RE: Wish List (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (1/25/2007 2:54:08 PM)

Event reports:

Some have suggested that it would be nice if battle reports were immediate and had a little drama or historical flavor, ala the newspaper headlines in Take Command: Second Manassas.

I agree with those suggestions, and would like to add a similar suggestion for the events report. In particular, changes in victory points and national will are major items. I can envision a headline or "memo to the President" that says "national support for the war is fading ..." and reports the change in national will.

The comprehensive events screen is very efficient and easy to refer to as you plan a move. But it would add some immersive flavor if it were put in the form of "Memo from the Secretary of War to the President: This has been a (good, bad, mixed) week on the battlefield. Battles here and there had victories/defeats with the following casualties." Similarly, "Memo from the Secretary of State: Our diplomatic efforts are succeeding/failing/continue to be challenging. We are putting the following resources into diplomacy: ... We have seen the following changes in the past two weeks: ..." "Memo from President's Political Advisor: ..." Etc. These could probably still be put seriatim into a single "Cabinet Reports."



Diggypiggy -> RE: Wish List (1/27/2007 7:34:50 PM)

I remember an old ACW strategic level game by SSI I believe back in the 70s or early 80s. The game was balanced historically not by hamstringing the Union or providing the South with extra resources, but by making the generals a major part in when things could be done. For instance, McClellan could only move or fight with a die roll of '1' on each turn and RE Lee could on a die roll of 1-4. I know that initiative is modelled in this game but it seems a little to lenient. The battles were also modified with a plus or minus on the die roll depending on the General which in this game seem to be modeled just fine. The old game also did not make leaders available until they were historically, i.e. Grant could not be promoted until he was historically. Just some ideas that were floating around in my noggin. Good game, I really like it.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (1/28/2007 6:16:17 AM)

Sequence of Forts Attacked:

When the Union attacks forts in the Memphis area, it doesn't seem to attack the northernmost first -- Island No. 10 -- and so on in sequence. Possibly, I am mistaken about the sequence -- I am not familiar with Ft. Wright, for example -- but, in any case, where there is an obvious geographical sequence of forts, the AI should prioritize in that order.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (1/28/2007 6:19:09 AM)

Ironworks in CSA:

At the start of Nov 61 scenario, there are three cities in the CSA with ironworks but no horse farms -- Augusta, Columbus, and Richmond. Oddly, Augusta and Richmond are not set to produce iron, presumably because they produce more horses (in Augusta, only slightly more). Is this as it should be?



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (1/28/2007 6:20:27 AM)

Show Build Capacity (e.g., 6/8) on City Screen:

This would be very helpful. The information can be found, but it does not appear on the opening screen (unless I am missing something).




tiredoftryingnames -> RE: Wish List (1/28/2007 3:15:51 PM)

Actually it is on the main city detail screen and I suggested a few pages back on this wish list that it needs to be moved. On the upper right hand side where it lists the current buildings and anything being built is the total number of buildings and number that can be supported. It's at the bottom so that on most city screens you have to scroll to see it. I think this should be moved to the top of the list, followed by what is being built, then list what buildings are in the province. When cycling through cities you have to scroll see if you can build anything, cycle to the next, scroll, so on and so forth. If it was at the top you could quickly at a glance see if you could build something there, if not move on.



sven6345789 -> RE: Wish List (1/28/2007 3:25:12 PM)

how about changing general ratings after promotion; Hood is a good example; he was a good Brgande and divisional commander, but his military decisions regarding Atlanta, Franklin and Nashville are doubtful; so, generals should get other ratings after promotion.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/1/2007 10:37:36 PM)

Info on generals:

I always go to the Military Screen and write down the numerical ratings of each general and then I go to the map and click on each in turn and write down their teachable traits. I like the numerical ratings because I find them easier to compare. It would be nice if this information were present on one screen somewhere.

I also agree with those who say it would be nice to have a screen listing all your generals and not have to look through all the military units to find them. Maybe these two ideas could be combined.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/5/2007 9:02:14 PM)

QB Record:

During QB, I try to watch the little messages indicating losses of each firing group. It would be nice to have them all at a list at the end of the battle -- or at least available somewhere.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/5/2007 9:03:56 PM)

Events Report:

In messages like "CSA 12th Div is removed because it is an empty military group in enemy territory," it would be nice if the message named the territory the group was in. I suggested the same idea for garrisons when they are reported to have died out.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/5/2007 9:05:54 PM)

Governors support:

Just as governor's requests are being fine-tuned, it might make sense to fine-tune "governor supports naval research" so it doesn't keep popping up in Iowa. Some of the others might also be particularly apt in certain regions, e.g., Penn gov supports iron production.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/8/2007 11:22:15 PM)

9-percenters:

I wonder if anyone else shares my feelings about the more obscure generals that have a 9 percent chance of appearing. I find that I enjoy seeing non-stars like all the McCook brothers, A. S. Williams, Ramseur, Shelby, etc. But I do not enjoy having a lot of people I never heard of, people who would not appear even in a whole book on the Army of Tennessee or the Peninsular Campaign or the like. I would like to see 9 percenters divided into 12-percenters who did have more of a historical role and 6 percenters who had little. Some rough cut would suffice, like all those who ever made it to major general or led a division or something like that. Since none of these guys appear in many games, it would not be necessary to make a science of it. Does anyone else share my attitude to seeing a lot of Joe Blows on the roster?



