Matrix Games Forums

just downloaded FOF and am a bit disappointed. Does not appear to be as polished as
the Emperor's edition Napoleon game although wasn't this one done after? I would expect a game of this detail to at least have ship names. I find it a bit annoying to have to make up my own or add them from my history books. Worse that like the early Nap
game there is never enough space in the unit tag to type a name! Forget "Army of the
Ohio" you will have to type "Ohio, the Army of" as OHIO is about all you can squeeze into the unit tag. Forget Mississippi! LOL! Units appear to take great stides across map
rather than move. Hard to get a Gettysburg type of moving along together type of battle to occur. I have seen armies move over each other and since armies on the march then
took up many miles of roadspace you would think they would bump across each other more often. Also very little player input into great decisions on drafts, bounties, and
taxes. Map is good as is unit details. Although i find the about 15 or so vocals in the
battles repeating like an old pull string doll. thank goodness that is not in the Nap game,
can you imagine "merde" being cried out every 5-10 vocalization? lol! I do admire the
work put into it but it appears an unfinished game with chunks missing. AGEOD's civil
war game has the detail but is less "playable" while this is playable and has less "detail"
Should i try Gary Grigsby's?

BGVEHICLES, here are responses to a few of your comments:
* COG:EE came out after FOF.
* Ships represent groups of ships, not individual ones. That is why we didn't name the ships. (This is something that was discussed in this forum way in the past, so I can't blame you for missing the thread.)
* I thought we expanded the amount of space available for army names in a patch, though I might be misremembering. (It's been a few years.) You did patch up, I assume.
* Our movement areas are too big for two armies to be moving along on parallel routes and then colliding, as at Gettysburg. You are the first to make this specific complaint, however. In general, players seem satisfied with the relative size of movement areas and the frequency/infrequency of major battles, though in retrospect it's clear that we should have had 1-3 more movement areas in Virginia, even if it had created minor graphics problems.
* When armies "move over each other" the odds are that one of them is set to avoid battle. The AI could easily be doing this if it senses you would have the advantage. And that's not unrealistic -- just look at Stonewall Jackson in his 1862 Valley Campaign, when he moved in the same general area as Banks, McDowell and Fremont (I think it was) and managed to slip out, or at Johnston when he brought his army to Bull Run despite Patterson's pursuit. So, it is not unrealistic that over a two-week period armies would pass through or stop in the same area but not fight, and from a developer's point of view I should add that the game would be flawed if battles occurred all the time.
* I believe there's a way of turning off the voices, though I don't remember how. A keyword search of the forum might help.

I'd add that there have been several customers who initially had negative responses after playing the game a bit, but after spending more time with it came to appreciate it. So, I hope you will give it another shot.

I enjoy the tactical but think perhaps the map is not divided up in places to allow real maneuvering of the Armies as you suggest for Virginia. Its more running into each other when entering that area rather than moving around. Would be hard to have the Grant
Wilderness Campaign since you really can't go around except into W. Virginia. The graphics are good (tho the figs on the startup page look like they are from "The Village
People" (lol!). When i bought the game a few days back direct download i thought it was
the most updated version. This appears not to have been true as i have had to down-
load a patch that fixes the unit name tabs and some other issues. Its a good game and
some fun (I am a long time COG player) but it appears on the light side history wise and
I find that both Hunter's old ACW game and AGEODs are a more complex and more entertaining historywise. FOF greatest advantage is its tactical subgames. Thanks for
the very fast response. Much appreciated to see a Mod respond so quickly. They are
not so friendly nor helpful on some other game forums! LOL!

Hmm yea I think this is about not being patched up, as my armies are usually named
"Army of the West", "Central Army" and "Army of Virginia" and there is nothing problematic about typing in those names.
My Corps' are named "Jackson's Corps", "Stuart's Corps" etc.
My brigades (the ones I "Levy" from forts etc) are usually named "1st Mississippi", "8th Virginia" etc.

About the armies moving across each other, what you might be seing as well is that the containers are moved seperately while actually moving simultaniously.
Example, I order Jackson's Corps to move from the Valley and east, while those bloody Yanks order one of their armies to advance into the Valley. Although the Union army might be seen as moving first and ending up in the same province (the Valley) as Jackson, Jackson is actually allready moving eastwards, and then a little later his Corps is moved and no battle takes place. This is because they actually move at the same time but APPEAR to be moving in different phases of the turn.

Terje

ORIGINAL: BGVEHICLES
I enjoy the tactical but think perhaps the map is not divided up in places to allow real maneuvering of the Armies as you suggest for Virginia. Its more running into each other when entering that area rather than moving around. Would be hard to have the Grant
Wilderness Campaign since you really can't go around except into W. Virginia. The graphics are good (tho the figs on the startup page look like they are from "The Village
People" (lol!). When i bought the game a few days back direct download i thought it was
the most updated version. This appears not to have been true as i have had to down-
load a patch that fixes the unit name tabs and some other issues. Its a good game and
some fun (I am a long time COG player) but it appears on the light side history wise and
I find that both Hunter's old ACW game and AGEODs are a more complex and more entertaining historywise. FOF greatest advantage is its tactical subgames. Thanks for
the very fast response. Much appreciated to see a Mod respond so quickly. They are
not so friendly nor helpful on some other game forums! LOL!

Funny, when the game first came out someone compared those two figures to Don Johnson and whatshisface from "Miami Vice."

I agree with you about the difficulty of a Wilderness Campaign. One idea I've had that we might add in a future patch -- unless we do FOF2 some day -- would be to let two armies fight but not necessarily have the loser booted out of the region. A new FOF patch is some ways off, as finishing "Brother Against Brother" is our top priority these days. But that change would address your concerns (and thse expressed by some others).

The reason the direct download would not be fully patched up is that every time Matrix has Digital River produce a new gold master of a game for burning to CD and direct downloading it costs a tidy sum. So if a new one were made every time a game gets patched it would really cut into annual profits.

I'm glad that you've revised your views of the game and are liking it more.

Please, please, please do a new patch.

And fix the turtling issue. I so want to play this game again.