Suggestions for version 3.0

[Hinkel]

Hey all,

since version 2.1 will be out soon with a basic campaign version, we still have many ideas for the battle and for the campaign mod.
So version 3.0 will contain more stuff for the campaign, like rail roads, new technologies, army/corp structure, historical generals, more countries etc.
The battle mod will also get a rework.

Do you have any other ideas or wishes for the battle/campaign?

[Shugo560]

Hey all,

since version 2.1 will be out soon with a basic campaign version, we still have many ideas for the battle and for the campaign mod.
So version 3.0 will contain more stuff for the campaign, like rail roads, new technologies, army/corp structure, historical generals, more countries etc.
The battle mod will also get a rework.

Do you have any other ideas or wishes for the battle/campaign?

well 4 3.0 like i said in another thread mabye u could make the mid west regions a nation called US Territories wich is a protectorate of the
Union

P.S. o yes 1 more thing i downloaded DBeditor and im wondering if i want 2 make reloading speed faster do i lower the number or increase

[Hazbones]

For Battles:
>Rework morale tables to more historical feel
>Incorporate some of the already tried and tested weapon ballistic mods. (There are some good ones out there for Arty especially)
>Maybe work on the weapon and stats a bit to create early/mid/late type units sorta like RTW, same available units but upgraded/downgraded as time goes on in game. (IE: Early Union Cav start out with weak weapons and stats but the Union Cav that is recruited in Mid/Late game have adjusted weapons/stats to simulate the steady improvement of those units)
>New possibilities with the group formations bin tool, etc.

For Campaign:
>Until we are able to create new regions, why not use the "Military Districts" that each nation had instead of using State Names on the map? These MD's are vague (and numerous) enough to make up for the poor representation CA used for the State borders. Some states are not even represented and the MD system will help to cover that up. (IE: The region of Tejas can be renamed "Trans-Mississippi Department", etc.)
>To take the Military District idea a step further, I'd like to see the CSA and USA split up into factions for each MD and of course with all CSA MD's allied together (or all protectorate) and all USA MD's allied together (or protectorates). For instance; Alexandria Dept / Richmond Dept / Fredricksburg Dept are 3 seperate CSA departments historically. The Confederate States of America can be the Richmond Dept with the other two Departments being their own factions with the same CSA units available and set as protectorates to the Richmond Dept. This allows the possiblilty to conquer various states across the map without crippling the entire singular CSA or USA faction. It makes TRADE a factor in the campaign with the seperate "factions" playing with each other. It also opens the door to:
>Making certain units state specific. Give each state its own line of available troops and textured to look different. Union troops in the New England area for instance can produce units wearing Great Coats, those CSA troops in Florida can wear white shirts and panama hats if they wanted to stay cool.

Here is a site listing all the Military Districts

Man, I have so many ideas I will stop there and pace myself

[71stRegtGrenCoy]

Hazbones, I really like your idea for a more detailed campaign map. If the North American campaign is more focused and detailed (more like NTW), there will be more opportunity to implement strategy by taking key regions within states. For example, Federals blockading or taking the district with Charleston, SC would cut off CS supplies from Britain (and perhaps prevent recruitment of CS infantry units armed with the more advanced Enfields). It would also allow for historical strategies that are a must in a game like this, such as Grant's campaigns along the Mississippi and Sherman's March to the Sea. If supply/transportation routes are implemented well, taking key region to cut off armies from supplies (and even destroy railroad lines) would add a great element to the game. Also, adjusting turn time to perhaps 2 weeks (like NTW) or even 1 week would be essential to make a realistic Civil War campaign.

In terms of battles, I personally would be careful about putting in too many "elite" units. While its great to see historically significant regiments represented, too many strong regiments might effect the balance of the game. Most of these units were regular infantry unit that distinguished themselves on different occasions. For example, the 20th ME was not "elite" by any means. Not intending to take away from their actions at Gettysburg, but many other regiments played an equal role in holding the Federal line, some taking far more casualties in the process. I personally think that specific units should be implemented as they are now, but not given such an overpowering, "elite" status. I think that they could be made regular infantry regiments with boosts in stats based on their history... For example, the 20th Maine could have a slightly higher defense/route point. The 54th MA could have a higher morale level because they had "more to prove". The Iron Brigade could have a more powerful charge attribute, due to their involvement in the Cornfield at Antietam. Stonewall Brigade could have a higher firepower rating (Brawner's Farm, Manassas, etc). Does this make sense? I would just hate to see a game where players are relying their entire experience on how many "elite" units they can stack in their armies, rather than focusing on building a strong army of regular units and utilizing strategy.

