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 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Wish List - 7/26/2007 7:23:01 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

As it stands now, in detailed combat,all generals in a division,corp or army are assigned to a brigade in battle. this exposes the Corp level and army level generals to possible wounding or Killing. While this did occur on Corp level by sharpshooters IRL, in the game it is more common since Lee or Grant are both assigned to brigade command during battle. I would like to see the Corp and Army level commanders alone with maybe their staff officers and runners, able to be moved anywhere in the battle where their leadership or morale raising attributes are needed. they could still be attacked or even captured, but they wouldn't necessarily be on the front lines in a brigade.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to madgamer2)

Post #: 661

RE: Wish List - 7/26/2007 4:10:36 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

Don't forget that you can move them to any other unit using the G command and I usually place my Commanding General (and sometimes other precious commanders) with a supply caisson out of harms way. Think of it as a HQ unit.

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 662

RE: Wish List - 8/3/2007 2:26:40 AM

s2437

Posts: 3
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline

Not sure if this has been brought up in this thread, but it has elsewhere, where I posted this request.

When playing the Union, regardless of the whether you "lost" according to the rules or not, it is frustrating not to be able to complete the conquest of the South, especially when you are on the verge of taking Richmond after four years or more (in game time) of hard fighting. Instead, if a certain amount of time has passed and the South has not been conquered as defined under the rules a screen suddenly pops up declaring you the loser, and you can't even get back to the map just to survey the status of the game at the time of loss much less complete your fantasy of crushing the South. So please, it would be appreciated if the game could be played on, even after having been declared the loser (or victor for that matter) just for the satisfaction of having the game come to its historical finish. Perhaps a Total Victory option or some such. Thank you

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 663

RE: Wish List - 8/3/2007 3:14:34 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

Ironclad: I'm aware of the G command but hitting G doesn't do a thing. I must be doing something wrong. Your solution is okay but if you don't have enough supp;y Wagons,then what? I still would like to see Army and corp leaders separate from the brigades, with the ability to rally any brigade that is adjacent.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 664

RE: Wish List - 8/3/2007 8:57:11 PM

cerosenberg

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/4/2007
Status: offline

I know that I keep saying the same thing but "The squeak wheel ..."

No reasources should be collected from a province unless it has an open railway or river. This would include ports for the Union and ports for the Confederacy only if the UK has entered the war. All cities able of building or producing fit these criteria. I suggest that a communication line go to Chattenooga, Richmond, Altanta or New Orleans. for the Union: New York, Boston, Philadephia, DC, Chicago, Columbus, or St. Louis.

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 665

RE: Wish List - 9/17/2007 5:15:23 AM

dolphinsfan9910

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

1. Be able to merge depleted units together. 1000 man unit merges with a 700 man unit for a 1700 man unit.

2. Actual geographic map representations for tactical battles. IE Chattanooga and Lookout Mountain, Gettysburg and the Round Tops, ect. (So if I get into a battle in Southern Pennsylvania, I have the "Gettysburg" option.

3. Give Engineers starting abilities to dig trenches and make river crossings.

4. Give the tactical maps more realism. For instace, if I attack Richmond's Defenses, Maybe have a large city area represnting Richmond behind the forts.

5. More control over General abilities. Give player decision when to use rally for generals.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 666

RE: Wish List - 9/17/2007 5:20:52 AM

dolphinsfan9910

Posts: 81
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

One other thing. Allow gunboats to be present for tactical battles near rivers.

(in reply to dolphinsfan9910)

Post #: 667

RE: Wish List - 9/27/2007 3:38:25 AM

cesteman

Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

I can answer #1. The only way to merge units right now is to disband the unit and the troops will be distributed evenly to other units in the Army. #4 I think their working on more maps for the expansion game but Gil R could answer that one better. Cheers.

