Wish List

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: spruce

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

You and me both. Someone got a bit carried away with the idea of a "Southern Leadership Edge". When you compare the two sides in the game it looks more like an "avalanche" than an "edge".

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: 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.

................

What level were you playing? I know you said not too difficult but which was it?

From what I've seen there is quite a difference between sergeant major and second lieutenant. The difference between second lieutenant and first lieutenant does not seem to be quite as much. No real hard facts but that is how it appears to me. I think the differences should not be quite as great.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Sonny
What level were you playing? I know you said not too difficult but which was it?

"Sergeant something". I'm still trying to get a handle on the finer points of play overall before trying to decide what handicap is needed where.

[General Quarters]

Some suggested earlier that the player should not be forced to fill the general slots -- 4-star, 3-star, etc. -- as they come open. Now that I am playing at the Union, I disagree with this suggestion. Lincoln had to put someone in command -- he couldn't say "I'll wait and see what talent comes up later" -- so this is one of the things that makes the game historically realistic.

In fact, I would not object to Fremont, Butler, Banks, McClellan, and Halleck starting the game with extra stars. The first three were major political figures (all with Democratic antecedents, which was important). (I would say the same thing about McClernand, Logan, Shields, and the Germans Sigel and Schurz -- these were too important politically not to give them commands.) Managing to find better talent and then to maneuver them into top command was one of Lincoln's major challenges.

The same was true to a lesser extent for Davis. He did not really choose Beauregard, Johnston, AS Johnston, and Lee -- they already had national standing -- they just happened to be a lot better than Union generals with such standing. For reasons I do not understand, major political figures in the South such as Toombs and Howell Cobb were quite willing to serve as colonels.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Some suggested earlier that the player should not be forced to fill the general slots -- 4-star, 3-star, etc. -- as they come open. Now that I am playing at the Union, I disagree with this suggestion. Lincoln had to put someone in command -- he couldn't say "I'll wait and see what talent comes up later" -- so this is one of the things that makes the game historically realistic.

In fact, I would not object to Fremont, Butler, Banks, McClellan, and Halleck starting the game with extra stars. The first three were major political figures (all with Democratic antecedents, which was important). (I would say the same thing about McClernand, Logan, Shields, and the Germans Sigel and Schurz -- these were too important politically not to give them commands.) Managing to find better talent and then to maneuver them into top command was one of Lincoln's major challenges.

The same was true to a lesser extent for Davis. He did not really choose Beauregard, Johnston, AS Johnston, and Lee -- they already had national standing -- they just happened to be a lot better than Union generals with such standing. For reasons I do not understand, major political figures in the South such as Toombs and Howell Cobb were quite willing to serve as colonels.

Toombs was a brigadier general and resigned his commission when he couldn't get promoted. He was a major problem for Davis for the rest of the war. Cobb was a mjor general. McClellan wasn't a political figure until after he was relieved of command. He got the command of the Union armies based on his reputation and military success in West Virginia. The South's worst political general was probably John Floyd. He was responsible for the disaster at Fort Donelson. He abandoned his men and saved himself and was relieved of duty. Being the ex governor of Vitginai he was able to get a command in the militia but luckily for the south he died before doing any more damage.

[Paper Tiger]

Thought I had posted this but it didn't appear. Apologies if it now comes up twice.
 
Link march attrition to unit disposition and supply levels, men are less likely to desert or drop out of the line of march if they are in good spirits and if they are both well fed and clothed and well led. Movement should also affect the disposition of the troops. Tired men with sore feet grumble more.
 
 

[Paper Tiger]

National Will and European intervention.
National Will should be affected by loss of state capitals, -1 per for losing for the CSA and -2 for the USA, and +1/+1 each for capturing, they should also count more towards victory points 2 compared to a normal cities 1.
 
European intervention should be more affected by success on the battlefield than by money, each + or - on national will (excluding emancipation which is directly covered) should affect european relations.
Perhaps it should be modelled in the same way as research with a modifier for National will and a building for added bonus (Embassy or consulate) built overseas to model the affects of diplomats in the foreign countries. 

[General Quarters]

Attachment Box:

When you open an attachment box and click on a brigade or a general, the box itself blocks part of the info box on that unit or officer. It would be nice if it did not.

[General Quarters]

Screen labels:

To relate the manual to the screens, it would be nice if each screen or box had a label, such as "attachment box." In the question I posted above, I was in the game when I noted that issue and looked to see if what I called the "info box" a name on the screen. It did not. Ideally, I would not have to look it up in the manual and find the right picture to refer to it.

[General Quarters]

Popup boxes over the Little Icons (coins etc) at the bottom of the main screen:

When you click on the money icon to see how much money you will have next turn, the popup box blocks the dollar figure. That is not ideal.

[General Quarters]

Messages about new units:

I have found that I often overlook the fact that a raider has been completed or an Indian unit or conscripted unit has appeared. I would like an option to have messages noting those.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Some suggested earlier that the player should not be forced to fill the general slots -- 4-star, 3-star, etc. -- as they come open. Now that I am playing at the Union, I disagree with this suggestion. Lincoln had to put someone in command -- he couldn't say "I'll wait and see what talent comes up later" -- so this is one of the things that makes the game historically realistic.

In fact, I would not object to Fremont, Butler, Banks, McClellan, and Halleck starting the game with extra stars. The first three were major political figures (all with Democratic antecedents, which was important). (I would say the same thing about McClernand, Logan, Shields, and the Germans Sigel and Schurz -- these were too important politically not to give them commands.) Managing to find better talent and then to maneuver them into top command was one of Lincoln's major challenges.

