Nice one, but be aware that runners don't walk through the map.They are placed next to the HQ/Staff you want to activate and then returns to the CO HQ the following turn.
FoF is a typical example of putting too many weight on a single donkey. It is not very productive to wade through a dozen of DIFFERENT half hour videos to get a grisp with the gaming system. Look at games like Up Front, Ambush, the excellent CoH solo expansion or the very recently released Tank Duel or the newest Panzer solo expansion ...and each of these are as exciting to play as this game, but faster, smoother and not laden with too much administrative rules that quite frankly burden the simulation to a complete halt ONCE you stop playing the game for a few months ! Because that is the real problem with this game: it mixes up the structural Army problems with tactical play or simply stated it tries to put in far too much in one gaming system. Look at the games I mentioned above: once you learned their system, you can replay them with the minimum of effort even after a break of a year (perhaps Panzer is the most demanding in this respect), but in no way you can let FoF slip off for 1-2 years and then return to it unscattered... So the final question is ... is it worth the effort ? Does it actually give MORE ... for what still is frankly a GENERIC tactical fight ... ? If you want a solo game about some “real” specific historical operations there are better games around, like the legendary Enemy Action: Ardennes or the DDay at series by John Butterfield. BUT as you stay generic any way, the solo KISS system is the most enjoyable and fun ... AS LONG AS as the AI Bot is deep and acting in a sound and challenging manner. In my view the CoH SOLO expansion, Tank Duel, Ambush are quite a bit more fluid and more challenging. With the Panzer and Up Front games having superb one hand playing alternatives. Have fun in solo mode.
I've played Butterfield's DDay and I thought the decisions were frankly quite boring, with a static situation where I was only responding to what the system was throwing at me by making the most obvious preservation moves. CoH Solo was slightly more interesting but the AI made some really boneheaded decisions at time and I ended up playing two-handed because it was more challenging that way, even though on the whole the system was not as fun and compelling as the Combat Commander system so I gave up on that too. I'm hoping Fields of Fire offers both a good AI and interesting decisions with a compelling narrative but I have to admit that so far the barrier of entry has proven pretty daunting.
![Final Thoughts: Fields of Fire [Vol. 1; Second Edition]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LiVvwEBywYs/mqdefault.jpg)
![Final Thoughts: Fields of Fire [Vol. 1; Second Edition]](/img/tr.png)
Nice one, but be aware that runners don't walk through the map.They are placed next to the HQ/Staff you want to activate and then returns to the CO HQ the following turn.
You make things very clear. Many thanks!
Keep 'em coming !
FoF is a typical example of putting too many weight on a single donkey.
It is not very productive to wade through a dozen of DIFFERENT half hour videos to get a grisp with the gaming system.
Look at games like Up Front, Ambush, the excellent CoH solo expansion or the very recently released Tank Duel or the newest Panzer solo expansion ...and each of these are as exciting to play as this game, but faster, smoother and not laden with too much administrative rules that quite frankly burden the simulation to a complete halt ONCE you stop playing the game for a few months !
Because that is the real problem with this game: it mixes up the structural Army problems with tactical play or simply stated it tries to put in far too much in one gaming system.
Look at the games I mentioned above: once you learned their system, you can replay them with the minimum of effort even after a break of a year (perhaps Panzer is the most demanding in this respect), but in no way you can let FoF slip off for 1-2 years and then return to it unscattered...
So the final question is ... is it worth the effort ? Does it actually give MORE ... for what still is frankly a GENERIC tactical fight ... ?
If you want a solo game about some “real” specific historical operations there are better games around, like the legendary Enemy Action: Ardennes or the DDay at series by John Butterfield.
BUT as you stay generic any way, the solo KISS system is the most enjoyable and fun ... AS LONG AS as the AI Bot is deep and acting in a sound and challenging manner. In my view the CoH SOLO expansion, Tank Duel, Ambush are quite a bit more fluid and more challenging. With the Panzer and Up Front games having superb one hand playing alternatives.
Have fun in solo mode.
I've played Butterfield's DDay and I thought the decisions were frankly quite boring, with a static situation where I was only responding to what the system was throwing at me by making the most obvious preservation moves. CoH Solo was slightly more interesting but the AI made some really boneheaded decisions at time and I ended up playing two-handed because it was more challenging that way, even though on the whole the system was not as fun and compelling as the Combat Commander system so I gave up on that too. I'm hoping Fields of Fire offers both a good AI and interesting decisions with a compelling narrative but I have to admit that so far the barrier of entry has proven pretty daunting.