Wish List

[regularbird]

[font="times new roman"]REGULARBIRD WISH LIST[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="times new roman"]Allow general promotions/demotions at any time.  Do not force player to promote.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Only allow blockade runners to acquire weapons, no labor, horses or iron.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Get rid of partisans and raiders.  Allow a single calvary brigades to do the mission for both sides.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Set base reinforce rate for each side to 2000 per turn.  Each additional camp will add only 100 to replacement pool.  (this will reflect the fact that neither side used a great deal of replacements)[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Lower CSA horse production to around 30 per turn.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Remove plantations completely from the game or give option to turn off.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]When advanced buildings are turned off allow the CSA 3 and the USA 4 upgrades at the beginning of each year.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Allow no more than one fort per province.[/font][/ol]
[font="times new roman"]This is what I have so far more to follow as I get a chance to play more.[/font]

[helop5]

I would like to see historical units also appear via mustering and conscription. I find that I must muster and conscript a great deal more than create new units because I do not have the resources to do be able to create them. I like the idea of historical units appearing and in my games and they are just not coming....

So my request....Have historical units appear with conscription and mustering as well.
 
helop

[minnesotavikes80]

i liked a lot of what marecone said, especially brigade commanders, ranks, and most of all stats

[marecone]

ORIGINAL: minnesotavikes80

i liked a lot of what marecone said, especially brigade commanders, ranks, and most of all stats

Thank you for your support [;)]

[regularbird]

Does anyone agree with the idea of getting rid of raiders and partisans and just allowing a calvary brigade to perform the same functions but for both sides?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Does anyone agree with the idea of getting rid of raiders and partisans and just allowing a calvary brigade to perform the same functions but for both sides?

Nope. There are few enough cavalry brigades in the game already without having to use them as raiders.

[regularbird]

That is the bueaty you don't have to use them as raiders.

[jimwinsor]

I like the idea, although the Union should be very very bad at it.  Some of the worst and most embarrassing disasters the North suffered were botched cavalry raids (and even an infamous "mule raid") that got "swallowed up" and captured.

[regularbird]

It would probably be a bear to try to program in, if not Eric would have probably not had to create the special units.  At the very least I would like the option of turning off raiders and partisans, or giving the Union the special unit.

[General Quarters]

End of Game:
I just finished my first game, with a victory, and was shocked that it was immediately "game over" and exit. Two weeks of playing and two seconds of seeing that I had won.

At a minimum, the player should be able to return to the game, to review his units and occupied territories and how many of his and that he had built, and what weapons, and so on and so forth. That is a very easy way of relishing a victory.

More ideally, there would be a scroll or sequence of screens that reported on something like the ten largest battles in chronological order, so it's a bit of a history. Each should report the size of the armies (in inf, cav, art), the names of armies and corps involved, the generals commanding, the casualties. More info would be even better, e.g., the entire order of battle, weapons, all generals present, etc. Putting it in newspaper form is a nifty idea.

[General Quarters]

Battle Reports:
Yes, right after the battle would be best. The more info the better as far as providing the numbers that went into the final result. Admittedly it is entirely a tactical game, but Take Command: Second Manassas has terrific after battle reports, that even list all the units each unit fired upon and if they routed them, etc. FOF is a different kind of game but maybe there is comparable things to report.

[General Quarters]

National Will
It is right for this to be a major factor in the game, but I have doubts about how it is calculated.

In my first game, playing CSA, the Union never laid a glove on me, other than early skirmishes in western Virginia. At the end (Nov 64), I held all of Kentucky but Louisville, all of Missouri and Pennsylvania except the cities, and yet my NW was -2 and the Union's was 0. The only Union conquest was the Memphis-Miss River province. The -2 came from destroying a manshion there and in Lexiginton Ky before I ran them out.

These impacts do not seem historically realistic. Support for the war would have plummeted if the South had occupied almost all its own territory plus most of Kentucky, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. And I don't think Southern war support would have dropped substantially if the Union had burned Memphis and Lexington. I suppose the designers are thinking of Atlanta and Shenandoah but, on the first, it is not clear to me that the destruction dampened rather than inflamed Southern resistence (think of the London blitz) and, on the second, the impact was mainly material, the loss of foodstuffs for the army, on the ability to fight, not on the will to fight.

It also seemed odd that, in VPs, I had +6 and the Union -5, and that had little if any impact on NW. I don't have a specific solution other than to have battles and territories affect NW more and property destruction less.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

That is the bueaty you don't have to use them as raiders.

Huh? You said cavalry act as raiders. That means they need to be detached in most cases since you aren't going to move a whole container into an area just to raid it.

[regularbird]

Sure elmo, but that is only if you chose to use them as raiders. Huh.

[General Quarters]

Disease Totals:
The Event screen lists disease losses by brigade. It would also be good to have the total reported for that turn.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

National Will
It is right for this to be a major factor in the game, but I have doubts about how it is calculated.

In my first game, playing CSA, the Union never laid a glove on me, other than early skirmishes in western Virginia. At the end (Nov 64), I held all of Kentucky but Louisville, all of Missouri and Pennsylvania except the cities, and yet my NW was -2 and the Union's was 0. The only Union conquest was the Memphis-Miss River province. The -2 came from destroying a manshion there and in Lexiginton Ky before I ran them out.

These impacts do not seem historically realistic. Support for the war would have plummeted if the South had occupied almost all its own territory plus most of Kentucky, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. And I don't think Southern war support would have dropped substantially if the Union had burned Memphis and Lexington. I suppose the designers are thinking of Atlanta and Shenandoah but, on the first, it is not clear to me that the destruction dampened rather than inflamed Southern resistence (think of the London blitz) and, on the second, the impact was mainly material, the loss of foodstuffs for the army, on the ability to fight, not on the will to fight.

It also seemed odd that, in VPs, I had +6 and the Union -5, and that had little if any impact on NW. I don't have a specific solution other than to have battles and territories affect NW more and property destruction less.

depends on the size of the battle, fight some big battles and you will break there will

plundering will also lower the NW (of course it raises heck with the Ecc of the other side)

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: marecone

Brigade commanders
- when you attach them to a brigade they will actualy command one random brigade or I am wrong. Not sure. But if that is true thenmake it possible to attach a brigade general to one precise brigade.

They're randomly assigned, but once the battle begins they can be reassigned.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: marecone

HQ and quartermaster generals
- Ok. Include HQ for both armies and include QM staff. They would influence supplies onnational level. This is how it really was [;)] and plus would add a nice touch to the game. Also, navy secretary would be nice too.

How exactly do you imagine this being implemented?

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: helop5

I would like to see historical units also appear via mustering and conscription. I find that I must muster and conscript a great deal more than create new units because I do not have the resources to do be able to create them. I like the idea of historical units appearing and in my games and they are just not coming....

So my request....Have historical units appear with conscription and mustering as well.

helop

But if Legendary Units are only available through purchase, that makes it more appealing to spend the money and resources to produce a unit that way, instead of just mustering and getting one for free. So I'm not convinced that this would be an improvement.

[Gil R.]

Regarding this issue of eliminating (or making optional) partisans and raiders, I'm not sure that I see why we would do this.

They were put into the game because they were an important element of the Civil War. But from a functional point of view, they help the CSA to counter the Union's superiority in economic production and weapons. If the CSA's ports are blockaded, it can still get some Guns resources by stealing from the enemy, for example. Sabotaging railroads, when timed properly, can be a very effective tactic. Etc.

I'd like to see the case for changing anything involving these types of units. Argue away...