RE: Working on the patch II (Full Version)

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



Message

Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 3:31:05 PM)

there I have picked 5 Bdes and the Div

in the lower left you see the info also

no click on the flag to bring up the other flags you can use

(remember, Divs and Corps and Armies have different flags then the plain troops)

(so depending, you can pick something for all of them from the same list, so you can give a Bde Flag to a Army this way, also a General, just make sure the unit you want to pick from is the last one picked)

now you got a flag type picked, hit the F key and the flag will go to all the units you have picked

you will have to click someplace to see it take effect

[image]local://upfiles/1438/95B9F5D19E8D42FC8E6F8B821F3B326B.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 3:33:43 PM)

you can also, once you have picked a flag, just highlight another unit and then click F, and it will also change over

you can also use the Ctnl click to move numbers around the map

say you got a stack of Generals in one place, and you want to move half of them somewhere else, ctnl click on the ones you want to move, click on the RR and move them, all will go together (works with troops too)



[image]local://upfiles/1438/30FB1A7BFB6E485FBB7537D998AFE6AD.jpg[/image]



General Quarters -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 5:53:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

I agree that it is odd to be able to promote generals at will, which means really on the basis of historical hindsight. But it is hard to provide a historical justification for rules requiring battles or even time in rank. Early on, guys became generals on the basis of some combination of actual military record, reputation, personal presence, ambition, political standing, previous connections, and being in the right place at the right time.

Grant was lucky to have a congressman who could get him appointed general and he ended up in charge of the troops in Cairo which were not yet an army but became one. Halleck was given a major department without having seen a shot fired in the CW. Look at Polk, G.W.Smith, Lovell, Pemberton, Toombs, Fremont, Pope (whose father was a judge before whom Lincoln had practiced), McClellan (both a military record and a lot of connections as RR pres, including Lincoln as one of his attorneys), and so on.



McClellan did have political conections but not with Lincoln and Lincoln was never his lawyer. They never met before the war. Lincoln defended the Illinois Central Railroad in a lawsuit while McClellan was still in the army. Grant had help from a congressman but his later promotions were due to his war record. All but one of the other generals you mentioned had military experience and only two did not graduate from West Point. They were also either already generals when the major fighting began or became a general shortly afterwards. At the time you had to look at the person's record and hope for the best. No american had ever commanded forces of that size before. The relatively small armies at Bull Run were more than twice the size of any force ever commanded by an american. By the end of 1861 and afterwards almost all generals gaining command of a division or higher had seen combat earlier in the war.


Thanks for the correction, Chris. Historians often mention Lincoln's having done work for the Illinois Central, leaving me with a mistaken impression about a connection with McClellan. But my point about McClellan's having pre-war political connections is certainly correct. The following is one example among many (Sears' bio of Mac): "... Buchanan sought authorization for ten new regiments [to go fight the Mormons]. McClellan hurried to Washington to try for a colonelcy and the command of one of them. Early in 1858 he told Samuel Barlow that he had marshaled the support of such prominent senators as Jefferson Davis, Stephen A. Douglas, and John J. Crittenden, and of Vice President John C. Breckinridge; he also expected congressional support from his home state of Pennsylvania."

I did not say that these guys had zero military experience. But lots of people had some military experience, but who got the jobs was not based solely on an evaluation of their military records. These other factors played a role. I trust you don't claim they did not.



Drex -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 8:16:12 PM)

Thanks for the flag change info Sarge. I was wondering how to do that. I need to read the manual a couple more times.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 9:17:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

Thanks for the flag change info Sarge. I was wondering how to do that. I need to read the manual a couple more times.


No hassle, it is a good trick once you get used to it

LOL, we were half way though Alpha when I finally noticed it

for me though, it really does make the game alot more fun, watching all the different flags running around on the battle field and on the overall map

my last test run, I had a nice set up, each Army had a master Flag, and then each container in that Army was taken from the same master, so say the AOW had the White flag with red icon, all the units with it, had the white flag with red icons, and then the AOP had the Blue flag with red Icons and so on

it really did give them a little bit of there own ness to them




Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 11:23:41 PM)

oh just in case, we got a new verison coming up, so I changed the name of the post some, so the debate on Generals could keep on, so go ahead and post away, it was interesting and I was learning some things





chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/7/2007 11:56:54 PM)

Since you changed the thread title I'll add another comment about generals.

