Wish List thread

[shoelessbivouac]

We'd love to do a FOF2 one of these days, but that would require a completely new engine and new graphics (a year's worth of work plus a substantial investment in the artwork), and would have to come after the projects we're currently working on (and contracted to finish!). So the earliest we might even begin working on a FOF2 would be 2-3 years from now, and I can't promise that we would decide to do it instead of some other idea we might have. If we do go ahead with FOF2 we would certainly use some elements of the BAB tactical engine, and perhaps just have the randomized tactical battles take place at regimental level instead of brigade level -- it will be an interesting decision, if we get to that point.

I appreciate the prompt reply. That's certainly good enough news for now. I agree, FOF2 does sound like a natural, but for another day; so I'll hold off at least until next week before bringing it up again. ha!

[marcpennington]

As I learn the system, I'm starting to wish that the game included at least one small scale late war scenario, just so one can see how the system actually works with veteran armies that actually obey your orders.

I'm not saying create a new map or anything, but there must have been some combat in the Bull Run area in 1863 or '64, given how much of the other fighting occurred nearby, or at the last a reasonable hypothetical small scenario could be imagined.

It might also benefit the game long term, giving a kinda proving ground for the command and control concepts that might not be readily apparent when leading a green army.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: map66

As I learn the system, I'm starting to wish that the game included at least one small scale late war scenario, just so one can see how the system actually works with veteran armies that actually obey your orders.

I'm not saying create a new map or anything, but there must have been some combat in the Bull Run area in 1863 or '64, given how much of the other fighting occurred nearby, or at the last a reasonable hypothetical small scenario could be imagined.

It might also benefit the game long term, giving a kinda proving ground for the command and control concepts that might not be readily apparent when leading a green army.

Well, I have three thoughts on this. One is that later in the year I was thinking of adding a 2nd Manassas scenario that is set on the part of the battlefield currently available. (We made a Manassas map that is about 30% larger than what you see, from which the 2nd Manassas map can be carved when the time comes. Sadly, the limitations of computer processing power limits us from providing the entire map at once.) So that will meet your wishes, no doubt. The second thought is that once we release the modding guide and scenario-editor a modder could make a 2nd Manassas scenario or two before I ever get around to it, and that would be fine with me. The third is that if there were demand I could easily make an unhistorical scenario in which I boost each unit's quality/morale. (Or this can be easily done by a modder, probably in less than 20 minutes.)

EDIT: A fourth idea that I just remembered: once I am finished putting together the FULL Peninsula Campaign OOB's for the Seven Days battles I was planning on sticking those full armies onto the Williamsburg map. But that's months away. Unless a modder beats me to it.

[marcpennington]

Thanks for the response, and I like all those suggestions.

One suggestion of my own--- and given again I largely see a veteran scenario as a "control" kind of thing, so it might be good to have it as an "official" one so that any changes suggested based on experimentation can be easily implemented in patches--- is that Mill Springs strikes me as one that could be converted very easily into a later war meeting engagement. I have no idea what the thinking is on what kind of numbers later war units will have, but I imagine bump up the regiment stats, increase the commander rankings however much, give the occasional better rifle, and add more of the positive traits to the units. Also, take away the rain (it's just a test battle after all.) But that strikes me as a very good potential test scenario for more veteran units in a fairly "typical" kind of small battle. It might also eventually turn into a very good learning scenario, as it seems the most straight-forward of any of the mid-sized ones in the game.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: map66

As I learn the system, I'm starting to wish that the game included at least one small scale late war scenario, just so one can see how the system actually works with veteran armies that actually obey your orders.

I'm not saying create a new map or anything, but there must have been some combat in the Bull Run area in 1863 or '64, given how much of the other fighting occurred nearby, or at the last a reasonable hypothetical small scenario could be imagined.

It might also benefit the game long term, giving a kinda proving ground for the command and control concepts that might not be readily apparent when leading a green army.

Well, I have three thoughts on this. One is that later in the year I was thinking of adding a 2nd Manassas scenario that is set on the part of the battlefield currently available. (We made a Manassas map that is about 30% larger than what you see, from which the 2nd Manassas map can be carved when the time comes. Sadly, the limitations of computer processing power limits us from providing the entire map at once.) So that will meet your wishes, no doubt. The second thought is that once we release the modding guide and scenario-editor a modder could make a 2nd Manassas scenario or two before I ever get around to it, and that would be fine with me. The third is that if there were demand I could easily make an unhistorical scenario in which I boost each unit's quality/morale. (Or this can be easily done by a modder, probably in less than 20 minutes.)

EDIT: A fourth idea that I just remembered: once I am finished putting together the FULL Peninsula Campaign OOB's for the Seven Days battles I was planning on sticking those full armies onto the Williamsburg map. But that's months away. Unless a modder beats me to it.

Actually, I have been playing around with that idea while seeing what I can do with modding. It looks like Schurz's divisional attack against A. P. Hill on the morning of the 29th might work. Have this to the point where I have placed Gregg and Branch's brigades along with Schurz's two brigades. But I decided to include the rest of A. P. Hill and Sigel's Corps so I could include most of the morning fighting on that flank. Unfortunately, I had found a web pages listing all the regimental strengths for the battle but only wrote down the numbers for four brigades. Now I can't find the blasted web page again.

[BloodyBill76]

I would like the game to remember your game options. As it is now you have to set all your game options every time you play. So when I play mp the turn starts and the battle replay is zoomed out and I prefer it to not be. I also have to set all the options I want to use every single time.

[shoelessbivouac]

FWIW, I would like to see a volume slider (not just an on/off button) for at least the game music option. The music selections are excellent, but I personally prefer the music to remain considerably further back into the background 'ambience' of the far more 'appropriate' battlefield sounds. Perhaps, this is doable?

[RobearGWJ]

Is it possible to show the map from the four cardinal directions, instead of just one? It's easier for me to orient myself when I'm "behind" my own units, for some reason. (Let me know if I missed camera controls lol).

[berto]

On p. 20 of the Manual, it says: "You can right-click on a unit for more information."

But in the pop-up display, there seems to be very little added info from what one can already see on-map (when hovering the mouse over the unit), or in the Control Box.

Here are two or three things you can add to the right-click "more information" box:

[*]current strength/starting strength (AFAIK, after a unit takes losses, nowhere in the game does it show the unit's original strength)
[*]current morale/starting morale

and maybe also

[*]current supply/starting supply

and

[*]???

In general, the right-click "more information" box seems pretty useless, shows less info in fact (than you can easily see on-map or in the Control Box), not more.

[berto]

Apropos of the Fog of War thread, I wish also that

[*]The unit more information box is unavailable for enemy units, friendly side only.
[*]Or if available, presents less info for enemy units than for friendlies.

But please, in the "more information" pop-up, give us truly more information (for friendlies!), not the same as indicated elsewhere (in a more immediate fashion), certainly not less.

[berto]

More constructive criticism (always constructive criticism) ...

While moving units with the Unit Roster open, the Brigade Orders controls are hidden:



Frustrating.

Maybe resize the Unit Roster box, so it is not so tall, so that there is no chance it will extend so low as to cover and hide the Brigade Orders boxes?

Or maybe better still, move the Brigade Orders control boxes to the right of the Control Box, like so:



(Making sure not to impinge on the jump map.)

[BloodyBill76]

Is it possible to have MP battles be live with both players? Instead of PBEM have a hot seat style battle with a buddy a thousand miles away. ClinchRifles and I are playing PBEM while BSing in the same TS channel having a beer and thought it would be nice to just be able to fight head up in more real-time manner. I would also like the options I chose in one PBEM round to stay for the next I have to reset options every turn.

[Clinchrifles]

I agree Bill but i would settle for a turn replay in the meantime.

[Michael T]

i would settle for a turn replay in the meantime

+1

[kennonlightfoot]

A nice addition would also be levels of victory. Draw, Minor, Major.

[shoelessbivouac]

It's a little thing I know, but is it still possible to add an individual volume control - a slider - that is separate from the FX sounds - for the music? (As the game currently plays, the music and FX sounds may only be raised or lowered in volume as a single group.) Thank you for this small additional touch to the game.

[VegasOZ]

REPOSTED HERE AS INSTRUCTED (from another thread). Thanks

I just got the game and have about 4 hours into it so far.

I have a few suggestions to propose.

*****
Map Graphic Clutter:

Have the Question Marks disappear after the player clicks on them. They are a nice historical touch but do clutter the view greatly.

Reduce the size of the Red X markers, they are way too chunky looking, ugly really.

Reduce the size of the RED FIRING LINES. Too big, a much thinner line would be perfect and we do not need the arrows embedded in the line.

Movement Hex indicators (the Blue Arrow Hex markers): Why not just Shade the REACHABLE HEXES with a shadow color or small light blue DOTS. The current Blue Arrow indicators with all the different directional arrows are very cluttered and in fact obscure the view of the terrain and other units that are in the area of the REACHABLE HEXES.

Command Radius: Again, why not just a Shaded Hex effect instead of the Thick Red Line.

Frankly I think the Smoke effects in Forge of Freedom are better and BAB should incorporate them.

*****
Interface: Add a Music Volume Slider or check boxes for 100/75/50/25 percent volume. I like the Music but would like to be able to turn the volume down WITHOUT losing the volume for Voice and Sound/Battle effects.

Voice acting: I would dearly like to see somebody MOD these effects. The present ones are somewhat "cheezy" sounding, in my opinion, BUT I do like the purpose and effect of having the voice information.

Comment: I own Forge of Freedom and if I recall correctly the player had a choice or some level of control over what targets the units could fire at. I would like to at least see that the player has the ability to direct Artillery Fire at a chosen target instead of one picked by the Friendly AI.

Lastly, the Musket Ripple sound in Forge of Freedom is much better in my view. I think the Musket fire and Cannon Fire sounds should be improved. The firing sounds in the John Tiller Civil War games is much more effective and appealing. I'd like to hear something more like those sounds.

[VegasOZ]

As the Chairman and only member of my self appointed "Keep My Brother Against Brother Battlefield Clean" committee... I'd like to suggest/request that the RED X icon be replaced by a less intrusive icon/symbol.

If fact, I do not see the need for the RED X icon/symbol in the first place. It would seem to me (my opinion only) that any Player would have a reasonable suspicion that to move up right next to an enemy unit would present certain problems and dangers, so the RED X icon/symbol is really pointless.

If it is to be retained, however, then please make it less intrusive. Maybe a symbol with thin diagonal red lines or a much thinner RED X would be desired.

Thanks.

[berto]

Please junk the levitating casualty numbers -- the single most irritating thing I find about this game.

Just show the numbers above the affected units for a few seconds -- stationary, no movement! -- then they vanish.

Maybe make the seconds of delay before they vanish a configurable option.

Maybe make these new-style casualty numbers vs. the old-style levitating numbers a configurable option, something you can toggle in the Screen Drawing Options menu.

The levitation serves no real purpose IMO and just sucks up CPU cycles needlessly. And as if the map display is not cluttered enough already. Numbers slowly drifting upward just add to the visual busyness. Please junk them!

[VegasOZ]

Is it just me? Every time I restart the game and load a saved game the Options revert to "Zoom out on Battle".

I prefer to watch the Battle with the Sprites showing and always set the options to "NO" on the Zoom.

Can we get the Options to LOCK when set by the Player, Please?