RE: Wish List

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Wish List

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 12:44:23 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Yes..., there ought to be a penalty for behaving like "Attilla the Hun"..., especially early in the game when you are trying to convince your own side that you are fighting for "Truth and Justice and the American Way". By the Fall of 1864 when Sherman "marched" both sides had become inured to such horror stories---but in 1861-63 there would have been a bad "backlash" in recruiting and support for the Government.

(in reply to regularbird)

Post #: 421

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 2:15:31 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

There should be a manpower cost to build a camp.

I sort of like this idea. Have you modded your game to include that? I'd be curious to know whether it plays well.

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 422

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 2:17:25 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

On my game, clicking on "Play" on the opening screen does nothing. I tried several times to start the game to no success but my cursor happened to wander over the game name and turned into a little hand and I got in. Wish: Make "Play" open the game.

I'm not sure what's going on here, so you might want to put this in its own thread in the Support sub-forum.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 423

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 2:19:32 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Shouldn't James Harrison Wilson have a cavalry rating. Isn't the guy who did an amazing raid through Miss? If so, it should be a pretty high rating, only a little below Stuart and Sheridan.

Ratings for Wilson are currently random (as with all of the 9-percenters), but once he has his own bio I'll be devising historically accurate ratings for him, and have made a note regarding your suggestion. Thanks!

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 424

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 2:54:18 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Shouldn't James Harrison Wilson have a cavalry rating. Isn't the guy who did an amazing raid through Miss? If so, it should be a pretty high rating, only a little below Stuart and Sheridan.

Ratings for Wilson are currently random (as with all of the 9-percenters), but once he has his own bio I'll be devising historically accurate ratings for him, and have made a note regarding your suggestion. Thanks!

Grierson was the guy who raided through mississippi. Wilson was a cavalry divison commander in the army of the potomac for a while then commanded the Union cavalry at the battle of Nashville. He then raided into Alabama defeating Forest and capturing Selma near the end of the war.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 425

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 3:25:51 AM

marecone

Posts: 469
Joined: 7/31/2006
From: Croatia, Europe
Status: offline

Yap. Frank's idea was good

_____________________________

"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."

Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to regularbird)

Post #: 426

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 7:56:57 PM

LitFuel

Posts: 272
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Sonny,

I wish I could play this game as historically accurate as I can, and still get a reasonably accurate outcome.

Currently, thats not possible.

Thresh

I'll never for the life me get statements like that...I tell you what, I don't want to ruin it for you but the historically accurate outcome is the union won...there ya go, don't have to play anymore

It's a "game" not a simulator...I would agree with starting historically accurate... but the fun is what you do and create after that. Make your own history and have fun with it.

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 427

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 8:19:42 PM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Sonny,

I wish I could play this game as historically accurate as I can, and still get a reasonably accurate outcome.

Currently, thats not possible.

Thresh

I'll never for the life me get statements like that...I tell you what, I don't want to ruin it for you but the historically accurate outcome is the union won...there ya go, don't have to play anymore

It's a "game" not a simulator...I would agree with starting historically accurate... but the fun is what you do and create after that. Make your own history and have fun with it.

I disagree, it is perfectly possible to play a game that reflects the historical accuracy and allows you to 'attempt' to achieve a better outcome than in fact happened... for the Union that would surely be an earlier victory, for the Confederacy a later defeat. The level of success could simply be relative to the actual cessation of hostilities.

I am most impressed by the detail in this game, currently reading 'The Bloody Crucible of Courage' and having to re-asses much of my assumptions about the battlefield level of the war. Massive congratulations to the team for what they have achieved there. However on a strategic level I await anxiously the removal of the non-historical aspects of the game - maybe through an option switch.

I have come to this game through WITP and there are some significant comparisons.

In both cases it is totally unrealistic to suggest a military victory in which the lesser side Confederacy/Japan has the wherewithal to actually defeat and conquer the opposition. In both cases the 'game' aspect has been written in to enable the lesser side to possibly do just that. I say possibly as its too early yet to see if the Confederacy can take huge chunks of the Union and hold them. However I have played as Japan and taken all of China and all of India apart from two cities in order to achieve the required 4:1 points 'victory'. That's totally unrealistic and more measured victory conditions based upon length of the conflict would be better.

There are plenty of games that are fantasy conflicts out there - most set in the future - or in a fantasy world. I don't want to play them!!!!!

