Wish List

[tevans6220]

I would like to see a better promotion system implemented. It seems pretty unrealistic that a 1 star who only commands a brigade could be promoted to army command. With the system as it is now historical scenarios are near impossible as the AI will promote generals such as Grant and Sherman to army command regardless of their previous rank. The system I would like to see implemented would consist of only 4 stars being promoted to 5 star, 3 stars to 4 stars, 2 stars to 3 stars and 1 star to 2 stars. I think that would make for a much more realistic system and would work well with the academy limits already in place.

[Conhugeco]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Change the way randomised general ratings are assigned.
For 61 give CSA a large bonus, USA a negative
for 62 a smaller bonus/penalty
63 even.

That would enrage the rabid confederate fanboys.

Are you sure you didn't mean "That would delight the rabid Confederate fanboys."?

No, he got it right the first time. The fanboys demand that the CSA get a large bonus now, always, and forever.

There is a real problem though. The Confederate eastern commanders were generally better than their Union counterparts early in the war, while the opposite was true in the west. In the game, if you go too far in either direction, either the Union can make no progress in the west, or the south gets steamrollered in the east. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution to offer.

DickH

DickH

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

I would like to see a better promotion system implemented. It seems pretty unrealistic that a 1 star who only commands a brigade could be promoted to army command. With the system as it is now historical scenarios are near impossible as the AI will promote generals such as Grant and Sherman to army command regardless of their previous rank. The system I would like to see implemented would consist of only 4 stars being promoted to 5 star, 3 stars to 4 stars, 2 stars to 3 stars and 1 star to 2 stars. I think that would make for a much more realistic system and would work well with the academy limits already in place.

Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.

[Mike Scholl]

Rationalize the Naval Costs

The cost of building vessels in the game seems to be quite random, and the relationships between the costs don't make a lot of sense. I'd like to suggest something on the order of:

Ships..............150--50--30--0

Ironclads........150--50--150--0

Frigates..........100--30--20--0

Runners..........100--20--10--0

Gunboats.........75--40--75--0

The iron usage reflects the fact that ALL of these vessels (wooden or not) needed engines and fittings of metal. The big differance in Gunboats is that one of the designers informed me that they represent "Riverine Ironclads". In that case, they should require a lot more iron. On the other hand, they were built with "steamboat" technology, and river steamboats were a good deal less costly than ocean-going vessels.

I don't claim that these are the "best" numbers that could be arrived at..., simply that they are more rational than the ones in the game.

[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!!

[bountyhunter]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.

Like Polk who served only a few months as a Lieutenant in the old US Army (in 1827!!!) and commissioned a Major General in the Confederate Army by the stroke of Davis' hand. He was killed as a Lt Gen, but if he hadn't there is no telling how high Davis may have promoted him!!

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem being that every leader in the game made wild jumps in command at the war's beginning. Many went from "Civilian 1st Class" (in the case of some of the politicians, "Civ. 3rd") to Brigadier and even Major General. The only actual Generals around were old guys like Winfield Scott (who while still mentally sound was to fat to sit a horse). Lee was just a Colonel.

It does look funny to see a guy jump from Brigadier to General of the Armies in two weeks, but with the overall limits on the numbers in higher ranks it's not the most pressing issue out there.

Like Polk who served only a few months as a Lieutenant in the old US Army (in 1827!!!) and commissioned a Major General in the Confederate Army by the stroke of Davis' hand. He was killed as a Lt Gen, but if he hadn't there is no telling how high Davis may have promoted him!!

THere was only one rank higher than Lt General in the confederate army.

[bountyhunter]

By promotion I wasn't meaning just stars... He shouldn't have had any! So getting 2 from the jump was ludicrous. But thanks for the tip.

[tevans6220]

All those wild jumps in rank happened in the beginning of the war and would already be factored in with the historical start dates and ranks. The way the game is currently there is no way to prevent Grant coming in as a 1 star and automatically being promoted to 4 or 5 stars if there was an opening. One of the major problems the North had was with leadership. It took Lincoln several years to find the right men. The way the game is set up now it can happen in the first year of the war. I think there has to be a limit on promotions. Brigade commanders were never promoted to army command. They worked their way up through the ranks. That's why I would like to see a 1 star at a time promotion system implemented. Grant would have to earn his 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars before gaining his 5th. This idea along with the academy system already in place limits promotions to historical levels.
 
