Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
I was involved in the Beta but have decided to give it a pass. It looks brilliant and has some great features but dislike how it plays. It just felt too far removed from modern warfare. Too many concessions for playability.hidde wrote:That play Battlefield Academy?
Anyone of you ancient aficionados never felt an urge to blow things up?
It's a helluva game, I can say that much. Very tense. Every corner, every patch of wood or non-cleared building can spell your doom.
I still put FOG first of course, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying another masterpiece.
Funny...havn't played anything besides FOG since early this year and when it happen it's a Slitherine game once more.
It's very tempting... How big are the scenarios? Is the AI good? And the scenario editor?hidde wrote:That play Battlefield Academy?
Anyone of you ancient aficionados never felt an urge to blow things up?
It's a helluva game, I can say that much. Very tense. Every corner, every patch of wood or non-cleared building can spell your doom.
I still put FOG first of course, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying another masterpiece.
Funny...havn't played anything besides FOG since early this year and when it happen it's a Slitherine game once more.
Not that big. Twenty units or so for each side. There is already players creating bigger maps and I assume more units with them.Examinondas wrote:It's very tempting... How big are the scenarios? Is the AI good? And the scenario editor?hidde wrote:That play Battlefield Academy?
Anyone of you ancient aficionados never felt an urge to blow things up?
It's a helluva game, I can say that much. Very tense. Every corner, every patch of wood or non-cleared building can spell your doom.
I still put FOG first of course, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying another masterpiece.
Funny...havn't played anything besides FOG since early this year and when it happen it's a Slitherine game once more.
Yes, ex-military in my wild youthful days. Became a lawyer after that and then recruited to move to Japan 11 years ago but gave it all up 4 years back and became a teacher for a private institute. The difference between FOG and Battle Academy is not that both lack a realism to me but rather Battle Academy is too far removed from modern tactics for me to ignore this fact. It doesn't play at all like modern warfare but rather like one of those simplified games à la Panzer General. In the beginning, to test the games veracity, I tried to adopt historical and realistic tactics but it just constantly lead to ruin versus my opponents (not the ai as any tactic should be fine). Once I got the nuances of how this game plays I decided to play the game to win and suddenly it became too easy to garner victory if you ignore real tactics. It felt too silly performing tactics that proved too effective but in reality would see your force destroyed. In FOG, with the constant revisions to the game and the way, the developers keep listening to their customers it is slowly becoming a better and better experience. I just really hope they adopt the complex maneuver test and cohesion test penalties I suggested in another thread to try and force people to adopt more realistic deployments though it would still allow a player to do as they will but would involve greater risk thus exemplifying the quality of generalship. In the WWII game I felt it was far too removed and would require an overhaul of the game engine for me to play so I haven't climbed aboard.hidde wrote: Steve: I think I remember you said you are (were?) in the military. Perhaps that's why you see all simplifications all to well? To me it plays very slick and the tactics one use simulates, at least to my ignorant eyes, some of what happens in real life.
pantherboy wrote:Yes, ex-military in my wild youthful days. Became a lawyer after that and then recruited to move to Japan 11 years ago but gave it all up 4 years back and became a teacher for a private institute. The difference between FOG and Battle Academy is not that both lack a realism to me but rather Battle Academy is too far removed from modern tactics for me to ignore this fact. It doesn't play at all like modern warfare but rather like one of those simplified games à la Panzer General. In the beginning, to test the games veracity, I tried to adopt historical and realistic tactics but it just constantly lead to ruin versus my opponents (not the ai as any tactic should be fine). Once I got the nuances of how this game plays I decided to play the game to win and suddenly it became too easy to garner victory if you ignore real tactics. It felt too silly performing tactics that proved too effective but in reality would see your force destroyed. In FOG, with the constant revisions to the game and the way, the developers keep listening to their customers it is slowly becoming a better and better experience. I just really hope they adopt the complex maneuver test and cohesion test penalties I suggested in another thread to try and force people to adopt more realistic deployments though it would still allow a player to do as they will but would involve greater risk thus exemplifying the quality of generalship. In the WWII game I felt it was far too removed and would require an overhaul of the game engine for me to play so I haven't climbed aboard.hidde wrote: Steve: I think I remember you said you are (were?) in the military. Perhaps that's why you see all simplifications all to well? To me it plays very slick and the tactics one use simulates, at least to my ignorant eyes, some of what happens in real life.
Cheers,
Steve