I want to play as accurately as possible a simulation that takes into account the actualities of what was the case - in these particular games that comes down to the armaments and attributes of the various units in FOF: in WITP it comes down to amazing interplay of data over arms and the OBs of units.

At present (I know a patch is out there as I write)I cannot accommodate seriously a game where the South has the sea lift capacity to land its armies in the north, nor a game that has super southern forces that can exist without supply lines and defeat numerically superior union forces at key moments. I also hate investing all my time (Quite a lot to date) in attempting to win and being faced with a sudden 'end of game screen' and no possible analysis.

I am much more in key with Thresh's view.

Roger

< Message edited by Roger Neilson II -- 12/29/2006 8:31:32 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LitFuel)

Post #: 428

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 9:30:25 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
I'll never for the life me get statements like that...I tell you what, I don't want to ruin it for you but the historically accurate outcome is the union won...there ya go, don't have to play anymore

It's a "game" not a simulator...I would agree with starting historically accurate... but the fun is what you do and create after that. Make your own history and have fun with it.

And I will never understand statements like this. Even as a "game" it ought to bear a reasonable semblence of the historical flavor of the conflict it seeks to emulate. Why play something that purports to be the ACW if the sides are "equal"? That's nonsense..., if you want equal play chess or checkers or something that tries for that quality. The ACW WAS a one-sided contest..., the glory and fun of playing the South is in trying to "beat the odds". If you give Robert E. Lee a Panzer Army what fun is that?

What an ACW "Game" or "Simulation" (and our hobby is called "Simulation Gaming"---like it or not) needs to do is be as accurate as possible in providing both sides with exactly the tools and challanges they actually faced. Then if you can't win as Jeff Davis, give yourself a "+1" or a +2" bonus and try again if that's your thing. And if you can "win" in a basic historically accurate scenario as the South, then you've accomplished something.

(in reply to LitFuel)

Post #: 429

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 9:39:12 PM

balto

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I am brand new, so I am aware that what I have to say for a Wish List means nothing, but I was hoping that the QC detail battles could be completed via PBEM. It would take the mystery out of a lot those Results I see in the AARs and it would allow us to put our own personal "finesse" to our PBEMs as Hard Sarge does with DC. I know, stop posting on here you useless newbie..,gotcha.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 430

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 10:42:05 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

I am brand new, so I am aware that what I have to say for a Wish List means nothing, but I was hoping that the QC detail battles could be completed via PBEM. It would take the mystery out of a lot those Results I see in the AARs and it would allow us to put our own personal "finesse" to our PBEMs as Hard Sarge does with DC. I know, stop posting on here you useless newbie..,gotcha.

I just responded to Balto on this point in another thread, but it seems a good idea to copy my response here, in case others were thinking about this:

Regarding the lack of a QC grid in PBEM, I'm pretty sure that the reason for the omission is that it would add significantly to the time the game would take to finish. Think about it: each turn, you and your opponent move your forces where you want them to go, and after the second player (always CSA) clicks on "End Turn" the computer decides which armies move where, and where battles occur. For there to be PBEM QC it would require that both players then get files telling them where they have battles and letting them set up their grids, and that after setting up those battlefields they then exchange files again -- and only then would battles be resolved. Now let's say that there is at least one minor battle occurring every one out of two turns: if that's the case, the game now takes 50% more time to complete. My guess is that most people wouldn't want that.

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 12/29/2006 10:52:29 PM >

(in reply to balto)

Post #: 431

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 11:29:22 PM

Twinkle

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/16/2006
From: sweden
Status: offline

most people would at least want a replay that includes all on map movement as well as replayed QC as done by the computer, and I believe that a lot of pbem players would like to have the option to set up their QC battles...

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 432

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 11:32:27 PM

Twinkle

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/16/2006
From: sweden
Status: offline

I totally agree with the sentiment that plunder is way to powerful and it seems strange that the side doing the plunder isn�t taking a negative hit...

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 433

RE: Wish List - 12/29/2006 11:45:56 PM

Berkut

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

Twinkle is right - replays of on map movement AND the QC battles are an almost essential feature for PBEM.

I think the system that FoF uses (both sides order, resoilve simultanesouly) is outstanding. The interface into what happens, however, is abysmal.

Could anyone imagein playing COmbat Missions without getting the movie to watch to see what happened? Just a little summary report? Blech. Ruins the immersiveness.

