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 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Wish List - 12/24/2006 2:41:01 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

I whish general skills could be rebalanced - somewhat lesser stats for a large bulk of confederate generals.

You and me both. Someone got a bit carried away with the idea of a "Southern Leadership Edge". When you compare the two sides in the game it looks more like an "avalanche" than an "edge".

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 361

RE: Wish List - 12/24/2006 2:59:00 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I'm inclined to leave European Diplomacy turned off, myself. I don't have enough experience of the game to deliver a verdict, but it seems to have been implemented rather unrealistically in several ways, and seems to be more important to the game than it really was.

In reality there was no European intervention and the actual European help to the CSA seems represented well enough in the game by the activities of the blockage runners. What do you think?

I think you have a good point..., but in reference to ELMO I must say that my experiance against the AI is from the Union Side and twice I've been "forced" to emancipate even while spending the max on Britian and France every turn. Once both Britian and France climbed to +6 (January 1862) and once it was France +6 and Britian +5 (same time frame). And one of those times (the first) France proceeded to climb right back up to +7 and intervene by the Summer of 1862. And this was not on a very hard setting.

................

What level were you playing? I know you said not too difficult but which was it?

From what I've seen there is quite a difference between sergeant major and second lieutenant. The difference between second lieutenant and first lieutenant does not seem to be quite as much. No real hard facts but that is how it appears to me. I think the differences should not be quite as great.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 362

RE: Wish List - 12/24/2006 6:15:27 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny
What level were you playing? I know you said not too difficult but which was it?

"Sergeant something". I'm still trying to get a handle on the finer points of play overall before trying to decide what handicap is needed where.

(in reply to Sonny)

Post #: 363

RE: Wish List - 12/24/2006 5:52:13 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Some suggested earlier that the player should not be forced to fill the general slots -- 4-star, 3-star, etc. -- as they come open. Now that I am playing at the Union, I disagree with this suggestion. Lincoln had to put someone in command -- he couldn't say "I'll wait and see what talent comes up later" -- so this is one of the things that makes the game historically realistic.

In fact, I would not object to Fremont, Butler, Banks, McClellan, and Halleck starting the game with extra stars. The first three were major political figures (all with Democratic antecedents, which was important). (I would say the same thing about McClernand, Logan, Shields, and the Germans Sigel and Schurz -- these were too important politically not to give them commands.) Managing to find better talent and then to maneuver them into top command was one of Lincoln's major challenges.

The same was true to a lesser extent for Davis. He did not really choose Beauregard, Johnston, AS Johnston, and Lee -- they already had national standing -- they just happened to be a lot better than Union generals with such standing. For reasons I do not understand, major political figures in the South such as Toombs and Howell Cobb were quite willing to serve as colonels.

< Message edited by General Quarters -- 12/24/2006 6:02:03 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 364

RE: Wish List - 12/24/2006 8:50:00 PM

chris0827

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Some suggested earlier that the player should not be forced to fill the general slots -- 4-star, 3-star, etc. -- as they come open. Now that I am playing at the Union, I disagree with this suggestion. Lincoln had to put someone in command -- he couldn't say "I'll wait and see what talent comes up later" -- so this is one of the things that makes the game historically realistic.

In fact, I would not object to Fremont, Butler, Banks, McClellan, and Halleck starting the game with extra stars. The first three were major political figures (all with Democratic antecedents, which was important). (I would say the same thing about McClernand, Logan, Shields, and the Germans Sigel and Schurz -- these were too important politically not to give them commands.) Managing to find better talent and then to maneuver them into top command was one of Lincoln's major challenges.

The same was true to a lesser extent for Davis. He did not really choose Beauregard, Johnston, AS Johnston, and Lee -- they already had national standing -- they just happened to be a lot better than Union generals with such standing. For reasons I do not understand, major political figures in the South such as Toombs and Howell Cobb were quite willing to serve as colonels.

