RavenWargaming wrote:Hi,
I don't post much here, but I wanted to voice support and say I would definitely buy a Civil War III. However, please update or create a new engine. It's really starting to show its age!
RavenWargaming wrote:Oh wow that's awesome! I didn't realize that was an 'official' thread.
Captain_Orso wrote:WHY? Why should Civil War be done a third time? What exactly should be changed, and why? Please, no vague "it's got too many different units", because in really it has too few, nor boi, it would be ef'ing awesome
Captain_Orso wrote:Why are RGD's in any way bad? They are a game mechanic, and nothing more. The exact same thing could be done just like options, so what is wrong with RGD's, and what would be better, and why?
Captain_Orso wrote:• 1 week turns, because 2 week turns allow too much to happen, while one side just sit's back an watches while it happens
Captain_Orso wrote:• a map that pays more attention to geography, and less to politics
Captain_Orso wrote:• River passages that could seasonally be blocked (shallows - see Red River Campaign), because it affected supplies, , strategies, and tactics greatly
Captain_Orso wrote:- • not "Power" of stacks is reported, but number of men and horses and what ever other information might be realistic should be reported
Captain_Orso wrote:• more realistic supply management, because if supplies worked in reality, like they do in the game, Chattanooga would not have been starving, nor Richmond
Captain_Orso wrote:• Indian tribes as factions, and not one huge nation (maybe we could the create an Indian Wars DLC finally)
Captain_Orso wrote:• Naval operations in general
Captain_Orso wrote:• a changeable military structure, because the military structure changed throughout the war, for reasons, and we have been using a grade-school version of how military organization works since forever; but not too complex, just flexible enough
Gray Fox wrote:The CSA should have some Training Officer types. As has been mentioned many times, Hardee wrote the training manual for both sides. The Union advantage in this respect has been shamelessly exploited by foxy players.
Captain_Orso wrote::
• 1 week turns, because 2 week turns allow too much to happen, while one side just sit's back an watches while it happens
Captain_Orso wrote:• River passages that could seasonally be blocked (shallows - see Red River Campaign), because it affected supplies, , strategies, and tactics greatly
Captain_Orso wrote:• more realistic supply management, because if supplies worked in reality, like they do in the game, Chattanooga would not have been starving, nor Richmond
Captain_Orso wrote:• Naval operations in general
Captain_Orso wrote:• a changeable military structure, because the military structure changed throughout the war, for reasons, and we have been using a grade-school version of how military organization works since forever; but not too complex, just flexible enough
pgr wrote:8<Captain_Orso wrote:• River passages that could seasonally be blocked (shallows - see Red River Campaign), because it affected supplies, , strategies, and tactics greatly
It exists in a way, shallow waters can freeze in the winter. One could add a "drought" thing for shallow waters for places like the Red River. (Say 2 types of rivers, shallow waters and very shallow waters. Very shallow waters are navigable in "flood" levels (spring runoff), and not in summer/fall droughts. Have it linked to weather like freezing.)l
pgr wrote:Captain_Orso wrote:• more realistic supply management, because if supplies worked in reality, like they do in the game, Chattanooga would not have been starving, nor Richmond
Yep! The problem is that structures (cities, factories ext) do all the production, and the bigger the place, the bigger effect. It would be nice if regions produced GS in fonction of their terrain type and civ level, and structures either consume them (towns eat) or converted them (GS to an Ironworks as an input with Ammo and WS as an output) to other stuff. Depots would still be the pumps, and cities and towns would stockpile, but there would be a supply flow from the country to the city and not the other way around.
pgr wrote:Captain_Orso wrote:• Naval operations in general
What do you mean? I for one would be for making it a bit more like land combat. Have CP limits and form ship "divisions."
pgr wrote:Captain_Orso wrote:• a changeable military structure, because the military structure changed throughout the war, for reasons, and we have been using a grade-school version of how military organization works since forever; but not too complex, just flexible enough
It might be nice to have another level. Call it a Department level, like a super army. Have a Halleck in St.Louis as a 3 star Department commander with a super "army creation" radius. Grant in Cairo (2/3 stars) creates an army as if he was a new corps commander, but he can have corps attached to him in the current way (but Halleck gives him some of his bad traits as his department commander.) Corps MTSG of their army, but have some ability to MTSG to corps of another army under the same department commander (as long as they are in his command radius.)
The department radius would scale with a commander's skill so that a guy like Grant could cover the whole map, but Halleck or Mac could only cover a theatre. It might be a good of nerfing Grant, because he would have to work his way out from under those fools through the seniority system.
Pocus wrote:The new engine should be using the PBEM++ system from Matrix/Slitherine
Captain_Orso wrote:WHY? Why should Civil War be done a third time? What exactly should be changed, and why? Please, no vague "it's got too many different units", because in really it has too few, nor boi, it would be ef'ing awesome
Why are RGD's in any way bad? They are a game mechanic, and nothing more. The exact same thing could be done just like options, so what is wrong with RGD's, and what would be better, and why?
I think most of the things I think I would like to "fix" in CW2 aim for more realism:
• 1 week turns, because 2 week turns allow too much to happen, while one side just sit's back an watches while it happens
pgr wrote:I'd advocate for 1 week turns, and some kind of decentralized manpower/political system. Something kinda quasi Wars of Napoleon with allied states. Each state has a manpower pool, fills quotas set by the national authority, and in the case of the North, different loyalties so that there could be an "election" backlash if the North is getting throttled. (Oh and reducing the supply glut back east would be nice )
RavenWargaming wrote:For my own purposes, I'd like there to be a greater premium put on improving the presentation of information, and explaining mechanics. For example, more contextual tooltips that explain exactly why you can't do something rather than just listing a few possible reasons why it doesn't work.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests