Do you play detailed battles? (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

Do you play detailed battles?


I never fight detailed battles
  24% (41)
I sometimes fight detailed battles
  27% (45)
I usually fight detailed battles
  32% (53)
I always fight detailed battles
  15% (26)


Total Votes : 165
(last vote on : 1/14/2016 5:10:05 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

Gil R. -> Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 6:28:07 PM)

General Quarters asked if people are playing detailed battles or quick combat, and I have to admit I'm a bit curious myself. So I figured, why not a poll thread?



Greyhunterlp -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 7:02:44 PM)

I Tend to play the closer ones, playing 100K troops vs 2K isn't worth the time, but anything with decent troop numbers is detailed.

although i'm sure this leads to many more defeats than the AI would generate, but hey, least i'm slowly getting better....



Drex -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 7:13:38 PM)

I intend to play all major battles as detailed but since i only have .75 gig of RAM I can only get the Chit view. It'll be more fun with all the goodies. Most of the battles will be QC though as it does take time to play out the detailed.



Brausepaul -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 7:55:56 PM)

I played a detail battle once, the graphics put me off.



ABridgeTooFar -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 10:08:12 PM)

Detailed battles all the way except for the 110K vs 3K.  Love the detailed battles.  It is where you can see all your newly purchased toys and put them to use.  When I say toys I am referring to new weapons, attributes, officers, etc.  It really takes this game to a whole new level of amazingness (yes I know that is not a word).



General Quarters -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 10:18:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ABridgeTooFar

amazingness (yes I know that is not a word).


It is now.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 11:22:43 PM)

In all honesty i would not play FOF without detailed battles...period. It's like an ice cream cone without the ice cream!



Hard Sarge -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/8/2007 11:40:38 PM)

Aye, got to agree

but since I am the HW guy, I got to :)

How many times can I vote ?





tiredoftryingnames -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/9/2007 12:24:20 AM)

I voted sometimes. My plan once I learned the detailed battle system was to play any close battle with detailed battle. Once I saw the system I desperately wanted to use it based on how it worked. After playing it and seeing the AI charge with 1 brigade at a time and me easily winning any battle I only play with Quick Combat now. Poll again after the patch. I hear detailed got some work. My one gripe about the detailed combat is it's use of the quick combat system of assigning them an order and they have to be given orders in that sequence. I really wish it used the strategic map system. Let both sides give their orders by going to their units however they please and then have the action fought out in action phases so they carry out the combat in a more realistic fashion than 1 after the other.



Twotribes -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/9/2007 12:28:08 AM)

So far I tend to use Quick Battle. Exceptions being if I am outnumbered and each side has over 10k each troops. If I can get close to the AI in numbers chances are with Detailed I can win. Especially if am the defender.

Havent recently had any huge battles but since only 27 brigades show on QB ( well a few more if you call reinforcements) I suspect any huge battle will be detailed as well.



Diggypiggy -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/9/2007 12:49:23 AM)

I would play detailed battles more often but I usually win against the AI when I really shouldn't. I will play more detailed battles if the AI is improved in the upcoming patch.



marecone -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/9/2007 1:08:32 AM)

I play it sometimes. My comp sucks so I can play them only without sounds [:@]



Arkady -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/9/2007 11:15:47 AM)

I've only 512 MB RAM but I usually play detailed battles. I switch off sound and video (rename folder trick) but keep music. I don't use low anim as I like those little soldiers :)
I switch smoth movement and shadows in detailed battles though.

Btw with the 1.23 patch performance increased..at least it seems to me .)



Drex -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/9/2007 6:33:47 PM)

I use low animation but how do I switch back?



Zakouski -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/9/2007 7:00:52 PM)

I play detailed battles when the stakes are important. And the ability to choose and play from strategical to operational level is my main interest in this great game [8D]



Greyhunterlp -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/10/2007 12:56:21 PM)

Just had a detailed battle that sums up why to play detailed, 28K union under (me) vs 10K rebs (AI) and its january 1863

I'm Playing with random generals on, as i don't like to be able to tell at a glance whos going to be the best, and i don't like to be able to write off my enemy if i know their commanded by a poor general. and the commander of the enemy division had been haunting my western campain for the best part of two years now, he started with just one brigade, but was able to see off much larger forces repeatedly, effectivly halting my hopes of a quick victory by storming down the west. by now hes my stonewall, appearing whenever i try and move troops around to hammer them and spoil my plans.