Toombs was a brigadier general and resigned his commission when he couldn't get promoted. He was a major problem for Davis for the rest of the war. Cobb was a mjor general. McClellan wasn't a political figure until after he was relieved of command. He got the command of the Union armies based on his reputation and military success in West Virginia. The South's worst political general was probably John Floyd. He was responsible for the disaster at Fort Donelson. He abandoned his men and saved himself and was relieved of duty. Being the ex governor of Vitginai he was able to get a command in the militia but luckily for the south he died before doing any more damage.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 365

RE: Wish List - 12/24/2006 10:03:25 PM

Paper Tiger

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

Thought I had posted this but it didn't appear. Apologies if it now comes up twice.

Link march attrition to unit disposition and supply levels, men are less likely to desert or drop out of the line of march if they are in good spirits and if they are both well fed and clothed and well led. Movement should also affect the disposition of the troops. Tired men with sore feet grumble more.

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 366

RE: Wish List - 12/24/2006 10:14:05 PM

Paper Tiger

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

National Will and European intervention.
National Will should be affected by loss of state capitals, -1 per for losing for the CSA and -2 for the USA, and +1/+1 each for capturing, they should also count more towards victory points 2 compared to a normal cities 1.

European intervention should be more affected by success on the battlefield than by money, each + or - on national will (excluding emancipation which is directly covered) should affect european relations.
Perhaps it should be modelled in the same way as research with a modifier for National will and a building for added bonus (Embassy or consulate) built overseas to model the affects of diplomats in the foreign countries.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 367

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 2:41:22 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Attachment Box:

When you open an attachment box and click on a brigade or a general, the box itself blocks part of the info box on that unit or officer. It would be nice if it did not.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 368

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 2:45:42 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Screen labels:

To relate the manual to the screens, it would be nice if each screen or box had a label, such as "attachment box." In the question I posted above, I was in the game when I noted that issue and looked to see if what I called the "info box" a name on the screen. It did not. Ideally, I would not have to look it up in the manual and find the right picture to refer to it.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 369

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 2:47:32 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Popup boxes over the Little Icons (coins etc) at the bottom of the main screen:

When you click on the money icon to see how much money you will have next turn, the popup box blocks the dollar figure. That is not ideal.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 370

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 2:49:22 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Messages about new units:

I have found that I often overlook the fact that a raider has been completed or an Indian unit or conscripted unit has appeared. I would like an option to have messages noting those.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 371

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 3:23:47 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Some suggested earlier that the player should not be forced to fill the general slots -- 4-star, 3-star, etc. -- as they come open. Now that I am playing at the Union, I disagree with this suggestion. Lincoln had to put someone in command -- he couldn't say "I'll wait and see what talent comes up later" -- so this is one of the things that makes the game historically realistic.

In fact, I would not object to Fremont, Butler, Banks, McClellan, and Halleck starting the game with extra stars. The first three were major political figures (all with Democratic antecedents, which was important). (I would say the same thing about McClernand, Logan, Shields, and the Germans Sigel and Schurz -- these were too important politically not to give them commands.) Managing to find better talent and then to maneuver them into top command was one of Lincoln's major challenges.

The same was true to a lesser extent for Davis. He did not really choose Beauregard, Johnston, AS Johnston, and Lee -- they already had national standing -- they just happened to be a lot better than Union generals with such standing. For reasons I do not understand, major political figures in the South such as Toombs and Howell Cobb were quite willing to serve as colonels.

Toombs was a brigadier general and resigned his commission when he couldn't get promoted. He was a major problem for Davis for the rest of the war. Cobb was a mjor general. McClellan wasn't a political figure until after he was relieved of command. He got the command of the Union armies based on his reputation and military success in West Virginia. The South's worst political general was probably John Floyd. He was responsible for the disaster at Fort Donelson. He abandoned his men and saved himself and was relieved of duty. Being the ex governor of Vitginai he was able to get a command in the militia but luckily for the south he died before doing any more damage.

Thanks for the corrections. What I was referring to about McClellan was that he had extensive political connections in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. One of the attorneys for his railroad was A. Lincoln. Maybe I exaggerate the difference but, after the first year, I am not aware of Davis having to give independent commands to politicians whereas Banks and McClernand caused Grant trouble in 62 and Butler commanded forces until 1864. But, if there were similar problems on both sides, it would be good for the game to reflect that fact.

< Message edited by General Quarters -- 12/26/2006 5:05:04 PM >

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 372

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 3:25:48 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

At would also help with the City List included a column with info like "3/4" showing that the city has currently built 3 or its allowable 4 builds.

I see that it is listed under "support" or some such heading. Suggestion withdrawn.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 373

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 6:30:30 AM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

Unless I have missed it somehweres, a "Go To" command would be nice.

I cannot say how many minutes I have spent after clicking on a container to march it, only to have to micromanage my mouse in weird ways (without clicking on something else in the area and thus ending my proposed move) in order to get said container to where I want it to go.

It would be nice to click on a container in say, Paducah, click on goto, choose Memphis (I can't remember the district Memphis is in, sorry) click yes and be done with it.

Thresh

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 374

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 4:20:20 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Yes, the river provinces can be very difficult to click onto. Washington DC, with a city, forts, armies, and new generals at the beginning of the term can be extremely difficult. Could there be something on the city screen that takes you to the province? Or a little triangle or something that takes you to the province?

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 375

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 7:02:41 PM

jimwinsor

Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

You know, I came up with this somewhat elaborate "Wish List" idea during playtest, which not only encompassed replacements (essentially replacing Camps) but volunteer recruitment as well. Might as well throw it out here, see what you all think; note that it does tie replacements (generated now solely by the "draft"...see 12) to population levels:

New Wish List Idea for Mustering and Conscription
------------------------------------------------
1) Each side has two types of units: Regulars and Volunteers.
2) Regulars are units purchased the usual way in the production screen.
3) Regulars start with some weapon other than IWs. Random allowed by type/tech?
4) Regulars have no Term of Service (see below) and assuming they survive, serve for the duration of the game.
5) Volunteers are units brought in by the current Muster button.
6) Volunteers usually start with IWs, but maybe a random chance of a better weapon (?)
7) Volunteers have a new stat: Term of Service. It's the length of time the unit serves, after which the player must decide whether to Disband it or Reenlist it. It can vary between 3 months to 3 years.
8) Players have two ways to increase the odds of a successful Muster: A Cash Bounty and/or a lower Term of Service. Maybe a couple of slider bars under the Muster button to handle this graphically (?)
9) A Cash Bounty is simply that, a bribe to encourage enlistment in the new Brigade. Higher the bounty offered, better chance of a Muster (and very historical). Default is $0. Increments, say, of $5.
10) Term of Service varies in increments of 3 months, and the default is 3 years. Lower the TOS, the higher the chance of a Muster.
11) At the end of a TOS the player will have an option to Reenlist the unit; figure some base chance based on National Will, modified by the usual Cash Bounty and TOS sliders. If he fails the unit disbands.
12) There are no more Conscript units. Instead, each time you click the Conscript button you deduct 1 population, and add 1500 men to your replacement pool. Which is then distributed by the CoG/FoF game engine in its usual silent and efficient manner. Danger probability and effects as usual. This will serve to supplement a very inadequade trickle of automatic replacements assumed to be gathered by enlisters of existing brigades. A player can choose not to draft...but then he'll find his 3K Brigades dwindling down to 2K, then 1K...

I thought of these Wish List ideas and put them together while musing between gaming sessions. Fun, shiny new chrome, or needless additional micromanagement...you decide!

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 376

RE: Wish List - 12/25/2006 11:24:37 PM

Paper Tiger

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

Add a requirement to have one hospital for every two camps. You want your replacements then a good number of them will be sick soldiers returning to fitness.

(in reply to jimwinsor)

Post #: 377

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 1:23:49 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Quick Battle info

It would be great if somewhere ingame was reported things like the QB value of weapons, brigade improvements, and the like.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 378

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 3:25:01 AM

Queeg

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Quick Battle info

It would be great if somewhere ingame was reported things like the QB value of weapons, brigade improvements, and the like.

I second that.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 379

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 3:29:50 AM

Gil R.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

I whish general skills could be rebalanced - somewhat lesser stats for a large bulk of confederate generals.

You and me both. Someone got a bit carried away with the idea of a "Southern Leadership Edge". When you compare the two sides in the game it looks more like an "avalanche" than an "edge".

