My Dreams (Full Version)

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



Message

bugwar -> My Dreams (9/10/2011 5:24:09 AM)

I would like it if the detailed battles had more of the look and feel of 3D,
sort of a turn-based version of Mad Minutes 'Take Command' series.

In fact, have the 'Quick Battle' option extend to a 'Detailed Quick Battle'
choice. Where the AI sets up and runs both sides of the detailed battle.
With 'pause' and 'rewind step' buttons to aid in players viewing replays.

Just a thought. Glad I don’t have to code it.



bugwar -> Get Settled In (9/10/2011 8:13:41 PM)

It would be nice if changing containers may temporarily reduce the abilities and skills of both leaders and units.

Many times when changing your environment, you need time to fit in with the new crowd, get used to their
ways and they to yours. Your efficiency may suffer during that transition. Once settled in though, your
abilities begin to shine once more.

Details of implementation I leave as an exercise for the developer.


[&o]



bugwar -> Time Warp (9/11/2011 7:03:14 PM)

I would like it if when you select a unit, then use the backspace key, the result is deleting the existing orders for THAT unit alone.



bugwar -> More Options (9/12/2011 3:56:35 AM)

1. A scenario start option allowing generals to complain to their respective governors if they are underutilized.
As an example, if R.E. Lee commands a division or anything less than an army.
The governors in turn could let the player know their displeasure.

2. Option to get the raider and siege units displayed on their own military screens, instead of currently being
on all of them.

3. When sorting by column, blank values show up last.

4. A scenario start option allowing leaders to possibly change their attributes upon promotion. Not all brigade
commanders were suited for the larger positions of responsibility their promotions entailed.



Gil R. -> RE: Whoa horsey! (9/17/2011 5:27:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar

An option to slow down (way down!) the strategic turn replay speed.

When the turn is over, I see units zipping across the map. I have to
replay it several times to figure out what just flew by.

The same goes for the screens at the beginning of the game. Most of the
time I am not able to read the quip before it vanishes.




I believe this can be done, using a slider bar under "Preferences" or another settings screen. Please look there.

Part of the problem might be that FOF was programmed 5+ years ago, when PC's weren't as powerful, so now your processor speed makes things move more quickly than was intended.



Gil R. -> RE: My Dreams (9/17/2011 5:30:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar

I would like it if the detailed battles had more of the look and feel of 3D,
sort of a turn-based version of Mad Minutes 'Take Command' series.

In fact, have the 'Quick Battle' option extend to a 'Detailed Quick Battle'
choice. Where the AI sets up and runs both sides of the detailed battle.
With 'pause' and 'rewind step' buttons to aid in players viewing replays.

Just a thought. Glad I don’t have to code it.




It's not just coding, but a ton of graphics work, too. This is only something we could do if we one day did a complete overhaul of FOF that involved a new engine. Something I'd love to do, but there are lots of other projects we'd do first, and it might not be economically feasible. (In other words, if it costs X thousand dollars to do the fancy graphics, and additional sales prompted by the fancier graphics do not bring in more than X it makes no sense to do so.)



Gil R. -> RE: Time Warp (9/17/2011 5:32:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar

I would like it if when you select a unit, then use the backspace key, the result is deleting the existing orders for THAT unit alone.


This has been requested before, but because of the way the game tracks moves during a turn it would be exceedingly difficult to implement.



Gil R. -> RE: More Options (9/17/2011 5:34:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar

1. A scenario start option allowing generals to complain to their respective governors if they are underutilized.
As an example, if R.E. Lee commands a division or anything less than an army.
The governors in turn could let the player know their displeasure.

2. Option to get the raider and siege units displayed on their own military screens, instead of currently being
on all of them.

3. When sorting by column, blank values show up last.

4. A scenario start option allowing leaders to possibly change their attributes upon promotion. Not all brigade
commanders were suited for the larger positions of responsibility their promotions entailed.



I like #1 and #4 in particular, and #3 seems like it should be doable. Programming #2 would take time away from other requests. Meaning, if we do another features patch, or one day produce and expansion or FOF2, there will be a finite limit to what we can add, and we'll have to go with what is in the most demand, or makes the most sense, or we ourselves had wanted to add previously but didn't have time for.

Thanks for your suggestions. It might still be a while before we do more with FOF, but here's to hoping they weren't made in vain!



bugwar -> Gratitude (9/17/2011 4:21:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar
An option to slow down (way down!) the strategic turn replay speed.

I believe this can be done, using a slider bar under "Preferences" or another settings screen. Please look there.