Its winter, so my troops are holding on the border while i get their numbers up, I finally get a decent general i can send west (ironically sherman) so i demote the bumbling fool who has been commaning the US third corps, and then replace him with sherman. that turn the enemy general attacks my third corp, despite biing outnumbered 2-1. I decide to go into the detailed battle. after some manuveing, i am just about to take up a defensive position, and into my exposed flank slams the 30th CA brigade, thier charge causes 1000 casulties and breaks the US 25th, and i put my head into my hands, and think "here we go again" i try and swing around, but the second brigade hits another one of mine and kills 400 of them with withering fire, then the 30th charge the next out of place brigade. Who hold! 650 men of the 30th die, and much more importantly the enemy general, suddenly everything turns around, and i manage to rout the enemy! my first victory in the west, and a thorn in my side removed. just as well i don't have any neighbours atm, beacuse its early in the moring and I shouted out loud. i now know how the union must have felt when Jackson got killed. the sense of relief.

Hmm, this has turned into more of an AAR, but its a point thats theres nothing better than building up hatred and respect for an AI general, the watching him get himself killed in a heroic charge.



General Quarters -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/10/2007 4:17:09 PM)

That's really interesting. Not many AARs have been posted, and sometimes it is better to have a thumbnail sketch anyway. Thanks.



Maurym -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/12/2007 6:08:50 PM)

I've started to play the detailed combat mode along the lines as others (when it's not really lopsided), but I'm still a real noob. I thought I had it reasonably figured out and had positioned my force to come up from the flank & back of the enemy. It should have been a slaughter (common sense would dictate so)...and it was...against me. The enemy; which was in column and facing away from me simply turned, formed into line and fired. My troops immediately paniced.

I'm sure I am missing some nuances to this...it would be helpful to have a more descriptive guide (at least for me) to detailed combat. 



Twotribes -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/12/2007 10:36:25 PM)

If you were the Union expect that to happen. More importantly look at the top of the screen in the middle, it will list the "standing" of the respective sides. Hover over the number and it will tell you how that number was arrived at. If your on the attack and that number is lower than the enemy, you better be real good or your gonna lose.

Defenders get a bonus to start and that can be a killer combined with generally better southern troops.

You need to arm your brigades, give them special abilities AND ensure they are inspired OR preferrably higher moral. And Generals are needed as well, including the lowly one stars.



Hertston -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/13/2007 1:15:36 AM)

Nope, I rarely do. FoF is an excellent strategic game, but there are much better tactical systems to wast.. erm, spend time playing.



christof139 -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/13/2007 5:13:38 AM)

I don't like the 3D combat in FoF for the following reasons: it's way too slow and 'klunkly, and takes WAY TOO MUCH TIME!!!

Chris



christof139 -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/14/2007 9:48:44 AM)

quote:

don't like the 3D combat in FoF for the following reasons: it's way too slow and 'klunkly, and takes WAY TOO MUCH TIME!!!

Chris


To reply to my own quote listed above:

I got rid of some of the klunkiness and/or slowness in HW (DC) by discovering that hooking-back-up my diconnected printer help smooth things out, as it being not connected befuddled and bogged down system resources even though I had closed the 'disconnected device icon' down. Ta-da. It's the simple things in life sometimes that do it for you.

Also, I have 3 DIMM's of 1GB memory, ywo of one brand-make and 1 of another, and I made sure I had the two of one brand in slots next to each other. All three DIMM's have been tested by me with memory diagnostics and are good, and the BIOS and WinXP show that I have 3GB's of RAM, however FoF, EA BFME2, and my Creative Soundblaster Card diagnostics show only 2GB's. Wierd, but I have a 2002 Acer AX45-V Mobo and one online diagnostc showed I had 3GB's of RAM and 4-RAM Slots, when I have only 3-RAM slots. Therefore, my memory is good now and properly working and it helps a lot. I did have a bad ACP-Add-on 1GB DIMM but they replaced it quickly w/o any problems as it had a lifetime warranty. BFME2 and RotWK run good with some settings on ultra high and high, some on low, and some on medium. FoF runs very quickly now with music and sound and all. The smoke in HW still slows things a bit, not much, and I intend to shut-off the smoke as I did before, and maybe also the 'jiggling'-wiggling of the little unit sprites. Too much stuff like that slows even fast compooter, ties up RAM memory usage, adds to data processing bottlenecks, etc. which all adds-up to speed loss and slowness and bogging down of the system.

I only have a PNY GeForce FX5200 256MB 8xAGP card running at 4xAGP, and it works very well. My old Acer Mobo won't support anything above 4xAGP, but it will support 4xAGP and lower, which is nice so then you can buy cheap older video cards to use like I did.

