Engine Craziness...

[Martin James]

Again I agree with WriterJWA....and no we don't know each other B)

I think it would be more understandable to a new player that generals can get shot, than that they cannot. In fact I suspect that they would assume that could happen if you got too close to the enemy.

I wonder how many players will not have seen the Gettysburg film for example. Lots of dead & wounded generals by the end of it.

Martin

[ADukes]

It's also not obvious to some new players (and even some older players) to use fences and stonewalls to provide cover for their troops, just as it isn't obvious for other to use canister at closer ranges, or to place leaders near regiments in melee, or........ etc. I don't think it would be too terribly difficult to put a paragraph-sized announcement on the website, forum, and manual that lets new and older players know about leader casualty changes.

Maybe you should read the manual chapters "How to Fight" and "How to Win."

[Marching Thru Georgia]

LittlePowell wrote:

Or maybe make regiments able to kill commanders just like infantry? Maybe we can put this on the request list, but I'm just not sure how we could resolve it without repercussions. If we make regiments able to kill commanders (more easily than they already can), they'd be dropping like flies.. It would be a pretty big change and would require a lot of testing. More ideas on how to resolve it are welcome.

The AI would need to be aware that its officers could be targets and move the to safety. Many times a corps or army commander will sit in the middle of the battlefield and watch the fighting as it swirls around him.

[WriterJWA]

It's also not obvious to some new players (and even some older players) to use fences and stonewalls to provide cover for their troops, just as it isn't obvious for other to use canister at closer ranges, or to place leaders near regiments in melee, or........ etc. I don't think it would be too terribly difficult to put a paragraph-sized announcement on the website, forum, and manual that lets new and older players know about leader casualty changes.

Maybe you should read the manual chapters "How to Fight" and "How to Win."

Why? I've done both.... B)

[Martin James]

The AI would need to be aware that its officers could be targets and move the to safety. Many times a corps or army commander will sit in the middle of the battlefield and watch the fighting as it swirls around him.[/quote]

Of course the current situation of them sitting in the middle of the battlefield is ahistorical. But yes, you make a valid point Garnier. No idea how much of a program change that would require for the AI.

Martin

[ADukes]

It's also not obvious to some new players (and even some older players) to use fences and stonewalls to provide cover for their troops, just as it isn't obvious for other to use canister at closer ranges, or to place leaders near regiments in melee, or........ etc. I don't think it would be too terribly difficult to put a paragraph-sized announcement on the website, forum, and manual that lets new and older players know about leader casualty changes.

Maybe you should read the manual chapters "How to Fight" and "How to Win."

Why? I've done both.... B)

And it's still not obvious to use fences and stonewalls to provide cover, use canister at closer ranges, place leaders near regiments or that commanders can be killed?

[WriterJWA]

Not to some new players..... we see it all the time in GCM MP games.

The paragraph is a counterpoint to what Garnier said: "I don't think my proposal would fly as part of the base gameplay because it wouldn't be obvious to new players: 'Why do my generals just die randomly?!?'" Using the supposed difficulties in telling new and existing players that their leaders can now die from gunfire is not, IMHO, a valid reason to avoid developing a game play feature that could better bring the challenges of Civil War combat command to life.

[Garnier]

What I proposed was meant to be simple, to get the desired gameplay with as little effort and risk as possible. With my idea, there would be no indication that the regiments were firing at the commanders -- the commanders would just die randomly. It is just my guess that this would be a lot easier to implement than anything more complicated or with visuals.

Having it be a mod-only feature is better than not having it at all. Having it included in the base gameplay would mean more testing has to be done, changes to the manual, etc. It's more work, so it's either less likely to happen, or would get in the way of more important things.

[WriterJWA]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'd rather see the engine improved overall, for future gamers, than just have the addition hamstrung in with a mod. I like the idea of having leader casualty chances moddable after the fact, but the core decision-making process needs to be in the engine. I'm personally satisfied to wait for an engine update with the casualty aspect built (with historical research applied), tested, and fielded, and then opened to be modded to players delights rather than have a quick solution that is backed into the game by a third party.

[Garnier]

Fair enough. It comes down to how long it's worth waiting vs hamstringing, and everyone has their own answer to that.

I think it was a good idea to have those half random maps backed in by a third party than to still be waiting. But I agree that this is less important.