4 suggestions...

[ajarnlance]

First, please show the number of cavalry/inf/art. on the tool tip when you mouse over a stack. Also to see this breakdown on the battle planner before beginning a battle would be very useful.

Second, when you are using the recruitment or decision modes a left click on a unit to recruit or a decision card should LOCK that card in place so that you can move around the map and not lose the current selection. Currently as soon as you move the cursor you lose the selected card.

After placing a new recruit on the map the screen should RETURN to the recruitment screen at the point I left it.

Finally, PLEASE allow us to choose a lower number of participants to trigger the battle planner screen. Currently it only triggers for very large battles. Perhaps this could be in options: use battle planner for: small/medium/large battles.
Thanks!

[Pocus]

These are good suggestions, now they will compete with others suggestions for the time we have. But they are noted!

[ajarnlance]

Thanks Philippe!! The game is the BEST war game I've ever played. AGEOD have outdone themselves!! You guys are awesome!!

[Palpat]

I wholeheartedly support the 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Most needed.
As for the battle planner, don't know, I'm still getting accointed with it. But info and feedback should be more easier to have. Did my plan contribute to my victory or not? Could another one have been more efficient? We currently are somewhat in the dark.

[MikeV]

using the recruitment or decision modes a left click on a unit to recruit or a decision card should LOCK that card in place so that you can move around the map and not lose the current selection. Currently as soon as you move the cursor you lose the selected card.

I'm finding the whole recruitment / leader assignment UI to be awkward and clumsy. If we're going to have to rely on drag & drop, things need to stay on the screen with some stability until we're done & dismiss them.

If we have to micro-manage the combination of 1-element Militia units into demi-brigades, it would be far simpler to select one of the former and have a way to recruit its 2nd element directly (rather than having to fiddle with the recruitment large icon ribbon).

Similarly, it would be nice to select a leader's stack and recruit additional units directly (if they aren't recruitable in that region, they can appear in the closest available region, with default movement orders to the then-current leader stack position when complete ).

After placing a new recruit on the map the screen should RETURN to the recruitment screen at the point I left it.

That whole recruitment large icon ribbon UI needs a re-design. As noted, it needs to remember last-selected settings. And having the filter selectors at opposite ends is more than a bit awkward (although it's good that we can apply both filters at once).

I'm also finding the Corps/Division organization icon ribbon to be a bit frustrating: dragging & dropping some unit cards always selects the new stack, even though I'm not finished working with the old stack. When going back to the old stack, the ribbon resets, and we have to scroll left or right to get back to selecting what units we want ...

Also, the ancient bug apy: of the unit cards re-sorting (to some non-intuitive sort order) on the ribbon after combining is still present. Disconcerting and annoying.

We have to Alt-click on the selected unit's header/button thingy at the bottom of the screen to get the "edit name" dialog box? Really?!? I can't tell you how many times I've alt-clicked on the unit itself on the map. So much for a direct-manipulation interface (some 20th-Century technical lingo, there ... )

It's also tragic that we have to pop up a dialog box to re-name units, and that the Enter key doesn't act the same as clicking the accept button (and really subtle & weird bugs manifest when we forget ). Editable strings should be editable in situ.

Finally (and this is BIG one), the lack of Undo while recruiting or making any of the regional decisions is incredibly frustrating. No undo? Really?!? C'mon guys, it's 2013 ...

[melvi]

Finally (and this is BIG one), the lack of Undo while recruiting or making any of the regional decisions is incredibly frustrating. No undo? Really?!? C'mon guys, it's 2013 ...

I may agree about regional decisions, i have misplaced some of them by accident ( dropped in the region next to the one i wanted to apply the decision, bah :-p )and i dont know how to undo them. But for recruitment i have find out that if you pick up an unit you have recruited this same turn and go to the special orders tab, the skull icon works as an undo pretty well. Be sure the unit is alone, if you have added it to other units recruited previous turns ( like i usually do when all of them are in same region) you are ordering to disband those units in formation process and you´ll pay VPs and maybe NM "fine".

