Suggestions (Full Version)

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



Message

meisterchow -> Suggestions (12/12/2007 11:48:30 PM)

Tried to look through past posts, but didn't see anything directly pertaining to this idea, so I apologize if this has already come up and been answered.

Would it be possible to have new units identified by the state they came from instead of just CSA or USA? It seems a shame to have to do it manually, and it would really add to the flava. ;)

That said, as a new player of Forge, I'm really enjoying it!!!!



augustus -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 1:57:57 AM)

I like that idea. It's unhistorical, given that the game is on the brigade level, but adds far more flavor than units named 10th Infantry, 11th Infantry, etc.



Gil R. -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 8:34:49 AM)

This was discussed way back when the game came out. The main reason, as Augustus notes, is that few brigades consisted of men from a single state. I think there were also other reasons, but at this point, well over a year after the decisions were made, I just can't recall them.

As for the brigades that are there at the start of the scenario, it was too difficult to get precise OOB's. For July it's easy to get them for Bull Run, so it would be possible to name every brigade starting in those Shenandoah/Fredericksburg/Cumberland armies, but harder to get the info for some of the forces scattered elsewhere. And for early November we simply could not find complete lists of which brigades were where, especially since no significant battles were fought in November 1861 (other than Grant's move on Belmont/Columbus). We have decent info for the Army of the Potomac, but not as much information for where other brigades were assigned. But presumably, with enough research, it might be possible to at least have all starting brigades named, and then one could name all new brigades for the state in which they were raised, if one wanted. But changing the code so that brigades appear as "5th Michigan Brigade" instead of "25th Brigade" isn't likely.



meisterchow -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 2:55:25 PM)

Fair enough, it was just a thought.

Here's another: What about having new generals show up at the capital of their home state (if currently in possession by your side)? It would, by nature of laziness, probably result in more western generals in western armies. IIRC, a lot of generals got their commission from their state's governor as part of the state's muster, so it would be at least somewhat historical.

Again, just some random thoughts as I've been playing. :)



meisterchow -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 3:02:13 PM)

Would it be possible to strip the national designation off the brigade name? As it is, you get reports in detailed combat like "USA USA 1st Brigade is routing." Kinda redundant.

-Charlie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

This was discussed way back when the game came out. The main reason, as Augustus notes, is that few brigades consisted of men from a single state. I think there were also other reasons, but at this point, well over a year after the decisions were made, I just can't recall them.

As for the brigades that are there at the start of the scenario, it was too difficult to get precise OOB's. For July it's easy to get them for Bull Run, so it would be possible to name every brigade starting in those Shenandoah/Fredericksburg/Cumberland armies, but harder to get the info for some of the forces scattered elsewhere. And for early November we simply could not find complete lists of which brigades were where, especially since no significant battles were fought in November 1861 (other than Grant's move on Belmont/Columbus). We have decent info for the Army of the Potomac, but not as much information for where other brigades were assigned. But presumably, with enough research, it might be possible to at least have all starting brigades named, and then one could name all new brigades for the state in which they were raised, if one wanted. But changing the code so that brigades appear as "5th Michigan Brigade" instead of "25th Brigade" isn't likely.





ericbabe -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 3:12:49 PM)

Brigade nomenclature during the Civil War was kind of tricky. Often brigades were known by the names of their commanders, but sometimes the name of a commander would stick to a brigade even when it began to be commanded by a new general -- since we actually have a lot of commanders in the game, we thought it would be very confusing to name brigades after commanders in a way that had nothing to do with the commanders used in the game.

It may actually be possible for the routine that passes back the name to do a quick check for a double USA or CSA and cull the first in the case of duplication. I'll put it on my list.



meisterchow -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 5:12:56 PM)

I think the double CSA or USA reference in the Detail Combat is that the report first mentions the side then the unit name, but the default unit names are "CSA 110th Brigade" or "USA 1st Brigade", hence the duplication. If the system generated brigade names without the national designation I think the problem would disappear, i.e. just "110th Brigade".

This isn't really a problem, per se, just something I've noticed.




Gil R. -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 9:17:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charlie Lewis
Here's another: What about having new generals show up at the capital of their home state (if currently in possession by your side)? It would, by nature of laziness, probably result in more western generals in western armies. IIRC, a lot of generals got their commission from their state's governor as part of the state's muster, so it would be at least somewhat historical.



It's a nice idea, but the problem here is that while some generals did get their commissions back in their states, others got promotions while serving out in the field. I agree that the system of having generals appear mainly in Richmond or Washington from some magical well-spring is imperfect, but it's at least easy for the player, who doesn't risk missing a new general who just appeared on the fringes of the map, in Texas or Michigan.

The best possible system would be for our generals' database to have a column indicating whether a general was minted back home or while serving with the army, and then use that information in the game, but that would be an awful lot of work, and I'm not sure that added historicity would justify the amount of work involved.



meisterchow -> RE: Suggestions (12/13/2007 10:39:56 PM)

It was worth a shot. [:D] Thanks for the info.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625