Wish List

From the creators of Crown of Glory come an epic tale of North Vs. South. By combining area movement on the grand scale with optional hex based tactical battles when they occur, Forge of Freedom provides something for every strategy gamer. Control economic development, political development with governers and foreign nations, and use your military to win the bloodiest war in US history.

Moderator: Gil R.

Post Reply
User avatar
gunnergoz
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 4:57 am
Location: San Diego CA
Contact:

RE: Wish List

Post by gunnergoz »

ORIGINAL: Sytass
ORIGINAL: Ryan Jackson

It's a minor thing, and it probably can't be done, but instead of mustered regiments being named 165th Infantry, 215th Infantry, so on, I would like them to be automatically named after the state of origin, like 1st Minnesota, or 12th New York.

I agree that that would be a rather cool touch. :)
A nice "fun" touch, but unrealistic considering that these are brigades of several regiments.
"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying
chris0827
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:45 am

RE: Wish List

Post by chris0827 »

How about renaming Fredericksburg to Manassas? Fredericksburg being next to Shenandoah is just wrong.
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Wish List

Post by elmo3 »

In section 1.6.1 of the manual there are limits placed on the number of brigades each side can have in an Army. I don't believe these numbers are high enough based on historical OOB's. The current Union limit according to the manual is 35 brigades. However the AOP at Antietam had over 50 brigades and at Gettysburg it had over 60 brigades. The numbers for the CSA aren't quite as lopsided but if you factor in the artillery reserve untis for the CSA as brigades you will find their in-game limit of 42 brigades is too low for both of those battles. Please raise the army brigade limits and/or make the numbers moddable by the players. Thanks.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
ezjax
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:29 pm

RE: Wish List

Post by ezjax »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
ORIGINAL: Clifford

Thanks for your quick replies... so the backspace works for buildings as long as that was the last keystoke and within that turn? I tried that and I thought nothing happened, it didn't remove the build.... I'll try again. It wouldn't be the first time I missed something...

It should be undoing the build order. Let me know if that's not working.

And remember, the backspace key can be used to undo not only the most recent move/order, but every one since a turn began. Just keep hitting it, and you'll eventually undo everything.


Couldn’t help but jump in here and say I was having a problem with this also and figure out what was going on. If you are in the City Detail Screen (ref1) build something or produce a unit and decide to undo by hitting backspace key nothing happens. You have to drop out of the City Detail Screen , go to the Regular Map NarBar Screen (ref2 ) and then hit the backspace key and then it will undo your last build or produce order. It would be nice if you can undo a build or produce order from within the City Detail Screen.


ref1
Image

ref2
Image
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Wish List

Post by Mike Scholl »

Is Admiral Farragut in the game. Given the use of Leaders in Combat, the man who took New Orleans and Mobile would seem to rate inclusion.
chris0827
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:45 am

RE: Wish List

Post by chris0827 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Is Admiral Farragut in the game. Given the use of Leaders in Combat, the man who took New Orleans and Mobile would seem to rate inclusion.

I wish but he's not. I'm no programer but I wouldn't think it would be that hard to add naval commanders. It also seems that Union forces losing a battle surrender instead of retreating to the ships that carried them. That's a major problem.
histgamer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:28 am

RE: Wish List

Post by histgamer »

Chris if they are allowed to escape they should suffer massive casulties.

the fact is if an ampib assult is thrown back and the men need to quickly retreat there is no way for them to do so in this day in age. If the firepower of a fleets guns are not enough to save a unit in an ampib assult that unit is doomed as it will be overun before it can withdraw by boat.
chris0827
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:45 am

RE: Wish List

Post by chris0827 »

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Chris if they are allowed to escape they should suffer massive casulties.

the fact is if an ampib assult is thrown back and the men need to quickly retreat there is no way for them to do so in this day in age. If the firepower of a fleets guns are not enough to save a unit in an ampib assult that unit is doomed as it will be overun before it can withdraw by boat.

Name a failed union amphibious assault that suffered massive casualties. And they aren't suffering massive casualties they are being totally annihilated.
User avatar
jimwinsor
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:53 pm
Contact:

RE: Wish List

Post by jimwinsor »

No Farrugut or any other naval leaders.  Unfortunately, I agree.
 
Like CoG before it, the naval game has much room for later improvement, in features patches and such.
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Wish List

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Chris if they are allowed to escape they should suffer massive casulties.

the fact is if an ampib assult is thrown back and the men need to quickly retreat there is no way for them to do so in this day in age. If the firepower of a fleets guns are not enough to save a unit in an ampib assult that unit is doomed as it will be overun before it can withdraw by boat.


What war are you talking about "flany"? The South had nothing like the numbers needed to man it's coastline like a Pacific Island. Northern landings took place unnapposed in general, and retirements (in the few cases they were made) the same manner.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Wish List

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

No Farrugut or any other naval leaders.  Unfortunately, I agree.

