RE: Wish List

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 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 2:25:22 PM

Paper Tiger

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

Fix John Letcher please I have now had two games in a row where once I capture Wheeling he starts asking for one signal tower after another. As posted previously the most I have ever bothered to build was 6 (six) but at the start of it he is shown as a mild ally. Sheesh with friends like that...

Also Just had a situation where the ANV kicked me out of Annapolis, but one of my divisions didn't retreat (may have been sat on a fleet, not sure) The division then repeatedly got it's ass kicked by the entire ANV and refused to go anywhere, it just sat there and got repeatedly hammered.

Also Fleets in captured provinces, I have managed in one game to capture a province and city with CSA fleets still in them, nothing happens, the fleet just sits there. It isn't forced to sea, or destroyed or captured!

(in reply to jsaurman)

Post #: 271

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 4:25:03 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Rationalize the costs of Plantations These critters are incredably cheap to create considering they provide a FREE "Factory"; a FREE "Horse Farm"; and half a FREE "Mint"...., and can only be built by one side in the game. That's 90 "Resources" worth of FREE construction that doesn't take up any building space---and it's 40 "resources CHEAPER than a "Mansion" to build. If the North was getting a "mansion" for 50 "money" and nothing else, "Plantations" would still be a huge bargain.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 272

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 4:31:32 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Give players some means of controlling "Unrest" Unrest puts a big hit on your economy, and can spread at random. Yet their seems to be no "positive step" a player can take to do anything about it. Couldn't you add a "garrison" requirement for such unhappy provinces, so that if a player moved the appropriate number of troops into such an area the "Unrest" could not "spread" and would always decrease by at least one level per turn. If you give players a "problem", you also need to offer them a "solution"...

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 273

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 4:43:58 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'n not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 274

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 4:55:18 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'n not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

I'm willing to bet the concept of "horses" in the game is not just horse flesh. You can't make a camp or a raider literally just with horses.

I'm also wondering if the initial advantage to the South in "horses" represents their better capability at rallying new troops to the cause early in the war? I'm at work and can't check sources but IIRC Stanton actually discontinued recruiting for several months in late '61 or early '62 in part because he thought the North already had enough men to win the war.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 275

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 5:00:01 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Correct Northern "logistical Staffs" One of the few areas in which the Union excelled from the beginning was in keeping it's forces supplied (and often "over supplied"). If you want to give the South better troop quality in their starting forces to reflect the "Militia Tradition" of these units, fine. But the only time Union armies ever went "without" what when their leaders purposely severed their supply lines (Grant at Vicksburg, Sherman marching from Atlanta), so their "Logistical Staffs" should never have a rating of less than "Fair". Confederate forces were always overjoyed when they got a chance to plunder the Union Supply System and gain temporary access to a world of "treats" they never saw otherwise.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 276

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 5:10:12 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Logistical Staffs and "unrest"? Can't see what these two have in common. The logistics staff can only parcel out to the troops the supplies they recieve. If they aren't recieving enough, then the troops are going to "requisition" from the locals and piss them off. Shouldn't this be more a matter of, "If the military units are recieving "normal" supply they have a "positive" effect on reducing "unrest". Maybe even "If the military units are unsupplied, or recieving less-than "Normal Supply" they have a "negative" effect on "unrest", if "normal supply" they have no effect on unrest, and if "abundantly supplied" they have a "Positive" effect on "unrest"?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 277

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 5:30:49 PM

Mike Scholl

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

"Blockade" requires at least 3 "Ships" Why? The South has the option to build ships and Fleets if it wants to and "contest" the blockade of a port. If it doesn't, and has no means to "contest" a blockade, why the arbitrary "minimum requirement of 3 ship units and one fleet counter" to extablish a "blockade"? 10:0 or 100:0, the odds are still infinately against the "zero" side---and the requirement makes no distinction about the "quality" or "armament" of the blockading squadrons. Surely even as a "balance" factor, requiring 2 "ships" and a "Fleet counter" would be ample. That still forces the Union to build at least 6 "Fleet Containers" and 7 "Ships" to establish a "blockade" of the Southern Ports. That's a LOT of resources and construction time given how expensive the game makes ships and fleets (how much are they paying those Admirals anyway?)