As I've said before i think generals should need combat experience in order to be promoted. I'd also like to see generals be allowed to command continers that are larger than their current rank at a cost in abilities. For example a 1 star leader could command a division but he would lose 1 point on each of his stats and would not be able to teach abilities to his division. After seeing combat the general could be promoted to 2 stars and command the division with no penalties. This would model the difficulties both side had early in the war handling large numbers of troops. Does anyone think the newly promoted general Grant would have commanded the Union armies as well as he did after seeing action as a division, corps, and army leader.  I don't think congress would've gone along with a promotion like that either. Congress had to approve promotions to general on both sides and they sometimes rejected officers.

Does this conversation sound right?

Lincoln : Colonel Grant, I called you here to tell you that I have sent your name to congress for promotion.

Grant : Thank you Mister President. I won't let you down. Would it be possible for my regiment to come with me to my new brigade?

Lincoln : What brigade? You'll be commanding the Army of the Potomac.

Grant : What?

Doesn't work for me.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 12:23:55 AM)

That is why I changed it, you guys were haveing a good debate and info flowing though, I didn't want it getting lost

if we could, I would like to see a General have to go though some combat before being allowed to be promotted, maybe earning points with each battle (errr, that would totally change the system, oh well)





Gil R. -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 12:34:23 AM)

I should say that for this coming patch we've made most/all of the changes to the system for generals that we can (without delaying the patch even further), but we are definitely entertaining ideas for changes to how generals function for future patches.

Personally, I like very much the idea of battle experience being important for promotion, and feel that it would solve some key problems (e.g., the ability to put Grant in charge of your army right away, if playing with the historical start dates option toggled on), but it is unlikely that we could do this in the next few days.



chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 12:43:19 AM)

I don't think anyone wants you to delay the upcoming patch. We're just throwing out ideas for future consideration.



Gil R. -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 12:45:42 AM)

Keep 'em coming, please...



rook749 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 12:49:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

That is why I changed it, you guys were haveing a good debate and info flowing though, I didn't want it getting lost

if we could, I would like to see a General have to go though some combat before being allowed to be promotted, maybe earning points with each battle (errr, that would totally change the system, oh well)



Well, to summarize the ideas floating throughout this thread (and correct me if I missed anything) these are the things we would like to see:

1. All generals who enter after the first turn of the scenario to enter as 1 Star.

2. Generals to need battle experience at their current level before being eligible for promotion to the next level. (failing at that time based)

3. Allow any number of generals to be prompted in a single turn.

4. Allow a general to only be promoted up one level a turn, assuming he has battle experience at his current rank. (failing at that time based)

5. Allow only one general to be “demoted” per turn. Its too easy right now as the better Union generals come online (and it will only get worse with item number # 3) for the Union to arrange the “perfect” general arrangement early in the war.

6. Set the Generals to arrive in the historical theater, i.e. either east or west.

This should slow the rise of Lee, Stonewall, Grant and Sherman but allow Lee & Stonewall (as they show-up first) to rise faster than Grant and Sherman.

What does everyone else think?

Rook



Drex -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 1:03:40 AM)

Should Generals of one rank be considered equal or should they also be ranked as to seniority within their level?



rook749 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 1:06:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

Should Generals of one rank be considered equal or should they also be ranked as to seniority within their level?


I'd say seniority based upon date of promotion (sorry missed that one).

There is currently some method the game uses to choose between two generals of the same rank, is there any way that one of the dev’s can enlighten us as to what the tie breaker currently is?

Rook



Gil R. -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 1:18:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rook749

There is currently some method the game uses to choose between two generals of the same rank, is there any way that one of the dev’s can enlighten us as to what the tie breaker currently is?

