RE: Wish List

RE: Wish List (Full Version)

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

Message

marecone -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 10:41:17 AM)
Also, is it possible to stop suicidal attacks by AI. Like he attacks my AoP which has about 80,000 men with his 1,000 men [&:]. If I go to instant combant he just escapes and nothing happens. But he tends to do this every turn. Like, could you add something that would ban him from attacking you if he is like 5 times weaker? Thanks

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 1:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marecone What about some POW camps? So you can starve and mistreat the prisoners? That much history I can do without.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/14/2006 1:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bountyhunter 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!! For the South (which needs it), the cost would probably be prohibitive. They weren't able to do much in this regard historically..... Have to agree with the second point. Improving RR Capacity where you have no RR does seem a bit silly.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 1:37:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl 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. Not a single "comment"? Can I assume EVERYBODY agrees with this? Or does no one care enough to say anything?

tevans6220 -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 2:31:53 PM)
Mike: I'm in the process of modding your changes and trying them out. I'll let you know what I think but it sounds good. Here's another idea for the wishlist. Would it be possible to transform this game from a brigade level to a regimental, battery and individual ship type level? Modding it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult but I'm wondering if the game system would be flexible enough to handle the larger number of units.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 4:09:48 PM)
tevans6220 Maybe save you some work on the "Regimental" question. I would doubt it severely..., as you are talking about a tremendous increase in the numbers of "units" the game would need to handle. Even if you could get them in, moving them around would be incredibly clumbsy and time-consuming. Besides which, the Brigade was the basic manuever unit of the Civil war in all major actions. Regiments fought on their own at times, but usually in small fights or when they became detached by terrain and the like. Putting them in a "battle" game might make some sense..., but here I would call it "too much of a good thing" to be practical.

dude -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 8:12:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: marecone What about some POW camps? So you can starve and mistreat the prisoners? That much history I can do without. In CoG before the first patch it was possible (me as British) to stick my French prisoners on ship... stick them out to sea and watch attrition eliminate them... then there were no troops to return to the French if we made peace... nasty... but effective... (If I had too many French they would just get a nice visit to Scotland or possibly Malta... again were forage values were bad.) This is one aspect that I'm glad they removed. Too much detail is not always a good thing.

elmo3 -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 8:38:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl ... Not a single "comment"? Can I assume EVERYBODY agrees with this? Or does no one care enough to say anything? The only really big change I see in comparing yours with the originals is gunboats. Since I'm not that familiar with the naval construction business in the 1860's I'll leave it to the designers to decide if your numbers make sense to them.

nmleague -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 8:53:01 PM)
How about a practice tactical battle that can be loaded up and played. So far Im mainly doing strategic games with quick battles but at some point I would like to start using tactical battles. However I really dont want to have to start one of the current game choices to practice the tactical battles. It would be nice if there was a tactiacl battle with enough troops, maybe up to about 20 brigades for each side, that just be started so that a person could play it through a number of times to learn the system.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 9:15:34 PM)
Like to second this., although a workable alternative is to "save" your game just before hitting the "end turn". Then you can play the "tactical battles" as a "learning exercise" without worrying about your "trial and error tactical goofs" messing up your game....

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 9:21:42 PM)
From another discussion....please can we have windowed mode. Roger

freeboy -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2006 11:58:19 PM)
I want EUROPEAN intervention to be a optional toggle, ie keep the european diplomacy and helping the south but really, I poured Thousands into these guys, Emancipated my "friends" and look, They both declared war on me.. PLEASE add a toggle

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2006 12:39:33 AM)
If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.") Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW.

bountyhunter -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 1:15:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: bountyhunter 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!! For the South (which needs it), the cost would probably be prohibitive. They weren't able to do much in this regard historically..... Have to agree with the second point. Improving RR Capacity where you have no RR does seem a bit silly. Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 6:35:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bountyhunter Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did. As you point out, they "tore the track up" to use on Ironclads. Shouldn't your arguement be that if the South builds any Ironclads they should LOSE RR capacity? Ripping up rails one place and putting them down somewhere else might move RR capacity, but it wouldn't increase it. It was the ability to forge rails and build engines that hampered any Southern RR Expansion. They couldn't even keep what they had running...