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 278

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 6:13:27 PM

regularbird

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline

I agree with all of the above (mike's comments). As far as horses go I think the South's horse production should be cut in half.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 279

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 7:58:56 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Fix John Letcher please I have now had two games in a row where once I capture Wheeling he starts asking for one signal tower after another. As posted previously the most I have ever bothered to build was 6 (six) but at the start of it he is shown as a mild ally. Sheesh with friends like that...

Also Just had a situation where the ANV kicked me out of Annapolis, but one of my divisions didn't retreat (may have been sat on a fleet, not sure) The division then repeatedly got it's ass kicked by the entire ANV and refused to go anywhere, it just sat there and got repeatedly hammered.

Also Fleets in captured provinces, I have managed in one game to capture a province and city with CSA fleets still in them, nothing happens, the fleet just sits there. It isn't forced to sea, or destroyed or captured!

I am confused with these statements, from what you say, you are Union, what do you care about what John Lester wants ?

he is not your governor, he is the CSA governor, take the rest of Vig and you will install your own Governor there

_____________________________

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 280

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 8:10:33 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Rationalize the costs of Plantations These critters are incredably cheap to create considering they provide a FREE "Factory"; a FREE "Horse Farm"; and half a FREE "Mint"...., and can only be built by one side in the game. That's 90 "Resources" worth of FREE construction that doesn't take up any building space---and it's 40 "resources CHEAPER than a "Mansion" to build. If the North was getting a "mansion" for 50 "money" and nothing else, "Plantations" would still be a huge bargain.

got to disagree here, you not taking into account time, or the fact that you only get 2 of the resources

and the south will lose the Plantations if and when the Union Frees the Slaves

and money is HARDer to come by then Horses or labor

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 281

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 8:11:12 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Correct Northern "logistical Staffs" One of the few areas in which the Union excelled from the beginning was in keeping it's forces supplied (and often "over supplied"). If you want to give the South better troop quality in their starting forces to reflect the "Militia Tradition" of these units, fine. But the only time Union armies ever went "without" what when their leaders purposely severed their supply lines (Grant at Vicksburg, Sherman marching from Atlanta), so their "Logistical Staffs" should never have a rating of less than "Fair". Confederate forces were always overjoyed when they got a chance to plunder the Union Supply System and gain temporary access to a world of "treats" they never saw otherwise.

I can agree, quatermasters were a strong point, commanders were the weak point

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 282

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 8:12:39 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'n not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

I think the Union should have more Horse resouces, but Kentucky does add alot to the mix, but not enough, to say the Union has enough as it starts

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 283

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 10:10:33 PM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Rationalize the costs of Plantations These critters are incredably cheap to create considering they provide a FREE "Factory"; a FREE "Horse Farm"; and half a FREE "Mint"...., and can only be built by one side in the game. That's 90 "Resources" worth of FREE construction that doesn't take up any building space---and it's 40 "resources CHEAPER than a "Mansion" to build. If the North was getting a "mansion" for 50 "money" and nothing else, "Plantations" would still be a huge bargain.

got to disagree here, you not taking into account time, or the fact that you only get 2 of the resources and the south will lose the Plantations if and when the Union Frees the Slaves and money is HARDer to come by then Horses or labor

Well, given that you may be right. But still, building a "Mansion", and then a "Horse Farm" and then a "Factory" is also going to take 12 turns..., and it's going to cost a whole lot more. So even with out the "1/2 a Mint" it's a great "buy". But having the "plug pulled" by Emancipation would change things---does this really happen? Would seem to make a "plantation" a really bad idea.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 284

RE: Wish List - 12/19/2006 11:29:30 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

that is the question

when it happens, Plantations are suppost to change to Mansons, but I see they still have the same name, so am not sure it is working as intended, or if it is just a name not changing thing

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 285

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 12:12:28 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'm not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

I think the Union should have more Horse resouces, but Kentucky does add alot to the mix, but not enough, to say the Union has enough as it starts

I would have said the South should have less. I guess it could go either way..., but giving both sides 30-40 to start would seem to be a nice "crimp" on expansion and make the economic choices tougher.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 286

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 1:33:16 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

well, it is 6 of one and half dozen of another

plus, the player could, just change to all Horses or all Iron to get something they want

but a cut down, if the player has the Upgrade costs turned on, and playing at anything really above sgt, it will really Hurt too much ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 287

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 1:56:29 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

well, it is 6 of one and half dozen of another plus, the player could, just change to all Horses or all Iron to get something they want but a cut down, if the player has the Upgrade costs turned on, and playing at anything really above sgt, it will really Hurt too much ?

I was just going by the Union "scenario start" numbers, which are in the 30's. Bouncing back and forth is supposed to upset the Governors, so I assume that activity will be somewhat limited. Giving the North 100 Horses seems excessive, giving the South more than the North is just wrong according to the Census figures..., so giving both something in the 30-40 range seemed a nice compromise. I haven't played with and of the "+" or "-" modifiers, or at the higher levels of difficulty, so I can't speak for what would happen in that case. I just figured it would be "equal" for both sides (which is still a "bonus" for the South). But I could be wrong..., it's happened before. :-)

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 288

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 12:37:01 PM

Paper Tiger

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

As soon as I capture Wheeling he (John Letcher) starts requesting Signal Towers, I'm not bothered which side he is on he is requesting them off me even when I don't control the capitol, and then getting anoyed when I don't build an infinite number of them and causing negative consequences for me.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 289

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 1:43:56 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available. Why? Maybe I don't have anyone I want to give 4 stars to..., but I might have someone that deserves two stars (or three). I don't mind only being able to promote one leader a turn (it's silly, but I can live with it)---but I do object to having to fill all the 4-star slots before I'm offered the chance to fill any 3-star slots..., and to having to fill all the 3-star slots before I'm offered the chance to promote anyone to two-star rank. I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 290

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 2:37:50 PM

daniel123

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline

1. need to move the column headings for attributed on generals to the blue boder, so you can easily see what the columns are.

2. i captured all the cities in Canada and still British troops showed up. make a change so that if all cities in Canada are captured the British move to Texas like the French.

3. i ignored diplomacy and the EU was slowly going for the South, however the kicker was in early 1862 the South went for emancipation. this is unrealistic. a sliding scale needs to be implimented on the South's chances of going for emancipation.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 291

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 8:45:40 PM

jsaurman

Posts: 129
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available... I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

I agree with this. I want to start with all generals at one star and promote them based on their performance, just like Lincoln had to. Right now, the promotion scheme is too rigid.

JIM

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 292

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 9:54:19 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: daniel123

1. need to move the column headings for attributed on generals to the blue boder, so you can easily see what the columns are.

2. i captured all the cities in Canada and still British troops showed up. make a change so that if all cities in Canada are captured the British move to Texas like the French.

3. i ignored diplomacy and the EU was slowly going for the South, however the kicker was in early 1862 the South went for emancipation. this is unrealistic. a sliding scale needs to be implimented on the South's chances of going for emancipation.

for the 3rd one at least, turn it off ?, if you do not want the South to be able to do so, do not set the game up so that they can ?

_____________________________

(in reply to daniel123)

Post #: 293

RE: Wish List - 12/20/2006 9:56:58 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

As soon as I capture Wheeling he (John Letcher) starts requesting Signal Towers, I'm not bothered which side he is on he is requesting them off me even when I don't control the capitol, and then getting anoyed when I don't build an infinite number of them and causing negative consequences for me.

I beleive what you are seeing is that you are in his land and he controls it, so he see his requests, he don't belong to you, so I do not see how he can be hurting you ?

he is making requests to his Goverment, and if he gets upset, it is with his Goverment that he is upset with

_____________________________

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 294

RE: Wish List - 12/21/2006 12:53:33 AM

spruce

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline

money income from plantations should be depended on blockading efficiency.

F.e. if the Union is getting more successfull at blockading the income will plumet - and cities with loads of plantations might consider to switch to labour (historical justified imho).

Then there's also an incentive for the South to actually do something against that Union navy. Now, your plantations are just making always the same amount of money.

ps = income from plantations might also be higher if the Union is not blockading at a historical rate ... meaning that the cotton export had a high value economical spoken.

F.e. = if Union blockading 50% or more below historical rate (year dependend) = money from plantations is doubled.
F.e. = if Union blockading within - 25% or +25% compared to historical rate (year depended) = no modifier to money from plantations.
F.e. = if Union blockading 50% or more above historical rate (year dependend) = money from plantations is halved.

This will make the player actually "feel" the Union blockading ... also in the later game. Suppose the confederacy has bought all sorts of nice upgrades early war - and late war the Union is blockading, the CSA is not really feeling this (its money source is not tackled). If the blockade affects plantations, the CSA might get more into dire straits ... now they are just too comfortable with the situation ...

< Message edited by spruce -- 12/21/2006 1:04:10 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 295

RE: Wish List - 12/21/2006 3:31:07 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Just to whet your appetites, I thought I'd mention that Eric just shared with me a list of programming changes he has already made for the upcoming patch, and you'll be pleased to know that some suggestions from this very thread have already made it in. (For now I won't be specific, since these changes need to be playtested to make sure they work.)

So, keep 'em coming!

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 296

RE: Wish List - 12/21/2006 5:51:09 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Give players some means of controlling "Unrest" Unrest puts a big hit on your economy, and can spread at random. Yet their seems to be no "positive step" a player can take to do anything about it. Couldn't you add a "garrison" requirement for such unhappy provinces, so that if a player moved the appropriate number of troops into such an area the "Unrest" could not "spread" and would always decrease by at least one level per turn. If you give players a "problem", you also need to offer them a "solution"...

This is already a rule. Just send a division in (I can't remember if independent brigades have an effect) and the time that unrest lasts can be shortened. For an example, look at the Event Report in the most recent turn of my PBEM AAR.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 297

RE: Wish List - 12/21/2006 5:59:17 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

from the reports you get, I think it is based on a container

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 298

RE: Wish List - 12/21/2006 6:01:59 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available. Why? Maybe I don't have anyone I want to give 4 stars to..., but I might have someone that deserves two stars (or three). I don't mind only being able to promote one leader a turn (it's silly, but I can live with it)---but I do object to having to fill all the 4-star slots before I'm offered the chance to fill any 3-star slots..., and to having to fill all the 3-star slots before I'm offered the chance to promote anyone to two-star rank. I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

Since you can put, say, a 4-star general in the position normally occupied by a lower-ranking general I'm not sure this is something that needs to be changed.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 299

RE: Wish List - 12/21/2006 6:36:52 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available. Why? Maybe I don't have anyone I want to give 4 stars to..., but I might have someone that deserves two stars (or three). I don't mind only being able to promote one leader a turn (it's silly, but I can live with it)---but I do object to having to fill all the 4-star slots before I'm offered the chance to fill any 3-star slots..., and to having to fill all the 3-star slots before I'm offered the chance to promote anyone to two-star rank. I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

Since you can put, say, a 4-star general in the position normally occupied by a lower-ranking general I'm not sure this is something that needs to be changed.

Problem arises when you later get a leader worth 4 stars, you are now faced with demoting the first fellow and pissing off his Governor. There are a number of leaders that are perfectly acceptable as 2-stars leading Divisions within a larger "container", but a waste of "stars" for an independent role.