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  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 4:23:41 AM   
DerJimbo

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 3/21/2005
Status: offline 		I've read all of the comments and suggestions made here with interest.  I only recently started playing this game (as the Union against the AI), and I'd like to agree with a couple of the comments already posted:

1.  Ideally, it should be easier to manage your "builds" within cities from the cities list.  It is difficult to tell what city will give you the most "bang for your buck" (usually determined by the facilities already built in each) unless you can easily compare build options between cities.

2.  Naval leaders would add a some additional depth to the game, and should be implemented if at all possible.

But I'd also like to suggest something that I haven't seen mentioned here (unless I missed it).  It seems to me that the POLITICAL decisions that the players are forced to make in this game are extremely limited and do not reflect the difficult tasks of political maneuvering that confronted both Lincoln and Davis.  The ACW was not just, or perhaps even mainly, a military struggle.  It was a political struggle.  I don't see that adequately reflected in the game.  Politics affected everything the two national leaders did and directly influenced military operations.

I'd like to see both sides have to make more overtly political decisions, like choosing (or changing the composition of) their Presidential cabinets, with an eye to influencing different political factions within each country.  I think each side should have to "balance" the support gained from different regions/political factions against the loss of support from competing regions/factions, and the administrative ability (and personal loyalty to the administration) of the various candidates for ministerial office.

I think that the South should have the option of choosing another location for its national capital.  It started off in Montgomery, and then was moved to Richmond.  But the southern player should be given a choice at the outset of where he wants to have the seat of his government.

I also think that that there should be more political decionmaking than simply a question of where to locate factories and mines, camps, etc.  The decision to emancipate is fine, but this was the final step in the process.  The North started off the war with a limited aim: the restoration of the Union.  By the end, both sides recognized that it had become a revolutionary struggle.  Lincoln ended up deciding that the war should be about "a new birth of freedom".  But he only reached this point after many intermediate stages, and he had to make political choices all along the way.  Enforce the Fugitive Slave Law and attempt to return runaway slaves to their owners?  Treat runaways as "contraband of war" captured by the northern army?  Emancipation--yes or no?  When?  After emancipation, should the North enlist freedmen in the army?  Should they be limited to support roles, or used in combat?

In short, I think that it would add an additional layer of challenge to the game if each player was forced to make a greater number of "political" choices, with consquences determined by the state of play at the moment, the attitude of foreign powers, civilian and military morale, etc.

And how about inflation?  That was a major problem for the South, one that contributed to the progressively serious crippling of its economy, but I don't see that reflected at all in the game.

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 481
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 6:13:20 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		"Choose Upgrade" screen:

It would be nice if it told you what type of upgrade (logistical, engineering, etc.), since it isn't obvious. It would bring home to the player which types of research pay off the best.

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 482
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 6:22:35 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		I am now playing my second game as the Union, and I am seeing the Confederates do basically the same thing in each game. Oddly, even the same generals seem to be assigned to the same roles.

One lunges for NW Virginia and can go to Cincinnati.

Another goes to Kentucky (if it has gone to Union, which it has both times).

A third starts off in NW Ark and does nothing until apparently triggered by Union moves in Ark or Tenn -- or maybe he has just waited long enough -- and then he goes to Cairo (at least I think that's where he's now headed).

A fourth sits in Chattanooga for the longest time, then disappears, apparently to the East.

For the first three, that all go North at some point: after they arrive and take a province or two, they just sit there until their line of retreat is cut off, which makes it very easy to encircle and destroy them.

I take it that these are little scripts built into the program. Fair enough. But it seems that they need to have a greater variety of scripts, moving North at two or three different places, so you never know which one will pounce in which direction. Or just sitting tight, fortifying, and waiting for the Union to leave an undefended province containing its only line of supply and then pouncing on that.



< Message edited by General Quarters -- 1/4/2007 7:15:37 PM >

(in reply to DerJimbo)
Post #: 483
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 7:17:51 AM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		I am so dissapointed with the strategic AI it isn 't funny. I know it is a challenge to create a challenging AI but other games have accomplished the task. I wish I knew some way to help them make it better.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 484
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 1:58:05 PM   
christof139


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

The expression 'famine or feast' sunms up the current situation. On Few setting I end up with large areas of the Union forces with no commanders for a long time, on lots setting I have more generals than troops to command...... to the point where i toy with putting them in their own division!

Roger


A division of generals would be interesting, and absolutely quite comical, plus not anything would get done and they would get lost in the woods most probably. General Bedlam would be in command.

