reamond

I looked at the movie "Gods and Generals", its adds some extra spice to the characters...and some ideas how it worked from the point of the commanders. "Discipline wins the day!"... So I would like to suggest some kind of uncertainty in the game play... related to commanding troops... if morale is low... they should react slower. Type of commander should affect their man's moral and behavior. Don't rely on a commander with the push forward, who is not aggressive enough but cautious... the result should be different. Troops with overconfidence should attack without order.... and so on... It can spice up a little bite, so the game gets its own character and not so clinic... in ETW... the troops follow order exactly... Its also gives more dimension to the action where the user need to check what troops / commanders they are using for what. Information between commanders was written that time... that could be also visualised in the game where the commanders character would come through. It should be also possible for troops to lay down or take cover... to try to avoid enemy fire or to get spotted (see Waterloo). And of course the opposite should be possible as well... to make sure that troops is in the clear for efficient fire. Vegetation should affect fire efficiency. My feeling is that ETW is very bad regarding that..Big firefight in the woods... positioning artillery... If I remember correct in the game Sid Meier's Gettysburg its possible to clearly see what the unit is able to aim at. That is something I would prefer. Scouting... by spotting a commander... it was possible to estimate unit size on the other side (ACW both side new each other very well and that made "easy" for them to foresee what troops around a spotted general), the role of different type of flags slowly disappeared after the Napoleonic war and that made hard to get information of unit size based on a spotted enemy flag.

I like the idea presented by xcorps... reusing amo / weapon / guns... I would incorporate resources like that into the strategic map where user can plan to capture resources. Little bit out of topic or just touch it... I am a fan of the idea to have a strategic map (to avoid to have too much information on the battleview) for both planning of the battle...(actually for big battles it would be a must... following the idea that general stuff used maps to visualise everything... resources, scouting, reinforcement... ) 1, Positioning troops before the battle (not like in TW... that is really too easy) 2. Position supply points for you troops (with range which can cover troops ) / enemy should have the same >> open the possibility to capture supplies 3, Request reinforcements arrival area (Sid´s solution was to open troops for use with time, but that allow user to know what they have... and again too easy). 4. See strategic points with high value 5. Visualise owned ground by user - and enemy troops 6. Visualise expected enemy troops out of sight (those should not be on the battleview) 7. Visualise scouted area or area in visual range / control (Sid´s solution was a view / button shows troops in view / range ) 8. Communication between troops (if there is delay or cut of units) 9. Could be used for big-big battles, thats or multiplayer to coordinate battleplan movement for a team I know that from start is no way to get in any of this... but in time it would add significant strategic play to your game and would definitely appreciated by me. So limited amo is a must! How to implement is more tricky. Don't remember the correct story of Gettysburg..I think Lee wanted to swing far north to get a preliminary distance from the main union body. But there was something about a deppo of military equipment the south wanted to capture there (maybe just shoes) and a minor clash developed to a full battle. So resources have big importance as well.

I like the idea to have reinforcement continuously arriving to the battlefield and be able involve them with or without rest, which should affect their moral and efficiency. I still missing some higher level of complexity in games (no game have it today... "Rely Point" or whatever it called in TW is just a bad way to imitate it), I still would like to promote the idea to implement some kind of area a unit "own" / control based on unit type speed morale and range... would allow to calculate and visualise area effectively controlled by the forces. It would promote to keep a force kept in a controlled way and not to chop up to small forces run around on the map... in battles you need to own ground which have strategic effect. From this perspective different units have different value. Here comes cavalry in as a greatest asset. If Lee would have isolated Gettysburg force by cutting the road to the east and most importantly the south temporarily or completely... the union units in the valley would have been in a great danger even if they would have owned some of the highs. If the road to "home" or withdrawal is gone units should have acted differently. I would like to se the possibility that units putting their weapons down... Is rediculous in TW that units run away through enemy lines... and may reform later. The implementation of "controlled" area would also help to implement the possibility to measure line of communication through owned or neutral ground. With the possibility of representing units to be cut off from the main army body. Here would cavalry be a big help by enabling to control bigger area and cutting off enemy communication and units, which should affect units moral and behavior.

