AGEOD Forums

ACW is a great game. Really enjoyed the complexity of it. The AI was pretty good and PBEM was definately the best. I was browsing for some Civil War games, and came across one called Forge of Freedom. For you guys that have played both how was it compared to ACW? I think its an older title 2006. Just would like to hear some veiws on it from those of you who have played both. Might just pick it up to take of the spare time on this Iraq deployment.

They were released at the same time, roughly. FoF has a tactical module, if you are into these sorts of things, so it will give you a big return value in hours for your spending. For the rest, even if I own (and bought) it, I have not played it much.

patryn8 wrote:ACW is a great game. Really enjoyed the complexity of it. The AI was pretty good and PBEM was definately the best. I was browsing for some Civil War games, and came across one called Forge of Freedom. For you guys that have played both how was it compared to ACW? I think its an older title 2006. Just would like to hear some veiws on it from those of you who have played both. Might just pick it up to take of the spare time on this Iraq deployment.

Another one is Gary Grigsby's War Between The States

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/357/details/Gary.Grigsby%27s.War.Between.The.States

Both are cool, although I can nitpick about FoF.

The little texts and photos are great, the Gameplay is a little lacking. In all my games as the South, 90% of my Battles are in either Memphis or Fredericksburg and the game becomes a race to build two ungodly and gamey superstacks that you can use to grind the Yankee invader, who ALWAYS attacks the same spot, into the groud.

The difficulty level just handicaps your ecopnomic growth (although the economic model is cool as hell) and gives the AI morale bonuses, leading to even more lopsided slaughter, as poorly coordinated units get mauled through the meatgrinder that is my Army of Northern Virginia.

Having said that, I think the Blockade Running is better (as opposed to 'ram as many boats in the boxes, they never get killed) in AACW.

Naval Combat is just as awful as AACW, no need for a Navy.... which kinda makes sense as there were very little Naval engagements at all in the actual war (that mattered).

The morale system in FoF is kinda crap too, you lose 2 points for a state capital, but then regain 1 when you recapture. If I am inflicting 3:1 losses, capturing 20k guys in a battle and generally winning the war, my NM should not go down by 1 because I forgot to put a unit in some remote capital.

Ok done now, time for AACW2!

Looked around for both FoF and Gary Grigsby's War Between the states, and so far I think its only Matrix games selling them for $59.99 per. Seems a bit steep, but just wanted to check with any of you guys to see if that was the going price or if there were better ones around. Now if it were ACW2 I would jump at that in a heartbeat.

The Forge of Freedom developers recently announced that they are beta-testing their next game. It will be a turn-based, tactical-only, regimental-level Civil War game using a new generation of their hex-based module. The emphasis is on historicity more than sandbox play, and the first installment will present several early-ACW battles.

You can find info on the Matrix forums under "games in development."

If you are into the ACW, you could also check SOW: Gettysburg, a great tactical-only game about...Gettysburg , by one of the developers of TC2M.

Regards

Franciscus wrote:If you are int the ACW, you could also check SOW: Gettysburg, a great tactical-only game about...Gettysburg , by one of the developers of TC2M.

Regards

Be careful with that game if you've got an older computer. My desktop is over 5 years old --- Pentium IV 3.4 GhZ processor; 4 GB RAM; ATI Radeon X600/X550 video card [I think is the major problem] --- and it is virtually unplayable. My much newer laptop plays the game perfectly. The lack of a full battle scenario, ala Sid Meiers, has me greatly disappointed and the activation system is a negative, as well. All that said, pretty fun game if your computer can handle it!

Should be fine with the computer. Just picked up a new Acer laptop January 2010. No kidding though, I find myself having to upgrade or just build a new desktop almost every 2 years or even less to keep up.

For tactical level games, I still play the old Talonsoft Battleground series (Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, Shiloh, and Chickamauga). They were first released back in the late 1990's and I still have multi-player games going.

I think the updated versions that run on Windows XP/Vista/7 are called John Tiller's Civil War series on Matrix games.

What you get a good accurate tabletop game with units going down to the regiment level. They also come packaged with an editor so you can change unit statistics, or if one is motivated enough, complete new scenario set-ups.

My biggest complaints are the games are really only meant for multiplayer as the AI is useless. Useless might be kind. The AI regularly fails to move all units, change formations/facing, or make even a minor effort at gaining or holding objectives.

But, for a playing another person I still love 'em a decade later.

IMMHO, AACW is the best. It just models all the important things better.

There's only one thing I like better about FoF and that has to do with its alternate leader ability/ratings options. While it's nice that AACW let's you play with the variation a bit, you still have the advantage of being able to know who your best leaders are by looking at them as soon as they appear. That's a pretty major advantage over what Lincoln and Davis had to deal with. FoF has an option that changes the leader ratings but then also hides them from you until the leader has participated in a few battles. As an alternate to historical fixed ratings, I prefer that over what AACW offers.

Otherwise, AACW has held up a lot better, IMHO.

Just looked at it, that's quite interesting even though they're not taking about some most proheminent CW games, like SOW: Get. and War Between the States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Civil_War_video_games

FOF has a option for tactical combat which is cool, but could be better IMO. AACW is a far deeper and better sim / game of the Civil War. I would go as far as to say that AACW is the best Civil War game made to date. The depth of the game is unsurpassed and with a little time you will truley understand why. Both are good games but if you have to pick one AACW is it.

W.Barksdale wrote:IMMHO, AACW is the best. It just models all the important things better.

I agree, except cavalry raids in "Gary Grigsby's War Between The States" is handled *much* better. If AACW had the cavalry raid model of GGWBTS, that would be my dream-come-true ACW game

Agree, also if AACW had a great tactical battle mode ( better then fof) that would really be something!!

deleted

i understand, as it is the game is really a work of art. you all should be very proud of this game. alot of time and attention to detail is quite clear here.

FoF and Ageod's AACW are two completely different games covering the same topic.

I liked both and would play either based on what my mood was at the moment. So for example, if I wanted to upgrade muskets into springfields before heading out and pushing little soldiers around on a battle field I would play FoF. If on the other hand, I was more of a manage production, coordinate large armies from a high level viewpoint then AACW is the way to go.

I like both games equally for what they are, however if I could only have one game (I have both btw) than that game would be AACW simply because it is much more rich in detail and strategically deep. No two games ever play out the same.

Moff Jerjerrod wrote:I liked both and would play either based on what my mood was at the moment. So for example, if I wanted to upgrade muskets into springfields before heading out and pushing little soldiers around on a battle field I would play FoF. If on the other hand, I was more of a manage production, coordinate large armies from a high level viewpoint then AACW is the way to go.

I like both games equally for what they are, however if I could only have one game (I have both btw) than that game would be AACW simply because it is much more rich in detail and strategically deep. No two games ever play out the same.

+1. Hit the nail squarely on the head in my opinion.