RE: Wish List (Full Version)

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



Message

Hard Sarge -> RE: Wish List (12/16/2006 9:37:13 PM)

How about added a Highlighted area to show how far or what units a supply wagon can supply





Gil R. -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 1:31:25 AM)

Several of you asked to be able to destroy buildings you don't want, and this leads me to an idea for a scenario. Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? Personally, I'd hate to play that, but those of you into terraforming might enjoy it.

It would certainly be different...



Gil R. -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/17/2006 1:39:35 AM)

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!!



This can't be done. The railroad lines we have are historically accurate, and adding new ones to the map would take a great deal of programming. Plus, part of the challenge is dealing with the same railroad logistics problems that occurred during the war.



Gil R. -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 1:48:08 AM)

I've just gone through this whole thread carefully, taking notes of ideas that we might implement in the near or distant future. I'm pleased to report that some of the things that were requested (especially early on) are going to be in the next patch, or the one after that.

Keep 'em coming...



marecone -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 1:50:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've just gone through this whole thread carefully, taking notes of ideas that we might implement in the near or distant future. I'm pleased to report that some of the things that were requested (especially early on) are going to be in the next patch, or the one after that.

Keep 'em coming...


Great. I am just curious. About my newspaper wish. Can it be done or no?



Gil R. -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 1:56:46 AM)

I put that one down in the section for long-term ideas. It would require new graphics from Pixelpusher, so it would take some time. To be honest, I don't know whether we can take the time to implement this idea, but I do like it. (So you get a moral victory, at least.)



marecone -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 2:05:21 AM)

lol. Ok, thanks



Crimguy -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 2:21:22 AM)

How 'bout my thought for a Forge of Freedom hidden porno game if you push the right sequence of buttons on the gamepad?  Another moral victory?



Gil R. -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 2:31:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

How 'bout my thought for a Forge of Freedom hidden porno game if you push the right sequence of buttons on the gamepad? Another moral victory?



How about instead getting to watch movies like "Gone with the Wench," "Girls and Generals," "Abner Doubleday Does Dallas," "Ride with the Devil in Miss Jones," and "Oldest Living Confederate Widow Tells All"?

(I omit "General Spanky," which really is the name of an ACW movie.)


EDIT: I forgot to add to the list "10-inch Rodman."



elmo3 -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 2:38:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

...Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? ...



Pass.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 3:18:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Several of you asked to be able to destroy buildings you don't want, and this leads me to an idea for a scenario. Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? Personally, I'd hate to play that, but those of you into terraforming might enjoy it. It would certainly be different...



I'd have some interest in one which didn't have "limits" on how many buildings could be built---or simply an "upper limit" based on the overall size of the city. Having to squander precious resources building buildings that only allow you to spend more precious resources building what you really need is frustraiting, and doesn't seem overly realistic. A world WITHOUT "plantations" and "mansions" as it were.

On a lighter side, how about a building called "Bawdy House"? It could improve the morale and ruin the health of any troops in the province.... :-)



bountyhunter -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/17/2006 3:53:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

This can't be done. The railroad lines we have are historically accurate, and adding new ones to the map would take a great deal of programming. Plus, part of the challenge is dealing with the same railroad logistics problems that occurred during the war.



If that is the case then the option to build a railroad station in a city that has no railroad in it (or in the province) should be removed.



Gil R. -> RE: Wish List - Railroads (12/17/2006 3:56:31 AM)

We're considering that suggestion. One thing I like about it is that if there are fewer cities in which one can build railroad stations then those cities will be that much more choked up, which makes the game more challenging.



ravinhood -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 8:31:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Several of you asked to be able to destroy buildings you don't want, and this leads me to an idea for a scenario. Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? Personally, I'd hate to play that, but those of you into terraforming might enjoy it.

It would certainly be different...



YES I would like this very much. I enjoy the whatif's or just playing a war "flavor" game, but, more in a chesslike fashion that a simulation. So, I'd be all for this.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2006 7:16:02 PM)

I'd like to add a couple of things.

Blockading Fleets.   When you "blockade" Norfolk, the unit involved moves in and sits next to the port, making the assignment obvious.  When I "blockade" Wilmington and other places, the unit sits out at sea with any other fleet containers off the coast, and I have to keep "checking" to make sure it's correctly assigned.  Couldn't the "Blockading Fleet" ALWAYS move adjacent to the port it's blockading?   Sure be easier to keep track of.

Arms Limitations.    I can see the point of limiting the total availability of each type of arms in the game...., but why don't the limits INCREASE as the war continues.   The factories kept churning out rifles during the whole war in ever-increasing amounts---can't the game represent this by increasing the limits every year?   Or maybe if you reach the "limit" of 500 "arms", the excess each turn could be turned into higher limits on what's available?  Currently the current limits seem very artificial.



jsaurman -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 4:31:26 AM)

I would like to be able to downgrade weapons from certain units and have that quantity of guns added back into my total.  That way I could shortchange a "bad" unit in order to upgrade a "good" unit.
Maybe downgrading weapons could come at a small price in lowering a units disposition a bit?  
That doesn't seem unrealistic, thats what armories did, repair and reissue weapons. 
The old game "Robert E. Lee:Civil War General" allowed you to do this and I really liked it.

JIM



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 6:03:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

I would like to be able to downgrade weapons from certain units and have that quantity of guns added back into my total. That way I could shortchange a "bad" unit in order to upgrade a "good" unit.
Maybe downgrading weapons could come at a small price in lowering a units disposition a bit?
That doesn't seem unrealistic, thats what armories did, repair and reissue weapons.
The old game "Robert E. Lee:Civil War General" allowed you to do this and I really liked it.

JIM


Ditto.



Paper Tiger -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 3:55:48 PM)

When you are seiging an area and you have captured all or most of the forts and then an enemy army moves in to lift the seige and they get the +n benefit of ALL the forts plus the terrain!
Please they should only gain benefits from forts still in their ownership.
I just got hit by the ANV in Fredericksburg where I had just successfully seiged the last fort just before they arrived, but because the province ownership had not flipped the ANV had +5,+1 for forts and terrain.



tevans6220 -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 6:28:42 PM)

Instead of limiting the number of brigades based on the sized of the container, why not base it on the rank of the general? As has been pointed out historical ranks and game ranks don't coincide very well. For instance, McDowell was only a BG 1-star at 1st Manassas but commanded 36k troops. In game terms that's 12 brigades but a 1 star could never command that many in the game and have any influence on the battle. Using ranks as the limiting factor would allow this. Not sure what the limits should actually be but I think using ranks would work out a whole lot better gamewise and would be more historically correct.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 6:39:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

When you are seiging an area and you have captured all or most of the forts and then an enemy army moves in to lift the seige and they get the +n benefit of ALL the forts plus the terrain!
Please they should only gain benefits from forts still in their ownership.
I just got hit by the ANV in Fredericksburg where I had just successfully seiged the last fort just before they arrived, but because the province ownership had not flipped the ANV had +5,+1 for forts and terrain.



I'd like to "second" this one..., just had it happen to me for the second time and it's not only aggrivating, it seems really silly to boot. Please if you can, straighten out the "time line" so the AI knows "this week" from "last week".



dude -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 6:47:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

When you are seiging an area and you have captured all or most of the forts and then an enemy army moves in to lift the seige and they get the +n benefit of ALL the forts plus the terrain!
Please they should only gain benefits from forts still in their ownership.
I just got hit by the ANV in Fredericksburg where I had just successfully seiged the last fort just before they arrived, but because the province ownership had not flipped the ANV had +5,+1 for forts and terrain.



I'd like to "second" this one..., just had it happen to me for the second time and it's not only aggrivating, it seems really silly to boot. Please if you can, straighten out the "time line" so the AI knows "this week" from "last week".



... and please make it so that the AI doesn't show up and Dig in also! Nothing like laying a seige and having the enemy ai march in with a RELIEVING army that's dug in too! My force should be dug in next to the target... while the enemy Relieving force should be marching across the map... to... uh... you know... relieve! [:@]



chris0827 -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 7:36:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Instead of limiting the number of brigades based on the sized of the container, why not base it on the rank of the general? As has been pointed out historical ranks and game ranks don't coincide very well. For instance, McDowell was only a BG 1-star at 1st Manassas but commanded 36k troops. In game terms that's 12 brigades but a 1 star could never command that many in the game and have any influence on the battle. Using ranks as the limiting factor would allow this. Not sure what the limits should actually be but I think using ranks would work out a whole lot better gamewise and would be more historically correct.


McDowell's ability to command troops is reflected in his ratings. He had problems commanding an army because he wasn't a good general. The number of stars he has in the game shows the size of the force he commands not his actual rank. In the game he's commanding an army so he gets 4 stars. If Union generals were limited in the game to the number of stars they actually had then you would never have a general capable of commanding an army in the entire war and only one capable of commanding a corps.



tevans6220 -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 8:20:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Instead of limiting the number of brigades based on the sized of the container, why not base it on the rank of the general? As has been pointed out historical ranks and game ranks don't coincide very well. For instance, McDowell was only a BG 1-star at 1st Manassas but commanded 36k troops. In game terms that's 12 brigades but a 1 star could never command that many in the game and have any influence on the battle. Using ranks as the limiting factor would allow this. Not sure what the limits should actually be but I think using ranks would work out a whole lot better gamewise and would be more historically correct.


McDowell's ability to command troops is reflected in his ratings. He had problems commanding an army because he wasn't a good general. The number of stars he has in the game shows the size of the force he commands not his actual rank. In the game he's commanding an army so he gets 4 stars. If Union generals were limited in the game to the number of stars they actually had then you would never have a general capable of commanding an army in the entire war and only one capable of commanding a corps.


That's my point. McDowell's abilities may be reflected in his ratings but unless you change his historical rank of 1 star to game rank of 4 stars, his ratings will only affect at most 1 brigade. By basing division, corps and army size on rank instead of container size it allows historical ranks to actually mean something. McDowell can then start the `61 scenario as the 1 star BG he historically was instead having him as a 4 star. So instead of saying a Union division container can hold up to 4 brigades we could say that a 1 star general could command up to maybe 8 to 12 brigades in a division, corps or army. One other thing I'd like to point out is that McDowell can never hold 4 star rank at the start of the `61 scenario unless a total rework of the scenario data is done as academies are the limiting factor.



chris0827 -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 8:41:43 PM)

There were only two general ranks in the union army. Brigadier and major General until Grant was promoted to Lt. General in march 1864 and he was the only one to hold that rank during the war. How are you going to handle that? The way it is done now is makes perfect sense. How can you penalize the union commanders just because they used a different rank structure than the confederates? Are you going to make Joe Johnston be able to command more brigades than Grant just because he had 4 stars on his uniform instead of Grant's two? They both commanded armies and Grant had a better record.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 9:11:18 PM)

Sensible "Development" choices Having just faced it for the second time, there is nothing more annoying than finally having the "new development" screen come up and being given only the choice ot "torpedoes" or "improved blockade runners"..., as the UNION. Could you "tweek" this so each side is only offered choices appropriate to it? Please...



Malagant -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 9:59:18 PM)

I think the number of troops a container can hold should be modified not by the commanding general's rank, but by his abilities.

A general with a high Command ability should be able to effectively command more troops.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Instead of limiting the number of brigades based on the sized of the container, why not base it on the rank of the general? As has been pointed out historical ranks and game ranks don't coincide very well. For instance, McDowell was only a BG 1-star at 1st Manassas but commanded 36k troops. In game terms that's 12 brigades but a 1 star could never command that many in the game and have any influence on the battle. Using ranks as the limiting factor would allow this. Not sure what the limits should actually be but I think using ranks would work out a whole lot better gamewise and would be more historically correct.




chris0827 -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 10:10:39 PM)

A bad general could command just as many troops as a good general. He just couldn't do it as well. If the number of troops in a container was determined by the commanders abilities then Lee would always outnumber the union commander.



freeboy -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 10:21:31 PM)

I think the point about command is ability equates to greater influence.. placing Grant for instance in a full container and then what? an army can hold A LOT of men after you get the bigger brigggade upgrades



tevans6220 -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2006 11:32:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant

I think the number of troops a container can hold should be modified not by the commanding general's rank, but by his abilities.

A general with a high Command ability should be able to effectively command more troops.



That would work too. Or even a combination of rank and ability. For instance take Grant as a 2 star. If we say that a 2 star can command 16 brigades or 48k and then add maybe his command rating of 8 that would give a total of 24 brigades that he could command allowing him to command 72k as a 2 star general. Let the generals themselves be the containers with lower ranked generals not in direct command of troops able to join for combat purposes. The Union doesn't get penalized in any way because while theoretically it's possible that a Johnston could command more brigades than Grant, it's also quite probable that the Union with their economic advantages will be able to build academies much faster and promote more of their generals to higher rank allowing them to command even more brigades.



jsaurman -> RE: Wish List (12/19/2006 12:33:36 AM)

Why not increase the max size of units according to who is in command?   Say you have an army without a general, it can hold 140K troops, right?  Well suppose you add on a brigadier, that mulitplies that by 1.25, if you put a major general in charge, then that does times 1.5, and so on, X1.75 for a LTG and X 2 for a 4-star and X2.25 for a five star.    So instead of 140K, now if you add a four star, that army now has a max size of 280K.   I would think that would be more than enough to satisfy anyone.

JIM



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.28125