Wish List

[haruntaiwan]

Include Union state flags. I like to use those, as they make it easier to figure out where units are.

I'd almost say drop the forts in DC, and give me so many "entrenchment points" that I could use myself as fortifications. A lot of the time the forts seem to actually do worse than fighting without them, and if I cannot choose their location, I just ignore them and don't use them.

[gunny3013]

It would add a bit more realism if the game had an option limiting all southern units to the same northward movements as raiders are currently listed under. Ie, no further north than one zone beyond southern territory. Helps prevent "runnaway" CSA Units.

Thanks,
J

[Gil R.]

Are you seeing a lot of "runaway" units (or divisions, or corps, or armies)?

Instead of fighting at Gettysburg, Lee could have tried for Philadelphia, so I'm not sure if we want to put in such a limitation. It certainly shouldn't happen all the time, though.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: gunny3013

It would add a bit more realism if the game had an option limiting all southern units to the same northward movements as raiders are currently listed under. Ie, no further north than one zone beyond southern territory. Helps prevent "runnaway" CSA Units.

Thanks,
J

If you play a human player runnaway CSA units are automatically taken care of. They are surrounded and destroyed.

Good Hunting.

MR

[siRkid]

Sorry if this request has already been made. Also, I'm not in front of the game at the moment so I don't have the proper titles. In my game I've maxed out the building in most of my provinces. When you are in the build window, you have to scroll down the list to the bottom to see if the province can support another building. Can you please put the capacity at the top of the list or in the frame?

[Ironclad]

When you click on the build button the build menu that appears includes all necessary information including details of whats in the city and has the support level at the top - also usefully that lists if the Governor has made a building request. However I find it quicker to use the City list for selecting builds as you can see at a glance which ones have support slots available and if you click on the development line the same build menu appears.

[cerosenberg]

I have learned that a new patch is in the offing.  I can only resume my call for greater attention to logistics.  The following fact is from Supplying War.  The limit of hourse (mule) drawn supplies was about 25 miles (50 if only one way).  Otherwise the amount of fodder needed for the animals eliminated all other carrying capacity.  Fodder was actually the limiting factor in supply, ammunition was ever never limiting and food only during a seige (note Lee's reason for dispatching Longstreet prior to Chancellorsville).   Again from Supplying War, a concentration of approx. 25,000 men or more could only forage in one place for about three days, after that no fodder.  All the above is well illustrated but Sherman's march through Georgia: two wings of about 25,000, 25 miles apart, moving every day.  The Confederate response was to try to delay Sherman in one place long enough for supply to force him to retire.
 
Unfortunately, attention to logistics is often considered "micromanagement" and it is dealt with in some global fashion.  Yet, logistics is most important locally and determined not only operational objectives but tactical options (Grant's failed Vicksburg attack after the depot destruction at Holly Springs, Lee's options at Gettysburg).
 
I leave it to you to determine if and how to implement a logistical component.  I would venture to say that attention to logistics is the difference between a "war gamer" and a student of military history.  (Please excuse all spelling errors on the part of this dyslexic.)

[Gil R.]

cerosenberg,
The new patch is essentially set in stone in terms of what will be in it, and making changes at the scale you suggest would delay it by at least a month or two. We don't mind revisiting the issue of logistics (or any other issues that players feel we should revisit), but my guess is that something this big would have to wait for an expansion. And it would be helpful if you and/or others made concrete suggestions on what could be done. Any ideas written in this thread will be considered at some point down the road, so please do let us know what might enhance the logistical dimension.

[gunny3013]

I'd like to appeal for a less, "deadly," Union invasion ability. Every game so far has allowed all the southern forces to abandon their coasts and head north because the Union forces were not enormious enough to take both a fort and/or city without dying due to both a lack of supply and time. No threat to the coast frees up all the Confederate forces to head north lopsiding the game. I had a whole Army die trying to sieze neworleans with only one brigade in it and its adj fort...

[Templer_12]

For a additionally historically flavor I like to see the first Event report after the turn like a historically newspaper (i. e. Southern Post or Union Telegraph) with pictures and haedlines like: Union lost 2563 men in Shilo, or Gen. Beauregard wounded in the battle of Petersburg, France declars war and so on....or Gen. Burnside showed up in Fredericksburg with treatloks.