(in reply to dolphinsfan9910)

Post #: 668

RE: Wish List - 9/28/2007 7:59:13 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

Ironclad: I'm aware of the G command but hitting G doesn't do a thing. I must be doing something wrong. Your solution is okay but if you don't have enough supp;y Wagons,then what? I still would like to see Army and corp leaders separate from the brigades, with the ability to rally any brigade that is adjacent.

Drex: Sorry for the delayed response but I have only just seen your reply. When the unit with the general that you want to move is active, place the cursor over a supply wagon (or any other receiving unit without a general) and then press G. I tend to only protect the lead general these days so there is always a wagon available - often there is a choice so he usually gets posted at the rear one!

(in reply to Drex)

Post #: 669

RE: Wish List - 10/1/2007 12:31:55 AM

RyanCrierie

Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

Have the forts, etc on the British side have british flags, instead of becoming CSA flags when the British join the war, etc.

_____________________________

My Website with cool bits and pieces!

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 670

RE: Wish List - 10/3/2007 1:26:10 AM

wzh55

Posts: 188
Joined: 3/17/2001
From: Sacramento, CA USA
Status: offline

Gil or Erik or Eric,

A wish I have for the hopefully near future is on detailed map screens, for each hex type, (swamp, rocks, trees, etc.) to somewhere have displayed the effects on movement, defense and other matters. Maybe with a mouse-over of the hex itself. Probably a lot of work, but sure would be immensely helpful. At least a listing of the hex types (in picture form) with attributes that is easily accessible. Also, it would be helpful to someway indicate if the brigade you have chosen is entrenched or not (it is difficult to see the "breastworks" in certain hex types (rocks, trees, etc.). Sorry if this has been mentioned before (probably has) but they continue to be things I think would help the game if added.

_____________________________

Bill Hawthorne

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 671

RE: Wish List - 10/3/2007 10:18:13 AM

RyanCrierie

Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

By the way; is it possible to make it so that if you place items like:

ACWUpgrades.txt
Guns.txt

or

Guns.pcx
UpgradeTiles.pcx

in Scenario Folders; the game engine will load them?

So you could simply make a scenario like:

Scenarios\Guns_of_the_South_s

and it would automatically load the modded files, while leaving the original install intact?

_____________________________

My Website with cool bits and pieces!

(in reply to wzh55)

Post #: 672

Forced March - 10/11/2007 11:03:10 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

Sorry if this has been asked for already but I don't have the energy to read 23 pages. Often I select forced march because I want to get to a particular hex only to find out that I still can't reach it and added fatigue to my unit for nothing. You know how you show where a unit can move in blue? Can you add a new color that shows where you could move if you selected the forced march option?

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to genie144)

Post #: 673

RE: Forced March - 11/2/2007 3:26:33 AM

moose1999

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

One small thing that has been on my mind right since I started playing FOF:
It would be nice to be able to see what kind of weapon your units have when you right-click on them.
As it is now, you have to wait untill the unit is up for movement untill you can see info on their weapon.
By right-clicking you can get info on several things - but not weapons.
When planning a strategy it would be very helpfull to be able to determine which units have which weapons without having to wait for each unit's turn and then having to memorize it afterwards.

EDIT: I'm talking about the detailed battles, of course.

< Message edited by briny_norman -- 11/9/2007 4:05:25 AM >

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 674

RE: Wish List - 12/5/2007 6:39:57 PM

pzpat

Posts: 78
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: California
Status: offline

Last night I was playing version 1.10.10, the balanced July 1861 scenario. I have two matters:

1- In detailed combat there was one Confederate division against one Yankee. Both sides called for reinforcements. When the ANV showed up they had no supply trains. I had 50,000 troops with only the one supply train of the original division. I remember reading elsewhere (didn't find it, may have been in this thread) someone asking if you could in the next mod ensure that reinforcing units appear with the appropriate number of supply wagons. I have to add my voice to that very reasonable request. Come to think of it, I didn't see any Yankee supply trains either. As a different subject, it was fun to see that the Yankees suffered 8,000 casualties for having 2,500 troops engaged.

