Wish List

[dude]

ORIGINAL: 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".

... and please make it so that the AI doesn't show up and Dig in also! Nothing like laying a seige and having the enemy ai march in with a RELIEVING army that's dug in too! My force should be dug in next to the target... while the enemy Relieving force should be marching across the map... to... uh... you know... relieve! [:@]

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: 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.

McDowell's ability to command troops is reflected in his ratings. He had problems commanding an army because he wasn't a good general. The number of stars he has in the game shows the size of the force he commands not his actual rank. In the game he's commanding an army so he gets 4 stars. If Union generals were limited in the game to the number of stars they actually had then you would never have a general capable of commanding an army in the entire war and only one capable of commanding a corps.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: 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.

McDowell's ability to command troops is reflected in his ratings. He had problems commanding an army because he wasn't a good general. The number of stars he has in the game shows the size of the force he commands not his actual rank. In the game he's commanding an army so he gets 4 stars. If Union generals were limited in the game to the number of stars they actually had then you would never have a general capable of commanding an army in the entire war and only one capable of commanding a corps.

That's my point. McDowell's abilities may be reflected in his ratings but unless you change his historical rank of 1 star to game rank of 4 stars, his ratings will only affect at most 1 brigade. By basing division, corps and army size on rank instead of container size it allows historical ranks to actually mean something. McDowell can then start the `61 scenario as the 1 star BG he historically was instead having him as a 4 star. So instead of saying a Union division container can hold up to 4 brigades we could say that a 1 star general could command up to maybe 8 to 12 brigades in a division, corps or army. One other thing I'd like to point out is that McDowell can never hold 4 star rank at the start of the `61 scenario unless a total rework of the scenario data is done as academies are the limiting factor.

[chris0827]

There were only two general ranks in the union army. Brigadier and major General until Grant was promoted to Lt. General in march 1864 and he was the only one to hold that rank during the war. How are you going to handle that? The way it is done now is makes perfect sense. How can you penalize the union commanders just because they used a different rank structure than the confederates? Are you going to make Joe Johnston be able to command more brigades than Grant just because he had 4 stars on his uniform instead of Grant's two? They both commanded armies and Grant had a better record.

[Mike Scholl]

Sensible "Development" choices Having just faced it for the second time, there is nothing more annoying than finally having the "new development" screen come up and being given only the choice ot "torpedoes" or "improved blockade runners"..., as the UNION. Could you "tweek" this so each side is only offered choices appropriate to it? Please...

[Malagant]

I think the number of troops a container can hold should be modified not by the commanding general's rank, but by his abilities.

A general with a high Command ability should be able to effectively command more troops.

ORIGINAL: 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.

[chris0827]

A bad general could command just as many troops as a good general. He just couldn't do it as well. If the number of troops in a container was determined by the commanders abilities then Lee would always outnumber the union commander.

[freeboy]

I think the point about command is ability equates to greater influence.. placing Grant for instance in a full container and then what? an army can hold A LOT of men after you get the bigger brigggade upgrades

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Malagant

I think the number of troops a container can hold should be modified not by the commanding general's rank, but by his abilities.

A general with a high Command ability should be able to effectively command more troops.

That would work too. Or even a combination of rank and ability. For instance take Grant as a 2 star. If we say that a 2 star can command 16 brigades or 48k and then add maybe his command rating of 8 that would give a total of 24 brigades that he could command allowing him to command 72k as a 2 star general. Let the generals themselves be the containers with lower ranked generals not in direct command of troops able to join for combat purposes. The Union doesn't get penalized in any way because while theoretically it's possible that a Johnston could command more brigades than Grant, it's also quite probable that the Union with their economic advantages will be able to build academies much faster and promote more of their generals to higher rank allowing them to command even more brigades.

[jsaurman]

Why not increase the max size of units according to who is in command?   Say you have an army without a general, it can hold 140K troops, right?  Well suppose you add on a brigadier, that mulitplies that by 1.25, if you put a major general in charge, then that does times 1.5, and so on, X1.75 for a LTG and X 2 for a 4-star and X2.25 for a five star.    So instead of 140K, now if you add a four star, that army now has a max size of 280K.   I would think that would be more than enough to satisfy anyone.
 
JIM

[Paper Tiger]

Fix John Letcher please I have now had two games in a row where once I capture Wheeling he starts asking for one signal tower after another. As posted previously the most I have ever bothered to build was 6 (six) but at the start of it he is shown as a mild ally. Sheesh with friends like that...
 
Also Just had a situation where the ANV kicked me out of Annapolis, but one of my divisions didn't retreat (may have been sat on a fleet, not sure) The division then repeatedly got it's ass kicked by the entire ANV and refused to go anywhere, it just sat there and got repeatedly hammered.
 
