Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: FOF vs AACW

 
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 >> RE: FOF vs AACW Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: FOF vs AACW - 8/30/2007 8:41:52 PM   
LarryP


Posts: 3783
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Carson City, NV
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Larry, don't give up on boardgames. One of the aspects that I had a hard time adjusting to when I turned to computer games was the lack of human interaction. Of course as one gets older and friends move away and get married, just finding the time to get together becomes more difficult. And that is where computers shine, as you already know. Plus the A.I. and no more chickens knocking your cardboard chits everywhere.

Maybe you should try a boardgame of lower complexity to ease you into the genre.


I put it up until the winter snow. Looking at all the rules makes me further appreciate this PC. The Combat Result table, winter move adjustments, this rule that rule... man it's complex! Also not needing an opposing player makes PC gaming pretty nice. I don't have to coordinate the games with another person and I can play in the nude if I so choose. Now that's a scary thought!!!

I now know of simpler board games like the 90 minute versions. Maybe I will try one of those if Russian Front continues to be a problem for me.

(in reply to Missouri_Rebel)
Post #: 61
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/20/2007 6:33:00 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

I find the AACW system unconfortable, at this scale. You make detailed plans, hit the turn button and bam, you get battle results, all without even seeing your units move.


This was one of the reasons I didn't care for "Birth of America", everything is done by the computer and you just get to READ what happened. No fancy combat no nothing but a dull boring combat results page. So, my vote also goes for FoF for best presentation of the American Civil War where YOU the PLAYER get to PLAY the game both strategic AND tactical instead of the computer doing everything and you just get to read some lame combat results page as in AGEODs games. Good job Gil. ;)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 62
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/20/2007 8:31:54 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		AGEOD's combat results are actually pretty darn detailed in terms of showing you how the battle went - it's sort of an advanced Instant/Quick combat. Each game has its strengths and as we play and sell both, our main concern is to make sure they each get a fair shake.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 63
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/20/2007 11:22:43 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks for your comments. We like to think that combining strategic and tactical makes for a pretty good game...

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 64
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/21/2007 1:05:18 AM   
Missouri_Rebel


Posts: 3065
Joined: 6/19/2006
From: Southern Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Each game has its strengths and as we play and sell both, our main concern is to make sure they each get a fair shake.



Oh, I bought both but only play the one.
mo reb

_____________________________

**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 65
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/21/2007 11:35:19 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Thanks for your comments. We like to think that combining strategic and tactical makes for a pretty good game...


You're welcome Gil, now when are you going to do me a nice Roman/Greek/Ancients type game with this engine?! I will be in hog heaven when I get my hands on that. ;)

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 66
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/21/2007 11:45:15 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		We'd love to do one. The thing is, we have multiple projects planned, so it's sort of like O'Hare or JFK when a whole bunch of planes are ready to land. The tower hasn't given clearance yet for an ancients game, but there's certainly one circling...

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 67
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/22/2007 5:00:36 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Well I'm a patient man so as long as one is circling I can wait. This engine just strikes me as the perfect one for an ancients game. Something more groggy than the Total War series which is too much kiddified now. Just looking at the hits your forum has gotten tells me your games are popular. Look at the hits AGEOD has. ;) Yeah I know AGEOD has it's own forum, but, nevertheless it's listed at this site as well and you'd think it'd have more hits than it has had because of the popularity of this site.

The ultimate super hot ancients game would have this engine with the colorful units of Tin Soldiers series. ;) One can wish right? lol

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 68
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/22/2007 5:19:37 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Well I'm a patient man...


Wait. Are you saying that your avatar isn't really a picture of you???? So, I've been being nice to you for all these years for nothing??!!!!!!

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 69
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/22/2007 5:46:42 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Well I'm a patient man...


Wait. Are you saying that your avatar isn't really a picture of you???? So, I've been being nice to you for all these years for nothing??!!!!!!




Now that goes in the Posts Hall of Fame.

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 70
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/22/2007 8:31:59 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Well I'm a patient man...


Wait. Are you saying that your avatar isn't really a picture of you???? So, I've been being nice to you for all these years for nothing??!!!!!!



Ummmm it's my sister and she does anything I tell her to. ;)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 71
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/22/2007 6:04:36 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		The ancients market is a little tricky.  The products that sell better seem to be less on the groggy side of things, from what I can tell.  So if we do an ancient's game we'd probably need to simplify the engine a bit for it.  Ancients stuff doesn't sell as well as the modern stuff, so in order to avoid losing money we probably wouldn't be able to put all the production value into such a game that we had in FOF (sorry Gil, no Athenian generals' bios project...)  But it would seem only right that a few guys calling themselves "Western Civilization Software" should eventually make a game with Greece or Rome in it.


_____________________________



(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 72
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/29/2007 9:39:24 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Man I don't understand wargamers not being interested in the Ancients. My gawd all you have to do is look at the minatures and all the different weapons and shields and clothing they wore. It was the most colorful and deadly close combat (hand to hand) era of our history and so many kewl looking weapons. I've always been a fanatic about ancient warfare. I buy almost anything related to it. Spartan is my favorite game atm, but, I've been playing it for awhile now and I'd like something a little more hands on in the tactical department though Spartans combat system is rather nice as well. I recently got "Punic Wars" and am now just cutting my teeth learning to play it. But, your engine just has it all when it comes to strategic and tactical all in one. Hate to think you have to dumb it down or remove a lot of stuff to sell it or I guess break even on the production costs of an ancients game. If RTW hadn't been so dismal a production I probably wouldn't still be wanting yet another ancients game, but, as we all know it was pretty dismal. Colorful I'll give it that, graphically pretty, but, that's where it ended. Horrible AI both diplomatic and combat wise. Anyways, if/when you make one I'll definitely buy it upon release even though I KNOW it will be buggy and in need of patches. lol