(in reply to Twinkle)

Post #: 434

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 2:18:10 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Victory Points & National Will

I would like it if one could go to something that told what battles, etc., had what VP result. Now that I think of it, that would be a nice feature of the battle reports on the Events Report -- if you told you that you just won or lost 1 VP.

Gosh, I just yesterday noticed that, in fact, it does tell exactly that. Suggestion withdrawn.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 435

Ratings and Naval Officers - 12/30/2006 3:42:10 AM

bountyhunter

Posts: 53
Joined: 11/25/2006
From: Wherever Uncle Sam sends me
Status: offline

I'd like to see some debate on adding an artillery rating for generals. I think there might be a case since several of our generals had prewar service in artillery just as they did in cavalry.

I could have missed it but was there any talk of adding a few naval leaders to command fleets and/or ships? I don't think this would be a extensive task - as far as a list and/or bios go but I can't speak to programming...

< Message edited by bountyhunter -- 12/30/2006 3:52:13 AM >

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 436

RE: Ratings and Naval Officers - 12/30/2006 2:28:04 PM

Twinkle

Posts: 67
Joined: 12/16/2006
From: sweden
Status: offline

I wouldn�t mind to see the city production penalty due to building new units to be decreased to about half the current factor... seems to be a lot of states, especially down south that lose all city production by enlisting the single unit that they can produce per year. The negative impact (supply cost) already exist, and I can tell that it cost a lot to field an army in enemy terrain (pbem).

Regards,
/twinkle

(in reply to bountyhunter)

Post #: 437

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 3:01:04 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

One kind of play "imbalance" is that there is more for the Southern player to do -- with raiders and runners -- and those are interesting decisions to make. It would be nice if the Union player had a similar diversity in the kinds of decisions made each turn.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 438

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 3:04:32 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Mansions.

The role of mansions ends up just being irritating. Every time you turn around you have to build another. This just adds an uninteresting bit of micromanagement.

Reducing cost would help, but I have begun to question the whole concept of Mansions. What, historically, are they supposed to represent? If they are included to achieve another purpose, such as slowing down the pace of building, that could be achieved in some other way.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 439

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 3:11:37 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Union building mints, etc.:

Playing the South there seemed to be a variety of buildings I needed and so it was a bit interesting to make each individual decision. As the North, on the other hand, I was always desperate for money, without which you can't do many of the other things you need to do. So it was mint, mint, mint, mansion, mint, mint ... And an occasional and somewhat rare horse farm or camp or research building.

I question this pattern from both gameplay and historical perspectives. Was the Union so much more strapped for money than the Confeds? If so, maybe they should be able to float war bonds or something -- didn't Lincoln have Chase do something like that to finance the war?

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 440

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 3:18:50 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Governor's requests:

Some players have complained that the Union does not have enough money to take care of all the governors' requests. This complaint rests on the assumption that it should be possible to meet all governors' requests.

In my first game as the Union, I tried to meet all governors' requests and it prevented me from building other things I vitally needed. It then dawned on me that I did not need to do that. Now I just build those that have some value, the governor is a s.o.b. and might make trouble, or maybe it is a friendly governor who is supporting some valuable activity, or I wait to see if he "insists." I went from responding to 80 percent to ignoring 80 percent and it has worked much better.

In short, the current rules do not prevent you from doing what you need to with regarde to governors.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 441

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 3:28:28 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Mansions.

The role of mansions ends up just being irritating. Every time you turn around you have to build another. This just adds an uninteresting bit of micromanagement.

Reducing cost would help, but I have begun to question the whole concept of Mansions. What, historically, are they supposed to represent? If they are included to achieve another purpose, such as slowing down the pace of building, that could be achieved in some other way.

I have to agree here. I assume that "Mansions" represent additional city infastructure needed to support additional activities..., but a lot of it still makes little sense. I mean you don't build a mine or a horse farm in the middle of town. I'd rather see each city given an "upper growth limit" based on it's actual population in 1860-61 and mansions/plantations done away with. Or be limited to those occasions where you wanted to expand the "upper growth limit" in a specific city (like Richmond during the war).

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 442

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 5:22:47 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Mansions.

The role of mansions ends up just being irritating. Every time you turn around you have to build another. This just adds an uninteresting bit of micromanagement.

Reducing cost would help, but I have begun to question the whole concept of Mansions. What, historically, are they supposed to represent? If they are included to achieve another purpose, such as slowing down the pace of building, that could be achieved in some other way.

