quote:

We'd love to do a FOF2 one of these days, but that would require a completely new engine and new graphics (a year's worth of work plus a substantial investment in the artwork), and would have to come after the projects we're currently working on (and contracted to finish!). So the earliest we might even begin working on a FOF2 would be 2-3 years from now, and I can't promise that we would decide to do it instead of some other idea we might have. If we do go ahead with FOF2 we would certainly use some elements of the BAB tactical engine, and perhaps just have the randomized tactical battles take place at regimental level instead of brigade level -- it will be an interesting decision, if we get to that point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

As I learn the system, I'm starting to wish that the game included at least one small scale late war scenario, just so one can see how the system actually works with veteran armies that actually obey your orders.

I'm not saying create a new map or anything, but there must have been some combat in the Bull Run area in 1863 or '64, given how much of the other fighting occurred nearby, or at the last a reasonable hypothetical small scenario could be imagined.

It might also benefit the game long term, giving a kinda proving ground for the command and control concepts that might not be readily apparent when leading a green army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

As I learn the system, I'm starting to wish that the game included at least one small scale late war scenario, just so one can see how the system actually works with veteran armies that actually obey your orders.

I'm not saying create a new map or anything, but there must have been some combat in the Bull Run area in 1863 or '64, given how much of the other fighting occurred nearby, or at the last a reasonable hypothetical small scenario could be imagined.

It might also benefit the game long term, giving a kinda proving ground for the command and control concepts that might not be readily apparent when leading a green army.

Well, I have three thoughts on this. One is that later in the year I was thinking of adding a 2nd Manassas scenario that is set on the part of the battlefield currently available. (We made a Manassas map that is about 30% larger than what you see, from which the 2nd Manassas map can be carved when the time comes. Sadly, the limitations of computer processing power limits us from providing the entire map at once.) So that will meet your wishes, no doubt. The second thought is that once we release the modding guide and scenario-editor a modder could make a 2nd Manassas scenario or two before I ever get around to it, and that would be fine with me. The third is that if there were demand I could easily make an unhistorical scenario in which I boost each unit's quality/morale. (Or this can be easily done by a modder, probably in less than 20 minutes.)

EDIT: A fourth idea that I just remembered: once I am finished putting together the FULL Peninsula Campaign OOB's for the Seven Days battles I was planning on sticking those full armies onto the Williamsburg map. But that's months away. Unless a modder beats me to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto


Please junk the levitating casualty numbers -- the single most irritating thing I find about this game.

Just show the numbers above the affected units for a few seconds -- stationary, no movement! -- then they vanish.

Maybe make the seconds of delay before they vanish a configurable option.

Maybe make these new-style casualty numbers vs. the old-style levitating numbers a configurable option, something you can toggle in the Screen Drawing Options menu.

The levitation serves no real purpose IMO and just sucks up CPU cycles needlessly. And as if the map display is not cluttered enough already. Numbers slowly drifting upward just add to the visual busyness. Please junk them!

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but PBEM would be a lot smoother if you saw your own sides combat phase after you hit end turn--- i.e. before the turn is uploaded to the server. As is, the replay at the start of the turn is from a messed up version of your opponent's FOW, and gives way too much critical information that you shouldn't know otherwise, such as which of your units your opponent can see, as well as your opponent's global morale.

The justification in the manual, that this was done to prevent cheating, makes little sense. If one were inclined to cheat, one could just as easily restart the turn after seeing your opponent's combat phase at the start of your own. OK, I can see a few more temptations for cheaters after seeing the combat phase after your own moves, but I think we got to kinda rely on the security of PBEM ++ here, and right now the FOW problems raised by the current execution model in PBEM ++ far out-weigh the justification.

But as also elsewhere, one more vote for turn replay as well. The game really, really needs it.

Edit--- So my last couple turns in PBEM 1.05 indicate that many of these concerns may have been already addressed, though not in the patch notes. But it seems more natural FOW. So maybe ignore me.