tc237 wrote:Message Box: we have to be able to expand it. Looking through 150 messages, 5 lines at a time, scrolling up and down, trying to find a specific message, it gets very tedious.
-
Brochgale
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 474
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
- Location: Scotland
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
Could not agree more
The small message box is starting to drive me nuts - especially the messages about production - almost need a magnifying glass to read them - especially as I like to protect my production cities - especially from behind the lines raids!
About field army entrenchments.
I'm reading the 2 masterful Earl J. Hess ' Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War: The Eastern Campaigns.
He demonstrates from the start both armies were able to build extensive fortifications but were relunctant until 1864 because entrenchments were seen as an obstacle to take offensive or weren't appreciated at their real value. The 1864 overland campaign changed this as armies were fighting continuously each other.
In game term, it should be great if a random factor is introcuced in the fortification process. By example, a 50% chance until 1862 there will be no fortification this turn, a 30% in 1863, a 10% in 1864-1865.
So the global entrenchment level would be lower the first years .
The percentage could be lowered by engineer unit present and by entrencher or siege abilities.
I'm reading the 2 masterful Earl J. Hess ' Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War: The Eastern Campaigns.
He demonstrates from the start both armies were able to build extensive fortifications but were relunctant until 1864 because entrenchments were seen as an obstacle to take offensive or weren't appreciated at their real value. The 1864 overland campaign changed this as armies were fighting continuously each other.
In game term, it should be great if a random factor is introcuced in the fortification process. By example, a 50% chance until 1862 there will be no fortification this turn, a 30% in 1863, a 10% in 1864-1865.
So the global entrenchment level would be lower the first years .
The percentage could be lowered by engineer unit present and by entrencher or siege abilities.
-
leanmeankillingmachine
- Conscript
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:34 pm
Reiver's Wishlist - Replayability
Firstly, this is the best (tres bien!) Civil War game I have ever played. Secondly, I am British and no expert on the American Civil War! Thirdly, the main theme of this post is 'replayability'.
Replayability.
The impact of leaders seems to offer the biggest opportunity for increased game replayability. The bigest problem with the current game is that the leaders always have the same stats and special advantages. The randomisation function that exist is limited as not all generals are promotable and if you get a great general, through selcting the radomisation option, you cannot always promote them. Generals also do not get new special abilities.
As Napolean said "Every soldier carries a field marshals baton in his knapsack" (or something like that).
So for the radomisation option free up all generals so that they can be promoted. Makes every game a new experience - e.g. will Gen. Schultz end up as the top ranking three star general of the North!
Also introduce an option that locks the values of all three star generals within that radomisation factor (and all starting CSA 2 star generals plus USA's Grant) so that the north still has a bunch of useless generals and the South a decent bunch. All other generals get random stats.
For game purposes give the CSA a stats advantage (as historically, I believe, they had better generals) - possibly include a difficulty option that allows the player to pick how much weighing to give to the south/north.
Special abilities (positive and negative) - keep the three star generals ones, Grants and the CSA's starting two stars. All others randomly assign to leaders.
Only exception being the recruiting troops ability, for game purposes, only the three given to Northern generals and one to the south remains.
Introduce two new positive/negative traits - poor attacker/defender and good attacker defender (+/-10%). Give generals taking part in a successful/unsuccessful defense or attack a 10% chance to gain/lose this ability (this could be limited to battles with 5,000 plus casualties). For example a general might gain good attacker level one (+10% when attacking) and then win again taking him to level 2 good attacker (+20% when attacking) and then lose two battles taking him back to no advantage and then lose another battle taking him to -10% when attacking (that is assuming his 10% chance of gaining/losing came up each battle).
Each experience point that a general gains give them a 10% chance to gain a positive trait/lose a negative one (with the exception of the recruiting troops ability or good regional administrator - such as Buell starts with, or any other that might unbalance the game - sorry I don't know them all).
Each time a general is demoted for heavy losses or routed in a battle give them a 10% chance to be awarded a negative trait such as dispirited commander or hothead.
Possiblity (though somewhat complicated) give commanders a 10% chance at increasing stats by doing something related - e.g. entrench to level 8 gives a 10% chance of entrencher, defend a fort gives a chance at 'fort defender', using a lot of cavalry in battle a 10% chance at Cavalry Leader trait, etc.