I have to agree here. I assume that "Mansions" represent additional city infastructure needed to support additional activities..., but a lot of it still makes little sense. I mean you don't build a mine or a horse farm in the middle of town. I'd rather see each city given an "upper growth limit" based on it's actual population in 1860-61 and mansions/plantations done away with. Or be limited to those occasions where you wanted to expand the "upper growth limit" in a specific city (like Richmond during the war).

I would be happy to do away with them all together. If the Government was in fact building scads of industry and research centers and military instalations in a given area, Mansions and Plantations would follow -- not lead -- such expansion. They also wouldn't be build by the Government, rather built by private funding.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 443

RE: Wish List - 12/30/2006 9:07:35 PM

Ironclad

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline

Moved to play balance thread

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 12/30/2006 9:39:50 PM >

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 444

RE: Wish List - 12/31/2006 10:57:18 AM

christof139

Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

The way I look at it is that Mansions and Plantations represent all the smaller companies and even banks involved in supplying the war efforts of the USA and CSA, and this includes farming and victuals, food production in other words.

Maybe give the Mansions a money and maybe iron or another production values of 1 and that's it since the USA may already have an advantage over the south. i haven't played enough nor have gotten the hang of the game enough yet in reality, but this is what I so far derive.

Chris

(in reply to Ironclad)

Post #: 445

RE: Wish List - 12/31/2006 3:39:55 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I have to agree here. I assume that "Mansions" represent additional city infastructure needed to support additional activities..., but a lot of it still makes little sense. I mean you don't build a mine or a horse farm in the middle of town...

Is it really that hard to see the "city" as an abstraction representing the town proper and the surrounding area? Horse farms, mines, plantations, etc., etc. are obviously not all downtown. It probably comes as no surprise that I disagree with your suggestion to do away with plantations and mansions.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 446

RE: Wish List - 12/31/2006 5:34:36 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
If the Government was in fact building scads of industry and research centers and military instalations in a given area, Mansions and Plantations would follow -- not lead -- such expansion. They also wouldn't be build by the Government, rather built by private funding.

Government v. private is a valid distinction here. Presumably, government was building a lot of the "military-industrial complex" and so it makes sense that armories, telegraphs, rail capacity, even universities (the Morrill Act establishing land-grant universities dates from this period), but not plantations.

"Mansion" is just the name of a fancy residence. If it is supposed to represent governmental functions that might include police, fire, roads, courts, etc., maybe it should be called "courthouse" or "magistracy" or "munciple (or state) building" or "administrative building" or just "roads" or something like that, the idea being that the private sector cannot expand beyond the state's provision of these support services.

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 447

RE: Wish List - 12/31/2006 5:51:04 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

In my first game as the Union, the South showed some nice aggressiveness in Kentucky, but when I took a province that cut off their supplies, they continued to sit there turn after turn, even though there were empty provinces of mine they could have moved into. I see in the discussion threads that another player had a similar experience in the East. I know these contextual things are very difficult to program but I mention it in case something could be done.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 448

RE: Wish List - 12/31/2006 6:07:52 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
"Mansion" is just the name of a fancy residence. If it is supposed to represent governmental functions that might include police, fire, roads, courts, etc., maybe it should be called "courthouse" or "magistracy" or "munciple (or state) building" or "administrative building" or just "roads" or something like that, the idea being that the private sector cannot expand beyond the state's provision of these support services.

GQ,

I disagree.

During this time period, mainly in the days of pre-electricty, towns and cities grew and developed without regard for governmental sponsored infrastructure. There was no electric wires to run; the roads were made of dirt, and the sewer system was a little hut behind your house. Government sponsored infrastructure only came into being after massive development, not before -- and was sponsored and supported by local taxes, not some grand state planned development.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 449

RE: Wish List - 1/1/2007 12:05:26 AM

regularbird

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline

No disespect intended here because I love what Eric and Company has done. But the AI is brutal, The 1861 scenario the AI is completely worthless, for some reason it does not seem to build containers and it always moves in small units that are easily destroyed. It does a little better in the standard campaign but it certainly does much standing around. Playing the USA is bad as well the south is overly agressive and gets chewed up by silly assaults.

I am playing my 1st PBEM and so far it is pretty fun. I wish there was some way to smarten up the AI, maybe programming some moves or counter moves.

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 450