Just a suggestion, to make sense to bring "hors" into a battle. I would connect ammo availability to line of communication / supply... if a brigade is cut-off... the ammo should be limited. This would promote using "hors" (best task after scouting) to cut-off troops. I would use the strategic map to visualise... where and how one brigade is cut-off from the rest of the troops. Bad morale ,loss commander and no ammo should affect troops and result of surrender... putting down their weapons or runaway.

Thanks DarthMod, I like all your work for TW, which I really enjoyed. Good plan for a new game and hope you will be able to realize it. I love strategic gaming and my fear always that games evolves to a sorts of "Warcraft like" with the goal to continuously occupy the user. What I seen... I found some tendencies in Rome 2 as well, which point in that direction and hope my fears will not become reality. I really like NTW3 and all the effort the team behind it to make NTW more than what it was intended to be. So most of their changes and really battle related findings are highly recommended by me. Regarding your effort... I love the game Sid Meier´s Gettysburg!... Mr Meier and his team did a very good job that time... you can find many inspiration in that game.... there are some functions I would like to promote in a new game like yours ( by the way I haven't went through yet all the discussed functionality, and I believe not even half of your functional wish-list will make it into the first release anyway. I would recommend to keep the eye on the big picture and enhance it later), So here is a top 10: 1, Pre battle plan connected to "boxes" representing bigger troop formations (based on preliminary info about opposite forces, not just position of troops but planning of movement... connected to time... similar discussed or used in multiplayer mode & formations in NTW3 with "3 party storyboards") 2, Communication between general and troops (commanders) ... there should be delay or no communication if the troops are far away or cut of from the general... cut off troops should be taken over temporarily by the AI (reusing AI on many level) and should work in connection to the preliminary battle-plan (or try to reconnect to main body). 3, Troops with lowered moral should surrender / lay the weapon down... some case runaway is not possible... (both enemy and own troops) avoid that troops repetitively coming back! In reality it's never true in a big battle mainly because they need to be reformed and extra guided (usually loose commanding officer)... and so on. 4, Player should be able to use AI as your battlefield general (with proposed characters) responsible for... left right or centre and user can give objectives... by that maybe complexity can be reduced for bigger battles (if user wants or in case of use of non "PC" devices...handheld)... it also promote the user to think strategically and step by step take over the whole game / battlefield. 5, In case of cut-off troops the chosen AI character should guide the troops to reach their objectives (if there are any). I would even go as far as if the general (actually the user) is dead... the battle should be taken over by the AI based on the battle-plan and AI character / characters (when user chosen field commanders for the wings / battle groups or centre ). User need to take care of the general... 6, Added strategic-view, which shows troops as "boxes" ... similar as Rome 2 will have (both for planning and overall control under the game) 7, Implementation of delayed reinforcement appears on the battlefield (act in connection to preliminary battle-plan) 8, Able to occupy artillery and use against the other side / but in a limited way 9, Fog of war, enemy should appear on the preliminary battle-plan based on "indicative information" with over or underestimated numbers and position with clear visible difference between verified (enemy in sight) or expected position (scouting indication). The same under the battle... of course the possibility to hide units... similar to TW. 10, Somehow promote action by user using combined troops, both horse/artillery/foot (maybe not fitting for civil war period but can built on when you choose other battles or time period) 00, Multiplayer... If you are looking for a big user base. You need that one. ...so... it become a longer post i planed, sorry for that. Last but not least what Sega seems to forget (look at their videos, posted nowadays , strategic war games appreciated mostly by man in higher ages (sorry girls and teens)... and they do it under long period of time. Have you tried again one of older TW games... just to get in the "mode"... than you are one of us.