Create 'medals' system whereby a General mentioned in dispatches (i.e. receives a seniority point) gains an award (10% chance) such as "Hero of Bull Run". Creates a more unique game experience and if the general later dies then player would lose 1NM per medal awarded to reflect national sadness at the loss of such a well know general.
Other Wishes
1. Lose 1 NM if 2 star general killed, lose 3 NM per three star killed.
2. West Point/Annapolis Officer School - include option in national policies area to spend resources and VP's to recruit new officers. Make this option expensive but if the computer sadles you with a bunch of useless leaders it gives the player a chance at some new ones (randomised) at a cost... Say 3 every six months.
2. Battlefield promotions - create a 10% chance, if a leaderless unit inflicts, say 1000+ casualties, of a new 1 star general being created with random stats...
3. Over recruiting from one area creates a % chance of a draft riot?
4. River Boats - teach AI to stop sending its riverine craft on suicide missions past enemy forts?
5. Militia 'cheat' - the North recruits 100 militia units cost 700 manpower. Starting strength 750 men. After time this increases to 1000 men at no manpower cost... Net gain of 300 manpower per 100 militia recruited...
6. Leader training trait for changing volunteer units to regulars (e.g. McClellan) streamline to make it 1 unit per turn of militia or volunteers - or a 10% bonus to the exisiting 5-10% conversion rate? See militia 'cheat' when considering.
7. Beull has special ability - good administrator for a region (if highest ranking general present) change region to 'state' as easier to understand - i.e. I have no idea what a 'region' is...
8. McDowell demotion event. Add a randomly firing event in Dec'61 to Feb '62 that sees McDowell demoted to two stars - forces Northern player to move McClelland back to Washington. Randomise event so no advantage to South.
Give Northern player two turn notication that this, random, event is about to start.
9. If all generals promotable need to create a random factor that affects their stats when promoted e.g. 30% chance of stats drop, 40% stay the same and 30% they increase. Maybe gaining a positive/negative trait as well.
As said the game is very good, I like the randomise stats option but the inababilty to promote all generals makes it a limited and on occasion useless/frustrating option (i.e. all your 'promotable' generals are useless and all your non-promotable ones are great).
Think the chance to lose and gain abilities and promote freely all generals offers a greater chance for players to 'fall in love' with the various generals and to mourn when the 'hero of Bull Run' who is your greatest general and rapidly approaching 3 stars falls in battle. Makes each game a unique experience (though not very historical).
Cheers
Reiver
Replayability.
The impact of leaders seems to offer the biggest opportunity for increased game replayability. The bigest problem with the current game is that the leaders always have the same stats and special advantages. The randomisation function that exist is limited as not all generals are promotable and if you get a great general, through selcting the radomisation option, you cannot always promote them. Generals also do not get new special abilities.
As Napolean said "Every soldier carries a field marshals baton in his knapsack" (or something like that).
So for the radomisation option free up all generals so that they can be promoted. Makes every game a new experience - e.g. will Gen. Schultz end up as the top ranking three star general of the North!
Also introduce an option that locks the values of all three star generals within that radomisation factor (and all starting CSA 2 star generals plus USA's Grant) so that the north still has a bunch of useless generals and the South a decent bunch. All other generals get random stats.
For game purposes give the CSA a stats advantage (as historically, I believe, they had better generals) - possibly include a difficulty option that allows the player to pick how much weighing to give to the south/north.
Special abilities (positive and negative) - keep the three star generals ones, Grants and the CSA's starting two stars. All others randomly assign to leaders.
Only exception being the recruiting troops ability, for game purposes, only the three given to Northern generals and one to the south remains.
Introduce two new positive/negative traits - poor attacker/defender and good attacker defender (+/-10%). Give generals taking part in a successful/unsuccessful defense or attack a 10% chance to gain/lose this ability (this could be limited to battles with 5,000 plus casualties). For example a general might gain good attacker level one (+10% when attacking) and then win again taking him to level 2 good attacker (+20% when attacking) and then lose two battles taking him back to no advantage and then lose another battle taking him to -10% when attacking (that is assuming his 10% chance of gaining/losing came up each battle).
Each experience point that a general gains give them a 10% chance to gain a positive trait/lose a negative one (with the exception of the recruiting troops ability or good regional administrator - such as Buell starts with, or any other that might unbalance the game - sorry I don't know them all).
Each time a general is demoted for heavy losses or routed in a battle give them a 10% chance to be awarded a negative trait such as dispirited commander or hothead.