Ratings for 100-percenters were determined pre-release by votes cast by visitors to the forum; ratings for 25-percenters were determined by yours truly and run past the forum pre-release; ratings for the roughly 900 9-percenters were determined randomly, though as bios for them get written we are replacing those random ratings with more historically accurate ones. As I wrote at the time, it was always my intention to revisit ratings once the game was out. So, if there particular are ratings that need to be changed, and we can get a consensus, we can change them. Someone can start a thread here (where it's more likely to be seen), or in the ratings sub-forum (which would be more appropriate). Fire away.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 380

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 4:01:08 AM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

Camps seem overpowered, or at least unbalancing in favor of the Confederacy. The primary cost is in horses, which the Union lacks but the Confederacy doesn;t, ecspecially if Kentucky goes Confederate. That allows the CSA to build camps faster, which means more reinforcements, which means they get to replace thier losses faster, which IIRC wasn't always the case.

The simple soultion would be to lower the cost of camps, but IMO thats not solving the problem.

There ought to be a way to tie replacements from camps into overall population, and improvments such as telegraphs make that more efficient. A higher number of camps means a higher percentage of the total population is recruited. The balancing factor to this is that CSA recruits would be of higher quality than the USA ones.

Thresh

< Message edited by Thresh -- 12/26/2006 4:10:32 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 381

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 4:48:48 AM

Hard Sarge

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

I still don't follow these complants about the camps ?

the Union needs around 5000 men to replace there starting troops, the CSA needs over 200,000

the Union has close to a 2 to 1 edge in manpower

the idea is for the Union to build troops

if all you do is replace losses from combat, the Union is never going to be able to fight the CSA Toe to Toe

(3000-4000 lousy troops, just mean 3000-4000 troops die faster)

use what you have, use what you can get and make, be a Grant and stop asking "IF"

if the CSA can replace more losses then you can, make sure the CSA takes more losses

take POWs, the CSA can not lose units, they can't replace them, any battle where you have the edge, use it and take POWs

use numbers, the CSA can not be everywhere, use it

you have a number of Major Iron Centers, set everything else to build Horse Farms, and build some horse farms, if you need more camps

if Kentucky goes CSA, take it back, if you can't take it back, plunder it, so it don't give anything to the CSA, plunder the CSA Iron Centers, that will hurt them even more

_____________________________

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 382

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 7:34:26 AM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

Thats a very simplistic view Hard Sarge. Fact is many of us aren't as adept in battle as you are, so our ability to inflict such large casualties on the enemy is lessened.

But also, from a mathematical point of view, it just doesn't add up.

I am playing a game on one of the lower setting right now where I get 3500 reinforcements a turn from my camps, and need (due to musters and conscriptions in order to maintain a numerical advantage in my favaor) 91K plus, or 107 brigades that need reinforcements.

Even though I outnumber my computer enemy, I am losing more battles than I win, and my losses are almost always higher than those I inflict, to the point I can barely conscript or muster anymore. I've done so much in order to maintain what numbers I have, but the the simple fact of the matter is this:

I fight a Battle in Fredericksburg and win, but lose 12K troops doing so. I Inflict 16K, but seeing as how starting numbers were 85 me and 95 him, its a net loss.
I Have seiges going on, in Wheeling, Knoxville, Nashville, and Island Number 10, and lose more than few troops in those.

I win a battle in Little rock, but lose 3K troops in doing so.

So even though I am winning more than losing, pressing everywhere, and doing IMO fairly OK, I lose 20K troops (as an estimate, but I know 15K is right), and get 3500 as replacements. So, in return for pressing the advantage with an Army that isn't as good morale wise, loses more often than it wins, loses more troops than in casualties than it causes, and makes me think I am fighting on the Somme rather than the Cumberland, I lose 8500 men a turn whether I win or lose those battles. If thats not attrition warfare, I am not sure what is.

If I have a 2 to 1 manpower advantage, I should be able to replace my losses faster than the confederacy, and the way the game is coded, thats not possible. Instead, I lose twice as many men in order to win, replace a quarter of whats lost, and end up on the short side.