[panzerschreck]

-some town's siege with battles into the town with all the buildings available for troops.
- a fort siege battle like in the movie "glory".
- various and accurate zouaves
-some new units (milicias, troops of genie)
-more variety in artillery (like union rockets or big canons siege...)

[Hinkel]

Indeed we had the ideas in the team to have different protectorates for each country.
Like the CSA will start with virginia and north/south carolina, with florida state, texas state etc. as a protectorate. The CSA has to do different missions, that the protectorates will join the confederacy.

This feature might be in 3.0 for 95%

[OneEyeMick]

well 4 3.0 like i said in another thread mabye u could make the mid west regions a nation called US Territories wich is a protectorate of the
Union

P.S. o yes 1 more thing i downloaded DBeditor and im wondering if i want 2 make reloading speed faster do i lower the number or increase

If you are talking about in the projectile tables decrease, if you are in the unit stats tables increase, however this doesn't make as much difference and also affects misfires.

[Shugo560]

If you are talking about in the projectile tables decrease, if you are in the unit stats tables increase, however this doesn't make as much difference and also affects misfires.

actually im confused i was going to make reload speed faster but wont let me change anything

[Hampton Legion HQ]

Could we actually make civil war campaign figures for the armies on the map?

[Hinkel]

Could we actually make civil war campaign figures for the armies on the map?

You never watched the 2.1 trailer and looked at the campaign part? You can see the figures

[WAR monger]

Trench warfare? Like as if it were a buildable fortification that units can take cover in?

[Poudjik]

Modelisation:
_ Colt revolvers for officers (revolvers exist in NTW's zulu mod).
_Import gatling gun from the zulu mod in NTW if thats technically possible, and if the mod creator agrees
_ Iron Brigade style hats for the texan brigade


Campaign:
_real photos/portraits for generals u recruit in the campaign
_Texas as a CSA region
_Charleston as a big city that can make cannons etc.
(if it were up to me I'd put all cities big and farms maxed up so you only have to worry about the tactical part of armies without worrying about economy and construction).
_0 turn to build any unit (meaning u can build 10 units in a city in one turn)
_lower upkeep cost for bigger armies -> The goal of these changes is to make the campaign more competitive and have bigger fights, especially in multiplayer campaign


Battle Gameplay:
_Range back to 180-200 with less accuracy and lethality at longer ranges.
_Add thelordz map pack for more battlefields to play on

[Hazbones]

Hazbones, I really like your idea for a more detailed campaign map. If the North American campaign is more focused and detailed (more like NTW), there will be more opportunity to implement strategy by taking key regions within states. For example, Federals blockading or taking the district with Charleston, SC would cut off CS supplies from Britain (and perhaps prevent recruitment of CS infantry units armed with the more advanced Enfields). It would also allow for historical strategies that are a must in a game like this, such as Grant's campaigns along the Mississippi and Sherman's March to the Sea. If supply/transportation routes are implemented well, taking key region to cut off armies from supplies (and even destroy railroad lines) would add a great element to the game. Also, adjusting turn time to perhaps 2 weeks (like NTW) or even 1 week would be essential to make a realistic Civil War campaign.

That is my point too. That way the computer AI won't build one or two huge stacks and after the human player breaks that stack in battle, he can steamroll the rest of the CSA or USA faction. With the smaller Military Districts as factions they will all have their own stacks building up as the computer AI does in NTW with the minor factions.

Also as you said, there can be regions that train specific units like the example you gave with Charleston, SC.

Of course as protectorates, there can be scripts that allow the human player to meet certain criteria that cause the protectorate regions to join the CSA or USA faction. For instance, West Virginia was formed during the war and would be an excellent example of both USA and CSA trying to complete their requirements first to take control of WV. It could have gone either way very easily historically too. Arkansas, Kentucky, and the other border states would be nice regions to set up as possible scripted regions. Adds flavor to each new campaign you play.

In terms of battles, I personally would be careful about putting in too many "elite" units. While its great to see historically significant regiments represented, too many strong regiments might effect the balance of the game. Most of these units were regular infantry unit that distinguished themselves on different occasions...

I have to agree with this too. Elites were just normal units that distinguished themselves not these super-humans that CA has made them to be. Elites should be considered just that only if they had specific training above and beyond the normal unit training or were better stock IE: New England men were natural hunters thus shot their weapon better or the TX units who had egos as big as their state due to their recent Revolution and Mexican/American War experiences so they had higher morale in battle. All I am saying is that they should be "elite" for a reason due to prior experience or abilities, not just show up during the game as elites even before the date/time of the battle that made them famous historically.

