Wish List

[DerJimbo]

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.

[General Quarters]

"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.

[General Quarters]

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.

[regularbird]

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.

[christof139]

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
 

[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.
 
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...[:)]

[Mike Scholl]

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...[:)]

[regularbird]

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.

[Paper Tiger]

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...

[balto]

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.

[General Quarters]

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.

[General Quarters]

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.

[Mike Scholl]

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?

[ericbabe]

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?

[Berkut]

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.

[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?

[chris0827]

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.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

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...

[Paper Tiger]

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?

[General Quarters]

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.