Wish List

[General Quarters]

Stats
Maybe somebody has already pointed this out but, in case they haven't, sometimes one of the stat lines for USA or CSU is at the very top or bottom border and is very hard to see. In general, I find those very thin, pale lines hard to see.

[regularbird]

Gil the case would simply be that why is the south the only side smart enough to raid supplies or cut railroad lines. I read today about one of General Greggs cav raids to the rear of the confederate army. Although, historically the USA was not as successful as the CSA they should still be able to try.

From my limited experience the CSA is not at an economic disadvantage to the USA, especially when you factor in the monopoly on European supplies and raiders.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: regularbird
From my limited experience the CSA is not at an economic disadvantage to the USA, especially when you factor in the monopoly on European supplies and raiders.

Hopefully the promised "Historical Scenarios" will correct this anomaly and make the raids and rail cutting a more realistic Southern ploy. Have to agree in the current scenarios it's overkill.....

[christof139]

Hello again,
 
A little something on Southern RR's. The south did produce replacement rails for worn track, but not enough, but there was old track that became available for recycling and/or use as armor plating. Also, there were a lot of smaller spur lines and/or yards that aren't shown on maps that provided rails for recycling and use as armor. By spur lines I don't mean small RR Company lines, but rather side and shunt lines that were at RR Stations that allowed one train to pass another or just sit there for awhile off the main track. Also, the South did add new RR during the war, but this was a very small amount, and exactly whwere I can't tell you off the top of my head, but there is an ACW Yahoo Group that could easily answer this question. I could post the link if anyone is interested.
 
RR Stations in towns/cities without RR's could be constructed as a supply dump and/or a smaller manufacturing center, of which both the North and South had many such smaller manufacturies and centers. They could be anything from a small to mid-sized cloth mill to a State Pennitentiary producing a LOT of cloth and leather goods and even wagons to an isolated Iron Furnace or smal Gunpowder Mill, a small private samll arms company, a small iron furnace and/or foundry, grain mills, etc. Perhaps a new Building Icon and Stats. to replace the RR Station Icon and Stats. in cities/towns without RR's running through them would be interesting. Such a new and small manufacturing Building/Center could supply a minimum number of resources, 2nd rate small arms such as muskets and minie rifles, 1 or 2 iron, and one or a couple of the dreaded horses per turn, or every 2 turns. There were a good amount of small firearm manufacturies and even small foundries in the South that provided a staedy but small but still significant amount of weapons to the Confederacy.  Just an idea that would add some more flavor and populate the Northern and Southern sections of the map with local objectives and points of production that would add meaning to holding and/or aquiring previously vacant areas of the big map.
 
Marecone, you have some very good ideas, as do many otherpeople and it is enlightening to read you'uns posts. Godd idea from the old I-Magic ACW game American Civil war you have Marecone about setting the Intensity Level of Quick and Instant Battles. That worked good in that old game. I still have a copy of the game.
 
I would also like to see the weapon replacement pool or swap idea implemented as in the Civil War Generals game, and that was a very enjoyabel feature.
 
For Naval stuff, considering a Fleet must have a large zone of control in order to catch blockaders in the game, then having a Fleet container represent 10 ships is not a big deal, except for Ironclads. Perhaps reduce the Ironclad Unit to represent 1 - 3 Ironclads only, then its buid cost and time and effectiveness would be lower. Same for the Gunboat Unit, which represents the City Class River Ironclads, Tinclads, Timberclads, Cottonclads and Riverboat Rams, as well as other River Ironclads and Monitors, except that the Gunboat Icon could represent 5 ships instead of 10, thus also reducing its build cost, build time and effectiveness. A Union Fleet usually was centered on blockading one or two major ports, and these subordinate entities were Flotillas, so maybe a Flotilla subcontainer for a Fleet/Squadron would be OK. Flotillas could and did operate indepently of the Squadron/Fleet, and were frequenetly assigned to blockade major and minor ports and to patrol the coasts over a broad area to intercept blockade runners. The Union Fleets were called Blockading Squadrons, the Fleet referred to all the Navy ships. Many of you know this already, but here it is for those interested.
 
I better order the game tommorrow, and put off reading more about Murfreesboro, or -borough, and modding the TalonSoft game, again. FoF is going to require some time and learning to play and enjoy, but it is going to be fun. I just have to also stop reading all these posts!!! [8|]
 
Forge ever onward, Chris
 

[christof139]

The North mounted very large and effective raids into Southern territory in both the east and the west. The North also had very effective Irregular/Partisan Cavalry and there were large areas of East Tennessee, western North Carolina, Arkansas, and even several Counties in Texas and Mississippi where the populace actively supported the Union. Part of the myths concerning the ACW is that only the South engaged in Irregular/Partisan warfare and raiding. Many of the Northern raids by Regular Cavalry were also very devastating and successful, and there were many, including into western North Carolina, not just in Tennessee, northern Alabama and Georgia, Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas and Indian Territory.
 
Chris
 

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: 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...