Like CoG before it, the naval game has much room for later improvement, in features patches and such.


That's what I was afraid of. The Union gets an "unarmed" fleet and loses the most successful leader of the entire war (two campaigns..., two total victories---not even Lee comes close).
histgamer
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:28 am

RE: Wish List

Post by histgamer »

Mike if the south didnt opose the landing how are you losing the entire force?

My piont was at this time in history if an ampib assult was thrown back withdrawing under heavy attack was nearly impossible. *getting on ships under heavy attack that is*
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Wish List

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Mike if the south didnt opose the landing how are you losing the entire force? Actually, someone else said this

My point was at this time in history if an ampib assult was thrown back withdrawing under heavy attack was nearly impossible. *getting on ships under heavy attack that is* And my point was that in reality the South had no way of bringing "heavy Fire" to bear on anything that didn't land or leave directly in front of a Fort---which was not what the Union did. With 1,000's of miles of coastline to choose from they had no need to. Even failed assults like the 54th Mass. were launched by forces already ashore and with plenty of room to retire to. This isn't Tarawa...
User avatar
TimoN
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:32 pm
Location: Halikko, Finland

RE: Wish List

Post by TimoN »

Siege starts in the first turn with normal siege. This is what the manual (light) says about the normal siege:

Normal – This is the default type of siege. Defending units inside the siege target get an attack against randomly determined besieging units, and besieging
units in the province also each make an attack on the defending units.

The problem is that one defending unit picks randomly one brigade and deals large amount of casualties to it. This amount of casualty is enough to cause that brigade to go below 1000 men strength and usually causes it to disband itself.

My wish is that the damage caused by one defending brigade should be spread out by multiple besieging units. Total amount of damage is ok IMHO.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Wish List

Post by Mike Scholl »

How about making "Unknown Leader Stats" a bit less of a "crapshoot"? Generals didn't spring full grown from the forehead of the War Departments..., they had some past life and history to at least make a guess from.

Suppose the "unknown stats" just randomly picked an "estimated rating" to show (in italic) when the leader first appeared. Maybe a 10% chance of being accurate, 25% of being one better, 25% of being one worse, 15% of being 2 better, 15% of being 2 worse, and 5% of being off by three in either direction.
Then you would at least know something about what his true stats were likely to be, but still be guessing on how he might actually work out. When the true rating was revieled, it would no longer be in italics.
regularbird
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:58 pm

RE: Wish List

Post by regularbird »

Mike, I kind of like the way it is right now.  I play random-hidden, and most generals have a trait or two already revealed when they enter the game.  I think this represents some kind of a past, or at least it gives you a little info to improve your guess.  As you play more are revealed and then you can decide how much longer his career will last. 
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Wish List

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Now that "Forge of Freedom" has been released, the WCS development team will entertain any and all suggestions regarding tweaks, changes, and even completely new features that can be added in patches. It would be very helpful not to scatter these requests and suggestions across dozens of threads, since they might get overlooked. So, as you play and come up with ideas and observations, please post them here.


How about an option to go into "encircle" mode straight away when starting a siege? In another thread, I've been whining and carrying on about the high casualties I'm taking when initiating a siege. I want to be able to sit back from a safe distance (out of range of the garrison's artillery), block supply from reaching the fort/city and wait for starvation to do its ugly work. I realize I can do this AFTER the first turn, but why not ON the first turn as well?

Half of the forts the CSA player has to take in the July 1861 scenario aren't worth taking if you're going to get slaughtered just setting up your siegeworks. So, until a patch addresses this, I'm going to sacrifice the income from those provinces so I can conserve precious troops.
User avatar
gunnergoz
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 4:57 am
Location: San Diego CA
Contact:

RE: Wish List

Post by gunnergoz »

How about a module where we can set up detailed battles without playiing the strategic mode at all?  Just for practice or for fun?  It would be a nice way to try out some battlefield scenarios too.  Mainly, I'd like to practice more detailed battles to get the hang of them, without losing a war that I worked hard on the strategic side to get right.
"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Wish List

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Mike, I kind of like the way it is right now.  I play random-hidden, and most generals have a trait or two already revealed when they enter the game.  I think this represents some kind of a past, or at least it gives you a little info to improve your guess.  As you play more are revealed and then you can decide how much longer his career will last. 


Then your "vote" probably "cancels" mine..., so you won't have to worry.
dude
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:16 am
Location: Fairfax Virginia

RE: Wish List

Post by dude »

Along the lines of Generals... having it so that certain generals just weren't good at higher commands would be a nice "hidden" trait.  Sure this guy look great at the division level... let's promote him to corps commander... woops... he sucks there...  You don't have to actually have to change his traits... just a hidden value that says up to what level he's able to command... if you put him into a higher posistion his normal traits would suffer a bit... but if you put him back in charge of a lower command his normal ratings would apply again.


“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant
Post Reply

Return to “Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865”