AT2 Wishlist

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AT2 Wishlist

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> AT2 Wishlist

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AT2 Wishlist - 8/25/2010 5:21:45 PM

TPM

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline

Since there has been some mention of the possibility of AT2, I just wanted to throw out a couple of thoughts on what I'd like to see:

1. Auto-reinforcements: I would love it if there was a way for me to define the standard makeup of formations (infantry division, tank division, engineer unit), and when the units in those formations fall below the standard, you could push a button, and the HQ source would attempt bring up each formation back to it's standard makeup. I'm imagining this is something you could do whenever you wanted, just as you can reinforce whenever you want in AT, but you would probably do it at the end of your turn. So you've fought all your battles, and then, you push the button, and the computer sends out the troops to the needed formations. For even more control, there could be an order preference of who gets reinforced first, etc. This would NOT be in place of the normal reinforcement tool, it would just be an option. I'm playing the original Russia 41 scenario, and it's a pain in the ass to look through every formation reinforce them to the what I want, etc.

2. Unit creation: Along the same lines as above, it would be great, as an OPTION, you could just build your standard formation with a click of a button as opposed to clicking a bunch of times for each SFtype. I know there would be some programming tricks to this, but I'm thinking you could define a formation, say "Infantry_Division_01", made up of 20 infantry, 2 AT-guns, and 2 trucks. When you build a formation, you would go to the HQ transfer screen, press a button for "Infantry_Division_01" and the new unit would be filled with the appropriate units. Again, I'm trying to avoid the calculations and repetitions involved in creating formations.

3. Leaders: Please bring back the leaders! They were great in People's Tactics, and I think AT needs the "flavor" that the leaders bring.

Just a few thoughts, thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 8/28/2010 9:23:07 PM

ehzorg

Posts: 69
Joined: 5/11/2010
Status: offline

1) Interception for naval vessels, similar to how it works for fighters. Example: I shouldn't be able to move an unescorted landing craft up next to an enemy fleet, unload its contents, then move a few hexes away to safety. The enemy fleet should have SOME effect on that.

I realize this brings up some complications, since naval vessels don't operate under the same mechanics as air units. Here's a suggestion on how it might work:

Player A sets a naval unit to intercept=ON. Then, when an player B's naval unit attempts to execute an action (such as a naval attack, shore bombardment, or landing-craft unload) inside of Player A unit's zone-of-control, Player A's unit takes part in the combat. Only certain actions would be "intercept-able" since trying to do intercept on movement into a zone-of-control would probably be very complicated.

2) Targeted air interception. Rather than a fixed radius of intercept from the air unit's base, allow a special air unit mission "targeted intercept" which allows the player to select a hex to center the intercept zone on. Perhaps the radius of a targeted intercept area should be smaller than a normal "general" intercept, or perhaps the intercept zone radius decreases with distance from the base to center of intercept zone... (just tossing out ideas)

3) Leaders, I like that. Taking an idea from HOI, perhaps leaders could have special qualities that propagate to units under their command, with a decrease in effective bonus as you travel farther down the chain of command. e.g. decreased supply use, increased action points, bonus vs. certain SFTs, etc.

4) Ability for naval units to pass through each other's hexes when the two parties are neutral to each other. If we disallow units landing on the same hex as each other (can only pass through if you have enough APs and a valid hex to land in on the other side) then that reduces complexity.

I'm guessing the complicated part is designing AI that can take advantage of more complicated mechanisms like this.

(in reply to TPM)

Post #: 2

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 8/29/2010 2:28:52 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

1-Naval transports should spend pp�s to disembark troops. This result in more realistic amphibious operations instead of the "oops where did come these 5 divisions that disembarked in my country???"
2-Different levels for airports and ports, not all airbases can host a B-29....same thing with ports
3-Tech pre requisites to build certain structures (editor feature)

(in reply to ehzorg)

Post #: 3

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 9/14/2010 5:57:35 AM

SSFSX17

Posts: 182
Joined: 10/14/2001
From: California
Status: offline

- More sophistication in diplomacy. In addition to true alliances, also the idea of giving airspace access to other nations

- SFTypes that can exist inside enemy territory

- SFTypes that have a SupplyNeed of 0 should still have some way of recovering Readiness & Morale

- Increasing a variable if you kill a certain SFType - so that you can simulate the politial effects of killing innocents, capturing supply, getting points for killing leaders, etc.