Rook



Alphabetical order. (I won't be able to read your responses, since I'll be ducking below my desk now.)


EDIT: When you think of it, alphabetical order is the same thing as tossing a coin: 50-50 chance of a name being before or after another name. (And yes, I know that statement would be untrue for Gen. Hank Aaron, or Gen. Dave Aardsma, for that matter.)



Twotribes -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 5:02:25 AM)

I will be leaving the game if the changes to generals become so drastic. It simply wont be worth my time to play it



chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 6:06:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I will be leaving the game if the changes to generals become so drastic. It simply wont be worth my time to play it


Please elaborate. How would those changes hurt your enjoyment of the game? You've been asking for a more historical game. Those changes are historical.



Twotribes -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 6:45:35 AM)

No they are not. I have been asking for Historical population, historical Orders of battle, Historical economies.

Why have generals at all , well except "historical" ones with ranks and positions defined by "history" if your going to create this malaise of ridiculous restrictions, and I notice the restrictions are again being targetted against the Union not the CSA.

Argueing Grant cant command an army on turn one but Lee can is an interesting arguement to say the least.

Combat experience is a ridiculous requirement when for the North combat is a disaster for the first year and nearly impossible in the east till late 43 or 44.

The conduct of the war should be left to the player. that INCLUDES who gets promoted and who leads what and where. You want "historical" restrictions , fine when does the arguement begin as to where and when a general can fight on the map? I mean "historically" Lee never fought in the West, lets prevent him from doing so cause after all that is "historical".



chris0827 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 6:51:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

No they are not. I have been asking for Historical population, historical Orders of battle, Historical economies.

Why have generals at all , well except "historical" ones with ranks and positions defined by "history" if your going to create this malaise of ridiculous restrictions, and I notice the restrictions are again being targetted against the Union not the CSA.

Argueing Grant cant command an army on turn one but Lee can is an interesting arguement to say the least.

Combat experience is a ridiculous requirement when for the North combat is a disaster for the first year and nearly impossible in the east till late 43 or 44.

The conduct of the war should be left to the player. that INCLUDES who gets promoted and who leads what and where. You want "historical" restrictions , fine when does the arguement begin as to where and when a general can fight on the map? I mean "historically" Lee never fought in the West, lets prevent him from doing so cause after all that is "historical".


You're imagining things that aren't there. Grant was used as an example. No one said anything about restricting the north and not the south.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 1:42:47 PM)

Well, just to be sure, if ANY changes are made to the system, they would be across the board changes, and not changes added to one side vs the other

which some of the ideas, are too vast for a quick change, so do not really think it will be seen anytime soon, but will be thought about

we have made changes to how many can be promoted and how the Adcam's work and so on

Which, they effect both side



rook749 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 5:02:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Alphabetical order. (I won't be able to read your responses, since I'll be ducking below my desk now.)



Gil,

Rest assured that if were elect to take aim at you a mere desk will be not protection. [:D]

Rook



Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 5:13:00 PM)

Well, I think you would have to stand in line





Greyhunterlp -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/8/2007 7:08:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Well, I think you would have to stand in line



Its the American Civil War. your supposed to stand in line to fire.



General Quarters -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/9/2007 6:10:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rook749

There is currently some method the game uses to choose between two generals of the same rank, is there any way that one of the dev’s can enlighten us as to what the tie breaker currently is?

Rook



Alphabetical order. (I won't be able to read your responses, since I'll be ducking below my desk now.)




If the computer can keep track, it would make sense for it to be the order in which they were promoted to their rank in the game. That would be the game's version of seniority in rank. You would have the same problem that, say, Lee had with G. W. Smith and McClellan with Sumner and Keyes. Lee put Smith on sickleave and dispersed his brigades to other units. McClellan reduced the size of Sumners and Keyes corps and put them in Porters. So having to dealing with seniority would be very historical.



christof139 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/9/2007 8:45:55 AM)

quote:

If the computer can keep track, it would make sense for it to be the order in which they were promoted to their rank in the game. That would be the game's version of seniority in rank. You would have the same problem that, say, Lee had with G. W. Smith and McClellan with Sumner and Keyes. Lee put Smith on sickleave and dispersed his brigades to other units. McClellan reduced the size of Sumners and Keyes corps and put them in Porters. So having to dealing with seniority would be very historical.


