AGEOD Forums

hey guys

what you want see in boa 2 ?????

more units.
more territory.
more turns.
more leaders.
more wars.
more or less administration.
a efective supply system.
difference between greens and veterans troops.
a great, great french and indian war campaign.
the politics between montcalm and vaudreuill
the incapacity of the colonial oficers in commanding regular troops.
the dislike between the canadians and metropolitan troops.
a true goal for the indian nations.
new scenarios: king philip war, king williams war, queen anne war, acadia war...the beaver wars, seminole war, cherokee war, ohio indian war, pontiac war tecumseh efforts for indian union...
and last not last...the presence of the brutal frontier war in the american independency with the shawnees, mingos, delawares, wyandotts and their respective leaders...

and you, what you want see in the sequel???

I want to see the Legion on the United States.
More Officers and Portraits
More Uniforms
The Indian Wars (Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War, the Creek War)
The Conquest of Florida
More Naval Officers and Ships
The Quasi-War
Expansion into the Caribbean

All of this could be here...provided you supply us with the data (OOBs, events and the like)

muddymonkey77 wrote:More Officers and Portraits
More Uniforms

All for more Portraits, but some likenesses are impossible or very hard to find.

Uniforms graphics are tied to the Units files, which in turn are tied to models files. If every unit that had different facings, or colors of fabric is represented you would need to have a model and unit file for every single regiment. Regiments with grenadiers would need a model for their grenadiers and a model for their line troops.

Basically it would be a lot of files.

Example the French Regiment de Bearn of the F&IW.

The European uniform of the regiment de Bearn was distinguished by its red collar, red cuffs with three buttons along the edge, red waistcoat, brass buttons, and gold lace. The special Canadian issue for the regiment, however, had blue cuffs and waistcoat, pewter buttons, and silver lace.

By 1758, the original battalions were no longer supplied with the special Canadian pattern of clothing; all the French regulars were clothed in European dress, complete with prescribed regimental distinctions.

In 1755, the dress of the regiment de Bearn consisted of the traditional greyish-white justaucorps with deep cuffs of blue, but without the usual small collar. The skirt, which reached the top of the knee, could be hooked up for greater freedom of movement, or allowed to fall straight for ceremonial occasions or to give additional protection to the legs in inclement weather. The Bearn had a distinctive coat pocket, consisting of a three-pointed double vertical slash with a large button at each point. While this pocket design is clearly shown in the illustration, the artist's retention of regimental pocket distinctions in the Canadian-pattern uniform is purely speculative as documentary evidence is not available.

The greyish-white breeches were buttoned on the side and buckled below the knee. Black shoes with metal buckles were worn over white wool stockings. On campaign and parade, the soldiers wore white canvas gaiters that reached just to the bottom of the coat. These were fastened below the knee by a black leather strap.

All ranks wore the black felt tricorn with black or white cockade. The brim was edged with fake-silver tape for privates and corporals, and fine silver lace for sergeants and officers. Other items of dress included a black cravat and white linen shirt.

PhilThib wrote:All of this could be here...provided you supply us with the data (OOBs, events and the like)

Tell me what you want, and I'll get it for you! Been studying this stuff for a little while now.

If you would like to do a 1783-1800 Campaign (A good little campaign with a good number of events) I can provide the details. Give me a time line and I'll get right to work.

I want the Alamo!... and what about USA-Mexico war???

arsan wrote:I want the Alamo!... and what about USA-Mexico war???

That doesn't really fit the time line...but would be an interesting future game....

and the tactical aspect of the game?

what you think about that?

iroquois wrote:and the tactical aspect of the game?

what you think about that?

Well, maybe for BOA 3 or BOA 4...
Meanwhile, you have For Liberty... but its not as good or as nice looking as BoA...

Goodaye,

I'd really like to see an enhancement to the supply system. Not a dumbing down - the opposite actually.

While personally I'd opt for a realistic and involved supply system I realise you have to cater for all tastes. Perhaps a toggle in the options screen for 'simple supply' or 'realistic supply'.

The realistic supply option would focus the game more on the importance of supply, or lack thereof, which was a huge factor in the time period in question.

Maybe this could be done through scenarios, a-la-BOA1 in that Pocus (?) put in a more supply orientated version of the Campaign (a lot less supply wagons available making supply more critical).

But overall anything that could be done to enhance the supply model (which is pretty good already, perhaps just a tad confusing with the 'chits') would get my vote.

