So Which One?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

So Which One?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> So Which One?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

So Which One? - 12/29/2008 5:27:16 PM

roth

Posts: 41
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline

First, please forgive me for posting this in all three ACW game forums (GGWBTS, FOF and AGEOD) but I wanted to get responses from readers who may not visit any particular one of these.

I own all three games, but so far have played none, and I'd welcome recommendations on which to try first. Each game looks like it has its own take on the war as well as its own charms.

I would probably play the Confederacy against the AI, at least initially (unless there was some consensus that, for the recommended game, starting as the Union would be preferable for learning.) If I invest as much time in a game as any of these seems to require, I'd like to have at least a reasonable hope of winning. If the war goes on for any length, I assume this would mean either winning foreign support for the CSA or slowing down the Union advances long enough to cause Lincoln to lose the 1864 election.

At first I was leaning toward FOF, largely because of the ability to fight tactical battles. After reading AARs, however, it looks like FOF produces lots of frequent, large battles -- far more than occurred historically. Not that this wouldn't be fun, but in general my preference would be for the game that more closely models historical limitations and constraints, so that the decisions I make would tend to produce the same results as might have occurred historically had the actual politicians and commanders in those circumstances made the same decisions.

Also as a result of reading the comments in these forums, it seems that GGWBTS may have marginally more complications inherent in the program -- more i's and t's that have to be dotted or crossed to make things work the way you intend. Each of the games seems to have its share of these, so my perception may be wrong about WBTS, but that's a negative for me with any of the games.

I hope eventually to play each of them, but I'd appreciate your comments on where to start.

Post #: 1

RE: So Which One? - 12/29/2008 7:05:14 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

You may have been reading some AARs based on FOF as originally issued in which the standard game gave a more balanced fight than the real event. Since then patches have introduced scenarios which provide for a much tougher and realistic contest, having regard to the historical experience. In addition they have added many new improvements and changes making things even better. The most challenging scenarios for the CSA are Coming Fury and Southern Steel.

Its a great game, well worth your investment in time; even more so when you have the advanced options in play.

(in reply to roth)

Post #: 2

RE: So Which One? - 12/29/2008 8:17:12 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

also remember, for a AAR , the larger the battle the better, most of the standard or small battles are not really good AAR stuff

which that will also depend on how you play, if you tend to mass, so will the AI, if you try to spead out and be everywhere, so will the AI

and you don't have to fight the Tac battles or you can

FoF is a Great game, GGWBTS is a Great game, but as you say, both take a different view of the war

_____________________________

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 3

RE: So Which One? - 12/29/2008 9:43:04 PM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

also remember, for a AAR , the larger the battle the better, most of the standard or small battles are not really good AAR stuff

which that will also depend on how you play, if you tend to mass, so will the AI, if you try to spead out and be everywhere, so will the AI

and you don't have to fight the Tac battles or you can

FoF is a Great game, GGWBTS is a Great game, but as you say, both take a different view of the war

Is your lack of comment towards AGEOD un-intentional or a statement ?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 4

RE: So Which One? - 12/30/2008 11:58:08 PM

gunny3013

Posts: 206
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline

IMHO, FoF is a great investment of your time. I have played all three and feel that FoF is a great begining. The only drawback I can see in FoF is the almost impossible ability to conduct amphibious campaigns thus allowing all the southern forces to invade north with little or no threat to its own coast line.

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 5

RE: So Which One? - 12/31/2008 1:44:36 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

also remember, for a AAR , the larger the battle the better, most of the standard or small battles are not really good AAR stuff

which that will also depend on how you play, if you tend to mass, so will the AI, if you try to spead out and be everywhere, so will the AI

and you don't have to fight the Tac battles or you can

FoF is a Great game, GGWBTS is a Great game, but as you say, both take a different view of the war

Is your lack of comment towards AGEOD un-intentional or a statement ?

No , nothing of the kind, I am a beta tester for FoF and for GGWBTS, so I have a lot of game time on both games and think that both games are great, and really like both of them, I didn't have time to play AGEOD so never got it, so have no comments to make on it

_____________________________

(in reply to scout1)

Post #: 6