Matrix Games Forums

http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?opti ... m=&aid=181

I waited a year because a game this deep and constantly enhanced deserves a thorough reveiw.

Jim:

Good review. You are right about the game giving you a canvas and paint and leaving so much up to the gamer.

I believe, however, that this arrangement succeeds (at least in part) because: (a) gamers (or most) are familiar with the historical struggle and know how to proceed historically; and (b) the historical strategies are, in somewhat limited and/or pre-determined (e.g. modified Anaconda Plan).

The developers have tweaked the game so that, while same is open ended, the North (gamer or AI) will, and should employ a somewhat historical military strategy. The South will respond to the same, more or less historically. And, to top all of the foregoing (and possiby as a result of the foregoing) the results of a typical game will be, more or less, historical. Combine this with interesting "strategic" choices (production, development, command and organization) and very entertaining detailed combat and you have a masterpiece.

True, but FoF teaches players why the war was fought the way it was. The North can't be a steamroller untill the right resources are developed. Valdemer makes a great case for what the South could and should have done.I'm not sure that the historical results is aa foregone conclusion givem players of equal ability.

Jim, thank you for the excellent review. Since this will probably be the last review of FOF (until the next FOF-related product), it's great to end our series of reviews in an especially high note.

My honor and pleasure!

I especially like the line about the contribution of the "cadre of erudite gamers." I took it quite personally, thank you.

I have my moments.

Nice intro: I could relate to it as I have played both PG and BoA.

Does FoF beat-out ACW? I don't know about the Grigsby CW title as it's still in development.

I'm currently (still) waiting for my boxed FoF to arrive, but 'til it does, I'll just keep following this forum.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Nice intro: I could relate to it as I have played both PG and BoA.

Does FoF beat-out ACW? I don't know about the Grigsby CW title as it's still in development.

I'm currently (still) waiting for my boxed FoF to arrive, but 'til it does, I'll just keep following this forum.

Neither beats out the other; they each have different scopes. FoF is more infrastructure; ACW has more military. ACW probably plays faster. My choice depends on the mood I'm in.

I've never been able to get into ACW.
On the surface it's got a lot of the things I usually wish for in a war-game - and it's all wrapped in (for this genre) completely wonderful graphics.
But while I've truly been impressed by the apparent depth and the sweet graphics of ACW all the three times I tried to get started with it, my gaming experience and enjoyment comes to an almost complete halt at the first major battle I have.
The battles (or lack of them) just feel like such a let down - especially as everything else feels so great.
I just can't get past how unsatisfying the battles are presented.
I'm sure lot's of complicated and deep things are going on underneath the bleak battle-screen, but knowing that is not enough to comfort me.
It's just not my kind of game.
Being able to see all your choices and preparations in the strategic mode play out graphically and tactically on the battlefield, which, for me, is what FOF most fundamentally provides, is such a satisfying experience, that I just can't seem to do without it now.
I can say with all certainty, that FOF has ruined all AGEOD games for me for ever. Or at least untill they add some kind of tactical mode to their games.

But to get back on subject:
I agree with the others - great review.
You hit a lot of nails on the head.
And it's well written too.
Good work.

Thanks.  I'm proud of it.