differences from CoG? (Full Version)

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



Message

Reverend Zombie -> differences from CoG? (11/12/2006 12:29:55 AM)

I have checked out a few threads, but can't seem to find a detailed list of differences from CoG, in terms of the game mechanisms they do or don't share--specifically, how have movement, supply, and depots changed? Is movement over distances still a crapshoot?



jchastain -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/12/2006 1:05:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reverend Zombie

I have checked out a few threads, but can't seem to find a detailed list of differences from CoG, in terms of the game mechanisms they do or don't share--specifically, how have movement, supply, and depots changed? Is movement over distances still a crapshoot?


I also do not have an exact list, but I would have they have the same skeleton but are very different games.

The economy has been completely reworked and bears little resemblance to the original.
The graphics have been completely refreshed.
Diplomacy and trade have been largely gutted.
Movement is actually pretty similar. The container system remains and movement is still uncertain.
Depots are completely gone and the supply system has been completely remodeled.
Units are now at the brigade level and there is move focus on managing their capabilities (upgraded attachments and weapons).

That's the nickel version, but if you have any more specific questions we'll try to answer them.



Hard Sarge -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/12/2006 1:59:32 AM)

quote:

Movement is actually pretty similar. The container system remains and movement is still uncertain.


but, please remember, that while it is uncertian, there are reasons for it to not do as you think

so the movement system is better then it was in COG, but it is still close to what it was



Mr. Z -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/12/2006 7:32:14 AM)

quote:

movement, supply, and depots changed? Is movement over distances still a crapshoot?

There are potentially many differences now based on what options you choose. Options are also clustered into a Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced Game.

In the Basic Game, movement always succeeds unless blocked by enemy units, and supply is always provided and has a fixed cost. There are no more depots.

In the Intermediate and Advanced Game, different options are introduced to include initiative checks (movement arrows get colored according to how likely it is that a particular province-to-province movement will succeed) and to include Advanced Supply (supply depends on buildings, is rationed out to units according to a priority that the player assigns, etc.) Railroads also help make supplying units easier (when using Advanced Supply).

So, there is something for everyone.



ericbabe -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/13/2006 5:41:23 PM)

The first big difference is that we've emphasized the military aspect of the game much more for Forge of Freedom -- there are many more ways of customizing your units: you can change their flags, buy new weapons, add "attributes" like sharpshooters or balloon scouts.  We've gone down to the brigade level (COG was division-level) and we've increased the size of the battle map in detailed combat.... so battles tend to involve more units over a larger map.  As pointed out above, other aspects of the game (diplomacy, trade, economy) have been simplified or streamlined.

The second biggest difference is that we've made the complexity of the game customizable.  The complexity of COG turned off a lot of potential customers.  This wouldn't be apparent reading most of the posts on the COG forum -- which were by-and-large by people who liked the more complicated rules -- but in reading other game forums we came to the conclusion that many people didn't want to have to slug through a 200 page manual and have to deal with an economy the equations for which came from my macroeconomics textbook.  In response to this, we've streamlined the economy and have added many game options.  The Basic Rules are a very simple game, only a little more complicated than RISK; with all of the complicated rules turned on, FOF is perhaps even a little more complicated than COG.

One comment on MrZ's post: we did eliminate depots, but in the Advanced Rules, but we added a "strategic supply" rating for brigades on the strategic level.  In order to get resupplied, brigades must be able to trace supply lines back to friendly territory, either by sea (to an adjacent fleet), by land (to an adjacent friendly province), or by rail (to a friendly province up to two provinces away).  So supply is still a very important concept in the Advanced Rules, but much of the bookkeeping of having to manage depots has been eliminated.




Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/13/2006 7:20:03 PM)

I'll be interested to see with this game which options I eventually end up using. I like simplicity and speed of play, but I also like realism, so I'm going to be torn both ways.