Crimguy -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 6:54:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: bountyhunter Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did. Guys, I think you're all taking it a bit to far. FoF doesn't seem to be the type of high-resolution strategic/tactical game that would include those types of details. Just my opinion of course As you point out, they "tore the track up" to use on Ironclads. Shouldn't your arguement be that if the South builds any Ironclads they should LOSE RR capacity? Ripping up rails one place and putting them down somewhere else might move RR capacity, but it wouldn't increase it. It was the ability to forge rails and build engines that hampered any Southern RR Expansion. They couldn't even keep what they had running...

bountyhunter -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 7:07:05 AM)
Good point. I was trying to argue (poorly) that the Confederate gov't (and for example the NC governor) didn't place a high priority on railroads (I think the Arkansas was completley armored with unmelted rails). I still think we should have the option of making our own priority. When you build a RR station in the game you add only to the capacity (ie engines and cars) right? So we definetly have an issue with building a RR station in any isolated city adding to the overall railroad capacity - what I think is when you add that station a certain amount of track extends towards the nearest railroad INSTEAD of adding to the overall capacity. At the same time you should probably be able to tear up existing track for some other iron intensive project if you so desire. So if we were to be completely historical the Confederate player shouldn't be able to add ANY RR stations... and thats not where I am trying to go with this. I'm just trying to argue potential, which I think is most important in historical based games or else all you end up with when you play is history. Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for Guns of the South potential, just credible potential.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 7:25:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bountyhunter Good point. I was trying to argue (poorly) that the Confederate gov't (and for example the NC governor) didn't place a high priority on railroads (I think the Arkansas was completley armored with unmelted rails). I still think we should have the option of making our own priority. When you build a RR station in the game you add only to the capacity (ie engines and cars) right? So we definetly have an issue with building a RR station in any isolated city adding to the overall railroad capacity - what I think is when you add that station a certain amount of track extends towards the nearest railroad INSTEAD of adding to the overall capacity. At the same time you should probably be able to tear up existing track for some other iron intensive project if you so desire. So if we were to be completely historical the Confederate player shouldn't be able to add ANY RR stations... and thats not where I am trying to go with this. I'm just trying to argue potential, which I think is most important in historical based games or else all you end up with when you play is history. Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for Guns of the South potential, just credible potential. I don't have any basic problem with the South having some ability to increase it's RR Capacity in the game. Or if it were possible in the system, to "connecting" some of their RR system. The real problem for the South in this respect was that they almost totally lacked the Iron, Smelters, Foundries, and Factories to do this in real life..., so it should be a choice that "hurts" if you make it. What facilities the South did have were used almost exclusively for Arms production during the War. If the costs are such that the Southern player will need to chose between improving his RR's and arming his forts and troops, it will have the right "balance". Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the "Glorious Cause" was also economically the "Lost Cause". The game is already somewhat generous to the South's economy for reasons of "play balance", so the players get a "break" Jeff Davis didn't have. You want to be very carefull with any further "improvements in this area. Personally, I'd like to see their supply of "horses" chopped by about 2/3rds to prevent the growth of "camps" and reinforcements to totally ahistoric levels.

bountyhunter -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 7:34:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl I don't have any basic problem with the South having some ability to increase it's RR Capacity in the game. Or if it were possible in the system, to "connecting" some of their RR system. The real problem for the South in this respect was that they almost totally lacked the Iron, Smelters, Foundries, and Factories to do this in real life..., so it should be a choice that "hurts" if you make it. What facilities the South did have were used almost exclusively for Arms production during the War. If the costs are such that the Southern player will need to chose between improving his RR's and arming his forts and troops, it will have the right "balance". Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the "Glorious Cause" was also economically the "Lost Cause". The game is already somewhat generous to the South's economy for reasons of "play balance", so the players get a "break" Jeff Davis didn't have. You want to be very carefull with any further "improvements in this area. Personally, I'd like to see their supply of "horses" chopped by about 2/3rds to prevent the growth of "camps" and reinforcements to totally ahistoric levels. Well written. Agreed, I wasn't looking for free railroad! But I can build a mine anywhere - and we know iron doesn't grow on trees.[;)]

Gil R. -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2006 10:38:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nmleague How about a practice tactical battle that can be loaded up and played. So far Im mainly doing strategic games with quick battles but at some point I would like to start using tactical battles. However I really dont want to have to start one of the current game choices to practice the tactical battles. It would be nice if there was a tactiacl battle with enough troops, maybe up to about 20 brigades for each side, that just be started so that a person could play it through a number of times to learn the system. I'm not sure there's a need for this: just start a game and send your army into a province with the enemy's army. Sure, the two armies won't be as built up in terms of weapons, attributes, etc., but you can practice that way.

Gil R. -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2006 10:40:53 AM)
By the way, instead of my starting a new thread for this, we can also use this one to discuss where in the game explanatory text (tool-tips or other) is still needed. This game is much more self-explanatory than "Crown of Glory," but there must still be areas. Let us know what would be helpful.

Javakamp -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2006 3:31:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.") Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW. How about making European intervention scaleable? I�m thinking choices like this; None, Low, Normal(Default) High, Automatic, and Random. Allowing the player to select the level of European trade / support might also be a consideration.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2006 4:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Javakamp quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.") Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW. How about making European intervention scaleable? I�m thinking choices like this; None, Low, Normal(Default) High, Automatic, and Random. Allowing the player to select the level of European trade / support might also be a consideration. Now THAT's and idea! Wonder if it's programable? Any thoughts on how the "implementation" might work? Do you change the amount that can be spent by both sides? Or only what it might buy?

smeilof -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 9:28:58 PM)
If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.") Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW. I think that one way to fix the whole diplomacy issue is to link diplomacy to military progress as well. So for instance prohibit diplomatic levels from rising past a certain point untill a higher victory point total has been reached (so you cannot spend money to raise it further untill you get some more victories) . Also allow normal and decisive victories ( and defeats) to raise/lower diplomatic levels (as happened historically ). Finally to prevent the free for all emancipation issue only allow the north to emancipate when the south is at high diplomatic levels ( past 4 or so )and then only after a (decisive) victory (antietam) while at the same time allowing the south to emancipate only when the situation is really bad (negative VP combined with decisive defeat or something ). I think this would solve quite a lot. Stephen

Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/15/2006 9:41:40 PM)
Stephen is on firm ground with this suggestion. One of Lee's big goals in the Antietam Campaign was to try and win a victory on Northern soil to prove the viability of the Southern Cause to European Observers, something that would cancel out the "negative image" of the loss of Nashville, Memphis, and New Orleans. Must be some way to work actual military "progress" into the system. Not just "battles", but actual siezure of enemy territory....

Tom_Doc_Holliday -> RE: Wish List (12/16/2006 8:53:42 AM)
Since you asked, and because there seems to be some much concern over the tactical battles and results, I would like to see a tactical game added on, ala HPS Sims American Civil War games. The strategic game is very good and enjoyable, but having a regimental/battery tactical game that produces realistic results would add great detail and enjoyment. I mention HPS because those tactical games are very solid and enjoyable. Not sure if WCS and HPS can do a colabrative effort, but that game would definately be worth the price of admission.

elmo3 -> RE: Wish List (12/16/2006 2:22:14 PM)
Would it be possible to uncouple the Richer and Poorer Economy options so that players could make one side richer and/or the other poorer? That might be a simple way for people who feel the Union is too weak economically or the South too strong to easily adjust things. That combined with the already available Power options for each side might let people fix the perceived problems without a major reworking and subsequent retesting of game parameters.

marecone -> RE: Wish List (12/16/2006 2:29:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 Would it be possible to uncouple the Richer and Poorer Economy options so that players could make one side richer and/or the other poorer? That might be a simple way for people who feel the Union is too weak economically or the South too strong to easily adjust things. That combined with the already available Power options for each side might let people fix the perceived problems without a major reworking and subsequent retesting of game parameters. Very, very good idea [:D]

elmo3 -> RE: Wish List (12/16/2006 2:31:48 PM)
Thanks. After some more thought I'm not sure uncoupling would do anything different from what the Power settings can do now but the designers will know.

rockmedic109 -> RE: Wish List (12/16/2006 8:54:48 PM)
1. Scalable European intervention. A toggle for entry into war {highly unlikely}. 2. Scalable disease rules. 28% seems high. I've had AotP hit on three successive turns. Even the Black Death plague was not this bad. 3. Cheaper Northern ships. As it is the Anaconda plan would never have been thought up due to the cost of the fleet necessary.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828125