Another problem I have is with legendary units. They should not be in the game at the start when playing the July scenario and even in some cases the November scenario. The Stonewall Brigade didn't become the Stonewall Brigade before the war. They earned that nickname and reputation at 1st Manassas. I think a system should be implemented that has units only becoming legendary after they've particpated in combat and only after some show of outstanding service on the battlefield. Knowing that the Stonewall or Iron Brigade is legendary from the start is not historical. All units were untried in battle and earned their reputations on the battlefield. There wasn't even a "Stonewall" until 1st Manassas so how could there even be a Stonewall Brigade?

[marecone]

What about some POW camps?

[marecone]

Also, is it possible to stop suicidal attacks by AI. Like he attacks my AoP which has about 80,000 men with his 1,000 men [&:]. If I go to instant combant he just escapes and nothing happens. But he tends to do this every turn.
Like, could you add something that would ban him from attacking you if he is like 5 times weaker?

Thanks

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: marecone
What about some POW camps?

So you can starve and mistreat the prisoners? That much history I can do without.

[Mike Scholl]

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!!

For the South (which needs it), the cost would probably be prohibitive. They weren't able to do much in this regard historically..... Have to agree with the second point. Improving RR Capacity where you have no RR does seem a bit silly.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Rationalize the Naval Costs

The cost of building vessels in the game seems to be quite random, and the relationships between the costs don't make a lot of sense. I'd like to suggest something on the order of:

Ships..............150--50--30--0

Ironclads........150--50--150--0

Frigates..........100--30--20--0

Runners..........100--20--10--0

Gunboats.........75--40--75--0

The iron usage reflects the fact that ALL of these vessels (wooden or not) needed engines and fittings of metal. The big differance in Gunboats is that one of the designers informed me that they represent "Riverine Ironclads". In that case, they should require a lot more iron. On the other hand, they were built with "steamboat" technology, and river steamboats were a good deal less costly than ocean-going vessels.

I don't claim that these are the "best" numbers that could be arrived at..., simply that they are more rational than the ones in the game.

Not a single "comment"? Can I assume EVERYBODY agrees with this? Or does no one care enough to say anything?

[tevans6220]

Mike: I'm in the process of modding your changes and trying them out. I'll let you know what I think but it sounds good.
 
Here's another idea for the wishlist. Would it be possible to transform this game from a brigade level to a regimental, battery and individual ship type level? Modding it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult but I'm wondering if the game system would be flexible enough to handle the larger number of units.

[Mike Scholl]

tevans6220 Maybe save you some work on the "Regimental" question. I would doubt it severely..., as you are talking about a tremendous increase in the numbers of "units" the game would need to handle. Even if you could get them in, moving them around would be incredibly clumbsy and time-consuming. Besides which, the Brigade was the basic manuever unit of the Civil war in all major actions. Regiments fought on their own at times, but usually in small fights or when they became detached by terrain and the like. Putting them in a "battle" game might make some sense..., but here I would call it "too much of a good thing" to be practical.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: marecone
What about some POW camps?

So you can starve and mistreat the prisoners? That much history I can do without.

In CoG before the first patch it was possible (me as British) to stick my French prisoners on ship... stick them out to sea and watch attrition eliminate them... then there were no troops to return to the French if we made peace... nasty... but effective... (If I had too many French they would just get a nice visit to Scotland or possibly Malta... again were forage values were bad.)

This is one aspect that I'm glad they removed. Too much detail is not always a good thing.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


...

Not a single "comment"? Can I assume EVERYBODY agrees with this? Or does no one care enough to say anything?

The only really big change I see in comparing yours with the originals is gunboats. Since I'm not that familiar with the naval construction business in the 1860's I'll leave it to the designers to decide if your numbers make sense to them.

[nmleague]

How about a practice tactical battle that can be loaded up and played.  So far Im mainly doing strategic games with quick battles but at some point I would like to start using tactical battles.  However I really dont want to have to start one of the current game choices to practice the tactical battles.  It would be nice if there was a tactiacl battle with enough troops, maybe up to about 20 brigades for each side, that just be started so that a person could play it through a number of times to learn the system.

[Mike Scholl]

Like to second this., although a workable alternative is to "save" your game just before hitting the "end turn". Then you can play the "tactical battles" as a "learning exercise" without worrying about your "trial and error tactical goofs" messing up your game....