Possiblity (though somewhat complicated) give commanders a 10% chance at increasing stats by doing something related - e.g. entrench to level 8 gives a 10% chance of entrencher, defend a fort gives a chance at 'fort defender', using a lot of cavalry in battle a 10% chance at Cavalry Leader trait, etc.
Create 'medals' system whereby a General mentioned in dispatches (i.e. receives a seniority point) gains an award (10% chance) such as "Hero of Bull Run". Creates a more unique game experience and if the general later dies then player would lose 1NM per medal awarded to reflect national sadness at the loss of such a well know general.
Other Wishes
1. Lose 1 NM if 2 star general killed, lose 3 NM per three star killed.
2. West Point/Annapolis Officer School - include option in national policies area to spend resources and VP's to recruit new officers. Make this option expensive but if the computer sadles you with a bunch of useless leaders it gives the player a chance at some new ones (randomised) at a cost... Say 3 every six months.
2. Battlefield promotions - create a 10% chance, if a leaderless unit inflicts, say 1000+ casualties, of a new 1 star general being created with random stats...
3. Over recruiting from one area creates a % chance of a draft riot?
4. River Boats - teach AI to stop sending its riverine craft on suicide missions past enemy forts?
5. Militia 'cheat' - the North recruits 100 militia units cost 700 manpower. Starting strength 750 men. After time this increases to 1000 men at no manpower cost... Net gain of 300 manpower per 100 militia recruited...
6. Leader training trait for changing volunteer units to regulars (e.g. McClellan) streamline to make it 1 unit per turn of militia or volunteers - or a 10% bonus to the exisiting 5-10% conversion rate? See militia 'cheat' when considering.
7. Beull has special ability - good administrator for a region (if highest ranking general present) change region to 'state' as easier to understand - i.e. I have no idea what a 'region' is...
8. McDowell demotion event. Add a randomly firing event in Dec'61 to Feb '62 that sees McDowell demoted to two stars - forces Northern player to move McClelland back to Washington. Randomise event so no advantage to South.
Give Northern player two turn notication that this, random, event is about to start.
9. If all generals promotable need to create a random factor that affects their stats when promoted e.g. 30% chance of stats drop, 40% stay the same and 30% they increase. Maybe gaining a positive/negative trait as well.
As said the game is very good, I like the randomise stats option but the inababilty to promote all generals makes it a limited and on occasion useless/frustrating option (i.e. all your 'promotable' generals are useless and all your non-promotable ones are great).
Think the chance to lose and gain abilities and promote freely all generals offers a greater chance for players to 'fall in love' with the various generals and to mourn when the 'hero of Bull Run' who is your greatest general and rapidly approaching 3 stars falls in battle. Makes each game a unique experience (though not very historical).
Cheers
Reiver
Riever, you have some very intriguing ideas on leadership.
Reiver wrote:Firstly, this is the best (tres bien!) Civil War game I have ever played. Secondly, I am British and no expert on the American Civil War! Thirdly, the main theme of this post is 'replayability'.
Replayability.
The impact of leaders seems to offer the biggest opportunity for increased game replayability. The bigest problem with the current game is that the leaders always have the same stats and special advantages. The randomisation function that exist is limited as not all generals are promotable and if you get a great general, through selcting the radomisation option, you cannot always promote them. Generals also do not get new special abilities.
As Napolean said "Every soldier carries a field marshals baton in his knapsack" (or something like that).
So for the radomisation option free up all generals so that they can be promoted. Makes every game a new experience - e.g. will Gen. Schultz end up as the top ranking three star general of the North!
Also introduce an option that locks the values of all three star generals within that radomisation factor (and all starting CSA 2 star generals plus USA's Grant) so that the north still has a bunch of useless generals and the South a decent bunch. All other generals get random stats.
For game purposes give the CSA a stats advantage (as historically, I believe, they had better generals) - possibly include a difficulty option that allows the player to pick how much weighing to give to the south/north.
Special abilities (positive and negative) - keep the three star generals ones, Grants and the CSA's starting two stars. All others randomly assign to leaders.
Only exception being the recruiting troops ability, for game purposes, only the three given to Northern generals and one to the south remains.
