Ideas for next Release

[Chonaman]

A campaign would be nice, but a rethinking of the objective system is needed. It wouldn't be nice to lose scenarios just because you tried to keep your men alive and gave ground 10 minutes too early and lost a 1000 victory points as a penalty..

I think the SOWG team has a good grasp of what makes sense, and what does not, including the objective system. But, it never hurts to offer a reminder. B)

[blub]

Hello! New member here, first post. I would like to see the Overland Campaign. It's Lee's next campaign after Gettysburg. Just a wish

[Chonaman]

Welcome to the SOWG forum!

[BadgerJeff]

If you wanted to go in a more operational level sim, would it be possible to start with some sort of hex based map with general terrain features and have the 3d engine generate maps based on those more prominent features? How taxing would something like that be?

I would like to see something based on the Peninsula campaign, or something based on Bull Run. With Bull Run, you would have the initial clash of armies, with some union units like the 2nd WI wearing grey, green troops galore, and confusion abound. 2nd Bull Run features the firefight at Brawner's Farm, Banks's firefight with Jackson at Cedar Mountain, longstreet's counterattack, as well as the minor rear guard action which killed Kearny at Chantilly. Lot's of good stuff to sim there.

Then there's the Peninsula. It would be interesting because it would be one of the few times in which the confederates actually did manage to achieve something close to numerical parity with the federal forces under McClellan. There are so many interesting what if's and possibilities with this campaign, it would be hard to zero in on one aspect. You could do the battle of williamsburg, which is interesting because it involved 20,000 troops and neither McClellan or Johnston intended to fight there. Then you have the whole drama of the Seven Days.

Also, doing the Peninsula maps would be a nice set up for the Overland campaign, since a lot of the battles in June 1864 close to Richmond were almost on the same ground.

[IronBMike]

If you wanted to go in a more operational level sim, would it be possible to start with some sort of hex based map with general terrain features and have the 3d engine generate maps based on those more prominent features? How taxing would something like that be?

I would like to see something based on the Peninsula campaign, or something based on Bull Run. With Bull Run, you would have the initial clash of armies, with some union units like the 2nd WI wearing grey, green troops galore, and confusion abound. 2nd Bull Run features the firefight at Brawner's Farm, Banks's firefight with Jackson at Cedar Mountain, longstreet's counterattack, as well as the minor rear guard action which killed Kearny at Chantilly. Lot's of good stuff to sim there.

Then there's the Peninsula. It would be interesting because it would be one of the few times in which the confederates actually did manage to achieve something close to numerical parity with the federal forces under McClellan. There are so many interesting what if's and possibilities with this campaign, it would be hard to zero in on one aspect. You could do the battle of williamsburg, which is interesting because it involved 20,000 troops and neither McClellan or Johnston intended to fight there. Then you have the whole drama of the Seven Days.

Also, doing the Peninsula maps would be a nice set up for the Overland campaign, since a lot of the battles in June 1864 close to Richmond were almost on the same ground.

A hex-based turnbased operational game would be perfect, and the Seven Days/Richmond area would be perfect to model the 1862 and 1864 battles. Or really the whole state of Virginia. 6 miles per hex would be a great scale.

[Michael Slaunwhite]

Full Voice Control.

[Ingles of the 57th]

Hi Badger Jeff,

I agree with you. I would very much like to have a zoom button for maps. On the new larger ones the actual unit icons are becoming quite miniscule and trying for old eyes. Have the 'Z' key zoom the map, when that is displayed, centering on the cursor ? I fear though this might complicate interaction enormously when using the mouse on the part-maps and keeping track of co-ordinates. It is a trueism that the easiest-sounding changes are usually the hardest to implement.(and vice-versa)

Having cut my teeth on TC2M, which I still play, I agree that an update of Bull Run and 2nd Manassas, or maybe just even just the maps, would be most desirable. These were both keynote battles and they still have a lot of mileage to offer.

This problem arises anew though each time there is a major re-incarnation of the game. Too many battles, too little time.

Geoff Laver Late of Her Britannic Majesty's 57th Regiment of Foot

[Squid_UK]

Firstly Id like to clarify just how much I love this franchise. It is simply breathtaking in its excellence.

That said, perhaps I may be so bold as to add things to this virtual wish list.

Firstly (as mentioned in another thread) I would love to see my officers acknowledging orders given in via the message system and reporting that they have arrived at their objective and the enemy numbers (or lack of) they have encountered. Ideally this would be influenced by the quality of said officer with a chance of both underestimating and over estimating enemy numbers.

Secondly, and I am not sure if it is within the scope of the game engine, but the way units wheel constantly to face a new threat, for me is an immersion breaker. It would be nice to see units have a field of fire (Perhaps of 45 degrees or more) where they can remain in place and still target enemy formations without having to wheel. Also when they do wheel they can do so it can be anchored from either flank rather than the center.

Finally having the flag at the center of the unit deciding which cover bonuses it receives grates a bit too. I can be sitting on a fence or wall perpendicular to my units facing and still receive its bonus. Again I don't know if its possible (I'm sure you guys have looked at it) but it would be great only to receive that bonus if I am behind the obstacle in relation to the direction of incoming fire.

Again though despite the above its still a fantastic game and one I get much enjoyment from.

[Michael Slaunwhite]

Hmmm, I just started to think about this about 2 minutes ago so if I make mistakes, that will be my excuse (hehe).

I would like to see something along the lines of what IL2/IL21946 offers for a generated Campaign. Anyone who owns IL2 (doesn't matter the game) knows you enter your name, choose which side you wish to fight for, at what level of command you would want (also have the ability for advancement), and the generator would create a full dynamic campaign which changes depending what is actually going on with you, and other AI commanders in the field, including victories which would then keep the line of battle (territories/states)changing (no different than having the frontline changes in IL2) from battle to battle.

Here is a stand alone Campaign Generator which is used by the developers of IL2 (free by the way) to create these great generated campaigns. Reason for my posting this software is so that NSD might wish to take a look at it, and see if they can fit something like this in their upcoming next gen game.

Link: http://www.lowengrin.com/download.php?list.3

Cheers.

[KG_Soldier]

A host option which prevents players from toggling off trees.