The visual representation of supply available in structures, a-la-your Civil War game would be a bonus.

Cheers,
Plugger

I second that on the supply. But don't you get the visual info on supply status right now? Or what are those bundles that stack up in my depots?

iroquois wrote:hey guys

what you want see in boa 2 ?????

more units.

I hope not. There are plenty now really. Maybe smaller units for smaller scale wars.

more territory.

Again I don't see much point in more territory for the American War of Independence or the Seven Years War. Other scenarios could use more territory of course. And a more complete Caribbean could be very cool for both wars. After all the battle of the Saintes was a huge reason why peace could be reached.

more turns.

If that means shorter turns I certainly hope not. Winter is plenty long as is, and the full Revolution is a marathon game. I like one month per turn.

more leaders.

I'd like to see fewer leaders. Most of the lower rank guys play no real role in the game, unless they have a useful special ability. They add clutter, to my mind.

more wars.

Of course! More scenarios. War of 1812, King George's War, Queen Anne's War, I'd like them all.

more or less administration.

Just better. It's too easy to peel off detachments when your leader isn't active. If only Germaine had known that he could just leave Howe on Staten Island with a couple of regiments and have Cornwallis lead the attack on Long Island and Manhatten. Obviously, you can't have corps and divisions in this game, but organizing armies should be more sensible.

a efective supply system.

Yes. I can't stand that the French can support a massive army out of Fort Niagara, and that you can just build a depot in the middle of nowhere when supplies run short.

difference between greens and veterans troops.

I think the stars do an adequate job of that.

a great, great french and indian war campaign.

Of course

the politics between montcalm and vaudreuill

Not sure how you model this into a strategic game that isn't about politics. And why stop there. What about the Howes as peace commisioners, Gates and Washington, and so forth.

the incapacity of the colonial oficers in commanding regular troops.
the dislike between the canadians and metropolitan troops.

Definitely. Tensions between colonials and metropolitans ought to be in there somewhere.

I know this has been discussed before, but thought I would give it a try. The Americans who fought against the Crown

1) Never called themselves "insurgents."
2) Were never called "insurgents" by the British.
3) Were never called "insurgents" by anybody else, as far as I know.

Why are they called that in the game, or at least in the manual? It would be just as appropriate, in that case, to call them the "communards."

I think BOA was a great game, and the ACW game was even better. I will buy the Napoleonic game soon, and am eagerly awaiting BOA 2.

But a game with an historical theme has its credibility seriously dented, when the designers don't use the right nomenclature.

Washington's army, and those fighting for independence, thought of themselves as patriots, or even simply Americans. The British generally referred to them as rebels. What's wrong with those terms?

Merci,

B.C. Milligan

K-1stPennaRes wrote:I know this has been discussed before, but thought I would give it a try. The Americans who fought against the Crown

1) Never called themselves "insurgents."
2) Were never called "insurgents" by the British.
3) Were never called "insurgents" by anybody else, as far as I know.

Why are they called that in the game, or at least in the manual? It would be just as appropriate, in that case, to call them the "communards."

I think BOA was a great game, and the ACW game was even better. I will buy the Napoleonic game soon, and am eagerly awaiting BOA 2.

But a game with an historical theme has its credibility seriously dented, when the designers don't use the right nomenclature.

Washington's army, and those fighting for independence, thought of themselves as patriots, or even simply Americans. The British generally referred to them as rebels. What's wrong with those terms?

Merci,

B.C. Milligan

We've dealt with this in the BOA2 Beta Forums.

I'll Copy my post on it.
________________________________________________________

Unfortunately the term insurgent has been overshadowed by current events. The American Insurgency would have been a perfectly logical title for the American Revolution if one lived anywhere outside of the Colonies during that time period.

Imagine how Bunker Hill would have been perceived if covered by modern news standards with a British-centered world view.
"This is Wolfe Wallace and you're in the Situation Roome. Our top story is about a bloody clash between His Majesties Troops and American Insurgents last month in Boston. Crown Forces assaulted and seized insurgent positions on two hills overlooking the city and harbor. Insurgent media claims they killed an estimated 200 and wounded over 800 British troops before falling back. Lord Howe reports that Crown Forces routed the insurgents and caused nearly 500 casualties. He further said that insurgent claims of heavy losses to his Majesty's forces are just so much hot air. We are covering this story form every angle...."

To the Right-Wing Noise Machine here in America, the word insurgent means terrorist. We fight and kill insurgents. Calling our American, Patriot, Fore-fathers insurgents is un-American, etc...

