Wish List

[Roger Neilson II]

From another discussion....please can we have windowed mode.

Roger

[freeboy]

I want EUROPEAN intervention to be a optional toggle, ie keep the european diplomacy and helping the south but really, I poured Thousands into these guys, Emancipated my "friends" and look, They both declared war on me.. PLEASE add a toggle

[Mike Scholl]

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")
Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW.

[bountyhunter]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter
Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

As you point out, they "tore the track up" to use on Ironclads. Shouldn't your arguement be that if the South builds any Ironclads they should LOSE RR capacity? Ripping up rails one place and putting them down somewhere else might move RR capacity, but it wouldn't increase it. It was the ability to forge rails and build engines that hampered any Southern RR Expansion. They couldn't even keep what they had running...

[Crimguy]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter
Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

Guys, I think you're all taking it a bit to far. FoF doesn't seem to be the type of high-resolution strategic/tactical game that would include those types of details. Just my opinion of course


As you point out, they "tore the track up" to use on Ironclads. Shouldn't your arguement be that if the South builds any Ironclads they should LOSE RR capacity? Ripping up rails one place and putting them down somewhere else might move RR capacity, but it wouldn't increase it. It was the ability to forge rails and build engines that hampered any Southern RR Expansion. They couldn't even keep what they had running...

[bountyhunter]

Good point. I was trying to argue (poorly) that the Confederate gov't (and for example the NC governor) didn't place a high priority on railroads (I think the Arkansas was completley armored with unmelted rails). I still think we should have the option of making our own priority. When you build a RR station in the game you add only to the capacity (ie engines and cars) right? So we definetly have an issue with building a RR station in any isolated city adding to the overall railroad capacity - what I think is when you add that station a certain amount of track extends towards the nearest railroad INSTEAD of adding to the overall capacity. At the same time you should probably be able to tear up existing track for some other iron intensive project if you so desire.

So if we were to be completely historical the Confederate player shouldn't be able to add ANY RR stations... and thats not where I am trying to go with this. I'm just trying to argue potential, which I think is most important in historical based games or else all you end up with when you play is history. Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for Guns of the South potential, just credible potential.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter

Good point. I was trying to argue (poorly) that the Confederate gov't (and for example the NC governor) didn't place a high priority on railroads (I think the Arkansas was completley armored with unmelted rails). I still think we should have the option of making our own priority. When you build a RR station in the game you add only to the capacity (ie engines and cars) right? So we definetly have an issue with building a RR station in any isolated city adding to the overall railroad capacity - what I think is when you add that station a certain amount of track extends towards the nearest railroad INSTEAD of adding to the overall capacity. At the same time you should probably be able to tear up existing track for some other iron intensive project if you so desire.

So if we were to be completely historical the Confederate player shouldn't be able to add ANY RR stations... and thats not where I am trying to go with this. I'm just trying to argue potential, which I think is most important in historical based games or else all you end up with when you play is history. Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for Guns of the South potential, just credible potential.

I don't have any basic problem with the South having some ability to increase it's RR Capacity in the game. Or if it were possible in the system, to "connecting" some of their RR system. The real problem for the South in this respect was that they almost totally lacked the Iron, Smelters, Foundries, and Factories to do this in real life..., so it should be a choice that "hurts" if you make it. What facilities the South did have were used almost exclusively for Arms production during the War. If the costs are such that the Southern player will need to chose between improving his RR's and arming his forts and troops, it will have the right "balance". Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the "Glorious Cause" was also economically the "Lost Cause". The game is already somewhat generous to the South's economy for reasons of "play balance", so the players get a "break" Jeff Davis didn't have. You want to be very carefull with any further "improvements in this area. Personally, I'd like to see their supply of "horses" chopped by about 2/3rds to prevent the growth of "camps" and reinforcements to totally ahistoric levels.

[bountyhunter]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't have any basic problem with the South having some ability to increase it's RR Capacity in the game. Or if it were possible in the system, to "connecting" some of their RR system. The real problem for the South in this respect was that they almost totally lacked the Iron, Smelters, Foundries, and Factories to do this in real life..., so it should be a choice that "hurts" if you make it. What facilities the South did have were used almost exclusively for Arms production during the War. If the costs are such that the Southern player will need to chose between improving his RR's and arming his forts and troops, it will have the right "balance". Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the "Glorious Cause" was also economically the "Lost Cause". The game is already somewhat generous to the South's economy for reasons of "play balance", so the players get a "break" Jeff Davis didn't have. You want to be very carefull with any further "improvements in this area. Personally, I'd like to see their supply of "horses" chopped by about 2/3rds to prevent the growth of "camps" and reinforcements to totally ahistoric levels.

Well written. Agreed, I wasn't looking for free railroad! But I can build a mine anywhere - and we know iron doesn't grow on trees.[;)]

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I'm not sure there's a need for this: just start a game and send your army into a province with the enemy's army. Sure, the two armies won't be as built up in terms of weapons, attributes, etc., but you can practice that way.

[Gil R.]

By the way, instead of my starting a new thread for this, we can also use this one to discuss where in the game explanatory text (tool-tips or other) is still needed. This game is much more self-explanatory than "Crown of Glory," but there must still be areas. Let us know what would be helpful.

[Javakamp]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")
Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW.

How about making European intervention scaleable? I’m thinking choices like this; None, Low, Normal(Default) High, Automatic, and Random. Allowing the player to select the level of European trade / support might also be a consideration.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")
Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW.

How about making European intervention scaleable? I’m thinking choices like this; None, Low, Normal(Default) High, Automatic, and Random. Allowing the player to select the level of European trade / support might also be a consideration.

Now THAT's and idea! Wonder if it's programable? Any thoughts on how the "implementation" might work? Do you change the amount that can be spent by both sides? Or only what it might buy?

[smeilof]

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")
Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW.

I think that one way to fix the whole diplomacy issue is to link diplomacy to military progress as well. So for instance prohibit diplomatic levels from rising past a certain point untill a higher victory point total has been reached (so you cannot spend money to raise it further untill you get some more victories) . Also allow normal and decisive victories ( and defeats) to raise/lower diplomatic levels (as happened historically ). Finally to prevent the free for all emancipation issue only allow the north to emancipate when the south is at high diplomatic levels ( past 4 or so )and then only after a (decisive) victory (antietam) while at the same time allowing the south to emancipate only when the situation is really bad
(negative VP combined with decisive defeat or something ). I think this would solve quite a lot.

Stephen

[Mike Scholl]

Stephen is on firm ground with this suggestion. One of Lee's big goals in the Antietam Campaign was to try and win a victory on Northern soil to prove the viability of the Southern Cause to European Observers, something that would cancel out the "negative image" of the loss of Nashville, Memphis, and New Orleans. Must be some way to work actual military "progress" into the system. Not just "battles", but actual siezure of enemy territory....

[Tom_Doc_Holliday]

Since you asked, and because there seems to be some much concern over the tactical battles and results, I would like to see a tactical game added on, ala HPS Sims American Civil War games. The strategic game is very good and enjoyable, but having a regimental/battery tactical game that produces realistic results would add great detail and enjoyment.
I mention HPS because those tactical games are very solid and enjoyable.
Not sure if WCS and HPS can do a colabrative effort, but that game would definately be worth the price of admission.

[elmo3]

Would it be possible to uncouple the Richer and Poorer Economy options so that players could make one side richer and/or the other poorer? That might be a simple way for people who feel the Union is too weak economically or the South too strong to easily adjust things. That combined with the already available Power options for each side might let people fix the perceived problems without a major reworking and subsequent retesting of game parameters.

[marecone]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Would it be possible to uncouple the Richer and Poorer Economy options so that players could make one side richer and/or the other poorer? That might be a simple way for people who feel the Union is too weak economically or the South too strong to easily adjust things. That combined with the already available Power options for each side might let people fix the perceived problems without a major reworking and subsequent retesting of game parameters.

Very, very good idea [:D]

[elmo3]

Thanks. After some more thought I'm not sure uncoupling would do anything different from what the Power settings can do now but the designers will know.

[rockmedic109]

1.  Scalable European intervention.  A toggle for entry into war {highly unlikely}. 
 
2.  Scalable disease rules.  28% seems high.  I've had AotP hit on three successive turns.  Even the Black Death plague was not this bad.
 
3.  Cheaper Northern ships.  As it is the Anaconda plan would never have been thought up due to the cost of the fleet necessary.