Matrix Games Forums

What do you think of it? I played the heck out of that game when it was new and always thought it struck the right balance between realism and abstraction. The economy and production were good without it being too complex and cumbersome. I also remember liking all the different siege options and weapon upgrades. A great many options to choose from during setup that added to the depth.

Been a many moon since I fired it up, but FoF holds a certain place in my favorites.

mo reb

Missouri_Rebel,

I am trying to find enough time to read the manual. From the little that I have seen of it so far I think I am going to like it very much.

Why does life get in the way of good gaming?

Best wishes,
Steve

Even though I am a manual aficionado, I would suggest jumping right in with a simple economy and detailed battles. One of the first things to learn is how to transfer your units around between armies and divisions within each group referred to as containers in the manual. It's a simple procedure, but one that you will do often.

Secondly I suggest moving your units into areas with the enemy so a detailed battle will commence (as long as certain factors are met). The detailed battles are pretty intuitive and you will learn a lot just from the first battle.

Play the entire turn out so you can get a feel how things go and then read up on the manual for a restart.

Of course if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on the forums or shoot me a PM. I will be working 14 hour days though this week so I may not be able to respond until late that evening.

Mo Reb

I still play this game a lot. I highly enjoy ACW games. Love the game engine. AI leaves much to be desired. Too aggressive in the West. Too many troops garrison Richmond. I know ... I know ... I can mod the Richmond garrison. But I'm computer stupid and scared to even try modding. But regardless of my complaining, I'm still playing it and that speaks volumes.

Well, honestly I have to say I do not agree that it is worth the cost. I bought the game during the Xmas sale. I believe it was around 25 dollars. The campaign is, as they said above, excellent in all respects except the AI. I was disappointed at that but its not that big a deal. Then I went into a tactical battle. What a joke. I had graphics and lagging like that in my NES. In the 90's. It was nothing short of clunky and horrible. Then I checked what year this game came out. That helped explain a bit. Judging by the price and good reviews in the forums I had expected a newer and better tactical battles system. I can understand why Matrix steers away from demos...had I played a demo of the tactical system I would not have bought the game.

If you are willing to pay the price for an excellent system and campaign setup with a mediocre AI...jump right it. It's a good game. If you are looking for a good campaign with an equally good tactical battle system...don't bother.

If this game were updated and improved it would most likely be worth the investment. Just my opinion. YMMV.

Just updated the game and fired it up. While I agree that it is showing its age, especially with the fixed resolution of that time, I wasn't getting any of the lag you were talking about. As far as graphics, definitely showing its age there, but I find them to be serviceable. Not terrible for a game 6 years old. One of my complaints was the small number of areas in the Eastern theater. Would have liked to see more areas for maneuver.

I'd love to see a new FoF, but there are no plans to do so at this time from what I gather.

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Even though I am a manual aficionado, I would suggest jumping right in with a simple economy and detailed battles. One of the first things to learn is how to transfer your units around between armies and divisions within each group referred to as containers in the manual. It's a simple procedure, but one that you will do often.

Secondly I suggest moving your units into areas with the enemy so a detailed battle will commence (as long as certain factors are met). The detailed battles are pretty intuitive and you will learn a lot just from the first battle.

Play the entire turn out so you can get a feel how things go and then read up on the manual for a restart.

Of course if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on the forums or shoot me a PM. I will be working 14 hour days though this week so I may not be able to respond until late that evening.

Mo Reb

Jump in without studying the manual first? They must live dangerously in Missouri. [;)]

Seriously though, thanks for the tip. I shall let you know how I am getting on.

Best wishes,
Steve

I bought it 2 years ago, but actually never played it (as happens with a lot of the games - maybe I am more a collector...). But the deal of the week raised my interest again. Currently I am reading the manual (at work [;)] ). This one, and Pride of Nations, are the games I currently try to figure out.

I fired it up recently.

I always played "quick battle" and I know it gets more in depth when you do detailed battles, but I have never really been a detailed battle person - I like being more of a general type and move troops to the battles and let the individual commanders do the dirty detail work.

Anyway, the issue I always have had is with quick battle, there seems to be a level where you can't beat it, imo, because you just lose to many men per battle and eventually the attrition just wears you down - this is with the US.

Good game overall and I got my money's worth, though. If Ageod's Civil War didn't have the supply engine it has, it would be my utmost favorite no questions asked. I don't like having to deal with all the supply issues, though. If I had wanted to do that, I would have joined the army as a logistics personnel!!! [:D]

That's my frequent criticism of many Matrix titles.
A lot of people on here disagree and bang on about supply being the only important issue in war. I expect they are S4s and want to play Armchair Quartermaster.

For me, the supply should be part of the system. Not some feature whereby you must physically send oil to the fleet before it can sail. I'm the President! I make sure the national reserves are full. Some other gas jockey can worry about being oil drum manager and driving from the refinery to the docks..

And they go on and on..Well Italy couldn't get its fleet to sail from 1942. And Japan had to base its fleet in the Dutch Easy indies. And at the bulge the German panzers ran out fuel..

Yes..iI know. So restrict the Italians to 1 sortie for each major ship in 1943. Give the Japanese a huge speed/range disadvantage if they don't base at the oil fields and have a % of panzers on a random roll make only a 1/2 or 1/4 or nil move for their turn.
Better than spending time trying to manage the rations.

unless you are one of the micro planners.

Once you've played Norbsofts CIvilwar games there just no ohter game as much fun.

I enjoy Norbsoft as much as the next guy but they are not exactly the same type of game.

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

Once you've played Norbsofts CIvilwar games there just no ohter game as much fun.