One man's Patriot is another man's Insurgent.

Continentals, Patriots, or Americans are commonly used to describe our forces by American historians. American Loyalists would be Tory or Tories.
I am sure any Brits out there have different names for us.

Why not use the nomenclature particular to each side? (Tory Regiments are Loyalist Regiments, Rebel Regiments are Continentals, etc.)

The Hessians get to stay Hessians though.

lightsfantastic wrote:We've dealt with this in the BOA2 Beta Forums.

I'll Copy my post on it.
________________________________________________________

Unfortunately the term insurgent has been overshadowed by current events. The American Insurgency would have been a perfectly logical title for the American Revolution if one lived anywhere outside of the Colonies during that time period.

Imagine how Bunker Hill would have been perceived if covered by modern news standards with a British-centered world view.
"This is Wolfe Wallace and you're in the Situation Roome. Our top story is about a bloody clash between His Majesties Troops and American Insurgents last month in Boston. Crown Forces assaulted and seized insurgent positions on two hills overlooking the city and harbor. Insurgent media claims they killed an estimated 200 and wounded over 800 British troops before falling back. Lord Howe reports that Crown Forces routed the insurgents and caused nearly 500 casualties. He further said that insurgent claims of heavy losses to his Majesty's forces are just so much hot air. We are covering this story form every angle...."

To the Right-Wing Noise Machine here in America, the word insurgent means terrorist. We fight and kill insurgents. Calling our American, Patriot, Fore-fathers insurgents is un-American, etc...

One man's Patriot is another man's Insurgent.

Continentals, Patriots, or Americans are commonly used to describe our forces by American historians. American Loyalists would be Tory or Tories.
I am sure any Brits out there have different names for us.

Why not use the nomenclature particular to each side? (Tory Regiments are Loyalist Regiments, Rebel Regiments are Continentals, etc.)

The Hessians get to stay Hessians though.

Well said. Agree completely.

Not only has the term Insurgent been overshadowed, it has never been used with respect to the American Revolution. It may also have been "perfectly logical" to use the term... and STILL it wasn't ever used.

Mr Milligan is correct. The English never used it to refer to Americans, Americans never used it to refer to themselves.

It is no more appropriate to use the term Insurgent in BOA than it would be to use it to refer to southerners during the American Civil War.

"Live from the Front. I'm standing here with R.E. Lee who is at this moment leading his Army of Northern Virginia insurgents into Pennsylvania...."

Sorry. It doesn't fly. AACW fans, especially us southern boys, would loose our minds over this.... and we'd be right.

For 200+ years, Americans in the Revolutionary War have been refered to by a number of terms... insurgent has never been one of them.

So in the end, it has nothing to do with right-wing noise or left-wing PC... it's simply a matter of it being incorrect.

Hi guys.

There is no need to worry. The term "insurgent" will not be used in BOA2. As you say, there is a definite lack of reasons to use it, and no lack of reasons not to.

You can consider this statement official, and I hope that we thereby can but this particluar topic to rest

Rafiki wrote:Hi guys.

There is no need to worry. The term "insurgent" will not be used in BOA2. As you say, there is a definite lack of reasons to use it, and no lack of reasons not to.

You can consider this statement official, and I hope that we thereby can but this particluar topic to rest

*nods* Well done.

Nial

I'd like to see a much smarter AI. In my last game in the 1775 alt. campaign scenario on normal level the British AI only lasted until December 1775 before I decided it was defeated.

I wish the AI would not be so aggressive. Far too often game programmers have mistaken an overactive AI with being a good AI and they've always been mistaken. I'd like to see a British AI in the 1775 alt. campaign that actually hangs on to Boston rather than running amok around New England losing most of the army while it deserts Boston. Once that happens it never ships those big armies that get stuck in Nova Scotia back to the mainland nor does it do a good job of moving troops from the Indies.

I'd like to see an AI that builds or destroys depots and guards the depots it has. I'd like to see an AI that fights a big battle then move damaged units back to a depot or big city to recover troop strength before sending them off to battle again. I'd like to see an AI that is smart enough to port fleets to resupply rather than having them float around all game long running short on food and ammo because it doesn't port fleets after battle.

I'd like to see an AI that concentrates more on the important objectives instead of spreading itself thin taking every little rinky dink berg in sight.

Please work on improving the AI so that it gives us more of a challenge which means more fun for us solitaire players!
Omnius