Wish List thread

[Brambo]

I would like to be able to save a PBEM game part way through a turn instead of having to complete the whole turn in one sitting. It would be helpful if you had a save key that would upload to the server for you to continue your turn when you had time. It just helps when you have a busy day, you can play part of the map and then come back and finish your turn when you have time. The guy I'm playing against me atm has agreed with me so I said I would add it to the forum posts. I suggest the upload to the server so it would prevent people from saving their game and then continuing to see if there plan worked and if it didn't going back to their save. Not that any good gamer would do that.[:)]

[demiller]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Refined Group Move

From reading the manual I'm assuming a group move will move all the units concerned directly towards the selected hex from their individual current locations. If that is the case it would be good to have an alternative for use within normal movement range (ie the movement hex grid) where all the group could be ordered to follow the specific path of the lead unit which the player would order hex by hex to its destination. This would greatly ease player workload and speed up group movements when moving brigades, divisions etc along roads and trails without having to order each unit in turn along each hex of the chosen thoroughfare.

+1 - This, very much. Some form of formation column movement would be really useful.

[Clinchrifles]

1)Longstreet and Ewell both have nearly the same colors. Any way we can add a symbol to one of them (maybe an x going through brigade colors). This isnt limited to these two brigades either.
2)Any way you can give different orders amongst the brigade? Ie-hold for infantry and advance to cavalry
3)We need a well defined tutorial or wiki made by players (devs are not needed here)
4)In combat situations where men lost is shown above the regiment---Can we make this number larger? Even on my 39 inch monitor I can barely read this. Would be awesome if the number was larger so I dont have to pay a lot of attention to the numbers in the battle report.
5)Still would like to see units better on minimap (this is a problem on my laptop)
6)In combat situations there is an arrow pointed at who is attacking who but the tip of the arrow is always inside the unit so it is hard to tell what is going on. Would it be possible to put the arrow in the middle of the segment if it is one attacking another without counterfire? Obviously-if there is counterfire it could just be a segment (with no arrows)
7)Can we get specific audio for a good csa attack, for a good usa attack, for a csa charge, for a usa charge? Right now its a generic "woohoo" and you dont know who is doing the ball busting until you see the reports
8)I would prefer to see attack results before counter-attack results
9)Clicking on a commander AUTOMATICALLY shows command radius and I would love for the borders of this to be a little bigger. Its sometimes hard to tell when a unit is close to the bull run riparian zone (which is already a brownish color)

These are things I think we need for the most part. The next few things are longshots but I will ask
1)Would love if it would be possible to play a game live. Like cwg2 i sit back and watch (what is in my los) my opponent execute his turn.
2)Would love if we could do above (1) 2v2. I know that is wishful thinking for the future but some of the bigger battles you may try in the future, this would be great (but only if 1 was true)
3)Lets get some user generated maps. Thats fine if u guys reserve what you would like to do in the future (its a business and i think you deserve to make your money) but I think we can make some smaller battles or even some completely hypothetical maps and scenarios. A wise game creator would never ignore the possibilities that modders could add so much.
4)I dont know if u can do this but opening sales on steam is a necessary evil. I dont know if matrix allows this? I may be out of line here.

[berto]

(Disclaimer: I haven't purchased the game yet. Given how otherwise busy I am, I don't have the time, or the patience, to deal with glitches, teething pains, hot fixes, and such right now. Maybe next month.)

In general, I think AI-controlled firing is a great innovation. But I could foresee circumstances where I might want to override, or at least influence, the AI-directed firing -- whether on a regiment by regiment basis, or higher up the command hierarchy.

Scourge of War has a feature where one can "Take Charge" and micromanage functions otherwise controlled by the AI.

Is there any provision for this in BaB? Might there be? Even if not to assume total control, to at least nudge firing in the desired manner?

[ericbabe]

Yes, there are two different mechanisms for influencing the automatic targeting in BAB: division commanders can set focus hexes periodically that increase the chance that regiments will fire into the focus hex, and artillery batteries can be given orders to prefer artillery targets over infantry in some situations.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Yes, there are two different mechanisms for influencing the automatic targeting in BAB: division commanders can set focus hexes periodically that increase the chance that regiments will fire into the focus hex, and artillery batteries can be given orders to prefer artillery targets over infantry in some situations.

Cool beans.

Get the polishing done right, and this could be the ACW game series of my dreams.

[AlessandroD]

ORIGINAL: bertoGet the polishing done right, and this could be the ACW game series of my dreams.

Berto, you are just wasting your time [:D]

Seriously, this game need some tweaking but it is totally playable.

[Capitaine]

I have had trouble discerning the type of unit and its formation and facing using the graphic unit icons, particularly in the Wilson's Creek battle where some units are very small resulting only in a couple of figures being shown for the unit. It's important for me, above all, to have clarity in the depiction of units and presently the game falls very short in this department.

Accordingly, I would like to see revisions in the unit graphics as follows:

1. Either abandon the depiction of losses to the unit graphic so all units appear full strength; or establish a minimum number of figures needed to show facing and formation adequately, and do not reduce the no. of figures below this level. Generally speaking, the reduction of figures for unit size and its reflection of casualties is a cool notion, but the severe difficulty of viewing the formation/facing of a unit with less than, say, 100 men makes it too confusing. How do you see what is a unit's formation or facing with only one or two figures? It's even hard to see the unit in the hex at all sometimes (or which hex it's in).

2. Eliminate the mounted commander for infantry units. Particularly with the ultra-small units described in 1. above, it's too easy to confuse the infantry unit for cavalry or an HQ. And while I don't doubt that regimental colonels had a mount, it's my understanding that they typically led their regiment on foot in battle. Like the figure depiction issue above, it's a cool idea in theory but in practice it has caused me a lot of confusion (and I don't consider it very historical for a bn to be led by a mounted officer in most cases).

[ericbabe]

Thanks for the feedback.

1. There is a minimum already, but it is perhaps too small.
2. That's a good idea.

[marcpennington]

It has been mentioned elsewhere, but let me add my voice to having more detailed NATO counters. I would love if they could include a box with a simple indication of formation (the counters in Command Ops and the way they handle posture are a good example of how this could work), a symbol that pops up if skirmishers are deployed, and a simple square going from green to red to indicate the overall strength of the unit.

Also, this next request is extremely petty, but might add some polish to the game. But I have noticed how regimental names on the map are cut off in weird ways. For example, "1st New Yo". To me it would look better if the standard abreviations for state names were used on the map--- in this case 1st NY. I said it was a petty request...

Fantastic game, BTW.

Edit--- Since I posted this, I have found the option to show unit strength/ supply details. But those vertical columns are seriously ugly (sorry), and two small boxes on the NATO chit color coded from green to red would be a way better way to convey the info in an asctheticaly pleasing way.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: map66

It has been mentioned elsewhere, but let me add my voice to having more detailed NATO counters. I would love if they could include a box with a simple indication of formation (the counters in Command Ops and the way they handle posture are a good example of how this could work), a symbol that pops up if skirmishers are deployed, and a simple square going from green to red to indicate the overall strength of the unit.

Also, this next request is extremely petty, but might add some polish to the game. But I have noticed how regimental names on the map are cut off in weird ways. For example, "1st New Yo". To me it would look better if the standard abreviations for state names were used on the map--- in this case 1st NY. I said it was a petty request...

Fantastic game, BTW.

We had to have truncated names due to the length of many non-standard unit names, which would require multiple hexes and be impossible to read if there were adjacent units. But, of course, these truncated names aren't ideal. So Eric added to the OOB files a column that can be used to enter an abbreviated name list "1st N.Y." where possible, but I haven't had a chance to do that. It's on my to-do list! (If you're into modding you'll find it's easy to do, if you don't want to wait for me to make these changes.)

[marcpennington]

Great to hear that it's on the to-do list. A very small thing admittedly, but will add a little to the chrome of the game.

[barkhorn45]

When you zoom out have the map centered on the selected unit.
The 2 green buttons on the left edge of the screen,move them to the top left edge,
when I try to scroll in that direction I alway's hit them and the screen won't scroll.

[zakblood]

can you screen shot what you mean? as i'm not sure which green buttons you mean?

[Michael T]

I think I know what he means. The OOB menu and the other menu below it. They always stop any scrolling to the left. You have to move the cursor either above or below them to scroll left. he suggests moving them to the some less annoying space, or allow scrolling to work when passing over them.

I find this limitation annoying as well.

[zakblood]

ah ty, was thinking he'd got something i hadn't got[:D][;)]

as i couldn't find it, some mice it seems are more prone to move the screen than others, i only use a cheap Microsoft mouse and a few Fujitsu Siemens ones that i was given, and the DPI setting is quite low, so i have to fully place it in the left or right corner to move the page so never really noticed it, so i guess it depends on how good your mouse is, the gaming mice can be very high DPI and precise so edge of map use can be tricky, so for me i'd use the shortcuts instead?

that any good for you?

good luck and re post if not and will see if anyone else has another better answer maybe...

[LuckyJim1010]

Not sure if it has been mentioned. I've always found the 'Centre on right mouse click' to be most useful.

[kennonlightfoot]

Still need a way to clean up our games in progress list on the PBEM site. Now have five zombie games and counting.

[AlessandroD]

ORIGINAL: kwhitehead

Still need a way to clean up our games in progress list on the PBEM site. Now have five zombie games and counting.

Are you not able to resign the games? I already resigned twice.

[zakblood]

to resign a game, it has to be your move, select the first part of the game so it's highlighted, then click resign or cancel it by the menu at the right hand side of the screen, it does work and you get a email confirming to both side what happened, but it's not a 1 second process either as first time i tried to do it, i did it a few times as i didn't think it was working or anything was happening