The 478 pin 2.5GHz P4 late stepping (latter production with minor improvements usually) Northwood Core CPU I have overclocked to 2.8 to about 3.1GHz (believe it or not the processing speed can vary) with only a 112 x 4 = 448FSB instead of the stock 100 x 4 = 400FSB, and it runs nice and cool with stock factory cooling fan and heatsink, and it is fast. EA's BFME2 identified this CPU as running at about 3.1GHz once, with Hyper Threading (and it does not have HT), so the EA diagnostics must sometimes identify Intel's Net burst Architecture as Intel's HT. [X(] These diagnostics also id this with a 2.0GHz Northwood I have, and it was overclocked to 2.2GHz or so. The diagnostics correctly identify CPU's with the factory set speed, and what you actually overclock their speed to, which is very nice to know, although this is also shown in WinXP and sometimes the BIOS. Northwoods were and are great CPU's.

My new system will have 4GB's of 400, 533 or 667 MHz DDR2 RAM on an Intel Mobo that can support Dual Core (not Core Duo) P-D's, and any 775 Socket P4, so I am using a P4 571 3.8MHz with 1MB L2 buffer/cache memory and HT, and of course the Mobo also supports HT. So, this thing will smoke playing any strategy/historical game and running regular day to day prigrams.

Chris



Drex -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/14/2007 4:14:19 PM)

Very impressive. Unfortunately I didn't understand any of it. Please speak Civil War, that I can understand. :)



christof139 -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/15/2007 2:23:35 AM)

quote:

Very impressive. Unfortunately I didn't understand any of it. Please speak Civil War, that I can understand. :)


OK.

1) 'Klunkiness' = Slowness, bogginess, game gets bogged or bogged-down.

2) 'Klunkiness' can be caused by either one or a variety of variables, either sindularly or in combinations.

3) Examples of variables that cause 'Klunkiness' would be not enough RAM, a slow CPU, or having a device such as a printer on your compooter but not having it connected, and even disabling it or shutting its program off, can still cause it to hog some memory or cause a system glitch. Solution is to reconnect the device and then shut it down.

4) Another example of a variable that can cause 'Klunkiness' is to have too many special effects running in a game, and having many of those efects set to high quality. An example of this in FoF is the smoke on the game screen. I have 3GB RAM and a fast and good CPU, yet the smoke really hogs memory etc., so I turn the smoke off and ta-da!, game runs much faster and smoother. Plus, i can't see through the smoke because of my 4-year old prescription bifocals. [8|] Time to finally get another updated pair of dual eyeball monocles or eyeglasses.

Chris



moose1999 -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/16/2007 7:44:02 PM)

Well, to me, detailed battles are a big part of the experience.
I love the variation you get with jumping from strategic to tactical level.
I simply would not buy FoF if it did not have detailed battles.



christof139 -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/17/2007 2:37:33 AM)

quote:

Well, to me, detailed battles are a big part of the experience.
I love the variation you get with jumping from strategic to tactical level.
I simply would not buy FoF if it did not have detailed battles.

< Message edited by briny_norman -- 2/16/2007 12:57:36 PM >


Yeah, I like them now that my compooter is compooting faster, but they still take a lot of time. I like the old TalonSoft system for detailed battles, it was very efficient, if a bit unrealsitic with units being able to fight to their extinction, even though they did rout and cause other units to rout, but could rally and still fight to the end. i like the IGOUGO type of play for mid to large detailed battles.

Chris



roboczar -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/17/2007 4:40:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiredoftryingnames
After playing it and seeing the AI charge with 1 brigade at a time and me easily winning any battle I only play with Quick Combat now. Poll again after the patch.


QFT

I was really excited about detailed combat until I had a few battles, and realised I had to goad the attacking AI into battle with a single brigade; drawing them back to my lines one at a time. Occasionally I'd get two or so, but there was no concerted advance, just a dozen enemy brigades standing around picking flowers (and their noses).



Wahoo -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (2/17/2007 7:18:46 AM)

I found the computer attacking after being cut to pieces time and time again.  The aspect I like the most is the chance to loose or kill enemy generals.  Was shocked to loose Jackson chasing routing soilders...



Gil R. -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (4/13/2007 9:20:18 PM)

(Bump)



christof139 -> RE: Do you play detailed battles? (4/13/2007 9:44:04 PM)

Detailed comat works much better at a higher level of play, and at Lt. Col. level it is functioning well.  Chris




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125