Regards:

Melvi

[MikeV]

It's also tragic that we have to pop up a dialog box to re-name units, and that the Enter key doesn't act the same as clicking the accept button (and really subtle & weird bugs manifest when we forget ). Editable strings should be editable in situ.

One other text input bug: typing a number in the text-entry field of the rename dialog box also triggers the associated "map overlay."

Seems like the code for putting up the (almost-)modal dialog box is not disabling the global key handling. One reason why this defect probably wasn't caught earlier may be because the other global key bindings are to the F1-F12 keys, which are not normally used during text entry.

[RebelYell]

Finally (and this is BIG one), the lack of Undo while recruiting or making any of the regional decisions is incredibly frustrating. No undo? Really?!? C'mon guys, it's 2013 ...

If you want cancel a unit you dragged to the map to recruit, select it and press Del.

If you want to cancel a regional decision right-click the icon in the map.

If you have trouble to see the map you can filter stacks in and out with Ctrl F1-F4

Hope that was what you where after here.

[MikeV]

If you want cancel a unit you dragged to the map to recruit, select it and press Del.

If you want to cancel a regional decision right-click the icon in the map.

If you have trouble to see the map you can filter stacks in and out with Ctrl F1-F4

Hope that was what you where after here.

Very useful (undocumented) information. Thanks!
(Anyone update the Wiki lately?)

[RebelYell]

Very useful (undocumented) information. Thanks!
(Anyone update the Wiki lately?)

Im sure they are on it, the company is just few people so the volunteers do a lot also.
I think Phil or Pocus is writing a PDF about the leaders also, they will add these to the patches when they are ready.

[willgamer]

...
Second, when you are using the recruitment or decision modes a left click on a unit to recruit or a decision card should LOCK that card in place so that you can move around the map and not lose the current selection. Currently as soon as you move the cursor you lose the selected card.
...

Thanks!

Agree with your other comments, including the locking the selected card here... But on this point, actually you only lose the current select if your cursor touches even 1 pixel of another card. So that's very easy to do when moving around the map, but it is possible if you go slowly and carefully to avoid.

[MikeV]

Agree with your other comments, including the locking the selected card here... But on this point, actually you only lose the current select if your cursor touches even 1 pixel of another card. So that's very easy to do when moving around the map, but it is possible if you go slowly and carefully to avoid.

But one of my hard & fast design requirements for a computer game is this: "playable whilst slightly drunk" (learned that as an old "Beer & Pretzels" grognard).
But thanks anyway for your insight.

[RebelYell]

But one of my hard & fast design requirements for a computer game is this: "playable whilst slightly drunk" (learned that as an old "Beer & Pretzels" grognard).
But thanks anyway for your insight.

They said that about Grant also.

[willgamer]

But one of my hard & fast design requirements for a computer game is this: "playable whilst slightly drunk" (learned that as an old "Beer & Pretzels" grognard).
But thanks anyway for your insight.

ompom: ompom: ompom: ompom: ompom: ompom: ompom:

[MikeV]

They said that about Grant also.

That's laugh-out-loud funny.

I'm in the midst of re-reading his and Sherman's memoirs. For the short summary, though, there's nothing better than Liddel-Hart's "Strategy," chapter IX.

Synopsis for the impatient: of the four most (in)famous ACW generals, Grant/Lee and Sherman/Jackson were the most similar pairs. The former were "direct approach" leaders, who had bull-headed tactical focus (think Pickett's charge or the assault on Marye's Heights), while the latter were "indirect approach" leaders (think Shenendoah Valley campaign, or constantly maneuvering Johnston out of his positions from Chattanooga to Atlanta). The latter were much more efficient, in terms of winning vs. bloodshed ratios.

[ajarnlance]

Grant only drank when he was bored (I guess if he'd had a computer and AGEOD he might never have fallen off the wagon!). The assault on Marye's Heights was led by Burnside at the battle of Fredericksburg. However, Grant did plenty of blood letting once he got control in the eastern theatre. Mary Lincoln called him a butcher. I agree about Sherman and Jackson. One huge "what if" is Jackson's untimely death. Imagine Lee having Jackson on hand to make one of his famous flanking marches to get Meade out of position at Gettysburg...

