Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Wish List

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Wish List Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wish List - 12/12/2006 5:11:32 AM   
slybelle

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline 		Provide game setup option to allow General's deaths to have the same kind of chance happening in Instant battles as they occur within detail battles. Generally speaking, I don't think there should be any limitations to outcomes of a battle based on whether I play instant or detail. That is why I thought the different options were there to satisfy all kinds of players. Should be able to get the same kind of results without being penalized for not completing battles in detail mode.

Overall good game, just would like to see if this is possible.

(in reply to JaguarUSF)
Post #: 181
RE: Wish List - 12/12/2006 5:15:46 PM   
Crimguy


Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

is there any way to drill down to the city detail screen from the city list screen? if not that would be a nice feature.

quote:

city list


I agree - Clicking on the city name should be able to bring you to the city detail. A back button the city detail would be nice to bring you back to the city list when you're done.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 182
RE: Wish List - 12/12/2006 9:10:22 PM   
Malagant

 

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline 		Ability to destroy/remove buildings...perhaps with a chance of it causing unrest and/or loss of standing with governor.

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to Crimguy)
Post #: 183
RE: Wish List - 12/12/2006 11:43:50 PM   
Sheytan


Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline 		Last night I had this happen, I captured a enemy unit equipt with Spencer rifles. I gained this units weapons as my own. The gaining unit just happened to be the only unit in my army in this battle with quality arms. My unit was equipt with Lorenz rifles. I was delighted I captured the Spencers, but dismayed my 50 coins went poof.

I request a method that allows you to decide which unit gets the captured arms to use. OR that the game itself ONLY transfer captured arms to units with poorer quality arms(and by this I mean it should seek to replace arms from improvised/musket/minie etc and up, not ignore them and replace better arms) . Losing the Lorenz's like this stank.

(in reply to Malagant)
Post #: 184
RE: Wish List - 12/12/2006 11:49:56 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Game probably assumes you will give them to your best unit (the one you bought the Lorenzes for.) But you're right..., losing them stank. You ought to have a choice.

(in reply to Sheytan)
Post #: 185
RE: Wish List - 12/12/2006 11:53:16 PM   
Sheytan


Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline 		It was my best unit
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Game probably assumes you will give them to your best unit (the one you bought the Lorenzes for.) But you're right..., losing them stank. You ought to have a choice.


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 186
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 12:03:59 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		but with in reason, the Spencer is the better weapon

_____________________________


(in reply to Sheytan)
Post #: 187
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 12:13:01 AM   
Sheytan


Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline 		no doubt, at any rate heres to hoping this can be fixed in some manner, id have preferred another unit got the captured arms in this case. lack of choice is a problem here. I almost would like to see a detailed arsenel system in the game, in which specific arms are stockpiled and givin out or returned to the armory when a unit gets upgrades. thats the fun sort of micromanagement IMO.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

but with in reason, the Spencer is the better weapon


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 188
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 3:46:54 AM   
ezjax


Posts: 75
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Ability to destroy/remove buildings...perhaps with a chance of it causing unrest and/or loss of standing with governor.


You can already do some of this already. Read 2.5 Plunder in the game Manual. Tell your military unit to do this by clicking Explosion box next to X.







Attachment (1)

(in reply to Malagant)
Post #: 189
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 3:55:21 AM   
steveuk


Posts: 66
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Essex, England
Status: offline 		Well here is my wish list.  Some of this may have been asked for already so apologies if that is the case.  I always play the CSA so it may be biased in some areas!

1) In HW....supply wagons should not start near enemy forces....many times I have lost my only supply wagon because it starts within a move of Union forces.
2) CC...this is a great feature but I think it should depend on the units attributes as to what actions it takes when out of CC. i.e. A unit with the hero attribute would be more prone to charge the enemy while a green unit with no attributes may retreat.
3) Richmond to be named as such and not the James River..... I'm English and even I think it's an insult.
4) Weapons and upgrades only available if this was historical for the side your playing. i.e. Spencer rifles for Union only.....perhaps a more historical patch?
5) In HW....near start is often too near to the enemy A.I. launching it's kamikaze attacks right from the start and attacking player units while still in column.....also see point 1 above.
6) Less kamikaze attacks by the Union A.I.....I win most of my battles even when I am greatly outnumbered because of this dubious tactic.
7) No starting navy for the CSA except for raiders and maybe the chance of being offered a couple of her Majesty's frigates via diplomacy  to kick some Union arse.
8) Union not to initiate combat on the strategic map if it's will to fight is too low or at least withdraw from HW instead of sitting still for three days.
9) Ability to promote/demote generals according to experience (is this implemented in the game already)?
10) In HW....Units if moving along a road to keep on the road...I fail to see even the most stupid units deviating from this......also less deviation in any terrain if the unit is a regular.

As I have said before...this is a good game design but with some small alterations...it could be one of the best.

_____________________________

It is well that war is so terrible; else we would grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)

(in reply to Sheytan)
Post #: 190
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 4:20:04 AM   
ezjax


Posts: 75
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: steveuk
9) Ability to promote/demote generals according to experience (is this implemented in the game already)?


If it helps. Advance settings let you demote any general above 1 star. When the leader is selected look at his navbox and you will see a 4star box with a down arrow under it, click this opens up the demote screen.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to steveuk)
Post #: 191
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 5:47:53 AM   
steveuk


Posts: 66
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Essex, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezjax


quote:

ORIGINAL: steveuk
9) Ability to promote/demote generals according to experience (is this implemented in the game already)?


If it helps. Advance settings let you demote any general above 1 star. When the leader is selected look at his navbox and you will see a 4star box with a down arrow under it, click this opens up the demote screen.






Thanks ezjax...I thought I had read something on demoting a general somewhere. My main problem is promotion though. I am mid-way through 63 now as the CSA and have a stack of 1 star generals. The end of turn promotion to 2 star has only came up once since beginning of 62? not sure if this is correct but I now only have around ten 2 star generals. As they are division commanders it seems there should be more as the majority of my div's are without proper command.


_____________________________

It is well that war is so terrible; else we would grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)

(in reply to ezjax)
Post #: 192
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 5:49:40 AM   
Malagant

 

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline 		Actually I had friendly cities in mind, though I suppose I could send some troops around destroying my own buildings if I felt the need.

I had been thinking of removing superflous buildings that I don't want in particular cities (i.e. being able to decide WHICH building I can remove in my own cities)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ezjax


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Ability to destroy/remove buildings...perhaps with a chance of it causing unrest and/or loss of standing with governor.


You can already do some of this already. Read 2.5 Plunder in the game Manual. Tell your military unit to do this by clicking Explosion box next to X.









_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to ezjax)
Post #: 193
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 12:21:56 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline 		Display the weapons for a Seige Artillery unit in the same way as for everything else. So anoying having to go looking around the units to find out what each one has before you upgrade.

Increase National Will for capturing Capitols. Increased VP for state capitals and more so for the National Capitol.
Sort VP's for battles. +1/-1 medium battle, +2/-2 decisive Max effect +6/-6 but not limited to the last 3 battles. So if you are at +6/-6 and lose a decisive it does not drop to +2/-2 just +4/-4

(in reply to Malagant)
Post #: 194
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 12:26:10 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline 		Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 195
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 12:41:43 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.


That would enrage the rabid confederate fanboys.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 196
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 2:17:38 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.


That would enrage the rabid confederate fanboys.



Are you sure you didn't mean "That would delight the rabid Confederate fanboys."?

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 197
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 3:57:21 PM   
marecone


Posts: 469
Joined: 7/31/2006
From: Croatia, Europe
Status: offline 		1. When general dies then maybe player should lose some of the national will. Something like a penalty because it is not a small thing when nation hero dies
2. 90 day militia. All of us forgot about it and it played some part in ACW
3. Reports in form of newspapers. First check this link:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/
Go through few numbers. Those look great. Maybe you could contact them to borrow us their papers or do your own thing.
For example: Insted "Rebel Major victory" in report it could write something like: Today Confederate States army under General N.B. Forrest whiped Union forces near Frederiksburg. Union lost close to 5,000 men and our boys suffered 2,000 casulties...
Maybe a picture too.

_____________________________

"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."

Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 198
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 4:01:32 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		The attacking force should always be the force moving into an area, the defending force should be the one that currently is located in an area. 

Currently if you are in the provice and do not own the province you are the defender.

< Message edited by regularbird -- 12/13/2006 5:32:59 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 199
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 5:29:04 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

The attacking force should always be the force moving into an area, the defending force should be the one that currently is located in an area. 

Currently if you are in the provice and do not own the province you are the defender.


and what really sucks in regards to this is when you are in an enemy province and THEY move in to counter attack you... you wind up as the attacker with the AI force fully entrenched (after just marching in??)

I really dislike the AI getting to be fully entrenched especially if they've moved into a province I've been stationary in (whether it's my provinece or not.)



_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 200
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 6:59:43 PM   
tevans6220

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline 		I would like to see a better promotion system implemented. It seems pretty unrealistic that a 1 star who only commands a brigade could be promoted to army command. With the system as it is now historical scenarios are near impossible as the AI will promote generals such as Grant and Sherman to army command regardless of their previous rank. The system I would like to see implemented would consist of only 4 stars being promoted to 5 star, 3 stars to 4 stars, 2 stars to 3 stars and 1 star to 2 stars. I think that would make for a much more realistic system and would work well with the academy limits already in place.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 201
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 7:59:48 PM   
Conhugeco

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 11/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.


That would enrage the rabid confederate fanboys.



Are you sure you didn't mean "That would delight the rabid Confederate fanboys."?



No, he got it right the first time. The fanboys demand that the CSA get a large bonus now, always, and forever.

There is a real problem though. The Confederate eastern commanders were generally better than their Union counterparts early in the war, while the opposite was true in the west. In the game, if you go too far in either direction, either the Union can make no progress in the west, or the south gets steamrollered in the east. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution to offer.

DickH

DickH

_____________________________

In response to a critic: "General Lee surrendered to me. He did not surrender to any other Union General, although I believe there were several efforts made in that direction before I assumed command of the armies in Virginia."

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 202
RE: Wish List - 12/13/2006 8:01:43 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

I would like to see a better promotion system implemented. It seems pretty unrealistic that a 1 star who only commands a brigade could be promoted to army command. With the system as it is now historical scenarios are near impossible as the AI will promote generals such as Grant and Sherman to army command regardless of their previous rank. The system I would like to see implemented would consist of only 4 stars being promoted to 5 star, 3 stars to 4 stars, 2 stars to 3 stars and 1 star to 2 stars. I think that would make for a much more realistic system and would work well with the academy limits already in place.



Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.

(in reply to tevans6220)
Post #: 203
RE: Wish List - 12/14/2006 1:37:41 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Rationalize the Naval Costs

The cost of building vessels in the game seems to be quite random, and the relationships between the costs don't make a lot of sense. I'd like to suggest something on the order of:

Ships..............150--50--30--0

Ironclads........150--50--150--0

Frigates..........100--30--20--0

Runners..........100--20--10--0

Gunboats.........75--40--75--0

The iron usage reflects the fact that ALL of these vessels (wooden or not) needed engines and fittings of metal. The big differance in Gunboats is that one of the designers informed me that they represent "Riverine Ironclads". In that case, they should require a lot more iron. On the other hand, they were built with "steamboat" technology, and river steamboats were a good deal less costly than ocean-going vessels.

I don't claim that these are the "best" numbers that could be arrived at..., simply that they are more rational than the ones in the game.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 204
RE: Wish List - Railroads - 12/14/2006 3:46:07 AM   
bountyhunter

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/25/2006
From: Wherever Uncle Sam sends me
Status: offline 		Maybe I missed it, but I think you should be able to construct railroads (additional). For instance the stretch of railroad in the vicinity of Selma goes nowhere - I'd like to be able to connect it, etc. And if you can't build additional railroad then you shouldn't be able to build a RR station in a city that has no railroad in it!!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 205
RE: Wish List - 12/14/2006 4:13:20 AM   
bountyhunter

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/25/2006
From: Wherever Uncle Sam sends me
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.



Like Polk who served only a few months as a Lieutenant in the old US Army (in 1827!!!) and commissioned a Major General in the Confederate Army by the stroke of Davis' hand. He was killed as a Lt Gen, but if he hadn't there is no telling how high Davis may have promoted him!!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 206
RE: Wish List - 12/14/2006 4:50:25 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.



Like Polk who served only a few months as a Lieutenant in the old US Army (in 1827!!!) and commissioned a Major General in the Confederate Army by the stroke of Davis' hand. He was killed as a Lt Gen, but if he hadn't there is no telling how high Davis may have promoted him!!



THere was only one rank higher than Lt General in the confederate army.

(in reply to bountyhunter)
Post #: 207
RE: Wish List - 12/14/2006 4:58:37 AM   
bountyhunter

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/25/2006
From: Wherever Uncle Sam sends me
Status: offline 		By promotion I wasn't meaning just stars... He shouldn't have had any! So getting 2 from the jump was ludicrous. But thanks for the tip.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 208
RE: Wish List - 12/14/2006 5:06:07 AM   
tevans6220

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/3/2005
Status: offline 		All those wild jumps in rank happened in the beginning of the war and would already be factored in with the historical start dates and ranks. The way the game is currently there is no way to prevent Grant coming in as a 1 star and automatically being promoted to 4 or 5 stars if there was an opening. One of the major problems the North had was with leadership. It took Lincoln several years to find the right men. The way the game is set up now it can happen in the first year of the war. I think there has to be a limit on promotions. Brigade commanders were never promoted to army command. They worked their way up through the ranks. That's why I would like to see a 1 star at a time promotion system implemented. Grant would have to earn his 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars before gaining his 5th. This idea along with the academy system already in place limits promotions to historical levels.

Another problem I have is with legendary units. They should not be in the game at the start when playing the July scenario and even in some cases the November scenario. The Stonewall Brigade didn't become the Stonewall Brigade before the war. They earned that nickname and reputation at 1st Manassas. I think a system should be implemented that has units only becoming legendary after they've particpated in combat and only after some show of outstanding service on the battlefield. Knowing that the Stonewall or Iron Brigade is legendary from the start is not historical. All units were untried in battle and earned their reputations on the battlefield. There wasn't even a "Stonewall" until 1st Manassas so how could there even be a Stonewall Brigade?

(in reply to bountyhunter)
Post #: 209
RE: Wish List - 12/14/2006 10:35:59 AM   
marecone


Posts: 469
Joined: 7/31/2006
From: Croatia, Europe
Status: offline 		What about some POW camps?

_____________________________

"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."

Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to tevans6220)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Wish List Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.969