My favourite way of resolving this conflict is for the game to include realistic features that can be automated, so they're there, and they affect play in a realistic way, but I don't have to spend time on details. Just for example, assigning improved weapons to brigades could be automated.

This sort of automation has to be done in any case for the programmed opponent in a solo game, so it's there in the program code.



jchastain -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 1:24:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I'll be interested to see with this game which options I eventually end up using. I like simplicity and speed of play, but I also like realism, so I'm going to be torn both ways.

My favourite way of resolving this conflict is for the game to include realistic features that can be automated, so they're there, and they affect play in a realistic way, but I don't have to spend time on details. Just for example, assigning improved weapons to brigades could be automated.

This sort of automation has to be done in any case for the programmed opponent in a solo game, so it's there in the program code.


The challenge with that approach is the "why did you do that?!" factor. The first time the AI spends your entire income for the year on upgraded weapons when YOU know that your research is about to pay off and you'll definitely be picking the new and very improved model when given the chance AND you know that you DESPERATELY needed that money for diplomacy.... well... you won't be posting about how much you like the game. In my mind, partial AI control usually frustrates more than it facilitates. And no AI can read your mind and know what you're planning. Just my two cents worth anyway...

Edit to add: That's why I prefer the FoF system whereby you can turn off advanced features and have them abstracted rather than played on your behalf. CoG used "assistants" much as you describe and having played both games, I personally prefer this method of simplification.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 9:33:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
I prefer the FoF system whereby you can turn off advanced features and have them abstracted rather than played on your behalf. CoG used "assistants" much as you describe and having played both games, I personally prefer this method of simplification.


Thanks for your comments. If you can "turn off advanced features and have them abstracted", that sounds good, but I'm not quite sure how it works (it'll be most interesting to see in action). If you just turn them off and lose them, it doesn't sound so good.

It's been said repeatedly that FoF's Basic game is a bit like Risk. Well, I played Risk as a child (yes, it's that old!), and it's OK in its way, but simulating the Civil War that way could be unsatisfying.



jchastain -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 9:54:53 AM)

If you've been following the AAR, then you may want to go back and review THIS thread that discusses the option in some detail. Having now seen more of the game, you might be able to better understand the descriptions and implications.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 11:11:31 AM)

Thanks for the pointer. I've just reread the thread (which I did read at the time), but it doesn't seem to explain how the advanced options are 'abstracted' when turned off.

Never mind, I intend to buy the game anyway, so I'll find out for myself in due course. Please don't take my comments as hostile.



jchastain -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 3:26:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Thanks for the pointer. I've just reread the thread (which I did read at the time), but it doesn't seem to explain how the advanced options are 'abstracted' when turned off.

Never mind, I intend to buy the game anyway, so I'll find out for myself in due course. Please don't take my comments as hostile.


I don't find your comments to be at all hostile. Sorry, I meant that you might better understand the different feel of the game at the different levels and not that it would describe the abstraction.

To specifically answer your question, features are removed when disabled but can be thought of as abstrated in other elements. For example, buying weapons for and equipping your brigades is an example of a feature that I suspect some might find to be micromanagement. It can be turned off. In that case, you still have unit quality and supply status that model the fighting capability of the unit. Were weapons never included in the game at all, one could easily make the argument that the quality of the weapons within a unit was abstracted into those two value. I personally prefer that to having an AI assitant make decisions about what guns to buy when.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 4:44:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
To specifically answer your question, features are removed when disabled but can be thought of as abstracted in other elements. For example, buying weapons for and equipping your brigades is an example of a feature that I suspect some might find to be micromanagement. It can be turned off. In that case, you still have unit quality and supply status that model the fighting capability of the unit. Were weapons never included in the game at all, one could easily make the argument that the quality of the weapons within a unit was abstracted into those two value. I personally prefer that to having an AI assistant make decisions about what guns to buy when.


Thanks, that's a good answer and I appreciate it. Also, now that I understand what you're talking about, I think I agree with you that an abstraction like that is better than a programmed assistant.