Part of the problem might be that FOF was programmed 5+ years ago, when PC's weren't as powerful, so now your processor speed makes things move more quickly than was intended.

Thank you. I will look and see if I can find the ‘slowpoke’ toggle.
I use the one for the Quick Battles, so I know at least one feature has it.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar
I would like it if the detailed battles had more of the look and feel of 3D,
sort of a turn-based version of Mad Minutes 'Take Command' series.

Something I'd love to do, but there are lots of other projects we'd do first, and it might not be economically feasible. (In other words, if it costs X thousand dollars to do the fancy graphics, and additional sales prompted by the fancier graphics do not bring in more than X it makes no sense to do so.)

OK. I understand that not all wishes may come true. However, if I don’t ask, there is even less of
a chance for it to happen. Who knows, maybe Mad Minute would be willing to collaborate with your
company to integrate their tactical game into the strategic portion of FOF.
Stranger things have happened. [;)]



quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Thanks for your suggestions. It might still be a while before we do more with FOF, but here's to hoping they weren't made in vain!

You are welcome. FOF is an enjoyable game, even without any additional features. I have full value for the money spent. As for
the time between updates, have you considered starting something like GMT games ‘P500’ pre-order program? It seems to work
for them, and I like the idea of customers being able to help the development of entertainment they enjoy.

[:)]



bugwar -> DOR (9/18/2011 10:54:12 PM)

The rationale is that we [the game designers] had to find some way to distinguish when two equally-ranked generals were in the same container, and that was as good as any.

I would like it better if precedence went by comparing each general’s respective Date Of Rank (DOR). With equal ranks, the individual promoted earlier gets the job. As I recollect, there were a number of political problems that presidents had to deal with when they promoted a promising leader over others who had both seniority in rank and out of DOR precedence.

Which leads to my next game request, that promoting a general out of precedence may cause political problems for the chief executive of the nation.



bugwar -> Minimize and Attitude Changes (9/20/2011 7:16:04 PM)

Two more wishes.

1. Add a Minimize button to the Control Box and the mini-map.

2. Expand the political section of the event tab so that governors report on reasons for all changes in their attitude,
not just for impressment and leader rank. If a battle takes place in a state and that governor is offended, then list
that item along with the attitude loss.

[:)]



bugwar -> Organization (9/22/2011 3:36:39 AM)

An INDEX to the rules!

I can't believe I took so long to remember this one!

Searching a PDF is doable, but it is not as welcome as an index.

[:)]



battleground -> RE: Organization (9/25/2011 2:56:03 PM)

how about some random events that can be triggered if certain factors are in place.
one example would be Griersons raid at Newton Station. No need to do it by sending
such a small unit when it could be done by event. chance of success or failure for
each event. Attack on US Whaleing fleet. Farragut (we need naval leaders) running
the forts at N. Orleans and then having a fleet in the Mississippi. Alot of stuff could be
added in to the delight or horror of the respective sides.

Some naval fight graphics. perhaps a newspaper page popup showing that a US blockade squadron caught a runner. I know its buried in the reports but that the
problem, the reports have too much info on one loooong sheet. Perhaps break
them up into pages Land/Naval/production/Political that each "leader" would read

build supply depot for Union. Confed cannot see til he sizes the city where it is. Its
loss will effect the union forces in the area. can be damaged by "raiders' as well beyond
their current actions. takes into account destruction of Pope's supply base during 2nd
Manansass

I really do hope FOF II gets done. The current system will work with some tweaking
and addition of some of the ideas and an upgrade of the tactical with your new tac version
of the game (hint: more flags!).

THERE WILL BE ONLY 1 150th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG and 2
years later the ONLY 150th Anniversary of the end of the US Civil War. What better
time to release a game with fanfare???????



bugwar -> RE: Organization (10/3/2011 10:32:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: battlegroundvehicles
how about some random events that can be triggered if certain factors are in place.
one example would be Griersons raid at Newton Station. No need to do it by sending
such a small unit when it could be done by event. chance of success or failure for
each event. Attack on US Whaleing fleet. Farragut (we need naval leaders) running
the forts at N. Orleans and then having a fleet in the Mississippi. Alot of stuff could be
added in to the delight or horror of the respective sides.


