Wishlist

[Franciscus]

Hi Pocus and company! Long time no see. I am back and enjoying ACW again. I just wanted to ask is there any progress on this idea with histories? Few months ago you said something could be done. This would improve game greatly and could be used in all your games as well. It would be nice to track your favorite general or to see what battle was a turning point of the war.

Regards,
Marko

+1
IMHO, definitely a MUST for VGN and maybe for an AACW II...

[Heldenkaiser]

I would like to see the ability to delay a unit's move at any point along it march. For example, before it moves, you could have the unit stay in its present location for 2 days. Or, it would move to the next area and, then, stay in that area 5 days before moving on, etc.

This would help a player coordinate the arrival of various forces at a common destination on the same day (barring any non-planned delays ). So, a commander could plan a battle like Shiloh where several different army's were to gather before assaulting. This would enable a player to have multiple armies in different areas gather for an attack in an area adjacent to the enemy and, then, launch the attack all during the same turn. As it is now, you either have to gather for one turn giving the opponent warning; or, you have to attack piecemeal depending on the move rates through the different areas.

So, when a force receives orders to rendezvous on a certain date with the main army, it can actually start its march with the rendezvous date in mind.

I very much second this motion. I can see no reason why, if a stack moves 5 days out of 15, it has to start on day 1 and arrive on day 5 if it could just as well start on day 5 and arrive on day 10, or whatever. There is a good reason for having finite turn lengths, but they shouldn't make the game pace unnecessarily rigid. It's bad enough that moving 15 days means the opponent will have no idea where the stack is going before the turn is actually resolved and the march is over, but moving 16 days means he will know exactly where it goes one day before the march ends. (OK there is forced marching, bad enough in itself ... but in any case, THIS can't be solved easily, the other thing hopefully can.)

Of course there should be reasonable variation and unpredictability in actual march length, because armies at this time simply were not able to actually coordinate movement by separate bodies very precisely ... but they were able to plan it beyond what we can at present do in the game.

[cptcav]

I would like to see the Rail Destruction / Repair orders changed to allow for the following:

· A unit can be flagged to destroy rail in every area it enters (with an appropriate delay for the time it takes to destroy the rail). This would allow one to order a unit that is not currently in a rail area to be sent out with orders to destroy rail lines in every area it enters. As it is now, you have to move to the area and wait until the beginning of the next turn to order it to destroy the rail, regardless of how long or short a time it takes to get there. Which also means that a unit can only destroy rail one area every two weeks even though it can move into multiple other areas after destroying the rail in its starting location.

· I would like to see the same ability applied to repairing rail in an area for the same reasons.

Thank you,
CptCav

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[cptcav]

I think the RR destruction/repair rules are fine the way they are.

For the same reason that you want rail destruction to occur on the move, it would be a hindrance to the other side to keep up with rail repair.... Why... Well each turn is a two week turn, meaning using a cavalry unit there would be a line of RR regions torn up that would take 2 weeks before the other side even realized it was destroyed before he or the AI could even begin to react to repair the damage. This is a game limitation that has to be looked at from both sides not just one side especially in any turn based game.

Gray,

Point taken.

Based on this consideration, I would amend my request to allow a unit to destroy or repair one area per turn, but not limited to the area it starts in.

The way that it would work is that during the plotting of the move, when a unit got to a specific area that it would want to destroy or repair, the player would then click on the destroy/repair button. This would allow a unit to destroy or repair rail in an area during the move, not just at the beginning. So, in effect, I could send a unit out on a mission to destroy rail in an area and return to its starting location all in the same two week period.

Regards,

CptCav

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

Not worth the cost now, but the possibility to delay a special order has been considered...

[bigus]

The ability to make a rail connection between Montgomery and Selma! Or restore the rail line that was taken out ~ patch 1.10 .

Strategically this is the only rail line the confederates had too transfer troops quickly between Mid-West and Vicksburg or between South Carolina and the West. Or Corinth to Chattanooga in 1862 for that matter.

For game purposes this rail line should be re-introduced.

[Gray_Lensman]

First off, love the game

Now my wish list

I wish Army, Div, Eng, Med, Sig, etc...could be selected to be created in the East, West, or Trans Mississippi.

This one you probably won't see anytime soon.

I would like to see a more realistic RR movement time frames. Example...Two Generals (and staff) take 22 days by rail to move from Washington to Cincinnati. That needs to be reduced to 3-5 days for the Union...probably add a few more days for a similar move done by the Confederates. The movement rate of Union troops coming from California to Kansas is way out of wack...I think I moved an artillery unit over and it only took like 20 turns (not a big deal to fix...hopefully).

Currently by game design limitations, the minimum amount of time to travel into/thru any region is 1 day. The game engine is not capable of fractional moves. However, rumor has it that RR moves may be by theatre cost instead in a future update, but who knows when that might be forthcoming. For now, you can use the "redeployment" for faster (actually instant) movement of Army HQ and other support units.

I would like to see auto promotions for winning generals. Say a bad general wins a few battles, in reality he would get the nod no matter how bad he really was (should make for some interesting decisions for the player down the road). I also could not get the Union general Lyon to promote no matter how many battles he won...it would be nice to groom him for a Corps or Army position.

This is a player controlled item, when a leader's experience increases to a good enough point, he is offered up as promotable and a button is enabled for the player to choose whether he wants to promote or not. We won't be taking that choice away from the players.

I would like to see some graphics showing the general effect of Naval blockade of the Confederacy other than the % listed in the blockade boxes...mock Richmond newspaper articles or intelligence report...something to jazz it up a little.

I'll look into this, no promises as to when however.

