|
chris0827 -> RE: How do you.... (12/22/2006 10:47:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Guys I hope you don't mind me offering my .02 because I'm finding both games attractive in subject matter but hard to play!
On the old Avalon Hill complexity scale I'd rate BoA a "4" and FoF a "9" purely because FoF includes a massive economic, logistical and political layer - and interface to deal with.
As for the intuitiveness of the systems I'd rate both as equally puzzling, because both hide so much of the mechanics from the player making understanding of what's happening an why really hard to fathom without a lot of experience with play.
And here's the funny thing - with 200 pages of rules and 50 pages of appendices I haven't dented the rulebook of FoF and therefore cannot yet confidently play. However, I have read the 40 page rulebook of BoA 5 times now... and still don't know how to confidently play! BoA leaves so many blanks in my opinion.
BoA though, has the big advantage of offering some small scenarios to try, have fun and lose [:)] I've had a great time with the 4-turn South Carolina scenario for a while now. But jumping from that scenario to a regular scenario covering the whole map, is a massive endeavour in situational awareness despite the absence of micromanagement complexity.
FoF for me, holds its biggest drawback in its interface. I'm sure I've found a couple more interface bugs by clicking the wrong things with the best intent and losing some of the map and menu bars as a result. It can be that confusing. That's the game's biggest hurdle in my case. I mean the tenet of FoF is basic - raise forces whilst managing the demand and supply of your military economy - and create strategic alliances in order to crush the enemy's will. It’s just a shame that the interface doesn’t match imho.
That said, on first load, I was able to accomplish more with FoF than BoA – I could move my units! I played around purely militarily and won some battles not understanding why. But FoF has lots of little nuances that hopefully the new rulebook will fill in (NB: make sure you get the new rulebook if you buy the game – I’m unsure if it is part of the latest FoF download but it will come with the box”). BoA on the other hand being more accessible with such a small rules set, just beckons to be played.
My gut feel is that BoA will prove to be the winner with more frequent game play than FoF. Surely BoA has to start making sense sooner than later one would feel! But if micromanagement is your key, then FoF will be the obvious choice.
I feel better now [;)]
Season's Greetings,
Adam.
FoF does have a massive economic, logistical, and political layer. Unfortunately it has little to do with the civil war. The designers decided on a balanced game instead of a historically accurate one. They are now talking of adding a historical scenario but I don't have high hopes for an accurate one. Even if they manage to do enough research to achieve a historically accurate scenario there are several major flaws in the game engine that need to be addressed. There may be a decent game in there but it's not close yet. I'd wait until february and buy the civil war sequel to BoA. Check it out at ageod.com. It looks like they are putting a lot of effort into it being both an entertaining and historically accurate civil war game.
|
|
|
|
