Wish List

[RERomine]

I thought I would toss this out here for those who would like to see changes in any of the Battleground games.

Here's mine and it applies to the five Civil War games. Please change the supply process. There is nothing more irritating than having a 2-gun artillery battery use as much ammunition as a 6-gun battery. The same applies to infantry ammunition. A 25-man regiment uses as much in resupply as a 1000-man regiment. I generally don't fire small artillery batteries and run my small regiments away from the supply wagons, just in case they run low on ammo.

Shouldn't be hard to equate artillery ammunition usage by the gun tube and the infantry supply by the man. I'm not asking it to be determine by broken down by weapon type, just count.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

I thought I would toss this out here for those who would like to see changes in any of the Battleground games.

Here's mine and it applies to the five Civil War games. Please change the supply process. There is nothing more irritating than having a 2-gun artillery battery use as much ammunition as a 6-gun battery. The same applies to infantry ammunition. A 25-man regiment uses as much in resupply as a 1000-man regiment. I generally don't fire small artillery batteries and run my small regiments away from the supply wagons, just in case they run low on ammo.

Shouldn't be hard to equate artillery ammunition usage by the gun tube and the infantry supply by the man. I'm not asking it to be determine by broken down by weapon type, just count.

I think that is a very reasonable suggestion. I give it my vote!

[Plainian]

Leaders -
I've always wondered why they bothered allowing leaders to mount and dismount in the civil war series? I believe that mounted leaders are more susceptible to ranged fire but I'm not 100% if that is true? (its not documented?)

Anyway one change I'd like is make leader status (mounted/on foot) linked to command range and melee?

eg mounted leaders get +1 command range increase to reflect they are riding around organising things and lose their melee modifier ability.

eg leaders on foot get normal (or even reduced?) command range but still qualify for melee modifier of +1.

Oh and yes leader melee modifiers are only available IF they participating in attack with their own subordinate units, so no more moving up any old leader to get the bonus.

Idea is that there is a trade off. Position leaders to improve command, or use them for short term battle bonuses.

[RERomine]

Can't argue the point about a leader on a horse being more of a target. Screams 'shot me', like being the colors bearer. Not more to hit, but will be shot at more because they stand out. Rough on the poor horse, too, who doesn't have a choice.

I like the increased command range by being mounted, but not sure about reducing melee. On a horse, not on a horse, leaders of brigades or higher should be to the rear of the unit. They coordinate the fight, but shouldn't be doing the fighting themselves so mounted or not shouldn't matter in a melee. But there should be a greater risk of a leader casaulty if they are mounted.