The AI looks to be pretty solid, especially for a ver 1.0...keep tooling it up!

The AI is always challenging to a new player. Hopefully, we can beef it up for a higher challenge sometime soon.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[gchristie]

But seriously.

Could there be a way to reduce the random quality of the economic/industrialization part of the game? Investing in industry is a roll of the dice, with no control over whether you want to increase one resource or another.

A strong economy is vital to any sustained military undertaking. And, I just can't imagine Stanton saying, "Here's a bunch of money, men and materials, go build something somewhere in Pennsylvania..."

Could players specify what they want to produce (genl. supplies, ammunition or war supplies)? The cost and time it would take to construct production facilities for a particular resource could be set so that war supplies would take the longest and cost the most given they seem to be a limiting factor for either side earlier in the war.

This from someone who knows zilch about how to do such a thing, but someone who enjoys managing the economic side of things along with kicking virtual butt!

The designers, coordinators, etc of AACW have done such an excellent job and raised our expectations so much, that we think you can do anything .

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Thats right...the rail line never existed.

Strategically some form of quick rail connection between Mid West and West should be there or the South is at a disadvantage.

But I also said it would be nice to be able to build this line.
If it was me, All my resources would have gone into building a rail link between these two cities. (Montgomerey to Selma).

IMO as it is now, with the current cost to cross the Mobile River the South is at a disadvantage for most grand campaigns.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Yes and historically Bragg made the move to chattanooga via Mobile in one month or 2 game turns. For some reason I was seeing 4 turns to reach it.
Maybe I had a Rail line cut that I missed. I am seeing 34-35 days to reach Chattanooga now so all is well. My apologies.

Getting back on topic I'd still like to see the ability to build rail lines in AACW2.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Doomwalker]

You and me both... If you've had a chance to peek at VgN, they managed to get the railroad lines displayed as an overlay instead of map graphics (with a little prodding from me obviously, it didn't take much , especially after they observed how large the AACW comprehensive patch grew to accomodate RR changes). This is a necessary first step to allowing for building of railroad lines in-game. Obviously, this would be a necessary and cool addition to AACW2 when/if.

I agree that it is a must for AACW2. I have wished to build that connection in many a game. Maybe in the next incarnation of AACW.

"Fingers crossed, with a look of determination; as if willing AGEOD to do a AACW2 game."

[cptcav]

I would like to see the target logic tweaked.

The situation that brought this request about is that after attacking Manassass and getting soundly trounced, McDowell withdrew the Northern Virginia Army to Alexandria. Of my three divisions totalling 23k+ men, Heinzeltman's division took most of the 4k casualties. So, during the next turn's orders, his division was pulled out of the army and ordered to Washington D.C. to replenish. And, a new division was put into the army.

Well, Beauregard, fresh off his victory, decided to launch an attack on Alexandria. Guess who got hit first? Heinzeltman was wiped out. Logically, I would have assumed that the NVA would have been between him and Beauregard, but the computer did not seem to follow that logic.

There have been other cases in games where units moving to join the main army are attacked instead of the main army in the area. And, when you look at the situation, you say to yourself (or your opponent) this doesn't make sense.

There needs to be something tweaked that makes the logical choice as to the target of the attack be the target.

And, on a second thought, another feature that would be interesting to have would be a REAR GUARD button. This button would allow a player to designate a unit/stack to cover the withdraw of another formation from an area. The designated unit would act like a magnet making any enemy attacks into the area target it first. This would allow a player to have the realistic option of covering a withdraw from an area so that the main force is not engaged. It would complement the delayed movement suggestion that I made a month or so ago.

Thank you for listening (reading).

Regards,
CptCav

[Colonel Dreux]

1.) Submarines
2.) Ability to place mines or debris in coastal areas/rivers that affect attacking naval forces
3.) I like the regiment idea in a new game
4.) More generals (a couple good ones are missing like Archer and Kemper)
5.) Art pics for all the generals (or photos and art are used, because photos would be easier to mod, I bet and most generals have photos and could all be implemented in the game)

Everyone has some great ideas

[slimey.rock]

I'd like to see a portrait made for Michael Corcoran. He's one of the better division commanders for the North and I like my division commanders to have faces

I would try to do it myself, but I'm horribly inept at graphic design and art in general. Perhaps another member could oblige me

[Nikel]

I'd like to see a portrait made for Michael Corcoran. He's one of the better division commanders for the North and I like my division commanders to have faces

I would try to do it myself, but I'm horribly inept at graphic design and art in general. Perhaps another member could oblige me

There is a modded portraif of Corcoran, different of the stock ones but still not bad

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=137602&postcount=291


There are more in that thread not included in the game just in case you are interested, look at the last pages

[Eugene Carr]

Need to add an "inept rider" ability though

Some cool portraits there which look great in game.

S! EC

[slimey.rock]

Hahaha yes, there's somthing to put into the AACW2 wishlist

Btw Nickel, thanks for the link. I had seen this thread before but forgot where it was. All of your portraits look excellent.

[soundoff]

Hi good people,

Well I've been playing the 1.15 on and off for some time now. Thanks to Clovis and Gray for a nice end to ACW1.

My thoughts though. If ever there is a ACW2, and assuming the base game includes historical succession dates as in 1.15... then I do so hope that other historical events within the 'succession' timeframe also become 'automatic'....eg....Sumpter falls as does Norfolk and Harpers. I say this because if the start of the game follows a tight historical line then so must the rest (at least in this players opinion) until such time as the game allows for alternatives across the board.

Now I'll revert to lurk mode...until such time as there is an ACW2. Good Luck and Good Gaming ....and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to one and all..........

[enf91]

Why are you padding this thread? Pad mine!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted