The Ultimate Civil war Game wish list.

[RebBugler]

I think sharpening up the textures and perhaps making the transition to simple 3d models would go a long way. With visuals, the most important thing in my opinion is that the battle looks and feels big instead of a small skirmish.

I think this might be the best option. Press forward as much as you can on the visuals but don't risk downsizing the battles. If you consider MP alone, battles limited to 2000 troops or so just wouldn't work very well (unless you're only wantin 1v1 or 2v2). As we're currently often hosting 20 players in MP battles, that's 100 troops per player, and that's not going to be fun for anyone.

Clarification, I was referring to sprite numbers, 2000 3D or 15000 2D, stock 4 to 1 sprite ratio would give you 8000 3D, 60000 2D.

[Gunfreak]

Quite frankly don't change anything drastic, Take command/scourge of war, is about battles, not "actions" or skirmishes.

Even if I only play a brigade commander, I want 20 000 other allied soldiers to be on my flanks and rear.

What you have to keep is "BIG BATTLEFIELDS" including the use of roads ect.
BIG BATTLES, divisjons and corps are a minimun, full armies are better.
I want to Grant at Shiloh, Mead at gettysburg ect.

For the love of zeus don't become a TW Clone.

[garyknowz]

I've always enjoyed TW games for the visuals and there's not denying that they're the best that money can buy. The AI in NTW isn't half bad either.. What I don't like in TW games is that they're very fast paced and hectic. No time to think, only to sling your mouse around.

Very true. They're clickfests, to borrow the term. SOW and TC2M are a thinking man's game---our chess to checkers comparatively. You really need to think out your strategic game plan out before implementing it.

[Mazikainen]

Yup, and with SOW's and TC2M's longer battles you get an additional set of problems to think over, like allowing your soldiers a breather between engagements and when to resupply their ammunition and so forth.

On the screen shots before. I'm not a fan of Depth-of-field effects in RTS games, but those sprites look nice and crisp.

[Cleaburn]

Well one thing,I enjoyed in Sids Gettysburg, Was the Re_enactment cut aways during different aspects of the battle> I think they would be cool to have them in this game as well just me tho!!!! :woohoo: Please do not shoot me....

[Michael Slaunwhite]

Well one thing,I enjoyed in Sids Gettysburg, Was the Re_enactment cut aways during different aspects of the battle> I think they would be cool to have them in this game as well just me tho!!!! :woohoo: Please do not shoot me....

I'm with you on that one Cleaburn. I have been working on it, but it can't be done that I can tell.

I know Adukes pointed his wise old boney finger to a file for me to look at, and I just can't figure it out.

[Braxton Bragg]

I know Adukes pointed his wise old boney finger

Lol Didnt know he had one :laugh:

[Janh]

I've always enjoyed TW games for the visuals and there's not denying that they're the best that money can buy. The AI in NTW isn't half bad either.. What I don't like in TW games is that they're very fast paced and hectic. No time to think, only to sling your mouse around. Also, formations are a pain and the scale of the maps too small.

This is very good feedback as we plan for future SOW productions. The downside of matching TW visuals, 3D Modeling, is limited sprite numbers...I recollect 2000, whereas now, 15000+ can be represented.

So, you prefer the better 3D visuals, you don't mind the smaller battles, brigade sized, but you would like the pace to be SOW-like, with big maps? Anything else?

Thank You Sir

I think the approach taken with TC2M and SoW is preferable: larger, more realistic representations is more critical than graphics or eye-candy in my opinion.

My future wishes for these serious would rather focus on other areas. For one, I would still wish for a more versatile, more powerful scripting engine that would allow to override AI routines by modder-designed functions. With a sufficiently large set of implemented functions and logic structures, and global/local variable handling and exchange between different, simultaneously running scripts.

On the bigger picture, I would hope that this engine would sometime become the foundation for a strategic level game similar to say Matrix "Forge of Freedom". A strategic-economical layer on a map that is broken down to counties, or even cities and single roads for large-scale movement performed in daily turns. Some force administration and production management, some foreign and local political factors and the adjacent European powers being represented.

And the core would be the combat engine that would allow to fight out the daily battles a la SoW or TC2M. That would eoither randomly generate some 5x5 or 10x10 mile battle maps, or if fought in a famous area, would use a historic battle map instead (if it was already created such as now Gettysburg, Antietam, or Pipe creek, or allow also user created maps to be assigned to certain spots). Ideally it would store the unit positions at the end of the day or night fight on the local battle maps, and allow for a continuation from there with newly generated VP sites on the next day if no side chose to withdraw -- for up to a week (Chancellorsville, 7-days battles), or more (parts of the overland campaign).
This game could also cover things like entrechments or promotion and demotion of officers after battles or at other times etc. There is probably plently of room for features yet to be seen in a game, perhaps similar in idea and success as the HITS concept.

A game along those lines would certainly be a gem. Well, just some ideas...

[Damned Black Hat]

We already have the ultimate Civil War game. Where else can you engage in massive battles with 20+ players and 100,000 troops?

[IronBMike]

What I really am hoping for is an operational level of play in addition to battles.