Introduce two new positive/negative traits - poor attacker/defender and good attacker defender (+/-10%). Give generals taking part in a successful/unsuccessful defense or attack a 10% chance to gain/lose this ability (this could be limited to battles with 5,000 plus casualties). For example a general might gain good attacker level one (+10% when attacking) and then win again taking him to level 2 good attacker (+20% when attacking) and then lose two battles taking him back to no advantage and then lose another battle taking him to -10% when attacking (that is assuming his 10% chance of gaining/losing came up each battle).
Each experience point that a general gains give them a 10% chance to gain a positive trait/lose a negative one (with the exception of the recruiting troops ability or good regional administrator - such as Buell starts with, or any other that might unbalance the game - sorry I don't know them all).
Each time a general is demoted for heavy losses or routed in a battle give them a 10% chance to be awarded a negative trait such as dispirited commander or hothead.
Possiblity (though somewhat complicated) give commanders a 10% chance at increasing stats by doing something related - e.g. entrench to level 8 gives a 10% chance of entrencher, defend a fort gives a chance at 'fort defender', using a lot of cavalry in battle a 10% chance at Cavalry Leader trait, etc.
Create 'medals' system whereby a General mentioned in dispatches (i.e. receives a seniority point) gains an award (10% chance) such as "Hero of Bull Run". Creates a more unique game experience and if the general later dies then player would lose 1NM per medal awarded to reflect national sadness at the loss of such a well know general.
Other Wishes
1. Lose 1 NM if 2 star general killed, lose 3 NM per three star killed.
2. West Point/Annapolis Officer School - include option in national policies area to spend resources and VP's to recruit new officers. Make this option expensive but if the computer sadles you with a bunch of useless leaders it gives the player a chance at some new ones (randomised) at a cost... Say 3 every six months.
2. Battlefield promotions - create a 10% chance, if a leaderless unit inflicts, say 1000+ casualties, of a new 1 star general being created with random stats...
3. Over recruiting from one area creates a % chance of a draft riot?
4. River Boats - teach AI to stop sending its riverine craft on suicide missions past enemy forts?
5. Militia 'cheat' - the North recruits 100 militia units cost 700 manpower. Starting strength 750 men. After time this increases to 1000 men at no manpower cost... Net gain of 300 manpower per 100 militia recruited...
6. Leader training trait for changing volunteer units to regulars (e.g. McClellan) streamline to make it 1 unit per turn of militia or volunteers - or a 10% bonus to the exisiting 5-10% conversion rate? See militia 'cheat' when considering.
7. Beull has special ability - good administrator for a region (if highest ranking general present) change region to 'state' as easier to understand - i.e. I have no idea what a 'region' is...
8. McDowell demotion event. Add a randomly firing event in Dec'61 to Feb '62 that sees McDowell demoted to two stars - forces Northern player to move McClelland back to Washington. Randomise event so no advantage to South.
Give Northern player two turn notication that this, random, event is about to start.
9. If all generals promotable need to create a random factor that affects their stats when promoted e.g. 30% chance of stats drop, 40% stay the same and 30% they increase. Maybe gaining a positive/negative trait as well.
As said the game is very good, I like the randomise stats option but the inababilty to promote all generals makes it a limited and on occasion useless/frustrating option (i.e. all your 'promotable' generals are useless and all your non-promotable ones are great).
Think the chance to lose and gain abilities and promote freely all generals offers a greater chance for players to 'fall in love' with the various generals and to mourn when the 'hero of Bull Run' who is your greatest general and rapidly approaching 3 stars falls in battle. Makes each game a unique experience (though not very historical).
Cheers
Reiver
-
whitewolf1981
- Private
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:48 pm
Reiver is absolutely right. If only 10% of what he is proposing could be done, it would be great.
My favorite is "unlocking" all generals in that, given enough experience, any of them could be promoted. To be honest, I'm stunned that no such mod has appeared already - it really seems to be common sense and would add replayability.
My favorite is "unlocking" all generals in that, given enough experience, any of them could be promoted. To be honest, I'm stunned that no such mod has appeared already - it really seems to be common sense and would add replayability.
whitewolf1981 wrote:Reiver is absolutely right. If only 10% of what he is proposing could be done, it would be great.
My favorite is "unlocking" all generals in that, given enough experience, any of them could be promoted. To be honest, I'm stunned that no such mod has appeared already - it really seems to be common sense and would add replayability.
Well currently, the game is structured to use models. Different models are used as generals change ranks. Which means creating new models for new stats/ranks/etc. And no one wants to create an almost infinite number of models for new stats/abilities/etc.