[MikeV]

Imagine Lee having Jackson on hand to make one of his famous flanking marches to get Meade out of position at Gettysburg...

... which is exactly what Longstreet recommended: "I urged that we should move around by our right to the left of Meade, and put our army between him and Washington, threatening his left and rear, and thus force him to attack us in such position as we might select."

But Lee would have none of it: "If the enemy is there tomorrow, we must attack him."

The rest, as they say, is history.

[MikeV]

The assault on Marye's Heights was led by Burnside at the battle of Fredericksburg.

And Grant repeated the mistake at Cold Harbor.

[RebelYell]

Grant only drank when he was bored (I guess if he'd had a computer and AGEOD he might never have fallen off the wagon!). The assault on Marye's Heights was led by Burnside at the battle of Fredericksburg. However, Grant did plenty of blood letting once he got control in the eastern theatre. Mary Lincoln called him a butcher. I agree about Sherman and Jackson. One huge "what if" is Jackson's untimely death. Imagine Lee having Jackson on hand to make one of his famous flanking marches to get Meade out of position at Gettysburg...

I am convinced that if Jackson would have been in Gettysburg they would have had the high ground the second day.
I can even vision the surrender of AoP, pushed and beaten between ANV and the Blue Ridge Mountains by some move by Jackson.
That should have ended the war, Lee was probably right in trying that.

[RebelYell]

... which is exactly what Longstreet recommended: "I urged that we should move around by our right to the left of Meade, and put our army between him and Washington, threatening his left and rear, and thus force him to attack us in such position as we might select."

But Lee would have none of it: "If the enemy is there tomorrow, we must attack him."

The rest, as they say, is history.

The Union had the Pipe Creek line as a fall back position, it would have taken Jackson to prevent them getting there.

[MikeV]

The Union had the Pipe Creek line as a fall back position, it would have taken Jackson to prevent them getting there.

Having Stuart's cavalry present would have been helpful, too.

[ajarnlance]

Stuart let Lee down badly before Gettysburg. After Pickett's charge Lee went to the troops and admitted that it had been "all my fault". I think over confidence and a desire to bring a swift end to the war lead Lee to make the greatest error in judgement. It is still amazing looking back through the lens of history how men on both sides walked calmly into massed artillery and musket fire. Napoleon had demonstrated the importance of out manouvering your enemy half a century before.

[minipol]

The fact that people walk calmly into musket and artillery fire have always puzzled me about the American Civil War and the first world war.
I live very close to the battle grounds of WWI.
First of all, you didn't really have a choice, march to your death or you'd be executed.
Next, after a while, I think you just don't care anymore and want it all to be over.
If is see these big cemeteries here like Tine cot cemetry, it's crazy. Or Passendaele where soldiers drowned in mud because it rained all of august (except for 3 days).

[ajarnlance]

Shelby Foote helped me to understand this when he talks of the simple faith of the men back then. There was a fatalistic "it's in God's hands" attitude to life and death. Apparently this was the source of Jackson's fearlessness on the battlefield: he figured his life was not in his own hands, but that the hour of his death was already set. Interestingly there is a modern parallel to this. A friend who served in the military told me that the men are encouraged in battle to believe that they are "already dead". Not sure if this would reassure everyone (including myself). I like the way Hemmingway defined courage as "grace under pressure". So you live near the WW1 battlefields. I have walked the battlefield at Gettysburg and looked at the field across which Picket's charge was made. Suicide, but as horrific as the civil war was it still can't compare to the carnage and suffering of the trench warfare in WW1. Especially the brutal artillery bombardments and the chemical warfare.

[minipol]

True, thing is, the generals had almost 50 years to adopt their tactics, yet they didn't.
It was brutal. On the soldiers and the population. The Germans wanted to cross the territory fast to get to France before they could prepare themselves and were brutal.
Luckily our much smaller army, far less equiped with way older material succeeded in delaying the Germans enough so the French could prepare.