With one qualification: in the Advanced game, as I understand, 'unit quality' means morale. If it means 'morale and weaponry' in the Basic game, it probably ought to work a bit differently. The factors that affect morale are not the same factors that affect weaponry. This is a relatively small point but I mention it anyway.



MT Melon -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 5:43:27 PM)

Hi all

I consider myself a professional lurker and as such it takes something special to get me off my butt to actually post something ( as you can see from my paltry lack of posts!! ). But I really have to say that the time , dedication and clear concise explanations that jchastain , Gil and Hard sarge provide here is some of the best support I have ever seen. After reading your AARs , I feel that I can jump into the game with a working knowledge of the system. Who needs a manual [;)] Anyway , I am really looking forward to this baby ( more than any other game since WITP ) and I blame all this drool on my keyboard on the above mentioned guys. Thanks again for all your time and effort boys - hope it pays off in $.



elmo3 -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 5:52:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Parts

...Who needs a manual [;)] ...


Well I'd like to see a few pages from the FoF manual. The CoG manual was...well...less than perfect out of the box. [:'(]



Gil R. -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 6:34:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Parts

Hi all

I consider myself a professional lurker and as such it takes something special to get me off my butt to actually post something ( as you can see from my paltry lack of posts!! ). But I really have to say that the time , dedication and clear concise explanations that jchastain , Gil and Hard sarge provide here is some of the best support I have ever seen. After reading your AARs , I feel that I can jump into the game with a working knowledge of the system. Who needs a manual [;)] Anyway , I am really looking forward to this baby ( more than any other game since WITP ) and I blame all this drool on my keyboard on the above mentioned guys. Thanks again for all your time and effort boys - hope it pays off in $.


Hard Sarge and jchastain are beta-testers rather than part of the development team, but both have had an enormous impact behind the scenes (Hard Sarge on combat, jchastain on economic and balance issues in particular). In fact, if ever anyone tries to hire them away from us we'd easily be willing to double or even TRIPLE what we've been paying them...



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 6:35:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Parts
I really have to say that the time, dedication and clear concise explanations that jchastain, Gil and Hard Sarge provide here is some of the best support I have ever seen.


I'm inclined to agree. But I get the impression that jchastain and Hard Sarge may be unpaid helpers rather than members of staff (?). Which would make their efforts even more impressive...



andysomers -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 7:34:52 PM)

Here here!  Thanks again - I can't say that enough.  Very well done and very very informative.  Excellent PR and marketing for you guys!

AS



jchastain -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 7:35:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Parts
I really have to say that the time, dedication and clear concise explanations that jchastain, Gil and Hard Sarge provide here is some of the best support I have ever seen.


I'm inclined to agree. But I get the impression that jchastain and Hard Sarge may be unpaid helpers rather than members of staff (?). Which would make their efforts even more impressive...


You are exactly right. Sarge and I are just unpaid volunteer testers. The reason I'm here and doing this is I am enjoying the heck out of it. While you might be enjoying the AAR (and it is great to hear that people are), I can assure you that it is a lot more fun for me.

I must say though that working with the Western Civ guys has been great. They really do listen to what we have to say and we have a lot of great conversations and collaboration behind the scenes. Furthermore, it took some guts for them to allow us to come to these public boards and share our opinions prior to launch and I think Sarge and I both appreciate that openness. All the way around, I'm having a blast with it.



MT Melon -> RE: differences from CoG? (11/14/2006 8:14:49 PM)

Hey

The fact that you guys are enjoying playing the game comes through loud and clear. Maybe thats what brings your AARs to life. In my mind , testers are just as important as Devs. Without them the game remains in its infant stages until released and the great unwashed masses get their hands on it. Being "unpaid volunteer testers" requires you to test and retest but does not require (at least I think it doesn't) the amount of time that you guys have lavished on us. But , enough of this group hug , please test the hell out of this thing and get it out to us so we can experience your joy first hand 



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.014893