The event report, opend with the "Events" button should stay like it is - probably clearer to read.

And I want to be able to jump by mouse clicking on events in the report direktly to the event or scren/display.

Also more music would be fine.

[moose1999]

A little more flavor to the general's stats system:
Make ratings of 'bad' and 'terrible' actually have negative effects.
This will make it more complicated to assign generals - especially when playing with hidden stats.
As it is now, you can pretty much assign any general to any unit and trust that at least he won't do anything negative to the unit in combat or otherwise.
By introducing negative ratings (preferably in combination with the ability to assign generals to specific units) you would create a minigame out of assigning generals.
I would have to really weigh the positives and negatives of a general to determine whether I want him in front of a particular unit.
Do I need the fire-bonus of an excellent tactician so badly for my 'tank'-brigade in the coming assault, that I am willing to live with the dangerous effects of his low leadership rating (that will for example make the unit more prone to go out of command or become disordered)...?

Could be fun. [:)]

[Mutation2241]

My addition for wishlist is definitely that i want the map to include new mexico so there will be the opening of a new theater as the southern strategists initially intended

[hangarflying]

As Per Gil R's instructions, I humbly submit the things that I think would be cool to add to the game:

Mounted/Dismounted Cavalry - I think the fact that cavalry generally fought while dismounted is already taken into account when determining the outcome, but I think it would be cool to see the different modes.

Unit Cohesion - I think someone mentioned this previously, but It would be cool to know that you are receiving some kind of benefit for keeping brigades within a relatively resonable distance of each other. Additionally, there should be a benifit to keeping divisions within the same corps together. I don't think there should be a penalty for separating units, but rather a bonus for keeping them together.

Gunboats - I think gunboats should be able to move THROUGH river provinces containing enemy troops (but no fortification). No, they shouldn't stay there, but I think it is feasable to allow the gunboats to pass through. As an example, I built some gunboats in Cincinatti, but am unable to link them up with my troops in St. Louis because of enemy troops located in Cairo.

Tactical Battle - I know this will never happen, but I think it would be awesome. I loved playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam. I personally feel that these games were the best games available to represent a Civil War Battle. The perfect game would be one where Forge of Freedom was the strategic element, and the Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam engine was used to determine the detailed battles. I'm just dreaming on this one, so it's not really a legitimate wish to ask for. [;)]

Keep up the good work guys! You've made a great game!

[Kielec]

Allright, here goes again.
 
This one is about capturing artillery.
 
In my original post (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2027188) I was mostly complaining, or, should I say, just pointing out an issue, so here I'll try to be a bit more constructive.
 
I guess, that when you are capturing an enemy arty BDE, the hardware should go to you, in a way or another, but clearly you should not be gaining any decent arty BDE next turn, and this already with the whatever special abilities it originally had. No good.
 
I would hate to have this one done in a "cavallary" manner (after capturing a cav BDE you get whatever number of "horses" into the pool), as in the captor getting just so many "guns" on the strategic part - this would be... not nice, since them big guns are big guns allright, not just horses, and simply need somebody to operate them. As it is not too easy to properly operate them, clearly, we would need a delay and penalties here.
 
An easy go, would be probably the captor getting a new arty BDE (green as grass, National Will considered) at the capital (or whatever "safe" artillery producing city), but with the strength of a 1k, and the 1k deducted from the reinforcements, or 1 "man" stripped off the city. I know, I know - this (I'd say especially the "stripping 1 man") asks for decissions and should not be done without the player's consent... and it may mean coding, coding, coding, but well... sorry.
 
I guess all of the "bought" bonuses (baloons, military bands, engineers, pioneers etc.), they should be lost also - too "troop related". With the men gone, just them GUNS remain. Enough to quickly organise an arty BDE, but with a SEVERE penalty.
 