Also Fleets in captured provinces, I have managed in one game to capture a province and city with CSA fleets still in them, nothing happens, the fleet just sits there. It isn't forced to sea, or destroyed or captured!

[Mike Scholl]

Rationalize the costs of Plantations These critters are incredably cheap to create considering they provide a FREE "Factory"; a FREE "Horse Farm"; and half a FREE "Mint"...., and can only be built by one side in the game. That's 90 "Resources" worth of FREE construction that doesn't take up any building space---and it's 40 "resources CHEAPER than a "Mansion" to build. If the North was getting a "mansion" for 50 "money" and nothing else, "Plantations" would still be a huge bargain.

[Mike Scholl]

Give players some means of controlling "Unrest" Unrest puts a big hit on your economy, and can spread at random. Yet their seems to be no "positive step" a player can take to do anything about it. Couldn't you add a "garrison" requirement for such unhappy provinces, so that if a player moved the appropriate number of troops into such an area the "Unrest" could not "spread" and would always decrease by at least one level per turn. If you give players a "problem", you also need to offer them a "solution"...

[Mike Scholl]

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'n not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'n not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

I'm willing to bet the concept of "horses" in the game is not just horse flesh. You can't make a camp or a raider literally just with horses.

I'm also wondering if the initial advantage to the South in "horses" represents their better capability at rallying new troops to the cause early in the war? I'm at work and can't check sources but IIRC Stanton actually discontinued recruiting for several months in late '61 or early '62 in part because he thought the North already had enough men to win the war.

[Mike Scholl]

Correct Northern "logistical Staffs"   One of the few areas in which the Union excelled from the beginning was in keeping it's forces supplied (and often "over supplied").  If you want to give the South better troop quality in their starting forces to reflect the "Militia Tradition" of these units, fine.  But the only time Union armies ever went "without" what when their leaders purposely severed their supply lines (Grant at Vicksburg, Sherman marching from Atlanta), so their "Logistical Staffs" should never have a rating of less than "Fair".   Confederate forces were always overjoyed when they got a chance to plunder the Union Supply System and gain temporary access to a world of "treats" they never saw otherwise.

[Mike Scholl]

Logistical Staffs and "unrest"?   Can't see what these two have in common.   The logistics staff can only parcel out to the troops the supplies they recieve.   If they aren't recieving enough, then the troops are going to "requisition" from the locals and piss them off.   Shouldn't this be more a matter of, "If the military units are recieving "normal" supply they have a "positive" effect on reducing "unrest".   Maybe even "If the military units are unsupplied, or recieving less-than "Normal Supply" they have a "negative" effect on "unrest", if "normal supply" they have no effect on unrest, and if "abundantly supplied" they have a "Positive" effect on "unrest"?
 

[Mike Scholl]

"Blockade" requires at least 3 "Ships"   Why?   The South has the option to build ships and Fleets if it wants to and "contest" the blockade of a port.   If it doesn't, and has no means to "contest" a blockade, why the arbitrary "minimum requirement of 3 ship units and one fleet counter" to extablish a "blockade"?   10:0 or 100:0, the odds are still infinately against the "zero" side---and the requirement makes no distinction about the "quality" or "armament" of the blockading squadrons.   Surely even as a "balance" factor, requiring 2 "ships" and a "Fleet counter" would be ample.  That still forces the Union to build at least 6 "Fleet Containers" and 7 "Ships" to establish a "blockade" of the Southern Ports.  That's a LOT of resources and construction time given how expensive the game makes ships and fleets (how much are they paying those Admirals anyway?)

[regularbird]

I agree with all of the above (mike's comments).  As far as horses go I think the South's horse production should be cut in half.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Fix John Letcher please I have now had two games in a row where once I capture Wheeling he starts asking for one signal tower after another. As posted previously the most I have ever bothered to build was 6 (six) but at the start of it he is shown as a mild ally. Sheesh with friends like that...

Also Just had a situation where the ANV kicked me out of Annapolis, but one of my divisions didn't retreat (may have been sat on a fleet, not sure) The division then repeatedly got it's ass kicked by the entire ANV and refused to go anywhere, it just sat there and got repeatedly hammered.

Also Fleets in captured provinces, I have managed in one game to capture a province and city with CSA fleets still in them, nothing happens, the fleet just sits there. It isn't forced to sea, or destroyed or captured!

I am confused with these statements, from what you say, you are Union, what do you care about what John Lester wants ?

he is not your governor, he is the CSA governor, take the rest of Vig and you will install your own Governor there