Wish list
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 2:42 am
Overall this is an excellent game, particularly as this period is general is ill-served by PC games.
A few thoughts, I'm sure they've already occurred to many other players: I don't know enough about writing codes to know whether these suggestions would mean redesigning the whole game, which is obviously impractical, but some of them are already in the FoG series, so it can be done
(i) some sort of command units would be a nice addition: in this period generals often still fought in the front line with their Lifeguards, or at least close enough to be hit by firearms. Giving them the ability to help units to maintain their cohesion, or rally disrupted, fragmented or even routed units within a certain range would be a realistic bonus, with perhaps an extra VP loss if they're 'killed' (routed)?
(ii) baggage trains were a feature of many battles, and capturing/protecting them was an important consideration that's completely absent from this game: again, perhaps some sort of VP loss if they're routed would simulate this
(iii) LoS is incredibly generous, especially for artillery, and could do with being further restricted
(iv) probably not workable, but I don't believe that later infantry were as unable to influence cavalry combat as this game implies. I appreciate that mixed or other infantry charging unengaged cavalry frontally wasn't practical, or a historical tactic, but surely an infantry unit on the flank of an already engaged (and therefore stationary) cavalry unit could have done something to upset it? If the pike element just moved close enough to stick their weapons in the horses a*ses it would unsettle them. It just doesn't feel right to have two cavalry units in combat, while infantry friendly to one combatant and equipped for close combat stand idly by, perhaps even on both flanks, completely unable to have any effect. Either let them attack but not cause a cohesion loss, or alternatively not let them count in the melee but cause a one level cohesion loss? Not purely ranged infantry such as crossbowmen or musketeers, but at least melee/mixed infantry.
Having said all that this is still the best simulation of tactical combat in this period, but I think that a few small changes would make it even better, and more realistic.
And how sad that I'm sitting here typing this on Christmas Day. : )
A few thoughts, I'm sure they've already occurred to many other players: I don't know enough about writing codes to know whether these suggestions would mean redesigning the whole game, which is obviously impractical, but some of them are already in the FoG series, so it can be done
(i) some sort of command units would be a nice addition: in this period generals often still fought in the front line with their Lifeguards, or at least close enough to be hit by firearms. Giving them the ability to help units to maintain their cohesion, or rally disrupted, fragmented or even routed units within a certain range would be a realistic bonus, with perhaps an extra VP loss if they're 'killed' (routed)?
(ii) baggage trains were a feature of many battles, and capturing/protecting them was an important consideration that's completely absent from this game: again, perhaps some sort of VP loss if they're routed would simulate this
(iii) LoS is incredibly generous, especially for artillery, and could do with being further restricted
(iv) probably not workable, but I don't believe that later infantry were as unable to influence cavalry combat as this game implies. I appreciate that mixed or other infantry charging unengaged cavalry frontally wasn't practical, or a historical tactic, but surely an infantry unit on the flank of an already engaged (and therefore stationary) cavalry unit could have done something to upset it? If the pike element just moved close enough to stick their weapons in the horses a*ses it would unsettle them. It just doesn't feel right to have two cavalry units in combat, while infantry friendly to one combatant and equipped for close combat stand idly by, perhaps even on both flanks, completely unable to have any effect. Either let them attack but not cause a cohesion loss, or alternatively not let them count in the melee but cause a one level cohesion loss? Not purely ranged infantry such as crossbowmen or musketeers, but at least melee/mixed infantry.
Having said all that this is still the best simulation of tactical combat in this period, but I think that a few small changes would make it even better, and more realistic.
And how sad that I'm sitting here typing this on Christmas Day. : )