2- Same game. The Yankees were besieging Little Rock. I sent troops to chase them away. The computer asked me if I wanted to add the garrison troops to my field army and I said yes. After the battle the computer said that the Yankee siege had been successful (because the computer didn't detect any Confederate troops in the city). The computer then set my national will to -3. But the result of the battle had been that I had stopped the siege and chased the Yankees out of the province. On the next turn the city and the province remained in Confederate hands, and I put the garrison troops back in the city. My national will didn't go back up. The Yankees then went through Rebel territory and besieged Natchez. I kicked them out of there. I had thought that if a force was forced to retreat into enemy controlled territory it disbanded or surrendered instead, but this didn't happen. They retreated with no ill effects. They then went back to Little Rock and besieged it again. Again I followed and made the same mistake of using the garrison troops in the field. Again after I had won the battle and chased them out of the province the computer told me that the siege had been successful, and reduced my national will to -6. After the battle I put the garrison troops back into the city. Production in the city had never been interrupted. How could my national will have been reduced when I never lost the city, and why didn't it go back up when I "recaptured" it?

(Maybe this second question belongs in a "support" thread.) And maybe you could give the player the option of choosing how many garrison brigades and which ones to pull out of a city instead of presenting it as an all or nothing alternative.

Thanks, PzPat

(in reply to moose1999)

Post #: 675

RE: Wish List - 12/5/2007 7:45:21 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Supply trains don't show up for reinforcements in detailed battle. The notion is that they're moving quickly to get to the battle, far ahead of their supply. It creates a different sort of battle when most of the units show up as reinforcements. You can re-supply in forts/villages, and these things become more important in a reinforcement-heavy battle. It might be neat if extra supply showed up a day later or something. I'll post this idea to the wish list thread. (Oh wait, I am posting this idea to the wish list thread...)

I thought we solved the capture-while-garrison-is-out problem with V1.10.10. Honestly I'm not sure when it's capturing the city, since the siege phases are called totally outside of combat and cities can only be captured during those phases. Maybe the best thing to do would be to remove the call-garrison-to-battle option??... or we could make it so that all garrisons except one are called???

< Message edited by ericbabe -- 12/5/2007 7:46:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to pzpat)

Post #: 676

RE: Wish List - 12/5/2007 8:40:09 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

Delayed supply for reinforcements sound like a good idea particularly for the attacker. Maybe delay the defender's by half a day or so and the attacker a full day. I don't think we need much extra supply - even one or two waggons would make a big difference for a large reinforcing force. Currently if defending, I will only risk reinforcing an isolated division with a large army if the former starts with a couple of supply wagons. That's playing CSA so USA may be more difficult. Of course populated terrain also helps. Even so the army's counter-attacking possibilities are very limited so some reinforcement supply would make a big difference.

One way to enhance the supply position and also the battle itself, would be to allow the defender to select one of the Victory hexes (when present) as a base of operations. This could then operate as a fixed supply waggon for the occupier (ie either side).

To make this an even more inviting objective, award 2 Will to Fight points rather than the usual 1 and have a percentage possibility of an additional reward for the attacker when holding that Victory hex at the point that the defender commences his retreat eg x number of weapons for use on the strategic map. The total weapons reward or the percentage possibility could be higher in a city province (most non city ones will not have victory hexes anyway). A bit like the shoes of Gettsyburg - only in reverse.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 677

RE: Wish List - 12/5/2007 8:42:33 PM

pzpat

Posts: 78
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: California
Status: offline

In that particular battle there weren't any forts or villages. Often when there are forts the garrisons aren't under my control, so I can't pull them out and resupply my men.
If you're going to change the rule about garrisons going to battle, please consider letting the player decide which ones go and which ones stay, where appropriate. Thanks.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 678

RE: Wish List - 12/5/2007 8:50:57 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

Garrisons in detailed battle can be moved when you use the wakeup command (press e when cursor is over the unit).

