Wish List

[Hard Sarge]

How about added a Highlighted area to show how far or what units a supply wagon can supply

[Gil R.]

Several of you asked to be able to destroy buildings you don't want, and this leads me to an idea for a scenario. Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? Personally, I'd hate to play that, but those of you into terraforming might enjoy it.

It would certainly be different...

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter

Maybe I missed it, but I think you should be able to construct railroads (additional). For instance the stretch of railroad in the vicinity of Selma goes nowhere - I'd like to be able to connect it, etc. And if you can't build additional railroad then you shouldn't be able to build a RR station in a city that has no railroad in it!!

This can't be done. The railroad lines we have are historically accurate, and adding new ones to the map would take a great deal of programming. Plus, part of the challenge is dealing with the same railroad logistics problems that occurred during the war.

[Gil R.]

I've just gone through this whole thread carefully, taking notes of ideas that we might implement in the near or distant future. I'm pleased to report that some of the things that were requested (especially early on) are going to be in the next patch, or the one after that.

Keep 'em coming...

[marecone]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I've just gone through this whole thread carefully, taking notes of ideas that we might implement in the near or distant future. I'm pleased to report that some of the things that were requested (especially early on) are going to be in the next patch, or the one after that.

Keep 'em coming...

Great. I am just curious. About my newspaper wish. Can it be done or no?

[Gil R.]

I put that one down in the section for long-term ideas. It would require new graphics from Pixelpusher, so it would take some time. To be honest, I don't know whether we can take the time to implement this idea, but I do like it. (So you get a moral victory, at least.)

[marecone]

lol. Ok, thanks

[Crimguy]

How 'bout my thought for a Forge of Freedom hidden porno game if you push the right sequence of buttons on the gamepad?  Another moral victory?

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

How 'bout my thought for a Forge of Freedom hidden porno game if you push the right sequence of buttons on the gamepad? Another moral victory?

How about instead getting to watch movies like "Gone with the Wench," "Girls and Generals," "Abner Doubleday Does Dallas," "Ride with the Devil in Miss Jones," and "Oldest Living Confederate Widow Tells All"?

(I omit "General Spanky," which really is the name of an ACW movie.)


EDIT: I forgot to add to the list "10-inch Rodman."

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

...Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? ...

Pass.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Several of you asked to be able to destroy buildings you don't want, and this leads me to an idea for a scenario. Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? Personally, I'd hate to play that, but those of you into terraforming might enjoy it. It would certainly be different...

I'd have some interest in one which didn't have "limits" on how many buildings could be built---or simply an "upper limit" based on the overall size of the city. Having to squander precious resources building buildings that only allow you to spend more precious resources building what you really need is frustraiting, and doesn't seem overly realistic. A world WITHOUT "plantations" and "mansions" as it were.

On a lighter side, how about a building called "Bawdy House"? It could improve the morale and ruin the health of any troops in the province....

[bountyhunter]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

This can't be done. The railroad lines we have are historically accurate, and adding new ones to the map would take a great deal of programming. Plus, part of the challenge is dealing with the same railroad logistics problems that occurred during the war.

If that is the case then the option to build a railroad station in a city that has no railroad in it (or in the province) should be removed.

[Gil R.]

We're considering that suggestion. One thing I like about it is that if there are fewer cities in which one can build railroad stations then those cities will be that much more choked up, which makes the game more challenging.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Several of you asked to be able to destroy buildings you don't want, and this leads me to an idea for a scenario. Is there any interest in a scenario in which all cities start out completely empty (other than having mansions and plantations)? Personally, I'd hate to play that, but those of you into terraforming might enjoy it.

It would certainly be different...

YES I would like this very much. I enjoy the whatif's or just playing a war "flavor" game, but, more in a chesslike fashion that a simulation. So, I'd be all for this.

[Mike Scholl]

I'd like to add a couple of things.
 
Blockading Fleets.   When you "blockade" Norfolk, the unit involved moves in and sits next to the port, making the assignment obvious.  When I "blockade" Wilmington and other places, the unit sits out at sea with any other fleet containers off the coast, and I have to keep "checking" to make sure it's correctly assigned.  Couldn't the "Blockading Fleet" ALWAYS move adjacent to the port it's blockading?   Sure be easier to keep track of.
 
Arms Limitations.    I can see the point of limiting the total availability of each type of arms in the game...., but why don't the limits INCREASE as the war continues.   The factories kept churning out rifles during the whole war in ever-increasing amounts---can't the game represent this by increasing the limits every year?   Or maybe if you reach the "limit" of 500 "arms", the excess each turn could be turned into higher limits on what's available?  Currently the current limits seem very artificial.

[jsaurman]

I would like to be able to downgrade weapons from certain units and have that quantity of guns added back into my total.  That way I could shortchange a "bad" unit in order to upgrade a "good" unit.
Maybe downgrading weapons could come at a small price in lowering a units disposition a bit?  
That doesn't seem unrealistic, thats what armories did, repair and reissue weapons. 
The old game "Robert E. Lee:Civil War General" allowed you to do this and I really liked it.
 
JIM

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: jsaurman

I would like to be able to downgrade weapons from certain units and have that quantity of guns added back into my total. That way I could shortchange a "bad" unit in order to upgrade a "good" unit.
Maybe downgrading weapons could come at a small price in lowering a units disposition a bit?
That doesn't seem unrealistic, thats what armories did, repair and reissue weapons.
The old game "Robert E. Lee:Civil War General" allowed you to do this and I really liked it.

JIM

Ditto.

[Paper Tiger]

When you are seiging an area and you have captured all or most of the forts and then an enemy army moves in to lift the seige and they get the +n benefit of ALL the forts plus the terrain!
Please they should only gain benefits from forts still in their ownership.
I just got hit by the ANV in Fredericksburg where I had just successfully seiged the last fort just before they arrived, but because the province ownership had not flipped the ANV had +5,+1 for forts and terrain.

[tevans6220]

Instead of limiting the number of brigades based on the sized of the container, why not base it on the rank of the general? As has been pointed out historical ranks and game ranks don't coincide very well. For instance, McDowell was only a BG 1-star at 1st Manassas but commanded 36k troops. In game terms that's 12 brigades but a 1 star could never command that many in the game and have any influence on the battle. Using ranks as the limiting factor would allow this. Not sure what the limits should actually be but I think using ranks would work out a whole lot better gamewise and would be more historically correct.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

When you are seiging an area and you have captured all or most of the forts and then an enemy army moves in to lift the seige and they get the +n benefit of ALL the forts plus the terrain!
Please they should only gain benefits from forts still in their ownership.
I just got hit by the ANV in Fredericksburg where I had just successfully seiged the last fort just before they arrived, but because the province ownership had not flipped the ANV had +5,+1 for forts and terrain.

I'd like to "second" this one..., just had it happen to me for the second time and it's not only aggrivating, it seems really silly to boot. Please if you can, straighten out the "time line" so the AI knows "this week" from "last week".