Wishlist

[Jagger]

I know for a fact that McNaughton is working on this in his mod. I'll tell you this - he has a good history of coming up with superb modifications. I'd just say, "wait and see".

My guess is that AGEod will adopt some of the things he modifies.

Spot on. Very important, IMO.

The way the game is currently designed, it can't be done unfortunately. There is a single ATT/DEF factor and an Assault factor. The ATT/DEFFire factors is used for all ranges except 0. The Assault factor is then used at 0 range.

Either a range modifier could be added modified by unit type or additional data range points could be added per model. The current system works fine in most cases/situations but doesn't work well for artillery cannister unfortunately.

[Pocus]

This is something which will be done for VGN, the combat factors will be range dependent. You don't want your infantry division to have the same firepower at his artillery range and at rifle range! What it means is that the ACW code will be synchronized with this change some time in the future (the feature being used or not officially). If you want, remind me about that in december and I can prioritize it

[PBBoeye]

I see a reason why this extensive and extended log is yet not done: because it would asks for 10 to 15 days at least of development time, and time is always short on our side

That made me laugh my butt off!

This is something which will be done for VGN, the combat factors will be range dependent....What it means is that the ACW code will be synchronized with this change some time in the future

So if I understand this correctly, after VGN (yummy!) has been developed/published, you'll go back and update AACW with this advanced code (in regards to the infantry fire range)? Sort of a small retro-upgrade, like BoA Gold - although that is a much larger retro-upgrade.

If so, then let me say that AGEod is setting a standard of achievement in gaming that I am not sure other companies are either reaching, or even targeting. This makes me feel really good about AGEod products!

[Henry D.]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned:

It would be quite nice if one could at least decide in which theatre "all states" reinforcements should be raised.

I'm trying out my first 61 campaign as USA and wanted to build a small "amphibious" division constisting of 3 Marines, 3 Sailors and a couple of Militia for garrison purposes to wreak havoc along the atlantic coast early on. Lo and behold, one of the marines was raised in CALIFORNIA! That threw my planning schedule right out of the window, so to speak...

Can't wait for the first engineer/naval engineer popping up there, right in the middle of nowhere...

[PBBoeye]

That's a pretty strong point.

[GShock]

It's what i call bull's eye, more than a strong point.

I think the DEVs intended for reinforcements to be randomized rather than to let the player choose where to raise them. In this kind of games, you start with a historical scenario, background and atmosphere, and it's hard to dislink the original idea in the masterplan to enter the "what if" environment.

It's impossible to make a historically accurate game and yet leave too many choices to the player: the 2 things are in conflict.

Perhaps a factor of randomness could be handy as a compromise between the "what if" philosophy and "history first" philosophy with a "rotation" of all available unit types in all states so that if you don't get the marines in NY in early '61 you could get them available in late '61 in the state you need them to be raised.
Rotation from which should be excluded the historical centers of recruitment (in these centers the unit types which historically were recruited should be excluded from rotation and always rendered available).

The best solution would be to unlocalyze troop types so the player could choose where to raise any kind of troops he needs according to his plans but this totally messes up with the historical accuracy the game strives to achieve whose most shining example is the publication of historical events dislinked by the player's moves that only add "flavor" to the game but which have no relevance with player's actions and moves.

[Rafiki]

You could also let support units (except the state-specific supply wagons) be builldable by department, like ocean-going ships are. Then it would simply be a matter of updating the scenario/db, rather than implementing new logic in the game.

[Henry D.]

You could also let support units (except the state-specific supply wagons) be builldable by department, like ocean-going ships are. Then it would simply be a matter of updating the scenario/db, rather than implementing new logic in the game.

YES, that's what I really meant to suggest, "builiding All States units by department". Sitting at my desk at work and deprived of my trusty dictionary while writing the above post , I couldn't remember the right term...

[GShock]

I was thinking that the immersion factor could be kept high while reaching a good compromise with those historical events being told to the player in a separate page (ledger perhaps)...call it..."Historical facts" page for example.

Following the "What if" philosophy that leaves everything to the player, i would detach from the log the "McDon't-Remember-his-name appointed as General of the Army of Potomac" and would put this into the "Historical facts" page to appear when the historical moment comes in the game.

At the same time, i would move the real event (as produced by the player when he appoints a General anywhere he does to an Army) into the opponent's player log.

I can't imagine the feeling of the citizens of the lands neighboring such an event...if the Leader is a prestigious one (Lee for example) i'd be enthusiast in seeing benefits in the neighbouring (friendly) and penalties (awe) in the closest enemy regions to the real event.

Anyway, man, what a game this is!

[PBBoeye]

How about some [color="Blue"]total statistics[/color], like casualties, men mustered, etc.

[LSSpam]

How about some [color="Blue"]total statistics[/color], like casualties, men mustered, etc.

Would love that. And maybe a break down as well. Like how many men/cannons/cavalry located in each of the armies, etc.

The more statistics the better. It's not possible to have too many.

[Chamberlain]

I second that !!!



Chamberlain

[GShock]

I asked for a total log in ledger page (few posts above), explaining everything happening in the resolution and putting it in nice "mail-boxes" according to the message type/category.

I think, especially after the results of the poll on sp/mp preferred mode-type, priorities should go to bugsquashing (mapbugs/0-casualty etc etc) and AI management of resources.

This suggestion is a serious improvement not possible for a .0n minipatch imo but definitely worth for a 1.1.

The funny thing is that i'm sure with such a log in our hands we could provide a dozen tons of data-testing to the DEVs which would speed the process.

