The "other" game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Gibbon -> The "other" game (1/24/2007 2:59:27 PM)

I know this is the BoA forum and the FoF guys are pretty nervous about it in their own forum, but are we allowed to discuss about your incoming Civil Wargame here?





vertical -> RE: The "other" game (1/24/2007 11:25:53 PM)

There's a beta AAR in progress at the ageod forum here: http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2158 . If you haven't read the features in the same forum, you should definitely do so. Looks like it'll be a great game. [8D]

vertical



jimwinsor -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 12:16:41 AM)

Erm, nervous?

I'm a FoF playtester, and just speaking for myself, I am in no way nervous.

The word I would use is "anticipatory" in fact.  I own BoA and I think its GREAT game!  When this new civil war game comes out I'll no doubt buy it immediately; if its as good a "purely strategic" game as BoA I can't wait to get my hands on it.

I doubt it'll cut much into FoF's popularity, however, as FoF is a different kind of game entirely: it's a tactical game system at it's core, with a strategic system added to give the tactical battles some context.  A "tactical-strategic" game is how I would term it...a completely different kettle of fish than the BoA "purely strategic" type of game.  Which makes comparisons of the two games kinda pointless.



chris0827 -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 12:27:31 AM)

One of the designers said that FoF was not meant to be a simulation of the American Civil War. That certainly makes it a different kind of game.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 12:42:41 AM)

I bought BOA and FOF. FoF is a good game and I am really into the American Civil war, but for some reason I just can't get into FOF. I don't know why?

I am really getting into BOA and I have a feeling that the up coming civil war game will be as good if not better. When I play FOF I don't really feel as if I am planning and fighting the american civil war but some of the guys think its the greatest thing since pancakes. I understand why they feel that way. Wish I knew why I don't.[:(]




chris0827 -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 1:37:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I bought BOA and FOF. FoF is a good game and I am really into the American Civil war, but for some reason I just can't get into FOF. I don't know why?

I am really getting into BOA and I have a feeling that the up coming civil war game will be as good if not better. When I play FOF I don't really feel as if I am planning and fighting the american civil war but some of the guys think its the greatest thing since pancakes. I understand why they feel that way. Wish I knew why I don't.[:(]




I'd say you don't feel that way because the game has little to do with the Civil War. Hopefully the historic scenario they are adding will change that somewhat. AGEOD's game on the other hand looks like it embraces history. It looks like the strategies used in the real war will work for the game players as well. I was ready to buy it after the first few screenshots.



Erik Rutins -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 2:28:02 AM)

Chris,

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
One of the designers said that FoF was not meant to be a simulation of the American Civil War. That certainly makes it a different kind of game. I'd say you don't feel that way because the game has little to do with the Civil War.


I don't see the need to get into this here, a lot of folks are having a great time with FoF and the next update will add to that. The comment about "simulation" should be read as "it's a strategy game with many possible outcomes, rather than a design that only allows historical outcomes". There are many, many historical strategy titles that fall into that same category, yet are well-loved.

I do agree with everyone here though that AGEOD's upcoming ACW game looks fantastic. I'm looking forward to it as well, but I agree with Jim that it and FoF will complement each other, rather than compete, in most ACW game collections.

Regards,

- Erik



MarkShot -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 2:48:39 AM)

AGEOD takes its history very seriously. This does not just mean accurate OOBs and maps, but also capturing the intrinsic nature of combat during the given period.

Of course, there will no doubt be some historic errors in the next game due to human errors and resource limitations. However, throughout the history of BoA, errors were corrected and numerous major/minor patches were released to focus on improving how well game play models historic practices/outcomes of the times. So, one could easily speculate a lot about the quality and level of support which the next game will receive. However, it is simpler to look at BoA's legacy to know what degree of quality and level of committment will be invested on the next game.

Despite the fact that BoA has received nine major patches thus far, the game was stable and fully/enjoyably playable with version 1. The nine patches really reflect two things. First, the AGEOD team is a group of perfectionists. One only needs to take a look at the beautiful map and interface to see this. Second, unlike other companies which would freeze the code base for BoA and continue the coding forward for the sole purpose of completing the next game ... many code improvements done for the ACW game have been backported to the BoA code base and released as bonus/good will patches for BoA. AGEOD recognizes that its customers of today will determine whether tomorrow's game is a success. AGEOD although young is in it for the long haul with plans to deploy a rich and vibrant series of games based on an ever evolving engine during the coming years. BoA and the ACW game is only the beginning.