However I know the engine can handle dynamic changes to models because stats change for infantry/artillery/cavalry when they gain experience. So I would assume the engine could handle changing stats for generals based on game action. Of course, one of our Pocus's would know for sure.
Jagger wrote:However I know the engine can handle dynamic changes to models because stats change for infantry/artillery/cavalry when they gain experience. So I would assume the engine could handle changing stats for generals based on game action. Of course, one of our Pocus's would know for sure.
Generals do gain experience (and thus have their stats changed)...this the engine handles dynamically indeed. Now changing ranks is another story, as you mentionned it needs the "creation" of another model. Technically, it could be done for every general in the game, it's just a HUGE amount of work and research/debate about the stats to give/remove to these... it took months on those we have in the current game, and it's only a few of the generals....
PhilThib wrote:Technically, it could be done for every general in the game, it's just a HUGE amount of work and research/debate about the stats to give/remove to these... it took months on those we have in the current game, and it's only a few of the generals....
If I may offer a suggestion, why not say that when a general lacks a model for the new rank, simply use the current model/stats, with a random chance of some variation in the stats and/or abilities?
Any higher-rank model constructed for generals currently lacking such will in any case be guesswork and speculation, I imagine, seeing as the generals in question never attained such ranks in reality?
-
whitewolf1981
- Private
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:48 pm
Rafiki makes a great point. If I win 6-7 battles with a one-star general, I may want to see a promotion for the man - maybe he's good enough to handle a corps 
The fact that only a certain number of generals can be promoted takes some of the fun out. But I guess this is way too much work (I have a sneaking suspicion it isn't a case of copy/paste in databases) and so hopefully this will be dealt with in ACW Gold (should there ever be one).
The fact that only a certain number of generals can be promoted takes some of the fun out. But I guess this is way too much work (I have a sneaking suspicion it isn't a case of copy/paste in databases) and so hopefully this will be dealt with in ACW Gold (should there ever be one).
Sure, generic improvements could be coded. But in the end, everything is a question of priorities, between bug reports, supports issues and improvements requests.
For VGN, we will double check many existing system, reconsidering this kind of things too.
For VGN, we will double check many existing system, reconsidering this kind of things too.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Random generic upgrade to non-modelled generals
I would be very pleased to see a random generic promotion upgrade available for 'randomised' generals based on their existing stats (e.g. 30% worse, 40% the same and 30% improvement).
Happy to keep existing generals who have a model - just be nice to have option to promote them all. As this is a non-historical replayability wish - to give all randomised generals (who have not been historically modelled) a potential promotion - it does not need to be individually reserched or modelled.
Understand the priorities problem but as it gives greatest chance for replayability it would be nice. Players can then choose between a historical set up for their generals and a non-historic randomised set-up.
Happy to keep existing generals who have a model - just be nice to have option to promote them all. As this is a non-historical replayability wish - to give all randomised generals (who have not been historically modelled) a potential promotion - it does not need to be individually reserched or modelled.
Understand the priorities problem but as it gives greatest chance for replayability it would be nice. Players can then choose between a historical set up for their generals and a non-historic randomised set-up.
All generals had variable performances. Of course, some generals were more consistently good or bad than others.
I would like to see a base performance att/def rating with a variable applied to those base ratings prior to battle. The size of the variable would be dependent on a general's record of consistency. So a very consistent general would perform very close to their base Att/Def ratings. While other less consistent generals might have substantially better or worse ratings than their base ratings in battle.
For example, a general rated 4-3-3 with high consistency is likely to perform as a 4-3-3 with slight probability that his att/def ratings will adjust by one. But a low consistency general, 3-2-2 would have a high probability that he could perform better or worse than his base 3-2-2 ratings. On a good day, he may perform as a 3-4-3 or a bad day, he may perform as a 3-1-0.
Then we could see the actual battlefield att/def ratings revealed in the battle report.
With this sort of variable, we would never know just how well or badly a general will perform when he goes into battle. Although the high consistency generals like Lee, Longstreet, Sherman or Jackson are much more likely to perform closely to their base att/def values.
I would like to see a base performance att/def rating with a variable applied to those base ratings prior to battle. The size of the variable would be dependent on a general's record of consistency. So a very consistent general would perform very close to their base Att/Def ratings. While other less consistent generals might have substantially better or worse ratings than their base ratings in battle.