(in reply to pzpat)

Post #: 679

RE: Wish List - 12/6/2007 1:00:37 AM

moose1999

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

I would personally miss the option to call garrisons into battle.
But I've also experienced the capture-while-garrison-is-out bug and it was really annoying, so the compromise of always leaving one unit in a fort/city is acceptable I guess.
Still, this would seriously cut down on the number of places and battles where called garrisons get to have an impact as many forts/cities are obly garrisoned with one unit.
Sometimes, calling these single units from forts/cities in the province can mean the difference between winning and losing - especially concerning smaller battles.

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 680

RE: Wish List - 12/6/2007 1:22:25 AM

Gil R.

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

Just throwing out ideas here...

Perhaps the solution might be that when garrisoned units are called out to battle the game automatically takes 500 men from the unit(s) and creates a new temporary garrison unit that stays behind. Or if making it temporary is difficult, just make it a new garrison unit. Players who want to restore those men to their original unit(s) can just disband it. Of course, not everyone will think to do that, know to do that, or remember to do that, so it might cause a problem. Like I said, just throwing out ideas...

(in reply to moose1999)

Post #: 681

RE: Wish List - 12/7/2007 12:30:59 AM

pzpat

Posts: 78
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: California
Status: offline

     I wasn't thinking of anything like splitting brigades, but if you really want to get complicated . . .
    As the game stands now when a besieging army is attacked it both meets the rescuing army in the field with all its units and maintains the siege at the same time. A neat trick which could be changed by the following:
    When a rescuing army enters the province, the besieging player (or AI) could determine which brigades he will pull away from the siege to go into battle. If he pulls all his brigades away then the siege is deemed halted, and unsuccessful for that turn, even if the garrison brigades are also called into the field. If the besieging player loses the battle and is thrown out of the province, then any brigades that had been designated to maintain the siege would be deemed to be attacked from the rear (so to speak) and immediately surrender. If the besieging player wins the battle, then the besieged/rescuing forces get kicked out of the province, including the garrison units that chose to leave the city or fort, and the besieging player's units could enter the city/fort unopposed in the next turn if it had been left undefended. That is, the presence of a rescuing army could cause the second siege phase of a turn not to happen.
    And of course there could be some sort of calculation of how effective besieging units would be in keeping garrison units from reaching the army in the field, etc.
    If the present garrison bug can be fixed I don't think we need the added complexity, but it was fun to think about.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 682

RE: Wish List - 12/8/2007 3:17:46 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

Reining back battle reinforcements

It was a welcome and realistic change to allow detailed battle reinforcements moving by rail to arrive in fresh condition but it doesn't seem realistic to have no limit on the reinforcement numbers involved. For example it�s perfectly feasible to rail in a CSA army of 60,000 from Fredericksburg to the Shenandoah without any regard to the rail limits that apply otherwise to the CSA.

As well as going beyond the historical limits, it treats each side the same, despite the decided advantage possessed by the USA during the real war. Admittedly the USA does benefit from being able to rail in any superior numbers.

To remedy this it would seem reasonable to limit the rail battle reinforcement capacity of each side per turn to a level equal to their normal railroad capacity (ie they get it as an addition to their normal rail movement). Beyond this level battle reinforcements would come by road and arrive fatigued. The doubling effect of the centralised railways upgrade doesn't seem relevant so should be excluded from the battle rail calculation for each side. Given the game mechanisms this limit would probably have to be used on a first come first served basis and if more than one battle required reinforcements, the earlier battles in a turn would have the priority.

A second issue is that reinforcement always happens when ordered, although this is implemented on a staggered basis. I can�t recall any occasion when an ordered in reinforcement doesn�t arrive, except when a battle ends very swiftly.

It would be better to have a greater degree of uncertainty so that a player can�t always rely on extra numbers arriving. This would make more complicated other earlier decisions concerning scouting/terrain choices (if available) and even the question of how many troops are assigned to an area in first place (e.g. maybe deploying a corps rather than a division).

