Is the PC game good practice?

[Hamilcar]

I am asking for more of an opinion than a rules question, but I didn't know where else to post it. In your opinion, is playing the FoG Computer game good practice for playing tabletop, or are the two systems very different from each other? Is the AI opponent much good for practice, or should I play it online? I would appreciate your advice.

[kal5056]

The rules are significantly different in regards to movement.
The POA system will look familiar and is pretty good with judging matchups.
The problem comes with the shooting and combat mechanisms. The results are calculated ad percentages so you don't see the dice.
The swings seem a bit extreme and combats tend to not end the way you would expect from the POA's.

The AI is very easy to beat after only a couple of games so any real challenge (fun) is from the multi player game.

I enjoy the game a great deal and keep 5-8 games running at any given time but the 2 games are really very different from each other.

Gino
SMAC

[SirGarnet]

The answer is a very qualified yes to your question.

You CAN see the dice and other details with the right option. However, there is no scroll up/down and step-through button so they rush past. In replays it is a challenge to view and understand the detailed combat stats in a flash while viewing where the action is going on with the other eye.

If/when that issue is addressed, then it would be a clear yes since you can follow the mechanics of what happens, including the POAs and die rolls.

Mike

[philqw78]

No wonder we can't agree on the rules.
Mike=Yes
Gino=NO

[rbodleyscott]

No wonder we can't agree on the rules.
Mike=Yes
Gino=NO

RBS=It is C

FOGPC is a great game - like Gino I have 8 (2-player) games on the go at any one time. However, it plays sufficiently differently that it cannot be considered good practice for the tabletop.

On the other hand, the POAs work identically to the table-top rules so for getting the relative feel of troop-types it might possibly be of some value for a beginner.

But who cares? It is a great game, just play it! ("Multiplayer" - i.e. 2 player - only).

[deadtorius]

I would have to put my vote in for it is too different from the TT game for a good practice version. There are too many differences in the 2 games but the PC game is good fun and lets you try out all those armies you don't have or want to purchase/paint the figures for. Multi player is the way to go, much better than the AI, and you get fog of war options so you can sneak up on your opponent with hidden units.

[deadtorius]

I would have to put my vote in for it is too different from the TT game for a good practice version. There are too many differences in the 2 games but the PC game is good fun and lets you try out all those armies you don't have or want to purchase/paint the figures for. Multi player is the way to go, much better than the AI, and you get fog of war options so you can sneak up on your opponent with hidden units.

[azrael86]

Clearly the answer is NO. The PC game has been admitted to be a considerable simplification of the TT game. Simple supply and demand dictates that the only way to get a game that is the same is NOT to buy the inferior PC version. If you do, then there is far less incentive to produce an 'accurate' PC version.

Not that I think we will get one, because game sales are usually graphics driven, and focus on the casual gamer. Basically they assume that hard core gamers will either buy it automatically, or reject it because it is inferior. Plus the casual game market is probably 3-5 times the size of the hardcore.

However, if we buy the ersatz product, why would anyone invest the extra time to make the real thing?