RE: Wish List (Full Version)

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



Message

slybelle -> RE: Wish List (12/12/2006 5:11:32 AM)

Provide game setup option to allow General's deaths to have the same kind of chance happening in Instant battles as they occur within detail battles. Generally speaking, I don't think there should be any limitations to outcomes of a battle based on whether I play instant or detail. That is why I thought the different options were there to satisfy all kinds of players. Should be able to get the same kind of results without being penalized for not completing battles in detail mode.

Overall good game, just would like to see if this is possible.



Crimguy -> RE: Wish List (12/12/2006 5:15:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

is there any way to drill down to the city detail screen from the city list screen? if not that would be a nice feature.

quote:

city list


I agree - Clicking on the city name should be able to bring you to the city detail. A back button the city detail would be nice to bring you back to the city list when you're done.



Malagant -> RE: Wish List (12/12/2006 9:10:22 PM)

Ability to destroy/remove buildings...perhaps with a chance of it causing unrest and/or loss of standing with governor.



Sheytan -> RE: Wish List (12/12/2006 11:43:50 PM)

Last night I had this happen, I captured a enemy unit equipt with Spencer rifles. I gained this units weapons as my own. The gaining unit just happened to be the only unit in my army in this battle with quality arms. My unit was equipt with Lorenz rifles. I was delighted I captured the Spencers, but dismayed my 50 coins went poof.

I request a method that allows you to decide which unit gets the captured arms to use. OR that the game itself ONLY transfer captured arms to units with poorer quality arms(and by this I mean it should seek to replace arms from improvised/musket/minie etc and up, not ignore them and replace better arms) . Losing the Lorenz's like this stank.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/12/2006 11:49:56 PM)

Game probably assumes you will give them to your best unit (the one you bought the Lorenzes for.) But you're right..., losing them stank. You ought to have a choice.



Sheytan -> RE: Wish List (12/12/2006 11:53:16 PM)

It was my best unit [8|]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Game probably assumes you will give them to your best unit (the one you bought the Lorenzes for.) But you're right..., losing them stank. You ought to have a choice.




Hard Sarge -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 12:03:59 AM)

but with in reason, the Spencer is the better weapon



Sheytan -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 12:13:01 AM)

no doubt, at any rate heres to hoping this can be fixed in some manner, id have preferred another unit got the captured arms in this case. lack of choice is a problem here. I almost would like to see a detailed arsenel system in the game, in which specific arms are stockpiled and givin out or returned to the armory when a unit gets upgrades. thats the fun sort of micromanagement IMO.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

but with in reason, the Spencer is the better weapon




ezjax -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 3:46:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Ability to destroy/remove buildings...perhaps with a chance of it causing unrest and/or loss of standing with governor.


You can already do some of this already. Read 2.5 Plunder in the game Manual. Tell your military unit to do this by clicking Explosion box next to X.




[image]local://upfiles/17275/BCB1A0637F6F448AA9C511B1FF477EAC.gif[/image]



steveuk -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 3:55:21 AM)

Well here is my wish list.  Some of this may have been asked for already so apologies if that is the case.  I always play the CSA so it may be biased in some areas!

1) In HW....supply wagons should not start near enemy forces....many times I have lost my only supply wagon because it starts within a move of Union forces.
2) CC...this is a great feature but I think it should depend on the units attributes as to what actions it takes when out of CC. i.e. A unit with the hero attribute would be more prone to charge the enemy while a green unit with no attributes may retreat.
3) Richmond to be named as such and not the James River..... I'm English and even I think it's an insult.
4) Weapons and upgrades only available if this was historical for the side your playing. i.e. Spencer rifles for Union only.....perhaps a more historical patch?
5) In HW....near start is often too near to the enemy A.I. launching it's kamikaze attacks right from the start and attacking player units while still in column.....also see point 1 above.
6) Less kamikaze attacks by the Union A.I.....I win most of my battles even when I am greatly outnumbered because of this dubious tactic.
7) No starting navy for the CSA except for raiders and maybe the chance of being offered a couple of her Majesty's frigates via diplomacy [;)] to kick some Union arse.
8) Union not to initiate combat on the strategic map if it's will to fight is too low or at least withdraw from HW instead of sitting still for three days.
9) Ability to promote/demote generals according to experience (is this implemented in the game already)?
10) In HW....Units if moving along a road to keep on the road...I fail to see even the most stupid units deviating from this......also less deviation in any terrain if the unit is a regular.