To deal with this, we could introduce a random probability of battle reinforcement arrival influenced by some other factors such as the initiative level of the reinforcement general or generals, signal corps attributes, if defending and if a telegraph equipped province and perhaps additions for a city/ state capital provinces. Retaining automatic arrival for the defender in his national capital province. The outcome would determine the arrival or not of the reinforcing force also perhaps part or delayed arrival.

Edit: Another thought: The extent of notification of non-arrival or delay could be linked to espionage levels or other relevant factors eg winner of scouting check.

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 12/8/2007 10:20:44 PM >

(in reply to pzpat)

Post #: 683

RE: Wish List - 12/9/2007 1:20:15 PM

jkBluesman

Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

The initiative of the reinforcing commander could be used to modify the chance of arrival as well.

_____________________________

"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 684

RE: Wish List - 12/13/2007 8:07:34 PM

apbarog

Posts: 3769
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

I would like to see the ratings of enemy generals killed/captured in the combat report. When playing with randomized stats, I'd like to know if I just killed the equivalent of Lee, or find out it was just "a McClellan".

(in reply to jkBluesman)

Post #: 685

RE: Wish List - 12/13/2007 8:49:41 PM

Gil R.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: apbarog

I would like to see the ratings of enemy generals killed/captured in the combat report. When playing with randomized stats, I'd like to know if I just killed the equivalent of Lee, or find out it was just "a McClellan".

That's a nice suggestion. Thanks

(in reply to apbarog)

Post #: 686

RE: Wish List - 12/16/2007 11:51:40 PM

Falconius

Posts: 25
Joined: 7/23/2004
Status: offline

I'd like to see a kind of Generals' POW camp, a permanent list of Generals you captured.

In my current game as Dixie, I was fortunate enough to capture U.S. Grant when his unit surrendered (I had him outnumbered in detailed combat and was successful in picking "Surprise Attack" from the scouting options).

I'd like to be able to see Grant in a POW camp and make sure he's still there, and maybe even taunt him a little!

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 687

RE: Wish List - 12/16/2007 11:58:14 PM

Gil R.

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

Falconius,
I do like the idea of doing something with this. Originally, we decided not to include generals exchanges because that would require additional interface (= coding + graphics), and would marginally add to the fun. But maybe the solution is to have it randomly -- e.g., twice a year each side gets back a certain number of generals in a prisoner exchange. It would just be a random event, and not something the player would have control over. That would be less work than a formal exchange-negotiating feature.

Right now, we've got so many excellent ideas for a future FOF product that there will be no way to include them all, but the sort of thing I describe will definitely be considered.

_____________________________

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.

(in reply to Falconius)

Post #: 688

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2007 7:14:08 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

Not sure if this has been requested/wanted/desired before, but since I only have a few minutes before going to work I do not have the time to read all the pages in here

What I would like to see is a few things conserning training of troops;

1. I would like to be able to set a general on training duty, keeping him with some green troops in the rear, doing nothing but marching the would be soldiers up and down, therby improving them (to a certain degree, as I see that this would be too powerful if not.)

2. To be able to not let generals teach certain skills. (swampwise for one is a skill I hate to see one of my brigades be tought..)

3. That brigades are not thought a skill twice if they do not get double benefits from it. I often have artillery units with diggers-diggers. This seems like a huge waste to me.

Just my two cents thou

Thank you for a great game!
Terje

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 689

RE: Wish List - 12/26/2007 7:56:42 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Those are good ideas. It was up to individual commanders whether they were going to train their troops beyond the very basics, there was really no organized plan on either side for anything like regular training as far as I can tell. We kind of model this now by giving commanders with better stats an increased chance of training, and then by making most of their training an increase of the quality of poor-quality troops.

I also kind of like that generals "choose" how they're going to train their men without direct player input. For one thing, it keeps micromanagement down. But it also makes players have to take into consideration the various things a general can teach, making the decisions about where to place generals a little more interesting. We do have code that prevents double-teaching of some special abilities and I'm surprised that Diggers isn't on the list of things we prevent.

_____________________________

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 690