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

I'll argue to keep raiders/partisans although making them optional is fine IMO. Here are some excerpts from my favorite source Battle Cry of Freedom by McPherson:

"...Mosby raised a guerilla company under the Partisan Ranger Act of April 1862."

"...Mosby's partisans operated in squads of twenty to eighty(my bolding) and attacked Union outposts, wagon trains, and stragglers with such fury and efficiency that whole counties in northern Virginia became known as Mosby's Confederacy No Union supplies could move in this area except under heavy guard."

"During Hunter's advance up the Valley, guerillas swarmed over his supply wagons. The farther from his base he marched the more vulnerable became his communications. For a month after May 20 only one wagon train got through."

From this I wold argue it is not historical to require whole cavalry brigades to replace raiders/partisans as someone suggested here. Nor is it appropriate to diminish their effectiveneess in the game.

An argumet might be made to also allow detached cavalry brigades to act as gueraillas. I'm not exactly sure how large a force is described below. Again from McPhreson:

"By this time the Army of Ohio was approaching Stevenson, Alabama, where it opened a new rail supply line from Nashville. But Buell's troubles had barely begun. Just as the first trainload of supplies started south from Nashville on July 13, Nathan Bedford Forrest's cavalry struck the Union garrison at Murfreesboro. Forrest captured the garrison, wrecked the railroad and escaped eastward...When the repair crews finished mending the damage, Forrest struck again, destroying three bridges just south of Nashville and once more escaping...".

I will look for some historical examples of Union raiders but have not found any yet.

[Twinkle]

- in case the CSA emancipation is turned of (which I always do)...

maybe discussed before but I like to see that US emancipation is only allowed after two in a row decisive battles won by US, as part of the option to turn of CSA emancipation.

regards,
/twinkle

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Twinkle

- in case the CSA emancipation is turned off (which I always do)...

maybe discussed before but I like to see that US emancipation is only allowed after two in a row decisive battles won by US, as part of the option to turn of CSA emancipation.
regards, /twinkle

And this is based on? The Proclamation was issued after a defeat (2nd Manassas) and a bloody draw/victory (Antietam), and before it came into effect the Union suffered another defeat (Fredericksburg) and another bloody draw/victory (Stone's River). Turning off Southern Emancipation is a fine idea..., but if you ever play as the Union you'll find that the AI gives itself all kinds of "bennies" on the Europe Screen---and that it is perfectly possible for the South to reach +7 with Britian and/or France by the end of 1861 even if the North is pumping 100 "bucks" a turn into preventing it.

[Alan_Bernardo]

I've read through a few pages of these Wish List suggestions, so if someone else has mentioned these please forgive.
 
1.  Hotkeys for accessing City Details, Governors, City List, etc
2.  Double-clicking on city in main map brings up the City Details
3.  Zoom feature on main map
4.  New building: POW camp.  Feeding and managing POWs would cost cash, and camps would relieve that burden
5.  An add-on product that would be extensive and almost something new but would be free to the public 
 
 
Overall, I think the game needs more hotkeys.  I'll leave ideas of tweaking the economic system to those who have expert knowledge.
 
Merry Christmas to all,
 
 
Alanb

[USSLockwood]

European diplomacy and intervention should, IMHO, be toned down.  The threat of European intervention was, largely, a chimera created by the south, to give hope to it's people.  The Union actually boarded an English ship to arrest several Confederate officials (true, they were later released with a sincere apology), providing a perfect pretext for war if the British had wanted it.
In my games, I find that I spend at least a third of funds trying to keep the Europeans neutral.  I think it would be more realistic to base the threat of European involvement upon the battlefield success (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy.  Just my opinion, I really enjoy the game as it is!

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: doktor

European diplomacy and intervention should, IMHO, be toned down. The threat of European intervention was, largely, a chimera created by the south, to give hope to it's people. The Union actually boarded an English ship to arrest several Confederate officials (true, they were later released with a sincere apology), providing a perfect pretext for war if the British had wanted it.
In my games, I find that I spend at least a third of funds trying to keep the Europeans neutral. I think it would be more realistic to base the threat of European involvement upon the battlefield success (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy. Just my opinion, I really enjoy the game as it is!

Britain did send troops to Canada and strengthened it's western Atlantic fleet after the Trent affair. They also embargoed all saltpeter (used in gunpowder) from India destined for the North which was in very short supply at the time. British Prime Minister Palmerston said to his Cabinet "You may stand for this but damned if I will.".

Had the North not backed down it could very well have led to British intervention. Just becase Britain did not intervene does not mean they shouldn't be able to in the game. Both sides relied heavily on support from Europe and that should be, and is now, properly reflected in the game IMO. So I don't agree with you on toning down diplomacy effects.

I do agree that military events, including naval victories, should factor into European intervention and I think the designers have agreed with that idea too.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: doktor

European diplomacy and intervention should, IMHO, be toned down. The threat of European intervention was, largely, a chimera created by the south, to give hope to it's people. The Union actually boarded an English ship to arrest several Confederate officials (true, they were later released with a sincere apology), providing a perfect pretext for war if the British had wanted it.
In my games, I find that I spend at least a third of funds trying to keep the Europeans neutral. I think it would be more realistic to base the threat of European involvement upon the battlefield success (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy. Just my opinion, I really enjoy the game as it is!