As I have said before...this is a good game design but with some small alterations...it could be one of the best.



ezjax -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 4:20:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: steveuk
9) Ability to promote/demote generals according to experience (is this implemented in the game already)?


If it helps. Advance settings let you demote any general above 1 star. When the leader is selected look at his navbox and you will see a 4star box with a down arrow under it, click this opens up the demote screen.


[image]local://upfiles/17275/FB66C703E9C141C680DEF8287C96C186.gif[/image]



steveuk -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 5:47:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ezjax


quote:

ORIGINAL: steveuk
9) Ability to promote/demote generals according to experience (is this implemented in the game already)?


If it helps. Advance settings let you demote any general above 1 star. When the leader is selected look at his navbox and you will see a 4star box with a down arrow under it, click this opens up the demote screen.


[image]local://upfiles/17275/FB66C703E9C141C680DEF8287C96C186.gif[/image]


Thanks ezjax...I thought I had read something on demoting a general somewhere. My main problem is promotion though. I am mid-way through 63 now as the CSA and have a stack of 1 star generals. The end of turn promotion to 2 star has only came up once since beginning of 62? not sure if this is correct but I now only have around ten 2 star generals. As they are division commanders it seems there should be more as the majority of my div's are without proper command.



Malagant -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 5:49:40 AM)

Actually I had friendly cities in mind, though I suppose I could send some troops around destroying my own buildings if I felt the need.

I had been thinking of removing superflous buildings that I don't want in particular cities (i.e. being able to decide WHICH building I can remove in my own cities)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ezjax


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant

Ability to destroy/remove buildings...perhaps with a chance of it causing unrest and/or loss of standing with governor.


You can already do some of this already. Read 2.5 Plunder in the game Manual. Tell your military unit to do this by clicking Explosion box next to X.




[image]local://upfiles/17275/BCB1A0637F6F448AA9C511B1FF477EAC.gif[/image]




Paper Tiger -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 12:21:56 PM)

Display the weapons for a Seige Artillery unit in the same way as for everything else. So anoying having to go looking around the units to find out what each one has before you upgrade.

Increase National Will for capturing Capitols. Increased VP for state capitals and more so for the National Capitol.
Sort VP's for battles. +1/-1 medium battle, +2/-2 decisive Max effect +6/-6 but not limited to the last 3 battles. So if you are at +6/-6 and lose a decisive it does not drop to +2/-2 just +4/-4



Paper Tiger -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 12:26:10 PM)

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.



chris0827 -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 12:41:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.


That would enrage the rabid confederate fanboys.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 2:17:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.


That would enrage the rabid confederate fanboys.



Are you sure you didn't mean "That would delight the rabid Confederate fanboys."?



marecone -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 3:57:21 PM)

1. When general dies then maybe player should lose some of the national will. Something like a penalty because it is not a small thing when nation hero dies
2. 90 day militia. All of us forgot about it and it played some part in ACW
3. Reports in form of newspapers. First check this link:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/
Go through few numbers. Those look great. Maybe you could contact them to borrow us their papers or do your own thing.
For example: Insted "Rebel Major victory" in report it could write something like: Today Confederate States army under General N.B. Forrest whiped Union forces near Frederiksburg. Union lost close to 5,000 men and our boys suffered 2,000 casulties...
Maybe a picture too.



regularbird -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 4:01:32 PM)

The attacking force should always be the force moving into an area, the defending force should be the one that currently is located in an area. 

Currently if you are in the provice and do not own the province you are the defender.



dude -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 5:29:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

The attacking force should always be the force moving into an area, the defending force should be the one that currently is located in an area. 

Currently if you are in the provice and do not own the province you are the defender.


and what really sucks in regards to this is when you are in an enemy province and THEY move in to counter attack you... you wind up as the attacker with the AI force fully entrenched (after just marching in??)

I really dislike the AI getting to be fully entrenched especially if they've moved into a province I've been stationary in (whether it's my provinece or not.)




tevans6220 -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 6:59:43 PM)

I would like to see a better promotion system implemented. It seems pretty unrealistic that a 1 star who only commands a brigade could be promoted to army command. With the system as it is now historical scenarios are near impossible as the AI will promote generals such as Grant and Sherman to army command regardless of their previous rank. The system I would like to see implemented would consist of only 4 stars being promoted to 5 star, 3 stars to 4 stars, 2 stars to 3 stars and 1 star to 2 stars. I think that would make for a much more realistic system and would work well with the academy limits already in place.



Conhugeco -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 7:59:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.


That would enrage the rabid confederate fanboys.



Are you sure you didn't mean "That would delight the rabid Confederate fanboys."?



No, he got it right the first time. The fanboys demand that the CSA get a large bonus now, always, and forever.

There is a real problem though. The Confederate eastern commanders were generally better than their Union counterparts early in the war, while the opposite was true in the west. In the game, if you go too far in either direction, either the Union can make no progress in the west, or the south gets steamrollered in the east. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution to offer.

DickH

DickH



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2006 8:01:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

I would like to see a better promotion system implemented. It seems pretty unrealistic that a 1 star who only commands a brigade could be promoted to army command. With the system as it is now historical scenarios are near impossible as the AI will promote generals such as Grant and Sherman to army command regardless of their previous rank. The system I would like to see implemented would consist of only 4 stars being promoted to 5 star, 3 stars to 4 stars, 2 stars to 3 stars and 1 star to 2 stars. I think that would make for a much more realistic system and would work well with the academy limits already in place.



Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 1:37:41 AM)

Rationalize the Naval Costs

The cost of building vessels in the game seems to be quite random, and the relationships between the costs don't make a lot of sense. I'd like to suggest something on the order of:

Ships..............150--50--30--0

Ironclads........150--50--150--0

Frigates..........100--30--20--0

Runners..........100--20--10--0

Gunboats.........75--40--75--0

The iron usage reflects the fact that ALL of these vessels (wooden or not) needed engines and fittings of metal. The big differance in Gunboats is that one of the designers informed me that they represent "Riverine Ironclads". In that case, they should require a lot more iron. On the other hand, they were built with "steamboat" technology, and river steamboats were a good deal less costly than ocean-going vessels.

I don't claim that these are the "best" numbers that could be arrived at..., simply that they are more rational than the ones in the game.



bountyhunter -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/14/2006 3:46:07 AM)

Maybe I missed it, but I think you should be able to construct railroads (additional). For instance the stretch of railroad in the vicinity of Selma goes nowhere - I'd like to be able to connect it, etc. And if you can't build additional railroad then you shouldn't be able to build a RR station in a city that has no railroad in it!!



bountyhunter -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 4:13:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.



Like Polk who served only a few months as a Lieutenant in the old US Army (in 1827!!!) and commissioned a Major General in the Confederate Army by the stroke of Davis' hand. He was killed as a Lt Gen, but if he hadn't there is no telling how high Davis may have promoted him!!



chris0827 -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 4:50:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.



Like Polk who served only a few months as a Lieutenant in the old US Army (in 1827!!!) and commissioned a Major General in the Confederate Army by the stroke of Davis' hand. He was killed as a Lt Gen, but if he hadn't there is no telling how high Davis may have promoted him!!



THere was only one rank higher than Lt General in the confederate army.



bountyhunter -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 4:58:37 AM)

By promotion I wasn't meaning just stars... He shouldn't have had any! So getting 2 from the jump was ludicrous. But thanks for the tip.



tevans6220 -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 5:06:07 AM)

All those wild jumps in rank happened in the beginning of the war and would already be factored in with the historical start dates and ranks. The way the game is currently there is no way to prevent Grant coming in as a 1 star and automatically being promoted to 4 or 5 stars if there was an opening. One of the major problems the North had was with leadership. It took Lincoln several years to find the right men. The way the game is set up now it can happen in the first year of the war. I think there has to be a limit on promotions. Brigade commanders were never promoted to army command. They worked their way up through the ranks. That's why I would like to see a 1 star at a time promotion system implemented. Grant would have to earn his 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars before gaining his 5th. This idea along with the academy system already in place limits promotions to historical levels.

Another problem I have is with legendary units. They should not be in the game at the start when playing the July scenario and even in some cases the November scenario. The Stonewall Brigade didn't become the Stonewall Brigade before the war. They earned that nickname and reputation at 1st Manassas. I think a system should be implemented that has units only becoming legendary after they've particpated in combat and only after some show of outstanding service on the battlefield. Knowing that the Stonewall or Iron Brigade is legendary from the start is not historical. All units were untried in battle and earned their reputations on the battlefield. There wasn't even a "Stonewall" until 1st Manassas so how could there even be a Stonewall Brigade?



marecone -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 10:35:59 AM)

What about some POW camps?



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125