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/9/2007 3:34:19 PM)

A Human Player?

I still having trouble remembering to click on a human player when I start a new game. It would be nice to have a prompt (when no human player has been selected) asking, "Do you want to designate a human player?", before leaving this screen.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/10/2007 7:04:34 PM)

AI Plundering:

When the AI is besieging me (usually Union in Memphis area), I kept getting messages like "Ft Pillow prevents plundering" over and over. It's just needless clutter and so a bit irritating. It doesn't seem to make sense to try to plunder while conducting a siege, since the presence of a fort is necessary to the latter and prevents the former. Perhaps the AI could be told not to plunder during sieges or in a province with a fort.



christof139 -> RE: Wish List (2/12/2007 5:21:00 AM)

quote:

9-percenters:

I wonder if anyone else shares my feelings about the more obscure generals that have a 9 percent chance of appearing. I find that I enjoy seeing non-stars like all the McCook brothers, A. S. Williams, Ramseur, Shelby, etc. But I do not enjoy having a lot of people I never heard of, people who would not appear even in a whole book on the Army of Tennessee or the Peninsular Campaign or the like. I would like to see 9 percenters divided into 12-percenters who did have more of a historical role and 6 percenters who had little. Some rough cut would suffice, like all those who ever made it to major general or led a division or something like that. Since none of these guys appear in many games, it would not be necessary to make a science of it. Does anyone else share my attitude to seeing a lot of Joe Blows on the roster? GQ


I know what you mean, but just because a general commanding a Bde. or holding a Staff position at an HQ is not mentioned in a book that is a broad and not detailed coverage of a war or a particular Army, does not mean that that general is obscure or wasn't any good.

I find that the more choice of generals there is then the better it is in terms onf realism, since the game engine has a large array of generals, both good and bad, to choose from. Just as in the real world.

Since most Bdes. were commanded by Bde. Gens., I would suggest that a Gen. in the real war that never was promoted any higher, be not promotable in FoF. Same for 2-stars etc. Seems you get an awful lot of 2 and 3-stars in the game due to promotions.

Also, for higher-ups, wasn't Grant the only Union 4-star, or was he awared 5, and wasn't Lee the only Confed. 4-star?? I would have to look this up, and I know someone here might know offhand.

Can't remember what Halleck and Scott were.

Chris







chris0827 -> RE: Wish List (2/12/2007 5:35:43 AM)

Grant was the only union general with 3 stars in the war. He got his 4th and Sherman got his 3rd in 1866. Eight confederates had 4 stars. Halleck and Scott had two. The stars a commander has in the game refers to what size force they can command not their actual rank. The north and south had different command structures. The game has to take that into account.



christof139 -> RE: Wish List (2/12/2007 10:08:39 AM)

quote:

Grant was the only union general with 3 stars in the war. He got his 4th and Sherman got his 3rd in 1866. Eight confederates had 4 stars. Halleck and Scott had two. The stars a commander has in the game refers to what size force they can command not their actual rank. The north and south had different command structures. The game has to take that into account.


Yes, thanx. The 3-star Lt. Genl's. rank was basically created for Grant when he became C in C. I just did a little reading after you posted.

So, with respect to the game, then a 1-star could actually be equated simply to a Bde. commander, eithe a Lt. Col., Full Bird, or a Bde. Gen., and so on up the line in direct relationship to the type of organization being commanded.

I actually don't know off-hand yet if the game has 5-stars, because there is a lot of reading to do with the manual, not to mention just discovering this in an ongoing game. I just installed the CD copy on my compooter yesterday and am in the very early stages of a game, and I think the Confeds. already have 2 or 3 3-stars, can't remember offhand. I don't know what the union has at this time.

Chris





tiredoftryingnames -> RE: Wish List (2/13/2007 12:45:57 AM)

I would like to see an option added to containers for setting the unit to Training. This would stay in effect unless the unit moves or is engaged in combat. The advantages would be each turn there would be a small chance for a morale increase. This would represent that the unit is training to better prepare for combat, isn't getting shot at and developing unity.

Also there should be a small chance that brigades set to training could get a random attribute assigned to represent that while training they focused on certain areas. This would allow units to gain a more diverse set of attributes than just those of it's commander. Of course if moving and fighting the attribute assigment that is currently in place would still be there.

Training would just provide some benefit to pulling units out of the line and not fighting constantly. Or training up new units before throwing them into combat.