Also, in Belgium we speak both Dutch (Flemish population, roughly 60% of the total population), and French (Walloon population, about 40% of the population).
Most officers where French speaking as at that time, the south was richer here, and had more influence. Now the northern part of Belgium is richer.
They shouted orders in French to the soldiers, which consisted of a lot of Dutch speaking soldiers.
A lot of them farmer boys, not knowing any French. Some were executed for not understanding the orders.
To this day, it's always been quite controversial to talk about this here. It's hard to form one nation if you have that kind of history and 2 different languages in 1 country.
After the first world war, we gained some territory from the Germans, where people of course speak German, so we have 3 official languages, in a country of merely 11m people.

I'm actually reading Shelby Foote but it's not easy to read when English is not your native language
Thanks for the insight

[Ace]

Similarly, it would be nice to select a leader's stack and recruit additional units directly (if they aren't recruitable in that region, they can appear in the closest available region, with default movement orders to the then-current leader stack position when complete ).

C'mon, this is not rts. The recruited units appear on map unfinished and untrained, and will be done in 4 turns. Who knows where your general will be in 4 turns, he might be dead by then. It is opening a can of worms.

That whole recruitment large icon ribbon UI needs a re-design. As noted, it needs to remember last-selected settings.

I'm also finding the Corps/Division organization icon ribbon to be a bit frustrating: dragging & dropping some unit cards always selects the new stack, even though I'm not finished working with the old stack. When going back to the old stack, the ribbon resets, and we have to scroll left or right to get back to selecting what units we want ...

I agree with those two suggestions. It has been mentioned before and I am sure it is on Pocus (pretty long) to-do list.

[MikeV]

C'mon, this is not rts. The recruited units appear on map unfinished and untrained, and will be done in 4 turns. Who knows where your general will be in 4 turns, he might be dead by then. It is opening a can of worms.

Well, it's a suggestion. The Creative Assembly folks have it as a feature in their Total War series. So, it's not impossible to implement.

I agree with those two suggestions. It has been mentioned before and I am sure it is on Pocus (pretty long) to-do list.

Can we view the bug list and vote for our favorites? Some open-source projects do that, and it seems to help them prioritize.

[ajarnlance]

True, thing is, the generals had almost 50 years to adopt their tactics, yet they didn't.
It was brutal. On the soldiers and the population. The Germans wanted to cross the territory fast to get to France before they could prepare themselves and were brutal.
Luckily our much smaller army, far less equiped with way older material succeeded in delaying the Germans enough so the French could prepare.

Also, in Belgium we speak both Dutch (Flemish population, roughly 60% of the total population), and French (Walloon population, about 40% of the population).
Most officers where French speaking as at that time, the south was richer here, and had more influence. Now the northern part of Belgium is richer.
They shouted orders in French to the soldiers, which consisted of a lot of Dutch speaking soldiers.
A lot of them farmer boys, not knowing any French. Some were executed for not understanding the orders.
To this day, it's always been quite controversial to talk about this here. It's hard to form one nation if you have that kind of history and 2 different languages in 1 country.
After the first world war, we gained some territory from the Germans, where people of course speak German, so we have 3 official languages, in a country of merely 11m people.

I'm actually reading Shelby Foote but it's not easy to read when English is not your native language
Thanks for the insight

I didn't know that about Belgium. Sounds a bit like Switzerland where they can speak French/German/Italian. I also didn't know that it was the Belgian army that delayed the german attack early in WW1. I am sure the German blitzkrieg was also very brutal for the low countries in WW2. Shelby Foote's three-volume 'Civil War' is the best read for understanding this conflict. Shelby passed away recently but he lived and breathed the Civil War and really brought it to life for me. It's the way he finds all the little anecdotal information which gives so much colour to the history. After all, it's really all about the characters on both sides. That is what AGEOD does a decent job of representing. I also love the PBS documentary series on the Civil War where Shelby is interviewed throughout. I included excerpts from it on my new music file. Thanks also for the insight!

[Mickey3D]

I'm actually reading Shelby Foote but it's not easy to read when English is not your native language

There is a very good (IMHO) book on Civil War by McPherson with a french translation, have a look here (don't look at the french description of the book, it seems they mixed up with another book).