Chris

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 485
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 3:35:51 PM   
helop5

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 10/3/2006
Status: offline 		Game Play Wishes:

1. I would like to see historical units enter the game via conscription and mustering as well. Does anyone else desire to see this? It just seems that there are such limited resources that I find that most of my new brigades come from conscription and mustering. However, I would like to have more historical units.

2. I would like to see new units named after the state they came from. Instead of giving them the next number in sequence...how about the next number in sequence with their state (i.e. 4th Virginia Infantry, 2nd Texas Calvary, etc.).

3. It would be fun to have some interaction with the loss of men from a certain state and the governor's attitude. His favor could rise and fall with the success and losses of troops from his state.

4. I would like to see some random events. If Tennessee is invaded by the Union and the Confederacy wins a major battle in defense then it could produce a random event where the Confederacy gets a couple of new volunteer brigades rallying to the banner in Tennessee.

These are my suggestions for now. I love to hear your thoughts...

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 486
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 4:10:18 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: helop5

Game Play Wishes:

1. I would like to see historical units enter the game via conscription and mustering as well. Does anyone else desire to see this? It just seems that there are such limited resources that I find that most of my new brigades come from conscription and mustering. However, I would like to have more historical units. I've been curious why "Mustering" a new Brigade has a "negative" effect on the Governor? He's the one who will get to reward his cronies by appointing them as it's Officers. It should be "Governor-neutral" at worst.

2. I would like to see new units named after the state they came from. Instead of giving them the next number in sequence...how about the next number in sequence with their state (i.e. 4th Virginia Infantry, 2nd Texas Calvary, etc.).

3. It would be fun to have some interaction with the loss of men from a certain state and the governor's attitude. His favor could rise and fall with the success and losses of troops from his state. Be difficult to do in practice. How do you seperate battle losses from died of desease? And what constitutes a "success"?

4. I would like to see some random events. If Tennessee is invaded by the Union and the Confederacy wins a major battle in defense then it could produce a random event where the Confederacy gets a couple of new volunteer brigades rallying to the banner in Tennessee. One problem here---does this work both ways? If Tennessee falls to the North, does the Union get a couple of extra brigades? And what if mobilizing these two Brigades of volunteers removes the "manpower" from some key locations?
These are my suggestions for now. I love to hear your thoughts...


(in reply to helop5)
Post #: 487
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 4:11:25 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		I really like idea #2. The historical units do not do anything for me, I would rather all unit create thier own history through the game.

(in reply to helop5)
Post #: 488
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 4:41:32 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline 		How about some form of generated name for "mustered" units, who are after all volunteers.
Should be relatively easy to do, three part name, brigade number, location section, final descriptive bit.

you could end up with 162nd West Virginia Rifles or 162nd Wheeling Volunteers or 162nd Virginian Tigers
You could of course also link the description to any special attributes, 162nd Wheeling Woodsmen, 162nd West Virginian Wildmen etc...

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 489
Wish List - Governor Requests - 1/4/2007 5:48:59 PM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		When Governors make request (like that Staff Rating decrease thing by appointing his cronies) that we be allowed to access the Governor's screen so we can see what to about that request (either reject or grant it).

It just pops up on your turn and unless you have a perfect memory of things, you cannot tell what is the best thing to do.


(in reply to Paper Tiger)
Post #: 490
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 7:08:11 PM   
General Quarters

 

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

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

I agree that there are a bit two few generals on Normal, and somewhat more than I want on More.


Returning to the game, I find that, on Normal, I actually have enough generals -- I just don't have enough stars for them to all command my divisions.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 491
RE: Wish List - 1/4/2007 11:11:29 PM   
General Quarters

 

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

I would like it if Avoid Battle were the default. With Seeking Battle as the default, you can seek a battle inadvertantly, which doesn't make sense and can lead to huge unintended consequences.

(in reply to DerJimbo)
Post #: 492
RE: Wish List - 1/5/2007 7:32:43 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		The Eads Boatyards at St. Louis were considered the best and most effecient in the Mississippi River Valley (which is why they were chosen as the spot to build the first Union riverine ironclads).   Yet the game shows St. Louis without a shipyard.  Think you all could put one there in the next patch?

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 493
RE: Wish List - 1/5/2007 7:39:33 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut
Not to belabor the point, but I play a lot of games. And I have a rather serious system to do so.

And I have *never* seen a game take several seconds to load the standard Windows file dialogue screen. FoF takes considerably longer to load than the vasy majority of games I play.

I guess if you say there is no optimization to be done, then there isn't much point in bringing it up. As a professional software engineer (albeit NOT a game coder), I am skeptical that the game is as tight as it should be.


The code that loads the standard Windows file dialogue screen looks like this:

static char BASED_CODE szFilter[] = "Save Game Files (*.sve)|*.sve|All Files (*.*)|*.*||";
CFileDialog Dlg(true, "sve", "Forge", OFN_HIDEREADONLY | OFN_OVERWRITEPROMPT | OFN_NOCHANGEDIR, szFilter);

// set dir for box to curdir
char curDir[512];
_getcwd(curDir, 512);
Dlg.m_ofn.lpstrInitialDir = curDir;

if (Dlg.DoModal()==IDOK)
{
// ... go ahead and load Dlg.GetPathName()
}

This code does three things:
1) Instantiates CFileDialog
2) Gets the current working directory (essential to completing 1)
3) Executes the dialog modally by calling the DoModal member.

Do you know any faster way to do these things?



_____________________________



(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 494
RE: Wish List - 1/5/2007 9:22:04 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		Nope, no idea, since I am not a Windows programmer. I do back end database/web interaction stuff.

What I do know is that I play all kinds of games, many of which require me to load a PBEM file. And none of them take several seconds to open the dialogue window. Or at least I've never noticed that they take a while.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 495
RE: Wish List - 1/6/2007 12:16:27 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Missing Forts Just actually noticed that while most of the Eastern Seaboard is dotted with the historic forts, America's Largest Port is totally undefended! Where are the Forts of New York? What happened to Ft. Totten, Ft. Schuyler, Ft. Tomkins, Ft. Richmond, Ft. Lafayette, Ft. Wood, etc.? Sombody go to sleep at the switch? How about including a "fix" in the next patch?

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 496
RE: Wish List - 1/6/2007 12:22:09 AM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Missing Forts Just actually noticed that while most of the Eastern Seaboard is dotted with the historic forts, America's Largest Port is totally undefended! Where are the Forts of New York? What happened to Ft. Totten, Ft. Schuyler, Ft. Tomkins, Ft. Richmond, Ft. Lafayette, Ft. Wood, etc.? Sombody go to sleep at the switch? How about including a "fix" in the next patch?


While New York definately needs a fort I think that overall the game has too many. They could've called the game Seiges of Freedom. They happen way too often.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 497
RE: Wish List - 1/6/2007 12:34:46 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Missing Forts Just actually noticed that while most of the Eastern Seaboard is dotted with the historic forts, America's Largest Port is totally undefended! Where are the Forts of New York? What happened to Ft. Totten, Ft. Schuyler, Ft. Tomkins, Ft. Richmond, Ft. Lafayette, Ft. Wood, etc.? Sombody go to sleep at the switch? How about including a "fix" in the next patch?


While New York definately needs a fort I think that overall the game has too many. They could've called the game Seiges of Freedom. They happen way too often.



Certainly won't argue with you that Forts seem to dominate much of the play of FoF. And I wasn't suggesting that New York get a half dozen of them. Just that it was stupid to see the most vital and heavily protected port on the Eastern Seaboard left "naked" when every other province had them. For "looks" alone there ought to be a couple there...

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 498
RE: Wish List - 1/6/2007 8:39:44 PM   
Paper Tiger

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline 		Here is another one for you at present the "bonus" for the defender causing casualties is based around the attackers artillery rating, this should at least be affected by the Engineer rating, or else what are all the trenches for?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 499
RE: Wish List - 1/7/2007 6:19:23 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		Corps, Divisons, and High-Ranking Generals:

I have been playing as the Union recently, and the fact that corps and division containers are so expensive makes the game less fun. There are other extremely pressing needs for 100 gold, and so I go on year after year without appropriate army organizations.

The cost of producing high-ranking generals through expensive academics has the same problem. The extra high-ranking generals do not seem nearly worth the cost so most of my divisions are not commanded by two-stars, and lots of guys like Hooker and Pope who should have commands are still running around with one-star.

Perhaps there is some justification for all this, but it sure makes the game less fun.

(in reply to DerJimbo)
Post #: 500
RE: Wish List - 1/7/2007 8:52:33 AM   
Twinkle


Posts: 67
Joined: 12/16/2006
From: sweden
Status: offline 		Demote some of your high ranked generals to bring up the men you really want... but agreed that academies should allow for some more 2-star generals.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 501
RE: Wish List - 1/7/2007 7:27:22 PM   
Jaypea

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor


quote:

ORIGINAL: dude


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

What happens to the weapons you replace" "Improvised Weapons" obviously go on the scrap heap somewhere..., but it seem to me that if you replace "Minee Rifles" with "Improved Springfields" you outh to have a Brigade's worth of Minee Rifles to give to some poor garrison still struggling with "Improvised Weapons". That's the way it worked historically..., what happens in the game? The old arms seem to dissappear into thin air. This imposes a sever economic drain on both sides....