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/13/2007 5:03:21 AM)

The training idea is interesting, but there should be a cost, namely, that the army would be weaker if attacked. The idea is that the troops would have been pulled out of the line for extensive training. I suppose, in effect, that is what McClellan was doing with the AoP early on.



christof139 -> RE: Wish List (2/13/2007 5:20:44 AM)

Good idea about the training. Good food/rations would help, then we could have Fat 32 units. [8|]

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]



Paper Tiger -> RE: Wish List (2/13/2007 4:23:44 PM)

Perhaps a commander with an "Organised" attribute and a cost in supplies should be required.



christof139 -> RE: Wish List (2/14/2007 9:05:11 AM)

quote:

Perhaps a commander with an "Organised" attribute and a cost in supplies should be required.


That is a very excellent idea!! Makes mucho sense!!

Fat32 Halleck and/or 'Bull' Nelson come to mind, along with W. Scott or Scot, Winfield himself.

Have to find someone, at least one for the South.

Chris



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (2/18/2007 12:56:22 AM)

Buttons:

Some of the buttons do not visibly "depress" so it is hard to know if you succeeded in selecting them. For example, where you choose level of gameplay, e.g., "intermediate," and where you confirm your exit, "Yes, exit," and I think there are a number of others. I am never sure whether to click again or whether that might confuse the computer.

EDIT: My computer consultant found the same thing. There does seem to be light or something around the button but, since some of the transitions take so long, you can't tell whether you succeeded and something is happening, or whether the game is just doing nothing.



christof139 -> RE: Wish List (2/18/2007 9:21:12 AM)

quote:

Buttons:

Some of the buttons do not visibly "depress" so it is hard to know if you succeeded in selecting them. For example, where you choose level of gameplay, e.g., "intermediate," and where you confirm your exit, "Yes, exit," and I think there are a number of others. I am never sure whether to click again or whether that might confuse the computer.


Computers always get confused, especially when a mouse is double-clicking due to age or not being cleaned or just going bad. I have to clean mine, maybe start using my new and cheap [:)] optical mouse, because sometimes the compooter reads my clicks wrong, as two clicks or more, due to whatever reason.

Chris



Paper Tiger -> RE: Wish List (2/26/2007 6:44:24 PM)

Biggest annoyance, having to restart a turn if you decide that one order decision made early on isn't what you wanted.
Give us a way of removing all orders relating to a single unit/div/corps/army/city

Second biggest annoyance, realising that I missed a move, build etc on a PBEM game just after I press end turn and having to not just go  back in to the game and change the turn but also completely redo it as it isn't possible to simply revise the turn after that click



Ironclad -> RE: Wish List (2/26/2007 10:10:31 PM)

post deleted



Paper Tiger -> RE: Wish List (2/28/2007 2:58:59 PM)

Things not in the manual that should be added. Info here only vaguely garnered from discussions on this forum.

1. Details on the effects of academies on the organisational levels of containers.
2. Details on the use of Cavalry to counter Raider and Partisan units.

Anyone got anything else?



General Quarters -> RE: Wish List (3/11/2007 9:42:11 PM)

Change of commanders:

I find myself tempted to move generals with lots of teachable skills to new divisions after they have "trained up" their own soldiers. IRL, that would be a very bad practice, since it would undermine the commander-soldier bond. It might make sense to lower the morale, or for their to be a chance of lowering the morale, of troops who receive a new commander.



Mike13z50 -> RE: Wish List (3/11/2007 9:57:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman
Perhaps the unit 'jumping' could be a little less random and based on your army organisation - next unit is always from the same division etc... That would also encourage realistic battlefield manouvering, ie. keeping divisions together etc...
And maybe you could make so the you don't jump to the next unit before the animations of the current unit has been played through...


It should be the case that units in the same military group (directly attached...) move on the same initiative segment. This way military groups can move together.

I'd like to have higher units such as Corps and Armies deploy adjacent in HW. Divisions all deploy together, but one division from the a corps is usually at one end of the front and another division is at the other end. I like to keep my Corps intact and functioning as a unit. It is somewhat anoying to have to march a division around the back of the army to group a corps. Ditto with armies; if you have more than one army in a HW, the armies units ought to deploy contiguous; ie 1st army on the left, 2nd army on the right.



christof139 -> RE: Wish List (3/11/2007 10:31:20 PM)

quote:

I'd like to have higher units such as Corps and Armies deploy adjacent in HW. Divisions all deploy together, but one division from the a corps is usually at one end of the front and another division is at the other end. I like to keep my Corps intact and functioning as a unit. It is somewhat anoying to have to march a division around the back of the army to group a corps. Ditto with armies; if you have more than one army in a HW, the armies units ought to deploy contiguous; ie 1st army on the left, 2nd army on the right.


I second that emotion, as it will lessen the commotion.

BTW, may I borrow your Washington Arty. Bn. for a TOT on my perfiduous and obnoxious, perpetually imbibed neighbor?? A TOT on his head might wake him up so to speak, enlighten him a bit. Bracketting his silly self might also prove entertaining. I could see him running back and forth and all around quite dizzy in a bewildered tizzy.

Just a thought.

Chris



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875