The same was true to a lesser extent for Davis. He did not really choose Beauregard, Johnston, AS Johnston, and Lee -- they already had national standing -- they just happened to be a lot better than Union generals with such standing. For reasons I do not understand, major political figures in the South such as Toombs and Howell Cobb were quite willing to serve as colonels.

Toombs was a brigadier general and resigned his commission when he couldn't get promoted. He was a major problem for Davis for the rest of the war. Cobb was a mjor general. McClellan wasn't a political figure until after he was relieved of command. He got the command of the Union armies based on his reputation and military success in West Virginia. The South's worst political general was probably John Floyd. He was responsible for the disaster at Fort Donelson. He abandoned his men and saved himself and was relieved of duty. Being the ex governor of Vitginai he was able to get a command in the militia but luckily for the south he died before doing any more damage.

Thanks for the corrections. What I was referring to about McClellan was that he had extensive political connections in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. One of the attorneys for his railroad was A. Lincoln. Maybe I exaggerate the difference but, after the first year, I am not aware of Davis having to give independent commands to politicians whereas Banks and McClernand caused Grant trouble in 62 and Butler commanded forces until 1864. But, if there were similar problems on both sides, it would be good for the game to reflect that fact.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

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.

I see that it is listed under "support" or some such heading. Suggestion withdrawn.

[Thresh]

Unless I have missed it somehweres, a "Go To" command would be nice.

I cannot say how many minutes I have spent after clicking on a container to march it, only to have to micromanage my mouse in weird ways (without clicking on something else in the area and thus ending my proposed move) in order to get said container to where I want it to go.

It would be nice to click on a container in say, Paducah, click on goto, choose Memphis (I can't remember the district Memphis is in, sorry) click yes and be done with it.

Thresh

[General Quarters]

Yes, the river provinces can be very difficult to click onto. Washington DC, with a city, forts, armies, and new generals at the beginning of the term can be extremely difficult. Could there be something on the city screen that takes you to the province? Or a little triangle or something that takes you to the province?

[jimwinsor]

You know, I came up with this somewhat elaborate "Wish List" idea during playtest, which not only encompassed replacements (essentially replacing Camps) but volunteer recruitment as well.  Might as well throw it out here, see what you all think; note that it does tie replacements (generated now solely by the "draft"...see 12) to population levels:
 
New Wish List Idea for Mustering and Conscription
------------------------------------------------
1) Each side has two types of units: Regulars and Volunteers.
2) Regulars are units purchased the usual way in the production screen.
3) Regulars start with some weapon other than IWs.  Random allowed by type/tech?
4) Regulars have no Term of Service (see below) and assuming they survive, serve for the duration of the game.
5) Volunteers are units brought in by the current Muster button.
6) Volunteers usually start with IWs, but maybe a random chance of a better weapon (?)
7) Volunteers have a new stat: Term of Service.  It's the length of time the unit serves, after which the player must decide whether to Disband it or Reenlist it.  It can vary between 3 months to 3 years.
8) Players have two ways to increase the odds of a successful Muster: A Cash Bounty and/or a lower Term of Service.  Maybe a couple of slider bars under the Muster button to handle this graphically (?)
9) A Cash Bounty is simply that, a bribe to encourage enlistment in the new Brigade.  Higher the bounty offered, better chance of a Muster (and very historical).  Default is $0.  Increments, say, of $5.
10) Term of Service varies in increments of 3 months, and the default is 3 years.  Lower the TOS, the higher the chance of a Muster.
11) At the end of a TOS the player will have an option to Reenlist the unit; figure some base chance based on National Will, modified by the usual Cash Bounty and TOS sliders.  If he fails the unit disbands.
12) There are no more Conscript units.  Instead, each time you click the Conscript button you deduct 1 population, and add 1500 men to your replacement pool.  Which is then distributed by the CoG/FoF game engine in its usual silent and efficient manner.  Danger probability and effects as usual.  This will serve to supplement a very inadequade trickle of automatic replacements assumed to be gathered by enlisters of existing brigades.  A player can choose not to draft...but then he'll find his 3K Brigades dwindling down to 2K, then 1K...
 
I thought of these Wish List ideas and put them together while musing between gaming sessions.  Fun, shiny new chrome, or needless additional micromanagement...you decide!  

[Paper Tiger]

Add a requirement to have one hospital for every two camps. You want your replacements then a good number of them will be sick soldiers returning to fitness.

[General Quarters]

Quick Battle info

It would be great if somewhere ingame was reported things like the QB value of weapons, brigade improvements, and the like.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Quick Battle info

It would be great if somewhere ingame was reported things like the QB value of weapons, brigade improvements, and the like.

I second that.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: spruce

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

You and me both. Someone got a bit carried away with the idea of a "Southern Leadership Edge". When you compare the two sides in the game it looks more like an "avalanche" than an "edge".

Ratings for 100-percenters were determined pre-release by votes cast by visitors to the forum; ratings for 25-percenters were determined by yours truly and run past the forum pre-release; ratings for the roughly 900 9-percenters were determined randomly, though as bios for them get written we are replacing those random ratings with more historically accurate ones. As I wrote at the time, it was always my intention to revisit ratings once the game was out. So, if there particular are ratings that need to be changed, and we can get a consensus, we can change them. Someone can start a thread here (where it's more likely to be seen), or in the ratings sub-forum (which would be more appropriate). Fire away.