You mean for the AI side?? I like to be the Great Dictator on my side, and do whatever I want to do.

I think Bernie Mac and Little Mac are related, due to their very similar outlook on matters.[&:][8|]

Chris



General Quarters -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/9/2007 3:21:59 PM)

Christof -- Yes, the fact is that different players like different things. You like total control, I like constraints. Some players take pleasure in "reenactment," such as having Sumner, Heintzelman, Keyes, and McDowell in charge of AoP corps. Others of us like being able to send Stonewall to Tennessee.

My overall preferences is for constraints that make decisionmaking factors similar to the history but leave the details open which also seems historical to me (e.g., there was no necessity to Lincoln's appointing Sumner etc or even to keeping Jackson with the ANV). But we all have to accept that others have different preferences. This forum is our opportunity to let the designers know what most players want.

My seniority idea is somewhat independent of these preferences, however, since the game has to select in some way and alphabetically has nothing to say for itself whereas seniority in rank at least reflects something.



tiredoftryingnames -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/10/2007 12:36:55 AM)

Based on what I've read that's in the new patch for Generals and promotions we're going to be getting more of them and can promote more than 1 per turn which will eliminate the lack of division commanders early on and the long period of time it takes to fill in vacant spots. I'm not sure how the promotion change will work as in if we'll just get the current screen multiple times until all slots are filled or if they will introduce a different interface where we manage all promotions but my suggestion would expand on those changes for a later patch. I've read alot of the suggestions and instead of using battle experience I tried to think of a way to mimic real promotions to an extent. Lincoln didn't have to wait for someone to get in a battle to promote them and the player should have control but within a defined system more than exists now where a 1 star jumps 3 ranks.
I think since soon we'll be able to do more than 1 promotion per turn what needs to be introduced is a rule where a general can only be promoted 1 level at a time and they have a minimum time in grade tracked for when they can get promoted again. That value could also be used for seniority purposes. Of course there are exceptions to the rules to cover game situations where the overall commander should be able to handle it just as a real leader could. A general can be promoted 2 levels IF 0 generals exist at the next level at all. For example early in the game you have 2 stars but no 3 stars, the player should have the ability to fill that slot by advancing someone up. The other exception would be to the time in grade system and would allow a group of generals to have the time in grade waived if no generals were available for the next level. For example you have 2 3 stars and neither have the necessary time in grade to advance to the 4 star rank but you have an open slot. And this rule would override the 1st rule I listed. A general, even 1 promoted the previous turn should be promoted to the 4 star rank before a 2 star skips a rank. Of course the player could elect to wait until they've promoted more to the 3 star rank and choose a 4 star later.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/10/2007 1:21:43 AM)

just in case, if you click on the General, there at the bottom of the screen is a Promote, demote button





christof139 -> RE: Working on the patch II (2/10/2007 5:46:47 AM)

quote:

Christof -- Yes, the fact is that different players like different things. You like total control, I like constraints. Some players take pleasure in "reenactment," such as having Sumner, Heintzelman, Keyes, and McDowell in charge of AoP corps. Others of us like being able to send Stonewall to Tennessee.

My overall preferences is for constraints that make decisionmaking factors similar to the history but leave the details open which also seems historical to me (e.g., there was no necessity to Lincoln's appointing Sumner etc or even to keeping Jackson with the ANV). But we all have to accept that others have different preferences. This forum is our opportunity to let the designers know what most players want.

My seniority idea is somewhat independent of these preferences, however, since the game has to select in some way and alphabetically has nothing to say for itself whereas seniority in rank at least reflects something.


Well GQ, I sometimes like total control, or lack of it at times, and other times I do appreciate restraints with historical aspects. It all depends on the game. It would be nice to have a button to play either way, and I think FoF has such a button, a button that does a somewhat SIMILAR switch anyway.

Chris



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375