I am not saying there should not be famous units like the "Pound Cake Regiment", they can just be recruited as a "named unit" not with any special bonuses

[Britabroad]

In addition to the above…..

1. Rakes renamed as something like “Field Agents” - spies with the ability to saboutage and assasinate - reskinned, and named historically with photos, as in the suggestion about Generals above. As historical figures, Generals could include a brief resume of their pre-war military careers and show realístic character traits - as could Rakes etc.
2. Gentlemen reskinned and perhaps renamed as either “spies” or “observers”, and presented as above.
3. How about, in the contested Border States/regions, both factions having guerrilla forces? Bushwackers and Jayhawkers - that sort of thing. They could be in place at the opening of the game and would realistically throw regions like Missouri and Kansas into turmoil from the off.

[Hazbones]

3. How about, in the contested Border States/regions, both factions having guerrilla forces? Bushwackers and Jayhawkers - that sort of thing. They could be in place at the opening of the game and would realistically throw regions like Missouri and Kansas into turmoil from the off.

Good idea. Border states like Missouri saw only minor battles but Mo had more battles than many other states in total. Mo also had the Missouri State Guard, a state militia that was a neutral force that was (in its charter) supposed to fight all nations that invaded the state. In reality the militia fought more along side the CSA but that's another story.

Mo was famous for its guerrilla warfare. Raiders from both USA and CSA fought from all corners of the state. I would like to see Missouri and other border states start out as either protectorates or neutral and have the major factions have to work for their allegiance.

The neutral states can have all the guerrilla forces available for recruitment and would make taking those regions more important in order to get the "special units".

[Maj.Gen. John E. Hawkins]

I would find it very exciting if naval warfare was also taken into account.

Naval Units
The units would be mostly steam ships with paddle wheels and screw props. The CSA, in order to maintain accuracy, will only have a limited number of ships available where the USA will be able to create as many ships as they want, the USA had the industry to do so. The USA would get it's revolutionary Monitors where the CSA gets its troublesome Ironclad Rams. The regular wooden ships would be in different sizes from steam sloop to steam frigate. The CSA will get blockade runners which are quite fast and maneuverable; these can be used for trade routes as well.

USA special units
U.S.S. Congress
U.S.S. Hartford
U.S.S. Monitor
Monitors
Ironclads

CSA special units
C.S.S. Virginia / Merrimack
C.S.S. TennesseeIronclad Ram
Blockade Runner

Naval Battles
Blockade-blockades should be much more dynamic as in every so often after a turn a blockade runner or other ship will attempt to escape and you will be forced to beat them or they will escape the blockading fleets.
Forts-a fort could be built at a harbor and will have artillery in it that can shoot at you and sink your ships. You can stop the forts by destroying all of the guns.

Sailors and Marines
This would have to be done or else the ships would look odd.
Marines
Marines were on ships and, in USA's case, on land as well. The USA would get marines to recruit for their armies, the CSA had marines on land a little bit but not enough for significance since there were only around 900.



Sailors
The sailors looked mostly the same for each side just the color was different.





And finally for the CSA flags on the campaign map will you use the actual national flag instead of the battle flag.

[wasp20126]

Like anything that is a mod, it is always in a state of improvement. There are a few things that would be very lovely to see in the upcomming 3.0

Fortifications. I Would love to see proper earthwork forts and proper looking brick forts. If only we could incorperate what was seen in shogun 2 where ships were availible during costal battles so that you have landings and such. Trench warfare was previlant during the end of the war so that would be nice to see.

Other nations. I would love to see the Confederates coerce the british or french to jump in on their side. Perhaps after a series of heroic victories against the yankees. Maybe even Mexico invading Texas to take advantage of the weakened state of the country. Perhaps the confederates making peace with the north in a short war and then going after spanish possesions in the carribean.

Naval ships. Now I know from previous posts that this is impossible to add new naval ships but it would be nice to see the monitor and merrimack go at each other.

[Primergy]

I would find it very exciting if naval warfare was also taken into account.

Thank you for your input, sadly Naval Warfare has to be considerd as unmoddable at the moment.
Textures and units can be changed, but the Ship models (at the moment) not.

[shokh]

Thank you for your input, sadly Naval Warfare has to be considerd as unmoddable at the moment.
Textures and units can be changed, but the Ship models (at the moment) not.

Whats possible is to limit the available shipunits. Delete the oldest ships etc.
This should bring more never ships like the steamboot into the fight.

[Hazbones]

Is it possible to port the ships from NTW to ETW? I don't play naval battles so I am not sure but weren't there some steamships and ironclads in one of these games?