True... so many times I wish I could give the "hand-me-downs" to someone needy... but then the game does give you a price break on replacement weapons. I remember a game once where the weapons were kept in a stockpile that you could pick from. Then as you replaced weapons the old ones went back into the stockpile to be available for for someone else. But you wouldn't get a price break for any kind of replacement in this system. Full price for all new weapons.

I'd like to see it where you could "build" weapons... and then have them stored into a stockpile type arrangement... same for artillery.


YES, there is some partial compensation involved in this situation....the "price break" just mentioned. Half the cost of the gun you are replacing goes is credited towards your new purchase...you don't get the full cost, as these are "old" arms after all.

This method was decided on as preferable to keeping detailed "stockpiles" of used weapons, as no bookkeeping is involved.


I prefer the stockpile method for rifles and artillery. You should also stockpile replacements and allow the player to upgrade units individually based on available supply and weapons. This is one of my top wish list items. Along with the following -

#1) Stockpile weapons and replacements as mentioned above (more control with more detail) - player controlled adding of replacements to individual units/garrisons.
#2) Redo the whole money raising thing with mints vs banks. Maybe some type of bond houses rather than mints? and ways to increase tax rates and issuance of bonds to raise more money which increases depending on population.
#3) Have a scenario that Starts in April in 1861 with states turning confed based on union moves (building, troops, naval. etc)
#4) Appointing cabinet members which affect diff aspects of the war (including war, state treasury, attorney general, --> ala the old ACW game ). Better treasury secretary gives you better fund raising (ie more money), etc.

I have though more behind each one of the ideas (how it could work). I am happyu to write up detailed process if someone from the game side wants me too.

JP

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 502
RE: Wish List - 1/7/2007 7:49:05 PM   
Jaypea

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
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



Ditto! I will only add that this should be the case against the AI on 1st sgt level and by using QC.

JP

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 503
RE: Wish List - 1/7/2007 9:33:01 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		I would like to second the weapons stockpile suggestion. I hate to upgrade from muskets to springfields, and not be able to give the muskets to remote garrisons with only improvised weapons.

I would also like to second the Cabinet idea. There was an old Civil War game that did this is a fairly superficial way, but it had the essential components of regional and ideological balance. It was a bit too tightly controlled so that any time you made one change -- e.g., lost a radical from the midwest, you would have to add a radical and someone from the midwest (for the Union cabinet). The FOF team could do all this much better.

Cabinet members' ability should also have the impact the poster suggested. It makes a difference whether you have a Cameron or a Stanton. I don't recall what, in that earlier game, forced you to switch cabinet members -- maybe the political standing of one of them would fall, or something like that.

I think it is true that most players want a game focused primarily on battles and generals, but even casual Civil War buffs are very much aware that political, diplomatic, and economic factors always bore very directly on the conduct of the war.

(in reply to Jaypea)
Post #: 504
RE: Wish List - 1/7/2007 9:35:51 PM   
General Quarters

 

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

When you choose autojoin, a screen appears that lists all the units. Unfortunately, I can't make rhyme or reason of the order, and find it hard to locate the container I want. It would help if they were listed alphabetically (numerically, with number one at the top for numbered units) or armies first, corps next, then divisions, then cities, then forts (alphabetized and numerized within the groups).

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 505
RE: Wish List - 1/7/2007 9:37:08 PM   
General Quarters

 

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

When you click on it, it gives information about the size of forces and engineering and artillery factors, but does not give info about the percent of fortification left standing (the way the battle report does). This would be useful info to have at this location.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 506
RE: Wish List - 1/8/2007 12:13:45 PM   
christof139


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

Demote some of your high ranked generals to bring up the men you really want... but agreed that academies should allow for some more 2-star generals.

Chris replies: Good idea. I have to create a a leader named Col. Mad Marvin, have him promoted to Brigadier, then have demoted to to 2nd 'Looie', or better yet cashiered and sent to one of Sibley's tents, set-up in the shade of course, where he and Sibley can converse and remenis (sp?). Then I could promote one of their Siblings, with a bit more brains hopefully, to Brigadier. The Brigadier, or whomever he was, from Dr. Who might prove a good replacement.