For example, a general rated 4-3-3 with high consistency is likely to perform as a 4-3-3 with slight probability that his att/def ratings will adjust by one. But a low consistency general, 3-2-2 would have a high probability that he could perform better or worse than his base 3-2-2 ratings. On a good day, he may perform as a 3-4-3 or a bad day, he may perform as a 3-1-0.
Then we could see the actual battlefield att/def ratings revealed in the battle report.
With this sort of variable, we would never know just how well or badly a general will perform when he goes into battle. Although the high consistency generals like Lee, Longstreet, Sherman or Jackson are much more likely to perform closely to their base att/def values.
Depots for fort building
I'd like to see an option that allows me to build a fort where there is a Depot by consuming the depot. 
In other words: I put 4 artillery with an existing depot, build the fort, and end up with a fort with no depot.
It would give me "cash flow" options, plus allow a fort at an advanced captured depot...
...or on a river where I could build depot with transports.
In other words: I put 4 artillery with an existing depot, build the fort, and end up with a fort with no depot.
It would give me "cash flow" options, plus allow a fort at an advanced captured depot...
...or on a river where I could build depot with transports.
-
Yellowhammer
- Major
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:42 pm
- Location: Huntsville, Alabama
I'd like to see some Navy issues resolved - for example, the 'Chesapeake Scouting Squadron' has one ship and is 9/16. I can't merge it with another unit like 'NE Scouting Squadron' or 'African Scouting Squadron' and none of them reach full strength. IIRC there are three Union Scouting Squadrons affected.
I used to be able to merge the 'NY Blockade Fleet' and the 'NE Blockade Fleet' into a 160 strength unit, but after patch 1.08d I can't do that anymore so they're each stuck at about 70/122 - not full strength. IIRC there are two Union Blockade Squadrons affected.
Maybe starting the units at full strength (16/16 and 122/122) would work or adjusting the strength so the elements can merge (i.e., 8/16 + 8/16 = 16/16).
I haven't played the CSA yet, so I don't know if there are any affected units on that side...
If you could fix this my Fleet would be ship-shape
I used to be able to merge the 'NY Blockade Fleet' and the 'NE Blockade Fleet' into a 160 strength unit, but after patch 1.08d I can't do that anymore so they're each stuck at about 70/122 - not full strength. IIRC there are two Union Blockade Squadrons affected.
Maybe starting the units at full strength (16/16 and 122/122) would work or adjusting the strength so the elements can merge (i.e., 8/16 + 8/16 = 16/16).
I haven't played the CSA yet, so I don't know if there are any affected units on that side...
If you could fix this my Fleet would be ship-shape
-
Brausepaul
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:25 pm
mutilplaer local area network
Me and my frineds would like to see abilty to hook up over local area network on mutilp computers and play.
and also maybe hot seat option so we can play on mutilplayer on bigger LCD tvs.
and also maybe hot seat option so we can play on mutilplayer on bigger LCD tvs.
tc237 wrote:Here is a thread for little things we would like the Dev Team to add.
Elements Details Display: Currently the player has to close the display before they can select and view another unit.
Is it possible to leave the display up, while the play views different units, then when finished the player closes the display?
Roster: Indicate that a unit is locked. To distinguish it from unlocked, moveable units. Would help during the early months of the war.
Roster: Ascending/Descending sorting. Example,click once sorts Highest Seniority (working now) Click again, sorts lowest Seniority.
Economics Page: Train and River transport production. No icons to show quantity purchased, is it possible to have little trains and ships, similar to the little factories.
Unit Filter: Some way to toggle on the main map between, No Units-Leaders-Infantry-Arty-etc.... if not than at least a No Units filter, sometimes they hide the cities and surrounding terrain.
-
Coregonas
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
- Location: Barcelona-Catalunya
Tried / Untried Status
As posted some time ago... I believe a good add to the series would be the Tried / Untried Status. Once recruited, troops should be marked as UNTRIED, and this could carry with them some kind of MALUS --- (-1 Initiative for example) ...
Once 1st battle made... A random bonus should be added, upgrading the status to TRIED. I believe this random bonus should not be (too much) determined by the battle result, but perhaps just for his "die roll results"
This could be done as a slight modification to 1,2 or more stats of the unit (and leaders)
Also, some units should start TRIED... for example those who battled in the Mexican Wars...some special units xpecially created (CSS Alabama for instance)
The bonuses, as examples, can be:
Giving the unit 10 EXP points
Give the Unit 1 free Upgrade
Turning an infantry battalion into ELITE (this way the ELITE creation could be done as part of the game, not as a predetermined event)
Give 1 random "skill" -> Forager, Fast Mover, Cavalryman...
