Wanted to gather any F:AT thoughts on this. I just got my preorder this week and set up the tutorial. Seriously forget reading through the rules straight through, start with the playbook tutorial.
Anyway, haven't played much yet but my first instinct going through the rules is that I'm liking it better than Navajo Wars. Some of it is down to the situation---the Comanche were just straight up more warlike and so the game more closely resembles a more traditional wargame. You have bases that have leaders of different quality which activate bands of warriors to go fuck shit up. Anyway, I'm looking forward to trying it, it's making more sense to me than Navajo Wars.
Solitaire games aren't really my thing, but I picked it up based on the subject, and I'm really glad that I did. It's a little procedural, but not painfully so. Ultimately, this is still a game and not a puzzle with plenty of decisions to make and opportunities to mismanage resources.
I'm completely terrible at this btw, but it was pretty fun. Also, I heeded your advice on just jumping into the tutorial. I read through the rules afterward, which made learning it quite manageable. Did you prefer this to Navajo Wars?
This game is so good! It has typical GMT wargame problems and is brutally procedural. You need to devote 2-3 fumbling, frustrating games to it... but if you can it's really quite good.
The biggest thing about it is that a) it's more of an assertive game than Navajo Wars. I think that makes the game better. The Comanche have some wargame like behavior, though it's handled with pretty non-wargame system. It makes it easier to understand what you're supposed to do.
The other thing, and the reason to play the game, is the interaction between the AI system and player behavior. It's tied together intimately and it's great design. I'm going to write something up for the front page.