From the creators of Crown of Glory come an epic tale of North Vs. South. By combining area movement on the grand scale with optional hex based tactical battles when they occur, Forge of Freedom provides something for every strategy gamer. Control economic development, political development with governers and foreign nations, and use your military to win the bloodiest war in US history.
Night combat - more the fact the every battle that lasts more than a day seems to contain some, when in reality it was rare. (well, when you see what happened to Jackson you can guess why)
Could there be some way of reducing the amount of night combat? say by moving troops back automatically out of engagement range. then allowing troops to recover some moral and rest up, and giving the option to press for a night attack, but needing a leadership check to proceed. allowing troop movement except for within x hexes of the enemy would allow redeployment for a new assault in the morning.
the only problem I can see with this is when there is defensive terrain, as a desicion would need to be made about who has to retreat - there would be nothing more annoying than taking a hill only to have the computer take it away because it was night. but something could be worked out with a little thought.
I realise that this is a lot of work (AI reprograming and the like) but hey, this is a wish list isn't it, and as the chinise say - "may all your dreams come true but one"
Night combat - more the fact the every battle that lasts more than a day seems to contain some, when in reality it was rare. (well, when you see what happened to Jackson you can guess why)
Could there be some way of reducing the amount of night combat? say by moving troops back automatically out of engagement range. then allowing troops to recover some moral and rest up, and giving the option to press for a night attack, but needing a leadership check to proceed. allowing troop movement except for within x hexes of the enemy would allow redeployment for a new assault in the morning.
the only problem I can see with this is when there is defensive terrain, as a desicion would need to be made about who has to retreat - there would be nothing more annoying than taking a hill only to have the computer take it away because it was night. but something could be worked out with a little thought.
I realise that this is a lot of work (AI reprograming and the like) but hey, this is a wish list isn't it, and as the chinise say - "may all your dreams come true but one"
Great idea!!!!!!!!!! The old TalonSoft games made night turns equal to 2-hours compared to day turns of I think it was 20-minutes in vanilla mode, maybe night turns were 1-hour. If you moved at night you were penalized with more fatigue and disorganization, whereas if you didn't move, you lost fatigue and disorganization at higher rate than during the day. Therefore, it was best for a player to do little movement and rest during the night, which is what usually occurred in reality. Any movement, change of formation, and firing at night would cause a higher rate of fatigue and disorganization.
It's good to sleep at night anyway, and have a midnight snack, sip, or whatever one chooses before doing so.
Chris [>:][>:][>:]
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
Can it be possible for generals to be assigned to one brigade/regiment? This might help us find homes for all of these generals we're working on. The one game I have tried, I've had a number of out-of-work generals. I end up with numerous generals being put into garrison duty just to give them something to do.
Remember that, if you put them in a division, they are commanding one brigade, it just doesn't look that way. So they aren't sitting around idle. A fully-generaled army would have the same number of generals in each division that there are brigades.
Since generals have a cavalry rating why not a rating for artillery and fortifications, both under an "Engineering" rating. West Point grads either went into the infantry, artillery or the Engineers. that way we could assign generals to arty brigades, divisions or even arty Corps! Also we could assign generals with engineer ratings to forts or cities for better defense.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Since generals have a cavalry rating why not a rating for artillery and fortifications, both under an "Engineering" rating. West Point grads either went into the infantry, artillery or the Engineers. that way we could assign generals to arty brigades, divisions or even arty Corps! Also we could assign generals with engineer ratings to forts or cities for better defense.
Great idea Drex!! The game wouldn't need all that many of these officers for both sides. All could be rated at 1-star regardless if they were a Bde. Gen., Colonel, or Lt. Col. as an Army Chief of Arty., or Lt. Cols. and Majors commanding Arty. Bns. and Bdes.
I see what you mean, these leaders would give bonuses etc. to all Arty units and Fortifications. that would be very interesting!!
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
Since generals have a cavalry rating why not a rating for artillery and fortifications, both under an "Engineering" rating. West Point grads either went into the infantry, artillery or the Engineers. that way we could assign generals to arty brigades, divisions or even arty Corps! Also we could assign generals with engineer ratings to forts or cities for better defense.
We definitely plan to do things like this if we come out with a FOF expansion pack, and would then retrofit them to FOF. It's an awful lot of work for a patch (and we're sort of patched-out at the moment), but even pre-release we always wanted to have a more elaborate system for generals, and hope to implement it before too long.
The bios project has been quite helpful in this respect, since as I read them I get ideas for additional abilities to give generals, and I can also make notes of which guys should get the artillery or engineering bonuses, etc.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
There are quite a few Cols., Lt. Cols., and Majors that were Army, Corps, and even Division Chiefs of Arty.
You wouldn't need all of them. Bde. Shoup for the CSA is one for the AoT, but there are ones of lesser rank that would have to be used as there weren't that many Bde. Gens. of Arty. on both sides combined.
That's a real smart and interesting idea!!
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
Here's the historical ones that have been 'Forge-ified': Sec. of War USA E. Stanton and CSA J. Seddon, respectively.
I'll see if I can get matrix to a link to the .zip file so you can just download them and drop them into your game folder.
Them thar is nice!!! I am using the other fellows' earlier pics of the same personages but without the excellent flag background.
Also, any chance to put a few more flags into the flag pcx file?? I uploaded some Illinois and other sharp USA flags, and having Lee's ANV and Chief Engineer flags and the SC Soverign flag with 15 stars and a few more CSA flags would be neat. HS (Hard Sarge)wants more flags too, as I think many other people do. Your original flags are great, but a few more would make it greater. Variety is the spice of life. [:)]
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
Posted by request from the 'General's Ratings' subforum.
I've just reread Shelby Foote's excellent history, and it strikes me the leadership model seems a little oversimplified. I've also been poking around with the old 'Sumter to Appomattox' game, which seems to have been the first serious attempt to tackle this in a game.
Someone has already noted that ratings should take rank into account; there is no question that there were many cases of leaders promoted past (sometimes way past) their ability--e.g. Hood, Hooker.
I'm not sure a leader's rating should be fixed for the whole game either. For instance, R.E. Lee was increasingly affected by a heart condition in the last 12 months of the war. For that matter, his first outing in W. Virginia wasn't successful at all. Pickett never really recovered from the heartbreak at Gettysburg. Ewell became a different chap after he got married. There should be some allowance for leader events (health, personal, animosity towards one or more colleagues or the High Command, battlefield defeat) that affect their ratings.
Some leaders also profited from more experience, while many did not. Sheridan's first couple of outings were not all that auspicious, and his aggressiveness was sometimes counterproductive. There is no doubt that Grant learned a lot over the four years. Meade seems to have just about gotten the hang of army command under Grant that eluded him in 1863.
If you wanted to get really tricky, you could also think about leadership teams and how leaders interact with each other: the obvious and outstanding teams being R.E.Lee/Jackson/Longstreet/Hill and Grant/Sherman/Sheridan. A teamwork rating being low, might recommend a leader for detached operations, but make it more difficult to use him in a larger operation, where he will cause trouble and dissension regardless of ability. E.g.: Beauregard.
These teams cemented over time, and represented a harmonious command structure, not easily replaced if one or more elements are changed. This certainly happened to the Army of Northern Virginia as the 'system fed on itself', breaking up the team. It was never achieved in the Army of Tenessee, whose commanders spent more time attacking each other and Davis.
A final thought: I reckon if you don't play with leaders completely randomised, you don't capture the period at all. The only way is to put your head in the same bag as Lincoln and Davis; otherwise it's just too easy.
It would be nice if we had the historical prisoner-of-war camps shown and the prisoners from the many battles could be sent to the closest camps. These camps could be liberated and the prisoners returned to the replacement pool as veteran troops. Over time (in pbem) there could be a prisoner exchange if both parties agreed, although historically, I think the Union stopped the exchanges.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
In war but not in FOF but I would like to see that changed. It seems only fair that captured units should be reflected in the actual casualty totals especially after the beta patch has narrowed the difference in the losses inflicted by each side. Its great to have improved stats but they don't take account of surrendered losses other than the report of the number of units that surrender and so might hide a crushing victory. Presumably surrendered units totals (excluding pre-surrender casualties) don't count towards decisive battle numbers either.
To change this I would like to see 50% of the men left in a unit that surrenders added to the casualty total for a battle. All of a unit's men would still be lost to the power concerned but this seems a reasonable proportion (perhaps too low?) for the stats to allow for some escaping the battle field and captivity. Of course in a Vicksburg type situation the whole lot would be bagged so this is meant as a compromise figure unless there is a preference for the full surrender total to be used.
Since Baloons were rather rare in the ACW, attaching them to combat arms units may be stretching things a bit.
Perhaps a new seperate Baloon unit could be implemneted, or make it so only Arty. can have a Baloon unit.
Implementing a new and seperate Baloon unit with increased observation ability would be nice, as then the player would not have to buy so many Baloons and have their Inf. and cav. units moving around the screen and in firefights etcs. wih Baloons bobbing from them. The USA actually had Baloons attached to a ship or two on the Miss. river I do nelieve, so maybe also allowing Baloons to be attached to gunboats would be somewghat historical and interesting.
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
No matter how large the reinforcement they are reliant on the original force's caisson(s) plus limited supply from any buildings/fortifications present. That seems very unrealistic when you have a large force reinforcing a smaller one eg an army coming to the rescue of a single division. Indeed its sometimes too dangerous to risk a reinforcement in case the greatly enlarged force collapses for lack of supplies.
I suggest that a large reinforcement, corps size or larger, should be accompanied by a limited number of supply caissons and would be based on the number of units that arrive as follows:
One extra caisson for the first 15 reinforcing brigades that arrive and a second if the number exceeds 15. If a reinforcing army (or if no army, all the reinforcing corps) has a logistic staff of good or better then the first caisson would be for the first 10 brigades, the second would be available for brigades numbering 11 to 20 and a third caisson would be provided for brigades above 20.
So this could provide a minimum of one or a maximum of three extra caissons and these would be the last units arriving on the field. (Note reinforcing divisions not in a corps or army would have no extra caissons).
To replicate the uncertainty about supply arriving in time there could be a percentage possibility for each caisson to arrive - with a higher chance for the union to reflect generally more reliable and resourced logistics. So the percentage chance of arrival for any permitted additional caissons (with the union having the higher figure) would be 1st caisson: 85%/90% 2nd caisson: 75%/80% 3rd caisson: 65%/70%.
Note I don't know if reinforcements would ever exceed 30 brigades, if they did the above bands could be extended to include respectively a third or fourth (55%/60%) caisson.
Even if extra supply becomes available its late arrival after all other units means that a battle may well be decided before it has any effect. I had a good example of this in an action yesterday - where a single corps was being reinforced by small army - and three of the latters divisions arrived only to suffer defeat. It was fatigue and poor quality troops and equipment that decided things and whilst late arriving caissons may have helped to eliminate unit fatigue sooner it probably wouldn't have made much difference to the outcome.
Perhaps capitols should be destroyed automatically when a province changes hands. The new owner would need to build a new capitol (reflecting the effort of putting a gov't in place to get things moving again). Good idea?
Perhaps there could be an option to make resupply "automatic." In large HW battles (especially with logistics upgrades) moving all those supply wagons around and then clicking on their recipients gets to be a micromanagement chore.
I would be happy if just keeping the wagons in range was all that was needed. Somehow the extra click for each wagon (to choose a target) is just one step too many. Or am I just lazy?
Attractive idea but it would need an on/off switch during the battle There will be occasions during each action where you may want to concentrate supply on an individual unit or couple of units and don't want it evenly spread out even to others in a weaker supply state. I don't mind moving wagons around as it really adds to the flavour and poses realistic command choices.