Britain did send troops to Canada and strengthened it's western Atlantic fleet after the Trent affair. They also embargoed all saltpeter (used in gunpowder) from India destined for the North which was in very short supply at the time. British Prime Minister Palmerston said to his Cabinet "You may stand for this but damned if I will.".

Had the North not backed down it could very well have led to British intervention. Just becase Britain did not intervene does not mean they shouldn't be able to in the game. Both sides relied heavily on support from Europe and that should be, and is now, properly reflected in the game IMO. So I don't agree with you on toning down diplomacy effects.

While "Pam" was certainly not going to stand for American's violating British Rights on the High Seas, he also knew quite well that this was an issue he could "twist Lincoln's tail" over with impunity. The North had to back down (it was the same issue in reverse that had triggered the War of 1812..., and wouldn't the Uppity Yankees look proper hypocrits trying to defend the other side of the coin.) He was going to "win" that political "bun-fight" and look the proper "British Bulldog" doing it.

But he also knew that he had no real support at home for actually going to war. England had the largest and most powerful Anti-Slavery movement in the world, and the Royal Navy had been actively engaged in supressing the slave trade for 50 years. Going to war in support of the Slave-Holding Confederacy would have been political suicide for Palmerston. Even "reccognition" would cause a big stink unless the South had virtually won already. Napoleon III's France was more prone to adventurism (witness the mess in Mexico), but not without British support. Napoleon didn't need another fiasco on his hands. So I must respectfully dissagree with your dissagreement. Intervention was much less likely than the game makes it.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


...Intervention was much less likely than the game makes it.

How likely does the game make it? The CSA needs seven levels of support for that to happen. In the current AAR between Gil R and jchastain, which Gil is arguably winning now, I don't recall him ever coming close to getting seven levels of support with France or England. I've never come close but have restarted a couple of times and would thus not offer my results to support either argument. What percentage of the time have you, or anyone, achieved intervention in your PBEM games against experienced Union players or against the AI on a decent difficulty setting (say Sergeant Major or higher so the AI gets at least some bonuses)?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I'm inclined to leave European Diplomacy turned off, myself. I don't have enough experience of the game to deliver a verdict, but it seems to have been implemented rather unrealistically in several ways, and seems to be more important to the game than it really was.

In reality there was no European intervention and the actual European help to the CSA seems represented well enough in the game by the activities of the blockage runners. What do you think?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I'm inclined to leave European Diplomacy turned off, myself. I don't have enough experience of the game to deliver a verdict, but it seems to have been implemented rather unrealistically in several ways, and seems to be more important to the game than it really was.

In reality there was no European intervention and the actual European help to the CSA seems represented well enough in the game by the activities of the blockage runners. What do you think?

I think you have a good point..., but in reference to ELMO I must say that my experiance against the AI is from the Union Side and twice I've been "forced" to emancipate even while spending the max on Britian and France every turn. Once both Britian and France climbed to +6 (January 1862) and once it was France +6 and Britian +5 (same time frame). And one of those times (the first) France proceeded to climb right back up to +7 and intervene by the Summer of 1862. And this was not on a very hard setting. My guess (only a guess) is that the AI gets "bennies" to make up for being stupid (which is fine in general) and in this particular case they might be too much. Probably doesn't matter against another player..., but it's annoying when engaging in "self-abuse" with the computer.

[elmo3]

That may be a problem playing the Union against the AI then Mike. Perhaps the designers will look into it based on your results.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: elmo3
That may be a problem playing the Union against the AI then Mike. Perhaps the designers will look into it based on your results.

That's a fair comment. Hopefully they will at least take a look at the AI's "fudge" factor. Doesn't seem to be a lot of other folks talking about playing as the Union to compare my results with...

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

That's a fair comment. Hopefully they will at least take a look at the AI's "fudge" factor. Doesn't seem to be a lot of other folks talking about playing as the Union to compare my results with...

Agreed, if the AI is getting any fudge factor with intervention specifically then it would be better to adjust that rather than raising the number of support levels needed. That way PBEM games would not be affected.

[spruce]

I whish general skills could be rebalanced - somewhat lesser stats for a large bulk of confederate generals.

[General Quarters]

The City Screen (and City List):

It is helpful that the "map" of the city includes in parentheses how many turns to build what you are now building. However, the numbers are small and thin and often hidden by a building. I accidentally put in three build orders in a row for the same building, the city appearing to not currently working on anything. I know that all I have to do is look to the list on the right to see whether something is being built, but it seems more natural to look at the map.

With regard to the list, the other thing I need to know most often is whether the city is up to its build limit. I always have to scroll down to the bottom to learn this. It would help if that info were at the top.

At would also help with the City List included a column with info like "3/4" showing that the city has currently built 3 or its allowable 4 builds.