ACWGC Forums
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20909
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Dwight McBride [ Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

I agree with Chris Perleberg . . . both his suggestions are at the top of my list. Put a pause button into playbacks; have some kind of dynamic sighting. You should be able to see what's in a valley from the top of a surrounding hill, not have to go into the valley and bump into them to "see" them.

Author:  Wayne [ Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

Chris Perleberg wrote:
Me, I'd still like pausable playback.....

Also, a recon function for Cavalry, something like that for recon units in Panzer Campaigns -- use 1/3 of your MP and see all units in range. I am sick and tired of watching my Cavalry units get surrounded by Infantry and destroyed just because they crested a ridge and therefore can't see the mass of Infantry 3 hexes away....


Playing the downloadable scenario "!Raid on Stephensons Depot" I have run into infantry twice now that are hiding below an elevation line.

I live in the area of this scenario and it is mostly a gradual decent from west to east. This is not a criticism of the scenario designer nor of the map designer. It is a criticism of the game engine (although a small criticism) with a possible solution going forwards.

If I could mod this game what I would do is create two different elevation types. One hexside elevation would only reflect an elevation change without blocking line of site. The other elevation hexside would block line of site.

Basically if you were looking at a topographical map then one would reflect an elevation change but a gradual one. The other would reflect a more dramatic elevation change but not to the point of being an embankment. There should be a middle ground in there. If you think about it a gradual slope, even if a mile long, doesn't block line of site. Yet a gradual slope in this game is going to have an elevation change that does block line of site and allows for some rather ahistorical results and ambushes.

Author:  Daniel Houghtaling [ Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

I have a few things to add to this thread:

I would like to see a more defined distinction between mounted and dismounted officers. According to the parameter data I have seen, other than the movement points, there seems to be no real difference, and thus, no point to dismount.

Secondly, I would like to see some improvement on fixed units. I completely understand the rationale for fixed units, but I am presently in a battle where my opponent is attacking fixed units, and the rest of the units in that area that have not been fired on remain fixed even though in a real life situation, they would most certainly react in some way. Perhaps a better way to handle fixed units would be either:

1) Pay a victory point penalty to activate them
2) Use a hex radius to activate them instead of being fired on

Just some thoughts...

Author:  C. Hecht [ Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

For the later try using the "Alternate Fixed Unit Release" optional rule, it works this way:
"Select Alternate Fixed Unit Release to have Fixed units become released
whenever an enemy unit comes within 5 hexes of them regardless of the line-
of-sight to that enemy unit."

Author:  nsimms [ Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

Army supply wagons should be recognized as falling underneath the Army Commander and thus would follow the Commander when control alt is used. Corps and division supply wagons do this so why not Army.

Author:  nsimms [ Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

In a melee, it requires a minimum of 4 units to be in position around a unit in decent shape in order to eliminate the unit. If the unit is routed but not isolated, it requires a minimum of 6 units in position around the routed unit to eliminate it. If the unit is routed and is isolated from the previous turn, it requires only one unit to eliminate it. A routed unit should not require more units to eliminate it than a unit in good status.

Author:  Joe Meyer [ Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

There seems to be flaw in the way that the JTS/HPS Campaign series handle the last turn of a campaign battle. The last player in sequence gets to complete that turn, but the program does not allow the other player to view it! As soon as the last player hits the Next Turn tool button, the program immediately whisks away to the start of the next campaign battle setup, without allowing the first player to view the last player's move. Ordinarily this poses no real problem, but occasionally that last half of the final game turn can decide the victory level, leaving the first player in sequence in the dark as to what exactly happened. Moreover, some of us like to keep track of regimental losses in a campaign effort, and it is not inconceivable that an entire regiment or two might be eliminated in that last half of the turn.

The game engine should allow an opponent to view that last half turn of the battle before advancing on to the next campaign battle setup.

Author:  Wayne [ Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

Joe Meyer wrote:
There seems to be flaw in the way that the JTS/HPS Campaign series handle the last turn of a campaign battle. The last player in sequence gets to complete that turn, but the program does not allow the other player to view it! As soon as the last player hits the Next Turn tool button, the program immediately whisks away to the start of the next campaign battle setup, without allowing the first player to view the last player's move. Ordinarily this poses no real problem, but occasionally that last half of the final game turn can decide the victory level, leaving the first player in sequence in the dark as to what exactly happened. Moreover, some of us like to keep track of regimental losses in a campaign effort, and it is not inconceivable that an entire regiment or two might be eliminated in that last half of the turn.

The game engine should allow an opponent to view that last half turn of the battle before advancing on to the next campaign battle setup.


I agree!

And I wonder why there is no password protection on the campaign games?

Author:  Ernie Sands [ Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

The reason for the lack of a password for campaigns is passwords would not allow causalities, etc to carry over to the next scenario. And the carry over is one of the important aspects of the campaigns.

Author:  nsimms [ Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

Some of the roads in the latest games are the same color (brown) as the background/terrain and are practically impossible to distinguish even when using Bill Peters road and water enhancements.

Author:  KWhitehead [ Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Improvement Wish List for the Civil War Battle Series

Ernie Sands wrote:
The reason for the lack of a password for campaigns is passwords would not allow causalities, etc to carry over to the next scenario. And the carry over is one of the important aspects of the campaigns.


It would still be helpful to have a password for the player to start his turn of the game without encryption of files. It would help prevent a person from accidently seeing the other players position (I've done this thinking I had a new file that I just received and not paying attention to the prompts) and make it difficult to cheat without going to an awful lot of work decoding files.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/