dreadknought
timelord
Originally posted by Procifica
I can't really say which looks more historical, but I like post 60's better.
ditto................
Originally posted by Procifica
I can't really say which looks more historical, but I like post 60's better.
Originally posted by Misfit_travel
So did I. I wonder what dreadknought, Last Conformist and Rocoteh will say. I guess it will be after Christmas before we hear back from them.
Misfit
Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Well, the guides should achieve what they're meant to achieve. I've personally never cared much for strategy guides written from an "internal" PoV, but that's just a question of taste.
dreadknought: You're basically suggesting CivII style arty. It would eliminate the human arty advantage, which would be a major good. OTOH, I suspect it would make arty the main attacking unit, which is right out of the window realism-wise.
No need to lose coastal artillery, btw; the AI handles that fine enough, so just keep those as traditional CivIII arty.
I have always been following this project. I played the scenario three times, one time when you released it, and now a few days ago I tried again. That was before Procifica announced anything btw.Originally posted by Rocoteh
With regard to Yoda Power I notice that he did
post 1 (one) time(out of 2 300) in the general ACW-thread, launched
April 6 by Procifica.
I hope that the sudden interest for ACW is not connected
to Procificas Napoleon-wars scenario plans.
Rocoteh
Originally posted by Yoda Power
Its not the loading time that bugs me, its the time between turns, also my computer crashes after about an hour of playing simply because it cant run such a big scenario.
I have always been following this project. I played the scenario three times, one time when you released it, and now a few days ago I tried again. That was before Procifica announced anything btw.
If you have anything to say to me in this matter send me a pm.
I dont want a dispute
Originally posted by Misfit_travel
SIDE NOTE: For those that are unaware, a barricade has Zone of Control and stops all enemy movement for the balance of the turn.
It comes down to this; you can have artwork that makes it dead obvious what's a fortress and what's a fortress with barricade, but lose all terrain visualization, or you can use the other style, which will show you the terrain, but you can't easily tell a fortress from a fortress with barricade.
What's more important, telling the difference, or making it look pretty?
Originally posted by Procifica
Dreadknought, definitely something which might need further testing. Problem though again, is Artillery's role in the American Civil War is pretty low, and your proposal would make Artillery a possible dominant weapon (which it did not become until WWI).
Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Does this mean that reg'lar fortresses lost ZOC in C3C - they definitively have in PTW!
Telling the difference in my mind, but then I'd been almost equally happy playing ACW with the unit animations replaced with those cute little squares from a traditional table-top wargame (those only used to computer games may think of Korsun Pocket or Panzer General).
But I didn't think of the obscuring terrain bit - I certainly also want to know whether the fortress I'm attacking is on a hill or on open ground! Ideally we'd find artwork which both leaves terrain identifiable and makes the difference between Fortresses and Barricades obvious.