Wouldn't Grierson's Raid be the effect from a Union 'Raider' unit?


quote:

ORIGINAL: battlegroundvehicles
Some naval fight graphics. perhaps a newspaper page popup showing that a US blockade squadron caught a runner. I know its buried in the reports but that the
problem, the reports have too much info on one loooong sheet. Perhaps break
them up into pages Land/Naval/production/Political that each "leader" would read


I like the tab idea for reports.

quote:

ORIGINAL: battlegroundvehicles
build supply depot for Union. Confed cannot see til he sizes the city where it is. Its
loss will effect the union forces in the area. can be damaged by "raiders' as well beyond
their current actions. takes into account destruction of Pope's supply base during 2nd
Manansass


Okay, Why would the Union build something that only hurts them?
Unless of course it is a required build (what purpose does it serve the owner?) for both sides.



battleground -> RE: Organization (10/3/2011 10:41:45 PM)

Generally you can ignore supply in the game as long as your in a friendly province connected
to another friendly province. I have played numerous games with no effect on supply as long
as i have a hospital nearby to help. Supply, especially in the West, was very much vulnerable
to attack and needed to be proteced and built up prior to a major advance. This does not occur
in the game. You should have to have some type of supply depot, especially for the Union, that
they would need before moving into a Southern area. The Union was very mindful of supplies
and kept huge depots everywhere from outside Washigton to Tenn. The effects in the game of
raiders appears pretty useless as far as i can see. Having a depot and having to protect
it while advancing makes it harder on the Union to invade the South. Also gives the S.
player a target to hit behind the Union lines stopping a major advance.

Events (such as a Grierson's raid) make the game more "alive". A monitor vs merrimac event
might keep the Union from crossing the Potomac for a turn after due to fear from the merrimac
affecting Union planning. A Grierson's raid is so small yet would have an effect on Conf. morale
much as a Stuart raid would have on N. morale yet this is not in the game. Events bring life to
a game and make it more interesting and throw in randomness.



bugwar -> Moving on Your Stomach (10/4/2011 6:44:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: battlegroundvehicles
Supply, especially in the West, was very much vulnerable
to attack and needed to be proteced and built up prior to a
major advance. This does not occur in the game. ...

Having a depot and having to protect it while advancing makes
it harder on the Union to invade the South. Also gives the S. player
a target to hit behind the Union lines stopping a major advance.


Ok, I am sold.

As long as the South has the same economic limitations. Can't have
them Rebels running roughshod over Indianapolis on empty bellies
now, can we?

[sm=00000436.gif]



battleground -> RE: Moving on Your Stomach (10/5/2011 2:22:11 AM)

Both sides should be able to capture a supply depot. This happened several times
with major depots being captured/ransacked/destroyed or forced them to be moved
which threw off an entire campaign. You should be allowed to launch attacks even
with no depot but much higher attrition



Murat -> RE: Moving on Your Stomach (10/12/2011 2:33:50 AM)

Actually I think generals should have sort of a "natural" rank that applies to their stats as set out (which I think voting on was a mistake, but everyone is going to have different ratings there). If a general is not at that rank (or ranks in some cases) their ratings should suffer across the borad. Some could even suffer more than others. McDowell was bad at leading an army but served OK over a divison for example. Grant was great at corp and at army, Lee was poor at a corps level. Hood was brilliant at corps but outside of initiative his rating would plummet at army level. Maybe easier for them to have 4 sets of ratings, 1 for each star? not sure what would be fastest for programming.



battleground -> RE: Moving on Your Stomach (10/12/2011 2:45:34 AM)

That is a good point. Leaders that did well at one level of command sometimes
did do wildly different at other levels with Hood being a perfect example.



battleground -> RE: Moving on Your Stomach (10/18/2011 11:44:59 AM)

Playing the 1.12 patch. LOVE the new flags available! My only wish is that
the Union Potomac Corps flags be included (stylized cross in white with number
on blue flag).

Also suggest ships be renamed from ships/frigates to sloops/gunboats

also updated/higher cost blockade runners (like those special built in the UK
that can run the blockade easier.

Of course the often asked for more detailed naval combat and use of gunboats
in land combat/support



bugwar -> Returning to Civilian Society (11/7/2011 7:51:24 PM)

When disbanding a unit (that required two manpower to build) with over half its strength remaining,
add a population point to a random city that is not already maxed out in people.

[:)]



bugwar -> Where In the World Is .... (11/8/2011 4:06:12 PM)

When listing a territory in the Supply report, include which state it is located in.


[sm=sign0031.gif]



bugwar -> Memoirs (11/14/2011 11:53:45 PM)

I would like to see a leader game history. Something like what exists for the brigades,
containing a record of the promotions, demotions, the units commanded, battles,
acquisition and use of skills and so forth.


[sm=happy0065.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  23 24 25 26 [27]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875