(Sorry, I meant to answer a simple question, but I guess I got a bit carried away with answer.)



korrigan -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 2:56:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gibbon
I know this is the BoA forum


Well, you have your answer, haven't you?

In the Birth of America forum, we mainly speak about Birth of America. [:)]

You may find this uncool, but this is just politeness really. These forums are Matrix's forums, for the time being if you really want to discuss about the "other" game with the AGEOD team I'm sure you'll find plenty of places on the Net to do it... [:D]

However, this place is NOT the place to post about other studios games.

Thank you,

Korrigan

NB: I'm a wargamer, I love BoA, I'm having a blast playing other studios games, comparison is pointless [;)]



Erik Rutins -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 3:02:45 AM)

Agreed, I'll move this to General Discussion.



Gil R. -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 3:30:45 AM)

EDIT: See below where I recant this statement. I leave this here so that references below will make sense.


Gibbon, it's rare that I take umbrage at anything written on the Matrix forum, but your claim that we on the FOF development team are "pretty nervous" about AGEOD's game is one of the most absurd things I've read. Where on earth have I or any of the others made such a statement? If you can find any comment by me that clearly indicates nervousness I will buy you your copy of their game when it comes out!

As a matter of fact, Pocus and I back in December had a brief exchange in which we agreed that most people would probably buy both games, and the appearance of two ACW games at roughly the same time would most likely lead to greater sales for both because of the increased interest in the subject. So while it would be nice if FOF were the only game in town, I'm certainly not nervous about the competition. Show me that I am and you get a free game.



Gil R. -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 3:53:11 AM)

I should respond to something else, this myth that the FOF team doesn't care about history. What's being referred to here and in the main FOF sub-forum especially is the fact that because of game-design considerations we opted to have the relative power of the USA and CSA be somewhat more balanced than it was historically, since otherwise the game runs the risk of being absurdly imbalanced.

But if we didn't care about history would we have...
...included a database of 1000 generals, which is a TON of work, rather than, say, fifty?
...had an ongoing project to include biographies of those generals, as a way of honoring these leaders' memories and informing people about their lives and careers?
...undertaken to get accurate in-game ratings of the abilities of all 1000 generals, a process that is ongoing, and which initially involved soliciting the input of ACW buffs on the forum so that those ratings would be based on history?
...included more than 100 "Legendary Units" such as the Iron Brigade and Orphan Brigade, along with bios (an innovation not previously seen in an ACW game, to my knowledge)?
...included historical governors and potential candidates for governor (again with their bios), when we could easily have created a bunch of generic governors and saved ourselves dozens of hours of work (again, an innovation, it would appear)?
...added contemporary "flavor text" to each opening screen as a way of giving the player a feel for the time period and the experience of fighting the war?
...devoted hundreds of man-hours into researching and programming detailed combat so that the tactics available and effects of weapons would be realistic?
...researched and implemented numerous other historically-based features, such as technology upgrades, major railroad lines, etc. etc. etc.?

The fact is that the game is FULL of details that respect -- and honor -- history, but people get hung up on what was and is a legitimate game-design decision that is intended to give the CSA player some hope that he might win more than a small fraction of the time.



chris0827 -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 4:15:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I should respond to something else, this myth that the FOF team doesn't care about history. What's being referred to here and in the main FOF sub-forum especially is the fact that because of game-design considerations we opted to have the relative power of the USA and CSA be somewhat more balanced than it was historically, since otherwise the game runs the risk of being absurdly imbalanced.

But if we didn't care about history would we have...
...included a database of 1000 generals, which is a TON of work, rather than, say, fifty?
...had an ongoing project to include biographies of those generals, as a way of honoring these leaders' memories and informing people about their lives and careers?
...undertaken to get accurate in-game ratings of the abilities of all 1000 generals, a process that is ongoing, and which initially involved soliciting the input of ACW buffs on the forum so that those ratings would be based on history?
...included more than 100 "Legendary Units" such as the Iron Brigade and Orphan Brigade, along with bios (an innovation not previously seen in an ACW game, to my knowledge)?
...included historical governors and potential candidates for governor (again with their bios), when we could easily have created a bunch of generic governors and saved ourselves dozens of hours of work (again, an innovation, it would appear)?
...added contemporary "flavor text" to each opening screen as a way of giving the player a feel for the time period and the experience of fighting the war?
...devoted hundreds of man-hours into researching and programming detailed combat so that the tactics available and effects of weapons would be realistic?
...researched and implemented numerous other historically-based features, such as technology upgrades, major railroad lines, etc. etc. etc.?

