Wish List

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Unless I have missed it somehweres, a "Go To" command would be nice.

I cannot say how many minutes I have spent after clicking on a container to march it, only to have to micromanage my mouse in weird ways (without clicking on something else in the area and thus ending my proposed move) in order to get said container to where I want it to go.

It would be nice to click on a container in say, Paducah, click on goto, choose Memphis (I can't remember the district Memphis is in, sorry) click yes and be done with it.

Thresh

This idea, if implemented, would hurt the player: you need to see those arrows to get a sense of how far your units can get, and how likely they are to get there.

[Paper Tiger]

Playing USA on highest level vs computer.
The AI is not good enough I am winning.

[Paper Tiger]

The computer leaves Divisions and Corps out on a limb easy to cut off and then destroy, it attacks and seiges cities which are far too heavily defended and just allows itself to be destroyed.
Program it to switch to encircle if it is taking far too many casualties in a seige, program it to try and retreat back to it's own lines if it gets cut off.

[General Quarters]

It would make sense if units in a city or fort under siege were be at higher risk of disease.

[General Quarters]

An un-wish:
 
Many of us keep suggesting various additions and complexifications that would add a further historical touch or just be cool.  But I remember ericbabe saying that he assumed that most people who play a civil war game want it to focus on armies and battles.  That is right on target.  Don't add so many gadgets that the game loses that focus.  

[christof139]

Hi GQ,
 
Good point. I don't use disease because I don't like disease, either in the game or in the RW. It is OK for those that want it, but with pursuit losses and etc. I feel I don't need it.
 
Simplicity and ease of operatioan iis generally the best route to follow.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: christof139
Simplicity and ease of operation is generally the best route to follow.

Amen to that.

[Ironclad]

A way to check terrain type on screen would be helpful.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

There's not much in the loading or exiting code that can be tightened, unfortunately. The delay in loading occurs in a series of calls to standard Windows routines that load graphics and other data from the harddrive; it's longer on systems which need to use some virtual memory. Exiting delay is also related to virtual memory caching during memory deallocation, and there's not a lot we can do about that.

Not to belabor the point, but I play a lot of games. And I have a rather serious system to do so.

And I have *never* seen a game take several seconds to load the standard Windows file dialogue screen. FoF takes considerably longer to load than the vasy majority of games I play.

I guess if you say there is no optimization to be done, then there isn't much point in bringing it up. As a professional software engineer (albeit NOT a game coder), I am skeptical that the game is as tight as it should be.

[General Quarters]

It would be nice if there were tool-tips as you pass over buildings on the City Screen. Theoretically, you could recognize all the buildings but I do not. A tool-tip would be a nicer way to access that info than having to scroll down the list on the right -- and give some relief to my tired index finger.

[General Quarters]

Governor's requests

Right now information you need to evaluate whether to respond to the request (such as governor's temper) is nowhere on the same screen as the ability to give the build order, so one has to go back and forth to perform a single action. It would be great if both info and orders were present on the same screen, probably the City Screen.

[Thresh]

Gil,

If I am in Paducah, and want to go to the area to where Memphis and the four forts are, I don't care about how far I "might be able to move", I care that I am spending more than a minute trying to get my mouse posistioned in such a way that the mover order will actually go through without clicking on another item within the area and nulling what I want to do. It should not be that hard to move a stack. [:@]

Besides, whats the difference between setting a "Go To" order, and having a newly mustered Infantry unit in Topeka sent to "Join" the Army of Potomac in Annapolis?

If Players want a stack of conatiners to move a long distance, I don't think they are to worried about how far it goes each turn, as long as it gets there they will be happy.

Theres enough micromanagemen in the game already, my mouse should not be one of them.

YMMV,

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Unless I have missed it somehweres, a "Go To" command would be nice.

I cannot say how many minutes I have spent after clicking on a container to march it, only to have to micromanage my mouse in weird ways (without clicking on something else in the area and thus ending my proposed move) in order to get said container to where I want it to go.

It would be nice to click on a container in say, Paducah, click on goto, choose Memphis (I can't remember the district Memphis is in, sorry) click yes and be done with it.

Thresh

This idea, if implemented, would hurt the player: you need to see those arrows to get a sense of how far your units can get, and how likely they are to get there.

[DrewGator]

I would like to second a vote for windowed mode. I have my computer dual headed and when playing FoF the primary monitor is full screen but the secondary monitor while visible is not accessible unless I Alt-Tab to another program.

[General Quarters]

Playing my first fog of war game, I find that, on the Overview map, I can see enemy troops I am not supposed to see.

[Twotribes]

I would like it if I could modify the number of Generals one can promote per Academies. I do not see this in any of the files.

I read somewhere that the standard was as follows.... 1.25 4 star per 5 acadamies, 2.5 3 Star per 5 academies and 5 2 Star per 5 academies. Is this correct? I know in my current game at 20 acadamies I can promote 6 4 star , 12 3 star and 23 2 star. This doesnt jive with the above list.

[Twotribes]

Can the allowed numbers of weapon types be changed? I havent looked closely at that. If not add that to a file that can be modified. As in change the musket from only allowing 100 brigades to some other number. And yes I am aware you can exceed the number, but it gets progessively MORE expensive as you do.

[Berkut]

I would suggest some kind of tweaking of the number of generals available under "normal" and "more".

Under "normal" it felt like I had nowhere near enough generals for my units. Not even close.

So we set it to "more" for our next PBEM game, and now I have them coming out of my ears! There are dozens of them! I wish I could just demote the stacks sitting in Washington to private and form another brigade out of them!

Something in between "not enough to come clsoe to commanding your armies" and enough to use them to build a bridge across the Potomac would be nice.

The large numbers would not be so bad if there was some way to turn off their display in the army list, btw. Maybe a toggle to hide 1-star generals?

[General Quarters]

I agree that there are a bit two few generals on Normal, and somewhat more than I want on More.

[Ironclad]

My view too. Even despatching packs of generals westwards still leaves too many around Washington. We need a happy medium.

[Roger Neilson II]

The expression 'famine or feast' sunms up the current situation. On Few setting I end up with large areas of the Union forces with no commanders for a long time, on lots setting I have more generals than troops to command...... to the point where i toy with putting them in their own division!

Roger