ACW vs Forge of Freedom

[Stoneage]

I have no problem with the manual as such its the fact that this is obviously a very complex game that needs a hold suite of tutorials to explain things to those who struggle with manuals.

[John_C]

The truth be said, there's one important thing that differentiates FOF from AACW and that FOF has TCP/IP online capability !

[Korrigan]

The truth be said, there's one important thing that differentiates FOF from AACW and that FOF has TCP/IP online capability !

True, for the time being AACW only relies on PBEM and hot-seat for multiplayer.

Two third-party coders are working (separately) on a TCP/IP module and a user friendly Webhosting module. However, as they're third party we can't yet provide ETA on them.

On the other hand, we have hired a second coder to help Pocus. His name is Yann (aka Celtic) and today is his first day in the company!

[John_C]

GREAT!
Congratulations to Yann on his first day. I'm sure he'll enjoy working in such a fine company as yours.

[demarcroix]

On the other hand, we have hired a second coder to help Pocus. His name is Yann (aka Celtic) and today is his first day in the company!

GREAT!
Congratulations to Yann on his first day. I'm sure he'll enjoy working in such a fine company as yours.

Well, in fact it's Yoann and not Yann... And he seems quite happy to work with us!

[LarryP]

For what its worth my first reaction was how polished and impressive the ACW map is compared to the one in FoF. Also the fact FoF has no proper tutorial and a 200+ page manual was sufficient to put me off before I had even got started.

I like the manual so much that I printed it out and also bought the hard copy too! I miss the old days of getting a hard copy manual when buying software. You don't have to use it but it is always there if you need it.

However, with all the wonderful ToolTips AACW has, you don't need as much outside help. I love those ToolTips!

[DennyWright]

Welcome Yoann!

I find the User Interface much easier to manage on AACW; I found that on FOF I had big problems with unit control - but now I hear there was a 200 page manual that could explain it - I must have forgotten to download it!

[LarryP]

The FOF manual is in color too!

[ERutins]

A quick note to the person who mentioned no tutorial: there's a Flash tutorial on the interface accessible through the FOF Game Menu. The full manual is included in the game download and installed with the game. You can find a link to it in the Game Menu as well as in the program folder.

I do agree with this thread though that these are both games that should be in every ACW gamer's library. I'm not sure what the future will hold, but there have not been many good ACW grand strategy computer games in the past, so get 'em while they're hot!

And also a quick hello to Yoann!

Regards,

- Erik

[Queeg]

The biggest differences between AACW and FOF, to me, are :

1. Map - the AACW map is much better. Huge, with a very significant (and realistic) impact on movement, combat, etc. Really an amazing achievment.

2. Tactical battles - FOF has them, AACW doesn't. I personally never played them in FOF (never had the time) but they do add a feature for those who want that.

3. Simplicity vs. Detail - AACW, like BOA, manages to deliver a very complex and challenging game in a very tight and elegant package. I think they made some very wise decisions in the way of abstraction and simplification, leaving the detail where it most matters. AACW truly is easy to get into but difficult to master.

FOF, on the other hand, offers far more in the way of options to pick and pieces to juggle, but at the cost of a much higher degree of micromanagement. There are times playing AACW that I do miss some of the options from FOF. But then I also appreciate how easy AACW is to play So it's a trade-off. FOF is a love/hate deal in some ways - I love all the detail, but tire at times of the micromanagement involved. And in the initial release at any rate, it sometimes felt that some of the moving parts didn't quite fit together as well as they should. AACW, at present, is a much "tighter" game. The upcoming patch for FOF, though, promises to correct most of those issues.

Having played - and very much enjoyed AACW - I can say that I'll also enjoy getting back to FOF because it offers a very different experience. I would say that AACW is the better, more polished game, at present. But I expect FOF will turn out to be a great game in its own right.

[iceboy]

Besides both games being great and complimenting each other very well...

Here is another reason to own both games: The music! Both games have great music and combined together its an awesome civil war music collection! I put both games tunes into one folder and play the combined collection while Im playing either game! Its fantastic!

[Reiryc]

Convince my guys

Looking at the two which is better and why?

Thanks

I love playing both games.

Each has it's own flavor and in my view, both are worth the money.

[Reiryc]

Besides both games being great and complimenting each other very well...

Here is another reason to own both games: The music! Both games have great music and combined together its an awesome civil war music collection! I put both games tunes into one folder and play the combined collection while Im playing either game! Its fantastic!

Great point...

I also enjoy the music from both games. I'll have to add the music to both games, great suggestion!

[Charleson]

Good to see many of us have realized what a boon it is to the hobby to have two fine, well supported games--finally after YEARS of waiting.

Queeg wrote: Having played - and very much enjoyed AACW - I can say that I'll also enjoy getting back to FOF because it offers a very different experience...

My thoughts were somewhat along the same lines, Queeg.

Perhaps a better name for this thread might be, [color="Blue"]how can we play and enjoy both games simulatanously[/color]?

I bought FOF two weeks ago and played the heck out of it into the wee hours of the night--much to my boss' and wife's dismay. I downloaded AACW this weekend and have hardly come up for air for the last three days while I've been lost in learning its command structure. Yet I'm feeling a strong pull to get back to fine tuning my infrastructure, slapping around some bothersome governors, and playing out a tactical battle or two in FOF.

I suppose the obvious thing to do would be to take FOF slow, play a turn or two a night while fighting out the tactical battles. That leaves time to play out a short scenario or a season of a longer campaign in AACW.

[Mike]

Interesting situation that these two games were released within days of each other. I ended up with 'Forge' first, but am liking ACW's detail a lot more.

I think 'Forge' is a good game design and deveopement, ACW is a much better simulation.