The fact is that the game is FULL of details that respect -- and honor -- history, but people get hung up on what was and is a legitimate game-design decision that is intended to give the CSA player some hope that he might win more than a small fraction of the time.


What good is a database of 1000 generals when the starting dates for 95% of them are wrong and most have random stats?



Gil R. -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 4:44:43 AM)

chris0827,
As you well know, since you're an active participant on the FOF forum, the random ratings only apply to the unheralded generals, about whom most people don't care -- the famous generals all have historically accurate ratings, and have had them since the game's release. And as you also have to know, since there's no way that you've missed reading this on the forum, those randomized ratings are being corrected over time, as bios for those generals are written. (This upcoming patch will have at least fifty generals with improved ratings along with their bios.) Or were we supposed to delay the release of the game by months and months just so that every last brigadier general, no matter how obscure, would have ratings that were accurate? Based on the intense demand for the game's release in the weeks and months leading up to the actual release, I think we made the right decision...

As for start dates, we discovered just tonight the main culprit: a miscalibration that was causing the program to read start dates differently from the way they were intended to be read, which has had the effect of pushing start dates back by about half a year. It has nothing to do with historical inaccuracy -- our database is reasonably accurate, and getting better -- and everything to do with something that will be corrected in the upcoming patch.



chris0827 -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 5:21:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

chris0827,
As you well know, since you're an active participant on the FOF forum, the random ratings only apply to the unheralded generals, about whom most people don't care -- the famous generals all have historically accurate ratings, and have had them since the game's release. And as you also have to know, since there's no way that you've missed reading this on the forum, those randomized ratings are being corrected over time, as bios for those generals are written. (This upcoming patch will have at least fifty generals with improved ratings along with their bios.) Or were we supposed to delay the release of the game by months and months just so that every last brigadier general, no matter how obscure, would have ratings that were accurate? Based on the intense demand for the game's release in the weeks and months leading up to the actual release, I think we made the right decision...

As for start dates, we discovered just tonight the main culprit: a miscalibration that was causing the program to read start dates differently from the way they were intended to be read, which has had the effect of pushing start dates back by about half a year. It has nothing to do with historical inaccuracy -- our database is reasonably accurate, and getting better -- and everything to do with something that will be corrected in the upcoming patch.



What you just stated is one of two problems with the general's start dates. The other is that they are wrong in the database. This was pointed out by people reading the AARs before you released the game. Here are the first 10 generals in the database. The first date is when your database shows them becoming generals. The second date is the real date.
Burnside nov 1861/ aug 1861
Early jan 1861/ july 1861
Forrest feb 1863/ July 1862
McDowell Jan 1863/ May 1861
Meade Oct 1863/ Aug 1861
Pope Nov 1861/ July 1861
Grant Feb 1863/ Aug 1861
Hooker aug 1862/ may 1861
Hardee feb 1861/ june 1861
Jackson jan 1861/ june 1861



Erik Rutins -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 6:25:55 AM)

Chris,

I feel you are really cherry-picking here. The game itself is quite historical and the FOF team spent a lot of time in detailed historical research with primary sources to make it so. Are there areas that could be made more historical in terms of game balance and detail? Absolutely and you know that's already in the works, so please give it a rest as far as the griping goes, until you've had a chance to try the next update.

As far as the generals, specific input of that kind is certainly helpful to us in finding and correcting errors in the generals database. I'd suggest you post it in the FoF forum where we asked for input for the next update and to correct historical issues with the standard scenario. As far as I know these dates are already correct in the updated July scenario.

Regards,

- Erik



Gibbon -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 12:16:19 PM)

[X(] Hey Guys, don't flame me, I was not trolling, I just asked where I could post about AACW! Sorry for irrating you but I had to ask somewhere... [:(]

Now Gil.R, if you aren't nervous about me discussing AACW features in your forum, that's really cool but I don't think that what you meant either... [;)]

So stay cool please, and keep your free AACW copy for yourself, actually the last ACW game I bought was yours and I've never bothered you (except for a gameplay question about naval invasion). I wait patiently for your patch, and I'm sure you'll get things right.




So back to the point, I agree with has been said. I won't compare it with FoF since, as jimwinsor put it, AACW/BOA are pure strategical games, and comparison would just be pointless. However, I applaud AGEOD move to develop the economy/politics/recruitment aspects of their game. This was essential in the American civil war strategy.




Zap -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 1:05:40 PM)

I have experienced the same with a few games myself. Can't quite explain the feeling



General Quarters -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 3:31:55 PM)

FOF is the best strategic ACW computer game ever created and, in my view, the only one worth playing. As a Civil War buff, I am really enjoying it. And the developers are listening to players and will shortly be making it even better.

That being said, I look forward to the one based on BoA as well. In my experience, games that appear to cover the same ground are usually so different that each is interesting and illuminating in its own way.



FlyingElvis -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 4:25:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL:  Gil R.

As a matter of fact, Pocus and I back in December had a brief exchange in which we agreed that most people would probably buy both games, and the appearance of two ACW games at roughly the same time would most likely lead to greater sales for both because of the increased interest in the subject.


To back up your point, I am a long time WW2 gamer who has a new interest in ACW because of your game. Well listening to my daughter talk about the subject from her AP History class doesn't hurt. :)

I just went out an bought a copy of McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom as background reading in anticipation of receiving your game.

I will also buy the AGEOD ACW game, because I played the BoA demo and liked it.




Gil R. -> RE: The "other" game (1/25/2007 6:59:26 PM)

I now understand, based on Gibbon's post and a private message, that he was not implying that we on the FOF development team were nervous about the appearance of AGEOD's AACW and the impact it would have on sales of FOF, but that we might be concerned about that game being discussed on the Matrix site (and specifically within our own forum). So, I of course take back what I wrote challenging that assertion (though I've left my original post, so that the thread won't be interrupted). I'm sure you can all see why I read his post that way, but you can also see that his post can indeed be read the way he intended it to be read.

Anyway, since Matrix is distributing BOA it is within the realm of possibility that they would distribute AACW as well sometime down the road, so discussion of that game seems not inappropriate on the Matrix forum.

Moving on...



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: The "other" game (1/26/2007 12:59:40 AM)

I think its a very good game but for me I have a hard time of getting into it but I have not given up yet[:)] When World at War came out I bought it but I really didn't like it. It was a good game as well. When World at War Divided, came out I bought it and think its great and still play it.

So I am still plugging away hopeing to get the most out of it(FoF)[:D]. I am looking forward to buying the civilwar game from Mr. Pocus and company.[:D]



tevans6220 -> RE: The "other" game (1/27/2007 9:04:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

FOF is the best strategic ACW computer game ever created and, in my view, the only one worth playing. As a Civil War buff, I am really enjoying it. And the developers are listening to players and will shortly be making it even better.

That being said, I look forward to the one based on BoA as well. In my experience, games that appear to cover the same ground are usually so different that each is interesting and illuminating in its own way.


On what settings? Surely you're not suggesting that I can get a historically believable outcome on the default settings using either scenario that shipped with the game. As chris0827 has already pointed out, the General database is way off and it does affect the game. It's nice to say that there are 1000 generals included in the database but if the large majority of them have wrong start dates and random ratings, what's the point? If nobody really cares about the "unheralded" generals then why even include them? Other companies seem to have no problem getting things right. Take FL or BOA for instance. The historical situation was very similar. The Americans were overmatched and outclassed by the British. That's something that AGEOD and Hussar portrayed very well in their games. Now let's look at FOF. The developers decided to "balance" both sides instead of giving us a historical setup. Then when they took heat for doing so, they became very defensive and even suggested that some mistakes were not mistakes at all but worked as intended. In my opinion, FOF in it's present state is not very historically accurate at all. Hopefully the next patch/new scenario will fix that but right now the game doesn't play like the Civil War. I'm not looking for a 100% historically accurate simulation with the same historical outcome but I would like to get a feel for what Lincoln or Davis actually faced as they lead their respective nations. One last thing, you claim to be a Civil War buff so let me ask you a serious question. Where the hell is Harpers Ferry on the map and why is Fort Monroe located in the wrong place? Both locations were very important and apparently one is completely missing and the other misplaced.



USS Yorktown -> RE: The "other" game (1/27/2007 12:48:50 PM)

AGEOD has now opened up the general's ratings for review and possible corrections. So if you're tired of your favorite ACW general getting shafted by the ratings systems, head over and let them know. But you'll have to convince them you're right... Very nice and educated discussions going on, I'm learning a lot actually. I'm an happy ACW fan, this is going to be another great game!

The forum is here.




Gil R. -> RE: The "other" game (1/29/2007 1:24:00 AM)

tevans6220,
Fort Monroe is in the "wrong place" because forts in FOF do not go in the precise spot on the map where they were located, but in the approximate area. This is done because of the need for units to fit in provinces in a certain way. We on the development team know where Fort Monroe really was, but it is not possible to put it there for programming/graphics reasons that are beyond my pay grade to explain. (These same graphics-related factors are the reason that Richmond is not on the banks of the James River, but several pixels away, for example.) Ours is by no means the only computer game to take a little bit of necessary liberty with a map in order to make the game function properly.

As for generals:
1) Start dates are getting more and more accurate for this upcoming patch with each passing day. You will not be displeased in that department.
2) As I've explained, we of necessity gave the 940 or so "unheralded" generals random ratings because spending months researching them before releasing the game seemed to be a dumb decision, especially in light of public pressure on us to release the game ASAP not too many months ago. (To have done it right pre-release would have taken about 400-500 man-hours, in my estimation.) We already have put a ton of effort into getting the historical ratings for the sixty or so most famous generals accurate, soliciting input on the forum and engaging in a great deal of research ourselves. The ratings for the remaining 940 generals, too, are being made more accurate over time as bios for them get written. We make absolutely no apologies for the fact that we decided to do it this way, and think that the end result -- informative bios coupled with historically based ratings for hundreds of generals (perhaps even all 1000?) -- will be well worth it. I have little doubt that the average player prefers our way of handling generals, even if it's currently a work in progress, to something less ambitious (i.e., excluding them, as you seemed to suggest doing).




tevans6220 -> RE: The "other" game (1/29/2007 2:03:42 PM)

Gil,
I'm not suggesting the exclusion of any general provided that you (WCS) can come up with reasonably accurate ratings instead of the randomization of ratings that we have now. I just don't see how it's going to be possible. Rating the big names such as Grant, Lee or Jackson isn't a big problem. Rating the likes of Winder, Patterson and Holmes is going to be a monumental task. Some of those 'unheralded' generals saw little to no action. How do you rate them? I think it would be better to redo the database and only include general officers who commanded divisions or higher. I really think you're spinning your wheels with the bios. It's a nice touch but in the end it's all about the gameplay and how historically accurate the game is. One other question I have is if it was going to take 400-500 man hours to do things right pre-release, how is it going to be any faster now that the game has been released for a few months? It's going to take the same amount of time no matter when you do it and any pressure for release was self-inflicted due to all the aar's, forum talk and advertising that Matrix and WCS was doing.



a white rabbit -> RE: The "other" game (1/29/2007 5:18:12 PM)

..please be our guests, you can even discuss t3* here..

..*and toaw-acow and even BioEd..



bartholimew -> RE: The "other" game (1/29/2007 5:21:10 PM)

.....And I thought this was a thread about Theatre of war [:D]



a white rabbit -> RE: The "other" game (1/30/2007 5:30:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bartholimew

.....And I thought this was a thread about Theatre of war [:D]



..aren't they all , really ? ..

..sorry, i thought you meant toaw*, the (operational)Art of War..

..[8D]..

..* pls note, i am not being paid by Matrix to publicise the only game you should have on yr computer, along side which the rest are just , errr, games. i am only endevouring to help you in yr understanding on war..



Gil R. -> RE: The "other" game (1/30/2007 7:19:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Gil,
I'm not suggesting the exclusion of any general provided that you (WCS) can come up with reasonably accurate ratings instead of the randomization of ratings that we have now. I just don't see how it's going to be possible. Rating the big names such as Grant, Lee or Jackson isn't a big problem. Rating the likes of Winder, Patterson and Holmes is going to be a monumental task. Some of those 'unheralded' generals saw little to no action. How do you rate them? I think it would be better to redo the database and only include general officers who commanded divisions or higher. I really think you're spinning your wheels with the bios. It's a nice touch but in the end it's all about the gameplay and how historically accurate the game is. One other question I have is if it was going to take 400-500 man hours to do things right pre-release, how is it going to be any faster now that the game has been released for a few months? It's going to take the same amount of time no matter when you do it and any pressure for release was self-inflicted due to all the aar's, forum talk and advertising that Matrix and WCS was doing.


The difference is that since volunteers are writing the bios I can quickly determine ratings -- which I then run by the writers -- based on those bios. FAR less time to get ratings than if I had to research each guy myself.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.015625