplied may have been pinned by fire, shaken and/or disorganized (but they weren't routed). 
     And, for that battle I was given a scouting option, so I chose to see where the Union was.  In an earlier battle I started in the middle and had no idea where to go to find the enemy, and had to send my units in different directions piecemeal.  Not an enviable situation.
     I also noticed that my division commanders chose to ride with their cavalry brigades.  Might have been more fun for them, but the infantry was more heavily engaged and could have used the help.  Hard Sarge has the right idea in separating the cavalry.  The downside is that with heavier engagement general officer casualties should go up markedly.  In that battle the only officers killed were Beauregard and some Union one-star I never heard of before (named White).

[Ironclad]

You can reassign generals in detailed battle to any other infantry/cavalry unit (or even supply caisson) that doesn't have a general with it. To transfer a general from the currently selected unit, put the cursor over the receiving unit and press G.

[pzpat]

I'll try it tonight.  Actually, I can hardly wait.[:D][:D]

[christof139]

Did the enemy execute a Feint at the start of battle as one of the scouting options? That causes some of your units not to appear in detailed battle right away.


"HW" is the development name for "detailed battle", and does stand for "hex war" -- though we don't actually call it this in the manual. "HW" : "detailed battle" :: "Longhorn" : "Vista".

Mmmmm, I know. HS told me what HW meant awhile back. I have been playing HW's, but under 30,000 troops per side. Somethings I like and somethings I don't. I am an old TalsonSoft player, and forever will think that style of play, mechanics and format, along with Steel Panthers etc. is the best and most realistic looking for the computer monitor screen.

I can see a FoF campaign lasting 1 year if one were to play all HW's!!!!

Chris

[pzpat]

I remember playing Steel Panthers 1.0 from SSI.  It has ever since then been my favorite computer game.  I play campaign games as the Germans and fight the Russians the the earliest (and every) opportunity.
  
But back to FOF.  I get more adrenalin from playing the HW battles than from all the other aspects of the game put together, and I recommend HW for the larger battles.  It makes you feel more like a real general.  And, using HW for the smaller battles is more like chess.  If you make one mistake you can lose the whole thing.  Using HW for larger battles is more like go, in which you can lose in some areas but win in others, and hopefully overcome your mistakes and get an overall victory.

[sadja]

I have posted that I don't do as many games because I do detailed battles all the time. I love the tension. Some times I do better with small detailed battles if I'm the defender. In quick battles it is mostly about quality and numbers. In HW if you have fewer units and get into a building, you may survive if he doesn't have artillery or you only have Improvised weapons. If you have shooters with a decent ranged weapon and skirmish or urban warfare upgrade you can be a tough nut to crack[:D]. If you have improvised weapons AI can and does [;)]stand off and bang at you out of your range even with muskets.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: pzpat
But back to FOF. I get more adrenalin from playing the HW battles than from all the other aspects of the game put together, and I recommend HW for the larger battles. It makes you feel more like a real general. And, using HW for the smaller battles is more like chess. If you make one mistake you can lose the whole thing. Using HW for larger battles is more like go, in which you can lose in some areas but win in others, and hopefully overcome your mistakes and get an overall victory.

Just wanted to quote this so Hard Sarge sees that I'm not the only one who compares detailed combat to go [:D]

[christof139]

One thing I noticed in HW's is that the Arty. does not seem to have the correct range in scale when compared to small arms.

What is the approximate scale per hex in HW's??? In the TalonSoft games it was about 125-yards per hex.

I don't get any adrenalin rushes from playing computer games!! What I do get is enjoyment from playing a game, chess with eye-candy more or less. Plus I like modding/making accurate OOB's and weapons types and sprites and unit icons etc.

Chris