Chris

(in reply to Twinkle)
Post #: 507
RE: Wish List - 1/8/2007 10:55:56 PM   
Harvey Birdman


Posts: 143
Joined: 1/8/2006
Status: offline 		The city list needs a column showing the number of chuches a city has to help speed up impressment/conscription/muster decisions. I like picking ones with a church with 10% danger. So if there's unrest it'll end faster.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 508
RE: Wish List - 1/9/2007 2:36:19 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		I just determined how to use the on-screen siege icon yesterday. It works.

Sieges still have way to high casualties for the besiegers, or the casualty numbers are wrong to some degree. I think this hurts the game. Losing your best units in sieges hurts. Even with siege arty. it seems much to hard and long incurring way to high casualties to finish most, but not all sieges. Drastically reducing the attacker's casualties by 50% would be a good start, and the defenders could get about a 10-20% reduction in casualties, that would be somewhat more realistic methinks.

Not any siege caused the percentage of casualties that the attcaker recieves in this game. Forts also should be able to be starved-out. Perhaps giving Forts a 2 - 3 month supply for any size garrison would be a simple way of doing this. If the province a fort is in is next to a friendly province, then and only then can I see it never running-out of supplies, but that would be an extreme rarity, so there should be a time limit here too, maybe 6-months max or less.

I really have the game going now. The Confeds are doing good, but the Union still has lots of manpower with decent and superior weapons. The Confeds just took Fortress Monroe and Cairo and retook the entire Fts. Henry and donelson areas and liberated Nashville. Knoxville is still Union and is surrounded by Confed provinces.

Hope I can get a Confed Fleet up and sailing, then I will explore the Northern rivers. I am not playing to win, but to have fun, prolonging the game and explore it.

i know have a small Indian Corps flying the van Dorn Flag for the Corps flag and led by Vanglorious Dorn himself, with Wheeler as a Divisional commander. Forrest is still in the Infantry of the Army of Tennessee. I hope to get a Cav. Div. for him. Stuart and Hampton have a 2-brigade division with the ANV. One Indian Bde. has captured Spencers. Sounds like the Little Big Horn campaign.

One thing, the Confeds did not have Indian Infantry units as they were all mounted, and the 3 Union Indian Home guard regiments were also mounted, but both generally fought dismounted, but not always.

The Rodman 10-inch Columbiad should be more powerul than the regulsr New and Old Columbiad.

The 3-inch Ordnance Gun has a slightly longer ranger than the 10-pdr. Parrott, when actually the Parrott had a slightly longer range, by about 200-yards give or take.

The 9-inch Blakely never made it to the Confeds, so why have it in the game?? There was a huge Armstrong at Ft. Fisher, and some other smaller but still large Armstrong guns made it through the blockade, so an Armstrong would be more appropriate. The Blakely's used in the war were mainly smaller field guns.

Why does the 42-pounder take less iron to make than the 32-pounder, when the 42-pounder was larger??

I think all these big guns take a bit too many resources to make, just a tad less would be better IMHO.

Overall, the Arty. in the game is accurate and OK, and fun to build and use.

Are there 20 and 30-pdr. Parrotts?? These could be included as one class of gun, along with the 4.5-inch Army Siege gun. 3-guns in one class, and the 42-pdr. field siege gun is an OK substitute guess, as is the 32-pdr. Not a big deal, but historical purists would like a new class of gun incorporating the 3 aforementioned Parrotts and 4.5-inch Army Siege Gun.

I am glad to see the 24-pdr gun too, and that could be considered as a 20-pdr Parrott for practical game purposes.

Good to see the Brooke Guns, but I haven't gotten one yet. Brooke also made fieldpieces, and those were the Tredagar copies of the Union 10-pdr. Parrott. They remind a little of Brooke Shields I think. Maybe, someway, somehow. Must be the curves.

The Confeds. made an iron Napoleoon, and one version had a banded breach so it looked like a Parrott. It was a decent gun.

Guns are neat, guns are good, with those guns you can get some food. I just shot the pizza in the oven again, it was still alive. I do that when I get excited. I wouldn't use an 8-inch Howitzer to do that though.

Some of the attributes seem a bit odd, but interesting.

Gen. Cleburne, the Stonwall of the West and one of the Confeds' best Gens. does not give any attributes to his troopies, while other lesser gens. do, can you all do something about that?? Cleburne was smart, had well drilled troops, and brave, so perhaps the Hero, Fast, Volley, Flankers, and one of the Drill/manuever attributes could be given to Cleburne.

Chris

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 509
RE: Wish List - 1/9/2007 5:34:49 PM   
Berkut

 

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

A PBEM game file/email management system like Great Battles of World War 2.

That thing rocks. You are all one big happy Matrix family, right? Surely SSG would let you "borrow" theirs...

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Wish List Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.203