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 73
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/29/2007 9:49:08 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Ravinhood, regarding the ancients game, I'm curious about your opinion about whether such a game would appeal if it lacked detailed combat. Ancient wars -- and here I'm thinking Greeks and Romans, about which I know more than Hittites, Babylonians, etc. -- tended not to have numerous large battles. For example, the Peloponnesian War had only a few real battles, and I even remember Victor Davis Hanson in "A War Like No Other" saying that if one added up the time it took to fight that war's land battles it would come to 3-4 hours. The Civil War lasted four years, but had far, far more significant engagements than the Peloponnesian War did over thirty years, than the Persian Wars half a century earlier, than the Punic Wars, etc. Thus it might make sense to do an ancients game that is only the strategic game and uses the quick-combat system for battles, not the detailed combat system, since we'd be putting in an awful lot of programming and graphics effort for battles that shouldn't be happening that often. Do you think that you and others who want an ancients game would lose interest if it doesn't have detailed combat?

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 74
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/29/2007 9:58:40 PM   
LarryP


Posts: 3783
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Carson City, NV
Status: offline 		I'm retarded AND weird but I turn detailed combat off when I can. That's my vote.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 75
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/29/2007 10:36:52 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		Great if you did an ancients game but I would want it to have the detailed battle module too. The second Punic War would be an ideal topic. Other desirables are the Wars of the Successors or the Late Roman Empire v its enemies (barbarians, Persians and civil wars). All of which would also make good use of a decent diplomacy set up too.

On reflection perhaps a smaller, less sophisticated version of detailed battles (less graphic detail, fewer hexes, more generic units) but with more individual control than in quick battle might be a runner? I recall having good fun with the simplified battle module in the freeware game Imperial Conquest although that is very basic (like the game itself)and I think each battle ends with the destruction of all the units on the losing side. Its on a grid but after placement you do get to control the movement and fire of each of your units.

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 9/29/2007 11:49:49 PM >

(in reply to LarryP)
Post #: 76
RE: FOF vs AACW - 9/30/2007 3:49:13 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Ravinhood, regarding the ancients game, I'm curious about your opinion about whether such a game would appeal if it lacked detailed combat. Ancient wars -- and here I'm thinking Greeks and Romans, about which I know more than Hittites, Babylonians, etc. -- tended not to have numerous large battles. For example, the Peloponnesian War had only a few real battles, and I even remember Victor Davis Hanson in "A War Like No Other" saying that if one added up the time it took to fight that war's land battles it would come to 3-4 hours. The Civil War lasted four years, but had far, far more significant engagements than the Peloponnesian War did over thirty years, than the Persian Wars half a century earlier, than the Punic Wars, etc. Thus it might make sense to do an ancients game that is only the strategic game and uses the quick-combat system for battles, not the detailed combat system, since we'd be putting in an awful lot of programming and graphics effort for battles that shouldn't be happening that often. Do you think that you and others who want an ancients game would lose interest if it doesn't have detailed combat?



I can only speak from my younger days and those that enjoyed minature battles using ancients pieces and for me and those it was pretty popular. I'm a "tactical" type player by and by now. I hardly play any game that is pure strategic or operational anymore. I've been tactical since I first got my hands on the origional "Squad Leader" game. So, a pure grand strategic ancients game wouldn't impress me much. Though the "Battle of Alesia" would.

It is the color and the mass amounts of unique weapons of that period that I would like to see in a strategical/tactical game of the Ancients, it's why we played minatures to begin with I think because of all the colors and weapons vs the period history and how long a battle lasted.

Remember I'm drawn to your game engine and design BECAUSE you do not follow the leader and you make your games open ended whereas they don't have to follow historical rule. You create the "whatifs" that us whatif gamers like. If you left out the tactical battles in the Ancients game you would be doing a dis-service to those that buy your games for this reason. The historical time frames of battles just do not matter as much as being able to play them out by "choice".

Of course I know coding all those wonderful colorful units of the period would add a lot more programming to the game as well as the tactical portion to the game. It's what I would buy though and it's what I would recommend others to buy as well.

I also feel as though a time for the Ancients is forthcoming. I have to believe the consumers are getting sick of WW2 material and from where I sit modern day wargames can't be that popular. We've had an influx of Civil wargames and the only other call would be Medieval times.

But, whatever you do please don't eliminate the best things about your games...the tactical portion as well as strategic nor the ability to play whatifs in them. ;)

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 77
RE: FOF vs AACW - 10/3/2007 5:44:05 AM   
hgilmer

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 6/2/2007
From: Birmingham, Alabama
Status: offline 		    I'm glad someone agrees with me that the TW series were a little too kiddified.  I liked them don't get me wrong, but I wanted a little more depth.  I remember I put a few good units in Shogun in that one central province and it kept getting attacked.  i'd just wait them out on the hill and then destroy them in a short charge.  I'd be attacked 30 or more times.

This engine strikes me as being a very good fit for the Napoleon time period as well.  I wonder about other time periods like maybe the hundred years war and the 30 years war.  I'm not an expert on those times, but it seems like it could work.  It would take a lot of effort obviously.


_____________________________


(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 78
RE: FOF vs AACW - 10/3/2007 5:54:01 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hgilmer

This engine strikes me as being a very good fit for the Napoleon time period as well. I wonder about other time periods like maybe the hundred years war and the 30 years war. I'm not an expert on those times, but it seems like it could work. It would take a lot of effort obviously.




It is! Check out the "Crown of Glory" subforum to learn more about our Napoleonics game.

(in reply to hgilmer)
Post #: 79
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: FOF vs AACW Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

9.203