Your thoughts?

[tc237]

Forge was released in December.

[Mike]

Showing my age, 4 months seems like a few days. Thanks, I didn't know that.

Actually I'm pretty new to both Matrix and very new to AGEOD, I've been playing the HPS ACW games in recent years and Talonsoft before that. A PBM opponant clued me in to both the Matrix and ACW games.

The last game on the ACW subject that covered the whole war was a game in the late '90s, can't remember the name, but it was a bear to play. Before that was the Victory games board game 20 years ago... and good lord, Milton Bradley's game 20 years before that. Didn't much care for the SPI ACW games.

[K-1stPennaRes]

My guess is you mean Interactive Magic's "From Sumter to Appomattox," which was a reprint, so to speak, of Frank Hunter's self-produced game by the same or a similar name. I was involved in this project, and admit the game was not a masterpiece, but at the time, there was nothing better. For some reason -- until this recent title --the Civil War has been the elephant's graveyard of strategy games. Nobody seemed to be able to create a decent one, and I find it amusing that a French team could far exceed any American developers, who -- in theory -- know the subject matter far better.

But the again, the best Civil War movie I have ever seen is Ang Lee's "Ride with the Devil." As a friend of mine said, "How come a Chinese guy writes better dialogue for nineteenth century America than any Americans?"

Yeah! How come?

B.C. Milligan

[Mike]

I Magic, that was it. Always thought it was a decent simulation, but coultn't endure very many turns as a game. Actually reloaded it last week and yes, I hate that game. Interesting since 30 years ago I would endure any lengths for a good 'simulation'. I appreciate a well developed game much more these days. A late bloomer what?

Anyway, I'm having a ball with both of the recent offerings. 'Forge' is Sim City with armies, a very smooth design but don't much care the scale, and really wonder what is up with the city building (Sim City) thing. AGEOD is a really decent simulation at a scale that I like, but just a bit herky jerky in play. Along with the HPS offerings, a great time for ACW gaming IMHO.

Looking forward to learning ACW well enough for PBEM play.

[Charleson]

Mike,

You might find this thread interesting:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3398

Best, -Chuck

[jimkehn]

Mike...I, too, have played a lot of HPS Civil War games (as well as Panzer Campaigns). On their level, they are tops. AACW is something completely different given the scale, as you know. I have gotten into May of 1862 of an April 61 Campaign start date. I can tell you that the further you get into this game, and the more you learn how it works, the more you will appreciate the finer machinations of it. Welcome to the community, and when you are ready for PBEM, give me a holler......if I don't have one going by then.

[Mike]

I agree, this looks like a winner. I'll be in touch when I'm proficient enough to present a challenging game.

[jimkehn]

Well, I'm learning too and we can learn together. I play the games for the enjoyment of the simulation, and not with a killer " I'm gonna win at all costs" attitude. I would play with the intent that we point out to each other things we discover works and doesn't work. Let me know.

[FlyingElvis]

Also, Gary Grigsby is developing a ACW game. It's a good time to be a ACW gamer.

[daddytorgo]

Also, Gary Grigsby is developing a ACW game. It's a good time to be a ACW gamer.

is he really? sweet jeezus...it is a good time!

[pasternakski]

is he really? sweet jeezus...it is a good time!

Well, I'm not sweet jeezus, but this is what I know about this project - and it ain't much.

First, there's this from the 2by3 Games developers' journal (Grigsby being one of the "three"):

[SIZE="1"]Work has been ongoing on our Civil War game. We expect to be making a public announcement regarding this game before the end of this year and should have some screenshots to show at that time. The game has been playable for the past few months and we'd like to get it into outside beta testing before the end of the year. If things go well we're shooting for it to be on sale before next summer. It uses a greatly modified World at War system. The biggest difference is the inclusion of leaders (over 1000 historical leaders are in the database). Units are attached to leaders, and those leaders must gain initiative in order to participate in offensive action. The game has monthly turns and the map consists of over 400 regions. The importance of cavalry for not only reconnaissance but also for disrupting enemy supply lines is addressed as well. Our goal with this game, similar to with World at War, is to create a game that covers the entire war, can be played quickly and without a steep learning curve, yet retains a very large measure of historical realism. [/size]

That's the good news (for those who see it that way). The bad news is that this entry appeared in November 2005. The Matrix staff has referred to this title a few times on their forums, but that's all there is. Maybe the Matrix staffer who posts here occasionally would be forthcoming with more information...

Personally, I disliked the GGWaW system and have no interest in this game. After all, I've got AACW to keep me warm.

[Pocus]

I think I will play it, if historical enough. I own FOF but it is a game with some scope, as AACW, so I don't have time for it. AACW, I know it too much by heart, and when I play a turn, I generally spend the ten next hours tweaking the AI. So this leave me with the 2by3 one

[ERutins]

FYI, this one (Gary Grigsby's) is looking excellent so far in beta as well and I really think this is one heck of a year for ACW gaming. It's not the same as GGWAW despite being based on the same engine. Many differences to adapt it to the ACW period and a much smaller scale than the global GGWAW. It is IMHO still in some ways the highest level of the three games in terms of scale, yet it feels like it's between FOF and AACW and plays very historically. Ok, off my soapbox now...

You should check the 2by3 journal for more info as well... the latest entry includes info on this upcoming title. Hopefully, it's ok to post the link here.

http://www.2by3games.com/devjournal/journal20070104.html

And now back to AACW...

Regards,

- Erik

[razorbackjac]

It certainly has turned out to be a very good year for the American Civil war.

[anarchyintheuk]

No Greater Glory was probably my favorite Civil War computer game. Been ages since I've played it tho. Come to think of it, I have to have it around somewhere.