Looking at the wishlist in this thread i think if Pocus had been the genie in the bottle he would have retired at page 1 , wish 3.

[PBBoeye]

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, the ledger-log would be perfect for tracking those stats. Very HOI2-EU2-ish. But that is a great system there, of data tracking. I highly suggest it for this game and all AGEod games (some format).

We should track all the nice 'stats' we'd like in one post. That way Pocus 'n' Crew can decide what they will incorporate.

[SIZE="1"]Note the language... hehe[/size]

[GShock]

The planning phase should begin with the "War Bulletin".
A nice, telegraph-style window (see i even dreamt of the graphics!) with page indexes on the bottom that pops up as soon as the previous resolution phase is complete.

I locate the "recruiting page" and I discover this turn Johnson's BDE received X Cavalry replacements.

Wait a moment, this is a bug as i had ordered Infantry. --> follows report.

Another example of what this would achieve...still with reinforcements:

Johnson's BDE was unable to receive X replacements due to :
1) combat reasons (Johnson's BDE had to withdraw from [region] during resolution phase)
2) Movement reasons (Player moved Johnson's negating "his" call for replacements at the HQ)
3) Lack of recruiting center (Johnson's camped in a Lev1 town)

These info actually TEACH the player how to play correctly and maximize the enjoyment of the game.

Every single little number inside the fog of war umbrella can be replicated in such bullettin with a text. It's basically only an effort to translate into text what the engine already gives.

Result: All players can ignore the war bulletin pages they don't want to check (more or less as you would do with a junkmail folder in outlook) but those who don't, would immediately see what everyone needs to see.

I also look at this thing as a potential tool to speed up the process both of patching AACW and of developing AGEOD's future games. (What DEVs learn from this engine would be extremely time-saving for next projects)

Remember the Town2 requisite for reinforcements? i went Crazy after those replacements and I'm sure I'm not the only one, till Pocus came to solve the mistery.

...not to mention the thousand possible bugs in the AI this could help discover.
I.e: I move Johnson's here and he arrives somewhere else...what's happened? The Bulletin will tell if it's bug or correct engine resolution, we don't go crazy, They don't have to waste time telling us, and so on.

I.e.: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5300

I'm not surprised there hasn't been an answer yet.

[Gourmand]

Hello,
first of all i want to say that the game is tremendous fun and very addictive
there is one thing i really would like to see in future patches. some kind of off the map place where you can manage your forces (like the economics,politics etc screen). like they did it during that time and today behind a desk on a piece of paper
sometimes i have a lot of different units in one region and to add them in a very accurate way to divisions or corps is very very hard. Maybe i missed something but when i select a general, make him a division commander i have to deselect him to see which units exactly are in the forces in the region. then select the general again and add a force to his command and so on so on so on.
Regards
Gourmand

[Jagger]

I would like to see a couple new combat orders-delay/probe. Basically an order that would direct a formation to fight but not if outnumbered. Whether a probe or delay, the formation would fight if it has a good opportunity to win. As soon as the formation realizes the odds against an inexpensive victory are low, it would withdraw or cease combat.

The delay order might result in a number of combats with low casaulties as it slowly retreats from a region which costs time for the attacking formation.

The probe order is the exact opposite. Test the enemies defense. If it is strong, halt the attack. If it is weak, push the attack.

[D_K]

well....just starting out in this game, love it. always wanted a civil war strategy game. i have a friend who is interested and we always play strategy games together online. are you planning on improving the multiplayer connection aspect? as in maybe adding tcp-ip, or a better pbem system?

so far that is all i could ask for. there are lots of other good suggestions here though. keep it up guys!!!!

[Rafiki]

Work is in progress about better PBEM via a web portal. Dunno what the current status is on that, though.

[Pocus]

NCP should feature a TCP/IP utility named ARES (AGE Receiving & Emitting System, don't ask we have to find an acronym ). When it is done, it will be provided freely for the others games.

[Rafiki]

(Sorry, I just had to )

A bit curious as to the details of it, but I'm guessing those will be provided when the time is right

[D_K]

what exactly is NCP???? is that napoleon or something???? a mod? a new game?

[PBBoeye]

I believe it is the Napoleonic game, but the acronyms have floated all over the place since the announcement, from what I've seen.

[Rafiki]

what exactly is NCP???? is that napoleon or something???? a mod? a new game?

Napoleon's Campaigns

[PBBoeye]

I keep forgetting this, but it's actually a real annoyance:

we need an actual scroll bar for the message panel - not just up/down buttons. It can take forever to scroll up and down via clicking.

[Hobbes]

It would be nice if CTRL-DELETE removed all waypoints rather than having to
remove them one at a time.

Cheers, Chris

[Pocus]

if you drop the stack on its origin regions, all waypoints are removed.

[Hobbes]

Boats on rivers seem extremely difficult to spot, I would have thought that they should be among the easiest units to see. Are spotting chances different on shallow/coastal/deep water. If not I think they should be.

Cheers, Chris

[PBBoeye]

[color="Blue"][SIZE="5"]Ledger Text Alerts[/size][/color]

Certain things really need to be revealed and recorded in the info ledger. Things like:

• Enemy moving Capitol
• Enemy instituting a draft
• Enemy printing money (this could be a bit redundant, though)
• more to come when I think of 'em

These really are important pieces of information on a national level, and they should be displayed for players to notice. Who picks up and sneaks their capitol and others don't find out about it? OK, Napoleon notwithstanding...

[Sven6345789]

i would like to see a list of all scripted reinforcements appearing in the game (a list like the one already existing for the April 1861 Scenario, but also including units which might appear via random event, and stretched out until 1866). This could be a word file.