Some others could be of course addedm but perhaps hard to implement... so add +1 to any stat (offensive / deffensive)
Of course, some units could just be TRIED with no bonus at all. (well, just removing UNTRIED penalizations)
Once 1st battle made... A random bonus should be added, upgrading the status to TRIED. I believe this random bonus should not be (too much) determined by the battle result, but perhaps just for his "die roll results"
This could be done as a slight modification to 1,2 or more stats of the unit (and leaders)
Also, some units should start TRIED... for example those who battled in the Mexican Wars...some special units xpecially created (CSS Alabama for instance)
The bonuses, as examples, can be:
Giving the unit 10 EXP points
Give the Unit 1 free Upgrade
Turning an infantry battalion into ELITE (this way the ELITE creation could be done as part of the game, not as a predetermined event)
Give 1 random "skill" -> Forager, Fast Mover, Cavalryman...
Some others could be of course addedm but perhaps hard to implement... so add +1 to any stat (offensive / deffensive)
Of course, some units could just be TRIED with no bonus at all. (well, just removing UNTRIED penalizations)
midn8t wrote:Me and my frineds would like to see abilty to hook up over local area network on mutilp computers and play.
and also maybe hot seat option so we can play on mutilplayer on bigger LCD tvs.
Hotseat is already available.
LAN is possible through the PBeM procedure (and ARES if you own NCP)
But, indeed, we have plans to improve the multiplayers game.
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain
I would also like to have Muster Points to send new units to. Would make it much eaiser to keep track of new units.
Also, its been mentioned, a option to go to a battle map and Fight individual battles. It would lend much to the game. I think a response to this was that it would be difficult to make so many maps. A suggestion.. If someone could provide a map making utility then the commmunity could make maps and send them to you for your approval and use.
I dont know if you remember a civil war game made by a now defunked company called Empire.
It was mabey 10 or 15 years ago. Way before their time I think. They Had a similare feature in their game[ a battle map funtion]. Also a very unique Command structure funtion.
Im sure a decent AI would be near impossble to develope to handle all the myriad variables that would be nessarry to consider, but we would love it.
Also, its been mentioned, a option to go to a battle map and Fight individual battles. It would lend much to the game. I think a response to this was that it would be difficult to make so many maps. A suggestion.. If someone could provide a map making utility then the commmunity could make maps and send them to you for your approval and use.
I dont know if you remember a civil war game made by a now defunked company called Empire.
It was mabey 10 or 15 years ago. Way before their time I think. They Had a similare feature in their game[ a battle map funtion]. Also a very unique Command structure funtion.
Im sure a decent AI would be near impossble to develope to handle all the myriad variables that would be nessarry to consider, but we would love it.
-
hootieleece
- Private
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:54 pm
- Location: Dracut, Ma, United States
- Contact: Twitter
AI for your own generals
I just recently bought the game about 2 weeks ago. I have been playing practically non stop. I think it is great. I just wish there was a way to end the micromanagement. I can't always remember to give orders to everystack of units/everyturn. I'd like to be able to give an objective or two to an army commander and let him go to work. So I can focus on other Theaters.
PS Playing as the Union, how come the CSA(AI) can quickly mobilize so many units. I can only fight them to a stalemate and never have enough time to organize my armies.
PS Playing as the Union, how come the CSA(AI) can quickly mobilize so many units. I can only fight them to a stalemate and never have enough time to organize my armies.
Welcome to the forums, hootieleece
Have you tried using E/R (for land units) and T/Y (for naval units)? That will cycle through all your stationary, non-sentry stacks, allowing you to see which stacks that are currently without orders.
hootieleece wrote: I can't always remember to give orders to everystack of units/everyturn.
Have you tried using E/R (for land units) and T/Y (for naval units)? That will cycle through all your stationary, non-sentry stacks, allowing you to see which stacks that are currently without orders.
-
MarkCSA
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:35 pm
- Location: In a safe place, they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance
Jagger wrote:All generals had variable performances. Of course, some generals were more consistently good or bad than others.
I would like to see a base performance att/def rating with a variable applied to those base ratings prior to battle. The size of the variable would be dependent on a general's record of consistency. So a very consistent general would perform very close to their base Att/Def ratings. While other less consistent generals might have substantially better or worse ratings than their base ratings in battle.