I'd say, that if it were the easiest (programming-wise) to put the new BDE right there where the battle was fought (as it would be, probably, the most reasonable from the "realism" point of view, allowing for the enemy to recapture it the next turn etc.), the new BDE should come to life for the victor/captor in a rather sorry state (1k green troops, next to zero supply, poor dispossition). And still at a cost of reinforcements. I'd guess that even at an "Alamo" stage of the game, when all is lost for one part, and this loosing part manages to capture an arty BDE off the winner somehow, his side should be able to produce a 1k reinforcements per month still, hmm? So there should be no problem with "men from the moon" that we have now with a fresh, 3k strong arty BDE just magically conjured. Still again, I can see reasons NOT TO muster a new arty BDE at the inevitable cost of scarce reinforcements in some situations, so probably allowing the player to choose between creating a new (weak) unit based on the captured weapons, and "selling" the hardware would be a nice idea.
 

[Huncowboy]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before. But it is a 26 page list so I did not read through it.

It would be nice if there would be a button for skipping all your units all the way until the supply unit. Then click it again and you would skip until the next supply unit. Often time in detailed battle my units are in the order I want them and all I am doing is loading them up with ammo and waiting for the enemy. But to do that I have to skip over a ton of units before I get to the supply.

The other real big wish I would have, again in detailed combat, to select the units yourself. They would not come up in a predetermined order. You could move them in the order you would want it.

[ragram]

There is an error I think should be fixed. I lose river ships when the army they are supporting loses and retreats, because they are "alone in an enemy province" even though there is adjacent river that is neutral or friendly. I have also lost Yankee empty fleets sailing from Boston to the ocean outside Norfolk even though there were no Confederate ships on the ocean anywhere and I had a fully staffed fleet in the sea area outside Norfolk. This game behavior is an error, isn't it.

[augustus]

a page somewhere that shows how many men you have in your army, total. As long as I'm at it, it might as well say how many brigades of what kind, and also show total casualties (battle casualties, attrition casualties, disease casualties, number of men surrendered to the enemy).

It would also be nice, though probably irritatingly difficult, to have an alternate Commanders file with random names for use when playing with random/hidden states. Playing with the normal generals, it's too easy to just promote the generals you know are good, and it's a bit bizarre to see a Grant or Lee with horrible, horrible states. Random names would just be nice.

[augustus]

Something else I thought of, it's come to mind in the past and while playing around with COG:EE it came to mind again, and that is the inability for units to fall back. I don't mean rout and flee, but to just displace one hex away from an enemy. Certainly, if a unit is getting the hell shot out of it, it's stupid to stay in place when moving back can take one out of the worst danger. Also, napoleonic and civil war battles had their great offensives, where an army was pushed backwards but continued fighting, without necessarily breaking the (tactical) defensive army. I think there should be times where a brigade, of its own accord, will attempt to move away from units firing at it if it's taking too many casualties, without breaking (though low morale or low quality troops might). And/or it should be possible for the player to be able to move a brigade in line formation backwards without changing direction.

As it is, most (not all, but most) battles tend to feature a brief moment of maneuver, until finally units of both sides move into hexes adjacent to enemy troops, by which point they are pinned. It then becomes a slugfest, a question of who can bring more fire to bear and who will break first. I just think there should be something before units being in the fight, and units routing, and I'm not talking about routed units that are rallied. Within a battle, being forced back by enemy fire should not be the same as routing, or trying to move a unit away (exposing its flanks) or forcing it into column formation (exposing it to extra damage).

Or would you say I'm way off on this?

[Kielec]

Not sure whether this is the best place for discussion... but as I have recently finished reading "The Killer Angels", I could not hold.
If you ever have a chance to read this one (it's a god read pretending to be a record of the battle of Gettysburg from the perspective of different CSA and Union offciers), you will find a most interesting short monologue of Gen. Longstreet in which he basically feels sorry for the whole war being fought without any tactics. He thinks that what the two armies were doing all the way till Gettysburg (included!) whas just having it at each other face to face. Till Gettysburg it were the Yankies who'd break and run after a while.
Not that this particullar book is the most historically accurate etc. but still.

[GenChaos33]

Amazing how a zoom lock feature is rarly done in games. The strat map view kills it for me, it too hard to look at so up close. I hate always resetting the view that I like too. Please WCS, if you cannot make it an option than let me know how to go into the program and manually set the zoom level for the strat map.