Grant knew he had reserves he could call up, which is why he did what he did. I'm no Grant, I'm the first to admit it, but lets be honest, if he was facing the same problems I am, he wouldn't be able to do what he did either :-)

Thresh

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 383

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 4:36:48 PM

Mike Scholl

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

the Union needs around 5000 men to replace there starting troops, the CSA needs over 200,000

As the two sides don't start the "Standard Scenario" that far apart in Number of Brigades or actual strength, doesn't this really mean that the South can expand it's numbers rather quickly and cheaply by building camps (they have the horses) and filling existing Brigades? While the North is faced with expensively building new Brigades from scratch?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 384

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 5:33:33 PM

dude

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

the Union needs around 5000 men to replace there starting troops, the CSA needs over 200,000

Isn't one of the reason there is a large differnece is that the Union brigades are capped at 3000 men while the Confederates start capped at 4000 men... but since the confederates units only start with 3000 like the Union forces they need an extra 1000 per brigade to fill them. So this comparison doesn't really work. If the Confederates where capped at 3000 like the Union at the start they wouldn't need over 200,000 replacements. It's a false perception.

I know when I've played (as Union) and picked the upgrade that allows my brigades to have increased sized I've had a near impossible time trying to get the manpower to do it, especially considering the losses I take each turn. One of the things that I did do in COG all the time was combine depleted units together or transfer manpower from militia units to the regular infantry units. But these options are not here... you basically have to use a unit until it no longer exists. It wouldn't be so bad if the casualty numbers weren't so lopsided all the time.

_____________________________

�Ifs defeated the Confederates�� U.S.Grant

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 385

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 5:40:26 PM

rook749

Posts: 1105
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

As the two sides don't start the "Standard Scenario" that far apart in Number of Brigades or actual strength, doesn't this really mean that the South can expand it's numbers rather quickly and cheaply by building camps (they have the horses) and filling existing Brigades? While the North is faced with expensively building new Brigades from scratch?

Don't forget the need to arm new troops and pay upkeep as the number of units in your army expands. The problem is that it is far more cost effective to replace your losses in your existing units than keep building new units. New units need to be bought, mustered or conscripted and then armed - existing units are usually already armed and add no additional up keep costs. If the South keeps its army at full strength (which is a one time investment in camps) it can slowly expand its army. Right now the union can slowly expand its camps and quickly (until it can�t afford any more upkeep costs) expand the number of units in its army but most of these units will be poorly armed and less then full strength and this strength will only get worse due to battle, march attrition and disease.

Rook

< Message edited by rook749 -- 12/26/2006 6:37:04 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 386

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 5:54:28 PM

regularbird

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

I love your posts Hard Sarge but I cant follow you down this road. The CSA under no circumstance should be able to field more soldiers or replacements than the USA. I could easily have the south churning out 20k replacements a turn fairly soon. And that is just not right. place a camp cap of 5k for the CSA and 10k USA, or at least add a cap slider ber option.

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 387

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 7:50:39 PM

Hard Sarge

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

I don't know, I don't follow

I have no trouble with the Union, the war is over before 62 is done when I play from the Union side

trying to be polite and all, but most of the complaints, seems to be that the Union is beating there head against a wall, and then complain, that it is not fair that they can't beat a hole in the wall

there is no reason for the CSA to be making more troops then the Union does, that is your fault, you can take away anything the CSA has if you want it (Fredericksburg, Richmound, Tenn-Miss-River areas, wait till you can take them, before you try to take them

you do not have to take something to take it away from the other side

maybe I have played the game too much

_____________________________

(in reply to regularbird)

Post #: 388

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 8:06:14 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I don't know, I don't follow

I have no trouble with the Union, the war is over before 62 is done when I play from the Union side

trying to be polite and all, but most of the complaints, seems to be that the Union is beating there head against a wall, and then complain, that it is not fair that they can't beat a hole in the wall

there is no reason for the CSA to be making more troops then the Union does, that is your fault, you can take away anything the CSA has if you want it (Fredericksburg, Richmound, Tenn-Miss-River areas, wait till you can take them, before you try to take them

you do not have to take something to take it away from the other side

maybe I have played the game too much

Indeed, maybe you have.

Being a hard-charging aggressive and successful player should have rewards in the game; however, such tactics should not be a substitute for the reality of the time. If you predicate game balance on your style of play, then the opposing AI would have to be monumentally skewed from that reality to offer a challange.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 389

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2006 8:13:03 PM

chris0827

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

Why are confederate brigades larger? This is total fiction. Confederate Corps and divisions were sometimes larger but union brigades were on average larger than confederate ones.

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 390