For example, a general rated 4-3-3 with high consistency is likely to perform as a 4-3-3 with slight probability that his att/def ratings will adjust by one. But a low consistency general, 3-2-2 would have a high probability that he could perform better or worse than his base 3-2-2 ratings. On a good day, he may perform as a 3-4-3 or a bad day, he may perform as a 3-1-0.
Then we could see the actual battlefield att/def ratings revealed in the battle report.
With this sort of variable, we would never know just how well or badly a general will perform when he goes into battle. Although the high consistency generals like Lee, Longstreet, Sherman or Jackson are much more likely to perform closely to their base att/def values.
That sounds cool! every general has good and bad days...... Maybe add a special trait that increases the 'swing' in ratings i.e. this general can be absolutely brilliant, but also completely blow it. Hard to say. Use at your own risk......
-
Coregonas
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:34 pm
- Location: Barcelona-Catalunya
What combining this last ideas with also "hiding" real values of a general?
Once a general arises it could have some info, but not numerical or inexact...
For instance imagine a 4-1-2 leader as designed
Add some randomization and it goes to a real (-1/+1/0)
3-2-2
Then add some "untried" false info "random initial" (0/+1/0)
3-3-2
(Well in this case... if only +/-1 can be added, we can KNOW the 3 in defense is not posible, so we players should be sure is a 2, so the minimum randomization should have a VERY smal chance to get +/-2 or more?)
We believe he is a 3-3-2, but it could be a a 2-2-1 up to a 4-4-3
Then , once 1st battle is made...> A random performance roll could be done for each leader...> based on his (now real 3-2-2) it gets +1/-1/+1 in this battle should be marked as a:
4-1-3 for instance, merged with the initial showed 3-3-2 (we could round to the 0,5 up) it should show
4-2-3... but he is still a 3-2-2
I am myself lost in the thread now..
So the stats of the general should be showed, BUT according to the last (acumulated) battle performance....
So if a VERY BAD general had a lucky day, it could be marked as a good one, and the player should have no EXACT value of him. THEN us the players could assign commands to bad generals, believing he is a good one.
Once a 2nd, 3rd, ... battle arises the value showed should be going towards the REAL value, by averaging in some way the real base with the random value.
Well... If you add the now existant RANDOMIZE generals values, you should have NO IDEA at all of the exact general stats... Until several battles are done.
Once a general arises it could have some info, but not numerical or inexact...
For instance imagine a 4-1-2 leader as designed
Add some randomization and it goes to a real (-1/+1/0)
3-2-2
Then add some "untried" false info "random initial" (0/+1/0)
3-3-2
(Well in this case... if only +/-1 can be added, we can KNOW the 3 in defense is not posible, so we players should be sure is a 2, so the minimum randomization should have a VERY smal chance to get +/-2 or more?)
We believe he is a 3-3-2, but it could be a a 2-2-1 up to a 4-4-3
Then , once 1st battle is made...> A random performance roll could be done for each leader...> based on his (now real 3-2-2) it gets +1/-1/+1 in this battle should be marked as a:
4-1-3 for instance, merged with the initial showed 3-3-2 (we could round to the 0,5 up) it should show
4-2-3... but he is still a 3-2-2
I am myself lost in the thread now..
So the stats of the general should be showed, BUT according to the last (acumulated) battle performance....
So if a VERY BAD general had a lucky day, it could be marked as a good one, and the player should have no EXACT value of him. THEN us the players could assign commands to bad generals, believing he is a good one.
Once a 2nd, 3rd, ... battle arises the value showed should be going towards the REAL value, by averaging in some way the real base with the random value.
Well... If you add the now existant RANDOMIZE generals values, you should have NO IDEA at all of the exact general stats... Until several battles are done.
i dont know if this has been posted before but here it goes....i would like to see a more detailed casualty list....after the battles in the battle screen why not put how many people were killed, wounded and taken prisoner instead of just xxxxx casualties? i think it wouldnt be to hard to make that change.....and instead of just a leader being wounded or killed cant you put in something that there is a chance that the leader can be wounded and die later (i.e. of complications of the injury) or where he is hurt so badly he has to be retired from active duty...i take these things from the old Civil War General's games i liked how they did there leader woundings....and i dont think a 3* should be immune from this as history showed even Army Commanders could be killed.
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests