Matrix Games Forums

I have a few suggestions for FoF that I hope both players and developers will support.

Major changes:

1) Extend the map westward to include all of TX, NM, and the eastern half of AZ.

2) Include cities in the extended territories.

3) Make a new political building available called "Town", or something similar, that can only be built in regions lacking a city. Limit the number of buildings that can be built in a "Town" to 8.

4) Create a new building called "Farms" that costs 25 labor, 25 horse, requires 6 turns, and grants +1 labor, +1 horse, can be constructed by either side, but does not support more buildings.

5) Pursuant to suggestions 3 and 4, add town icons to all regions that do not now have cities. Make the town icon appear like the city icons but make them square or triangular. Rename some regions to reflect the major town that were there in 1861.

6) Allow the construction of RR stations in towns to connect them to the existing rail nets if adjacent to regions with a rail line and one is not already present in the region. (The RR line icon appears on the map.)

7) Allow players to move building icons around in the city screen. New buildings appear randomly in available space and players can move them around to suit. (It is very difficult to see or keep track of multiple improvements in cities with many buildings. Allowing players to move them around and organize them as they like will make that much easier as a visual reference.)

Minor changes:

1) Brigade attachments are ridiculously expensive. For example, Brigade Artillery costs as much as some building improvements which represent major infrastructure, whereas the artillery represents a battery (6 guns) or two of 6-pounder guns. Reduce the cost of brigade attachments.

2) Brigades should not be limited to only 2 attachments. Consider allowing 4 or even 6. As an alternative, limit brigades to 2 attachments and allow Division HQs and maybe Corps HQs to have 2 to 4 attachments which benefit every unit in the division/corps. This would be particularly well suited for attachments like Scouts, Engineers, Bands, Zouaves, Baggage Train, Slaves, Signal Corps, Medical, and HQ-specific versions of artillery attachments.

3) More realism and historicity is needed in weapon upgrades. For example, the Lorenz rifle was no better than the Springfield and was literally twice as common in Union arsenals as Confederate. So why is it better than Springfields and only available to CSA? Also, the Austrian government initially offered very good terms to the CSA so the weapons should cost much less for the Confederates. Also, why isn't the Enfield available to the CSA? 600,000 purchased by the Union. 400,000 purchased/traded for by the CSA. Yet it is not available to the CSA. Further the stats on the Enfields and Lorenzs should be the same as Springfields, not better or worse. "Minie Rifles" represent what? The only American made weapon to shoot Minie ball ammunition before the Springfield was the Model 1855 Springfield Rifled Musket. Model 1841 Mississippi and Model 1842s, as well as their European counterparts fired round ball.

4) The defacto standard calibres of the war was .69 for old muskets that were converted to perscussion locks and rifled, .58 calbre for the Model 1855 and later rifles (including the Liege,Dresden, and Enfield rifles from Europe) and .52 calbre for primed cartridge repeaters. I say these are the defacto standards because the USAs production made them so. The CSA was heavily dependent on captured weapons and ammunition so these calibres extended to the CSA. Weapons that are not of these calibres (like the Lorenz) should cost more in support. Brass cartridge weapons, regardless of calibre, should cost more in support because the ammo was more expensive and harder to manufacture. Weapons that are not the standard Sharps calibre (like the Henry rifle) should cost even more in support.

5) First rate rifled muskets all had very similar performance in range, accuracy, RoF, maintenance, etc. so there should be no difference in range or cost stats (Springfield, Lorenz, Enfield). Likewise, the M1863 "improved Springfield" was nothing but a very minor modification to reduce production costs and improve reliability somewhat. It was in all ways identical to the M1861 version and should not be better in stats, only slightly less expensive. I suggest removing this weapon and the corresponding weapons research from the game. In short, the Springfield and its contemporaries were the height of muzzling-loading rifled muskets and the only thing that should be better, stat wise, are the primed cartridge, breech-loading rifles like the Sharps and the repeaters like the Henry rifle.

6) When a unit has its weapons upgraded, the old weapons shouldn't disappear. The player should get a credit to his iron pool, or perhaps his weapon pool to reflect the ability to reissue these weapons to other units or melt them down to produce better weapons. For example, no army would simply throw away a brigade's worth of Springfields upon upgrade, while the next unit over is still using pistols and shotguns.

Well, thats about it for now. I'm still thinking about suggestions for other aspects of the game, but these really stick out to me as things that should see the light of day in the next patch.

Regards,
Valdemar

6) When a unit has its weapons upgraded, the old weapons shouldn't disappear. The player should get a credit to his iron pool, or perhaps his weapon pool to reflect the ability to reissue these weapons to other units or melt them down to produce better weapons. For example, no army would simply throw away a brigade's worth of Springfields upon upgrade, while the next unit over is still using pistols and shotguns.

 
A big snap to that! This one thing probably annoys me more than anything in an otherwise superlative game. It's just so freakin' obvious... how hard could this be to fix??
 
THawk

to point 6)

Actually u do get some of the cost back, aka resources to buy a new so it isnt really lost.
Test it by buying 1 to a unit with improvised and 1 with X rifle cant remember what the exact payback rate is. Could be 1/3 or ½ but that OTOH.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Sweet. Where is this documented/explained so I can utilize it for my resource strategies??

ORIGINAL: Walloc

to point 6)

Actually u do get some of the cost back, aka resources to buy a new so it isnt really lost.
Test it by buying 1 to a unit with improvised and 1 with X rifle cant remember what the exact payback rate is. Could be 1/3 or ½ but that OTOH.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

The 50% cost back feature is in the rules somewhere...but you can visualize it in action in the game as well, when you upgrade a weapon...the cost savings are deducted from the price of the new weapon you are purchasing.  As a matter of fact, I believe when you seriously downgrade a weapon (ie, trade a Springfield for a Shotgun) you'll see a NEGATIVE cost for this switch (ie, you'll gain resources), as 50% the cost of a Springfield easily exceeds that of a Shotgun.

Great suggestions overall!  As to 1) point about Brigade Artillery, tho, I would have to say BA represents more than just 1-2 batteries of 6 lbers...my calculations put it the real value of the upgrade at 25 guns, or 4-6 batteries.
 
How I figure this?  Well, a manpower point = 1500 men (ie, it takes 2mp to make a 3000 man infantry brigade).  And an artillery brigade takes only 1mp to build, so, it's fair to say it actually is made up 1500 men.  Back then, each 4-6 gun battery had a crew of about 150 men, so, we can say an artillery brigade in FoF represents 10 batteries, or about 50 guns.
 
Now, you can give a unit 2 Brigade Artillery upgrades, and voila!  It changes into a full fledged artillery brigade.
 
THEREFORE, by my calculations, each Brigade Artillery upgrade probably should represent half of 50 guns, or 25 guns, ie, 4-6 batteries.

A few comments, just my own opinions...

ORIGINAL: Valdemar
1) Extend the map westward to include all of TX, NM, and the eastern half of AZ.

There were extremely few significant combat operations in these theaters and very low population density as well as some unique geography. Seems like a good reason to leave them out.

3) Make a new political building available called "Town", or something similar, that can only be built in regions lacking a city. Limit the number of buildings that can be built in a "Town" to 8.
4) Create a new building called "Farms" that costs 25 labor, 25 horse, requires 6 turns, and grants +1 labor, +1 horse, can be constructed by either side, but does not support more buildings.

I think the game currently handles this reasonably well by taking the regional infrastructure and lumping it into the major "city" in each region. I'm not sure how this would be better, but it would vastly increase the player's burden in terms of the number of "cities" he'd have to keep track of, develop, prioritize, etc. Doesn't matter that they could only handle 8 buildings, it's still a vast increase in what the player has to watch and manage. We've already had feedback from quite a few folks who would love the entire economy to be automated and turned off as an option (to be handled by a "friendly" AI) so I think adding more complexity is probably a low priority.

7) Allow players to move building icons around in the city screen. New buildings appear randomly in available space and players can move them around to suit. (It is very difficult to see or keep track of multiple improvements in cities with many buildings. Allowing players to move them around and organize them as they like will make that much easier as a visual reference.)

Honestly, I keep track of them through the list rather than visually and generally use the city list to look at the totals and end result economic output rather than spending a lot of time on each city detail screen.

1) Brigade attachments are ridiculously expensive. For example, Brigade Artillery costs as much as some building improvements which represent major infrastructure, whereas the artillery represents a battery (6 guns) or two of 6-pounder guns. Reduce the cost of brigade attachments.

It's more than six guns actually, since two such attachments converts the brigade to an artillery brigade of 30-40 guns, so it's fair to say that each attachment is more like 12-16 guns. Also, because of that the attachment cost is in line so that two of them is still cheaper than buying a new artillery brigade, but not ridiculously so. I agree that some of the other attachments could be reduced in cost, but Brigade Artillery and Brigade Cavalry are the two I definitely wouldn't touch unless Artillery and Cavalry and Infantry unit costs are adjusted as well.

2) Brigades should not be limited to only 2 attachments. Consider allowing 4 or even 6. As an alternative, limit brigades to 2 attachments and allow Division HQs and maybe Corps HQs to have 2 to 4 attachments which benefit every unit in the division/corps. This would be particularly well suited for attachments like Scouts, Engineers, Bands, Zouaves, Baggage Train, Slaves, Signal Corps, Medical, and HQ-specific versions of artillery attachments.

It's more of a management overhead and interface issue again, where most players don't really want to keep track of four or six attributes per brigade and most brigades would not have one of everything. You can assume that a normal brigade has some baggage train, for example, but a brigade with the attribute has extra.

3) More realism and historicity is needed in weapon upgrades. For example, the Lorenz rifle was no better than the Springfield and was literally twice as common in Union arsenals as Confederate. So why is it better than Springfields and only available to CSA? Also, the Austrian government initially offered very good terms to the CSA so the weapons should cost much less for the Confederates. Also, why isn't the Enfield available to the CSA? 600,000 purchased by the Union. 400,000 purchased/traded for by the CSA. Yet it is not available to the CSA. Further the stats on the Enfields and Lorenzs should be the same as Springfields, not better or worse. "Minie Rifles" represent what? The only American made weapon to shoot Minie ball ammunition before the Springfield was the Model 1855 Springfield Rifled Musket. Model 1841 Mississippi and Model 1842s, as well as their European counterparts fired round ball.

Actually, we've made a lot of progress in this regard if you look at the original release and compare the gun values. All the progress has been towards more realism. However, we've also tried to maintain some game differences between similar weapons, however slight. For example, some reports have the Lorenz as performing better than the Springfield, others worse. Most note the Enfield as more accurate than the Springfield. The Improved Springfield had better sights, supposedly, etc. The differences end up being slight but add some flavor. The quick combat values are extremely close or identical for most of these weapons.

The current beta guns file makes even more progress in this regard and we're also tinkering with extended ranges for artillery, but that needs more testing.

The "Minie Rifle" could perhaps be better named as it does include both the older US rifle and some older European models as well.

4) The defacto standard calibres of the war was .69 for old muskets that were converted to perscussion locks and rifled, .58 calbre for the Model 1855 and later rifles (including the Liege,Dresden, and Enfield rifles from Europe) and .52 calbre for primed cartridge repeaters. I say these are the defacto standards because the USAs production made them so. The CSA was heavily dependent on captured weapons and ammunition so these calibres extended to the CSA. Weapons that are not of these calibres (like the Lorenz) should cost more in support. Brass cartridge weapons, regardless of calibre, should cost more in support because the ammo was more expensive and harder to manufacture. Weapons that are not the standard Sharps calibre (like the Henry rifle) should cost even more in support.

This is basically how we rated them, in general, with some minor differences. However, rate of fire ups the supply usage as well and weapons of foreign origin also tend to cost a bit more to maintain.

5) First rate rifled muskets all had very similar performance in range, accuracy, RoF, maintenance, etc. so there should be no difference in range or cost stats (Springfield, Lorenz, Enfield). Likewise, the M1863 "improved Springfield" was nothing but a very minor modification to reduce production costs and improve reliability somewhat. It was in all ways identical to the M1861 version and should not be better in stats, only slightly less expensive. I suggest removing this weapon and the corresponding weapons research from the game. In short, the Springfield and its contemporaries were the height of muzzling-loading rifled muskets and the only thing that should be better, stat wise, are the primed cartridge, breech-loading rifles like the Sharps and the repeaters like the Henry rifle.

There's really a small difference between these weapons in terms of game stats, just enough to keep them distinct without making one overpowering vs. the others. Taking a quick look at my guns file, they are all either 2 or 3 quick combat value and are either 4 or 5 range with fairly close firepower ratings. The Lorenz and Enfield are slightly better due to our research indicating that they should be, but this is absolutely an art rather than a science in terms of really rating these weapons. We don't have one of each to test fire at various ranges, unfortunately, though we did find some information on their accuracy and performance at ranges from the testing of others.

6) When a unit has its weapons upgraded, the old weapons shouldn't disappear. The player should get a credit to his iron pool, or perhaps his weapon pool to reflect the ability to reissue these weapons to other units or melt them down to produce better weapons. For example, no army would simply throw away a brigade's worth of Springfields upon upgrade, while the next unit over is still using pistols and shotguns.

As Rasmus noted, you do get a credit (are you playing with the latest update?) - half the cost of your existing weapons is deducted from the cost of your new weapons. This is reflected in the reduced cost listed when you choose your new weapon, so the credit is instantaneous as a discount rather than going back to your pool.

Regards,

- Erik

Valdemar,
Thank you for your feedback, and for putting so much time into it. Many of the points I would make have already been made, but I should add a few.

First, most of the changes you suggest would not be easy to make, so rather than adding them in a patch we would wait until the expansion pack (or FOF Version 2?) that we hope to release down the road (probably in early 2008, since we have two other projects that are ahead of it in the queue). Some changes might seem simple, but would actually take a lot of man-hours in terms of programming and/or graphics. So, if your ideas aren't implemented in the near future don't despair, some might make it into the next FOF-related product.

Regarding specifics, I like the idea of "Farms" myself, and maybe for that next product we'll add a few more buildings and this could be one. However, I'm not partial to your idea of 4-6 brigade attributes, since that will upset the balance of the game in some ways. I recognize, of course, that brigades could have an artillery battalion and some scouts and a military band and even a company of Zouaves for good measure, but FOF is not a simulation, so the point is to make the player make some tough decisions (as you yourself recognize in your thread on southern strategy). So, I would much rather not raise the number of brigade attributes because it would make for less of a challenge overall. Also, adding towns is something that would affect the game's balance, and could only be done after a great deal of play-testing -- not something we can do at the moment.

I think that the other points I would have made have been made for others. It seems that you missed out on all of the fun debates about gun ranges and effectiveness back in the first months after the game came out. We're always looking for reliable data to show us where changes to the guns file need to be made, but for now I'm quite satisfied that if we don't have it 100% correct, it's pretty close to that.

There is a deduction in cost when upgrading weapons, but there is a cap in place so that you can't actually gain resources by swapping weapon types (there was an exploit associated with this.)

ORIGINAL: Valdemar

Also, why isn't the Enfield available to the CSA?

Because you are spending nothing on Diplomacy, perhaps?

ORIGINAL: Valdemar
For example, the Lorenz rifle was no better than the Springfield and was literally twice as common in Union arsenals as Confederate. So why is it better than Springfields and only available to CSA? Also, the Austrian government initially offered very good terms to the CSA so the weapons should cost much less for the Confederates. Also, why isn't the Enfield available to the CSA?

Yeah, meant to comment on this - you need to achieve a certain diplomatic level to have weapons offered to you. If you are at diplomacy zero for a nation, they won't offer to sell you any weapons. The Lorenz and Enfield are available to both sides as long as their diplomacy is high enough (2, IIRC).