Wish List

[General Quarters]

Event reports:

Some have suggested that it would be nice if battle reports were immediate and had a little drama or historical flavor, ala the newspaper headlines in Take Command: Second Manassas.

I agree with those suggestions, and would like to add a similar suggestion for the events report. In particular, changes in victory points and national will are major items. I can envision a headline or "memo to the President" that says "national support for the war is fading ..." and reports the change in national will.

The comprehensive events screen is very efficient and easy to refer to as you plan a move. But it would add some immersive flavor if it were put in the form of "Memo from the Secretary of War to the President: This has been a (good, bad, mixed) week on the battlefield. Battles here and there had victories/defeats with the following casualties." Similarly, "Memo from the Secretary of State: Our diplomatic efforts are succeeding/failing/continue to be challenging. We are putting the following resources into diplomacy: ... We have seen the following changes in the past two weeks: ..." "Memo from President's Political Advisor: ..." Etc. These could probably still be put seriatim into a single "Cabinet Reports."

[Diggypiggy]

I remember an old ACW strategic level game by SSI I believe back in the 70s or early 80s. The game was balanced historically not by hamstringing the Union or providing the South with extra resources, but by making the generals a major part in when things could be done. For instance, McClellan could only move or fight with a die roll of '1' on each turn and RE Lee could on a die roll of 1-4. I know that initiative is modelled in this game but it seems a little to lenient. The battles were also modified with a plus or minus on the die roll depending on the General which in this game seem to be modeled just fine. The old game also did not make leaders available until they were historically, i.e. Grant could not be promoted until he was historically. Just some ideas that were floating around in my noggin. Good game, I really like it.

[General Quarters]

Sequence of Forts Attacked:

When the Union attacks forts in the Memphis area, it doesn't seem to attack the northernmost first -- Island No. 10 -- and so on in sequence. Possibly, I am mistaken about the sequence -- I am not familiar with Ft. Wright, for example -- but, in any case, where there is an obvious geographical sequence of forts, the AI should prioritize in that order.

[General Quarters]

Ironworks in CSA:

At the start of Nov 61 scenario, there are three cities in the CSA with ironworks but no horse farms -- Augusta, Columbus, and Richmond. Oddly, Augusta and Richmond are not set to produce iron, presumably because they produce more horses (in Augusta, only slightly more). Is this as it should be?

[General Quarters]

Show Build Capacity (e.g., 6/8) on City Screen:

This would be very helpful. The information can be found, but it does not appear on the opening screen (unless I am missing something).

[tiredoftryingnames]

Actually it is on the main city detail screen and I suggested a few pages back on this wish list that it needs to be moved. On the upper right hand side where it lists the current buildings and anything being built is the total number of buildings and number that can be supported. It's at the bottom so that on most city screens you have to scroll to see it. I think this should be moved to the top of the list, followed by what is being built, then list what buildings are in the province. When cycling through cities you have to scroll see if you can build anything, cycle to the next, scroll, so on and so forth. If it was at the top you could quickly at a glance see if you could build something there, if not move on.

[sven6345789]

how about changing general ratings after promotion; Hood is a good example; he was a good Brgande and divisional commander, but his military decisions regarding Atlanta, Franklin and Nashville are doubtful; so, generals should get other ratings after promotion.

[General Quarters]

Info on generals:

I always go to the Military Screen and write down the numerical ratings of each general and then I go to the map and click on each in turn and write down their teachable traits. I like the numerical ratings because I find them easier to compare. It would be nice if this information were present on one screen somewhere.

I also agree with those who say it would be nice to have a screen listing all your generals and not have to look through all the military units to find them. Maybe these two ideas could be combined.

[General Quarters]

QB Record:

During QB, I try to watch the little messages indicating losses of each firing group. It would be nice to have them all at a list at the end of the battle -- or at least available somewhere.

[General Quarters]

Events Report:

In messages like "CSA 12th Div is removed because it is an empty military group in enemy territory," it would be nice if the message named the territory the group was in. I suggested the same idea for garrisons when they are reported to have died out.

[General Quarters]

Governors support:

Just as governor's requests are being fine-tuned, it might make sense to fine-tune "governor supports naval research" so it doesn't keep popping up in Iowa. Some of the others might also be particularly apt in certain regions, e.g., Penn gov supports iron production.

[General Quarters]

9-percenters:

I wonder if anyone else shares my feelings about the more obscure generals that have a 9 percent chance of appearing. I find that I enjoy seeing non-stars like all the McCook brothers, A. S. Williams, Ramseur, Shelby, etc. But I do not enjoy having a lot of people I never heard of, people who would not appear even in a whole book on the Army of Tennessee or the Peninsular Campaign or the like. I would like to see 9 percenters divided into 12-percenters who did have more of a historical role and 6 percenters who had little. Some rough cut would suffice, like all those who ever made it to major general or led a division or something like that. Since none of these guys appear in many games, it would not be necessary to make a science of it. Does anyone else share my attitude to seeing a lot of Joe Blows on the roster?

[General Quarters]

A Human Player?

I still having trouble remembering to click on a human player when I start a new game. It would be nice to have a prompt (when no human player has been selected) asking, "Do you want to designate a human player?", before leaving this screen.

[General Quarters]

AI Plundering:

When the AI is besieging me (usually Union in Memphis area), I kept getting messages like "Ft Pillow prevents plundering" over and over. It's just needless clutter and so a bit irritating. It doesn't seem to make sense to try to plunder while conducting a siege, since the presence of a fort is necessary to the latter and prevents the former. Perhaps the AI could be told not to plunder during sieges or in a province with a fort.

[christof139]

9-percenters:

I wonder if anyone else shares my feelings about the more obscure generals that have a 9 percent chance of appearing. I find that I enjoy seeing non-stars like all the McCook brothers, A. S. Williams, Ramseur, Shelby, etc. But I do not enjoy having a lot of people I never heard of, people who would not appear even in a whole book on the Army of Tennessee or the Peninsular Campaign or the like. I would like to see 9 percenters divided into 12-percenters who did have more of a historical role and 6 percenters who had little. Some rough cut would suffice, like all those who ever made it to major general or led a division or something like that. Since none of these guys appear in many games, it would not be necessary to make a science of it. Does anyone else share my attitude to seeing a lot of Joe Blows on the roster? GQ

I know what you mean, but just because a general commanding a Bde. or holding a Staff position at an HQ is not mentioned in a book that is a broad and not detailed coverage of a war or a particular Army, does not mean that that general is obscure or wasn't any good.

I find that the more choice of generals there is then the better it is in terms onf realism, since the game engine has a large array of generals, both good and bad, to choose from. Just as in the real world.

Since most Bdes. were commanded by Bde. Gens., I would suggest that a Gen. in the real war that never was promoted any higher, be not promotable in FoF. Same for 2-stars etc. Seems you get an awful lot of 2 and 3-stars in the game due to promotions.

Also, for higher-ups, wasn't Grant the only Union 4-star, or was he awared 5, and wasn't Lee the only Confed. 4-star?? I would have to look this up, and I know someone here might know offhand.

Can't remember what Halleck and Scott were.

Chris

[chris0827]

Grant was the only union general with 3 stars in the war. He got his 4th and Sherman got his 3rd in 1866. Eight confederates had 4 stars. Halleck and Scott had two. The stars a commander has in the game refers to what size force they can command not their actual rank. The north and south had different command structures. The game has to take that into account.

[christof139]

Grant was the only union general with 3 stars in the war. He got his 4th and Sherman got his 3rd in 1866. Eight confederates had 4 stars. Halleck and Scott had two. The stars a commander has in the game refers to what size force they can command not their actual rank. The north and south had different command structures. The game has to take that into account.

Yes, thanx. The 3-star Lt. Genl's. rank was basically created for Grant when he became C in C. I just did a little reading after you posted.

So, with respect to the game, then a 1-star could actually be equated simply to a Bde. commander, eithe a Lt. Col., Full Bird, or a Bde. Gen., and so on up the line in direct relationship to the type of organization being commanded.

I actually don't know off-hand yet if the game has 5-stars, because there is a lot of reading to do with the manual, not to mention just discovering this in an ongoing game. I just installed the CD copy on my compooter yesterday and am in the very early stages of a game, and I think the Confeds. already have 2 or 3 3-stars, can't remember offhand. I don't know what the union has at this time.

Chris

[tiredoftryingnames]

I would like to see an option added to containers for setting the unit to Training. This would stay in effect unless the unit moves or is engaged in combat. The advantages would be each turn there would be a small chance for a morale increase. This would represent that the unit is training to better prepare for combat, isn't getting shot at and developing unity.
 
Also there should be a small chance that brigades set to training could get a random attribute assigned to represent that while training they focused on certain areas. This would allow units to gain a more diverse set of attributes than just those of it's commander. Of course if moving and fighting the attribute assigment that is currently in place would still be there.
 
Training would just provide some benefit to pulling units out of the line and not fighting constantly. Or training up new units before throwing them into combat.

[General Quarters]

The training idea is interesting, but there should be a cost, namely, that the army would be weaker if attacked. The idea is that the troops would have been pulled out of the line for extensive training. I suppose, in effect, that is what McClellan was doing with the AoP early on.

[christof139]

Good idea about the training. Good food/rations would help, then we could have Fat 32 units. [8|]

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]