EDIT

- Setting pictures for ItemTypes that don't produce SFTypes. Preferably, also allowing a different picture for each of the picture groups. This way, you can have different supply graphics, different political point graphics, etc.

< Message edited by SSFSX17 -- 9/14/2010 7:11:53 PM >

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 4

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 9/14/2010 4:15:09 PM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

Better AI. Like aircraft carriers and airborne. Engineers smarter with bridges etc.

(in reply to SSFSX17)

Post #: 5

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 9/14/2010 7:52:15 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

* Better UI to allow for fewer clicks in unit generation and attacks.

* Better AI across the board, including options for AI difficulty, (that does more than simply add resources or increase the 'cheating'), more accessible AI editor, AI vs. AI quiet mode with results to see the results of various modded effects.

* Better tech tree and more accessible editor for tech tree modding.

* Better random map generation routine to include production balancing and a fix for the 'lone city on an island' problem.

* Allow AI to build factories.

...more to follow....

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to rich12545)

Post #: 6

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 9/20/2010 4:00:14 AM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

I'd like for the AI to be more accessible, and to be able run modded AI vs. AI games to see the results.

I'd also like for a change in the AI behaviour that stops it from doing things like building up HUGE Hq's stuffed with staff that park in a city and wait to be smashed to bits by aircraft.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 7

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 9/29/2010 5:45:14 PM

AndyH

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline

Ranged combat for naval units. It doesn't make sense for land based artillery units to be able to fire from a distance, but for naval units to have to be right next to their target to attack them. This also means that there is no distinction between the combat ranges of (for example) BB's and DD's. In reality a BB could fire upon and destroy a DD long before the latter ship even got into range.

I believe that the argument against having ranged combat for naval units is that the current artillery model in AT doesn't allow for counter-battery fire (in other words a naval unit that is attacked at range couldn't fire back)...in which case a further improvement might be to provide for counter fire by artillery units (both naval and land based) when they are attacked at range.

(in reply to TPM)

Post #: 8

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 9/30/2010 11:29:34 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

It's amusing to read here the sort of things that some ppl want from AT, and on the TOAW forums some of the things ppl would like in that game - and to notice that AT should be more like TOAW in some respects (esp fixed unit compositions, ranged naval) ...and TOAW more like AT (esp in being able to move units between hQ's)!! :)

And both of them need naval intercept!!

(in reply to AndyH)

Post #: 9

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 10/1/2010 12:12:20 AM

AndyH

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline

I agree that both games need some kind of naval interception system, but in general AT has a substantially superior naval model to TOAW's. AT's naval system really does model ship to ship combat reasonably well, subject to a few flaws such as my ranged fire 'hobby horse'. TOAW's naval system is pretty useless for ship-to-ship combat; it only works as a means of shore bombardment.

I love both games though and play them equally often.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 10

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 10/4/2010 7:29:47 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

On mulitplayer games, I'd like to have the ability to remove other players who've become non responsive. I know that it's a simple thing in concept to get a person to hand over a password but in reality, it often fails. Maybe something where like a 'game admin' function that is granted to a player and he has the ability to reassign regimes to other players or share passwords.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to AndyH)

Post #: 11

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 10/5/2010 5:58:22 PM

mgaffn1

Posts: 175
Joined: 11/20/2009
Status: offline

ditto SMK-at-work's comments.

I do agree with ehzorg & TMP about having Leaders, and agree with everybody about improved AI.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 12

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 10/5/2010 11:40:02 PM

Zaratoughda

Posts: 714
Joined: 11/15/2008
From: NE Pa, USA
Status: offline

TOAW doesn't have a naval system... an 'attempt' at a naval system maybe but even in the manual they say they really don't have much of a naval system.

The naval rules use the land artillery rules and that doesn't work at sea, with the defender getting a BIG advantage. For shore bombardment, everytime you fire in your turn you lose like 10% of your readiness... and so if you bombard a lot in a turn then come your opponent's turn your ships are sitting ducks for a naval attack.

Nope, TOAW does not have a naval system.

Zaratoughda

(in reply to AndyH)

Post #: 13

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 11/30/2010 2:52:01 PM

ehzorg

Posts: 69
Joined: 5/11/2010
Status: offline

I'm reviving this thread, since I think AT Gold is probably too far along in development for additional feature requests.

1) In addition to the already existing ability to hide/show all units on the map, buttons to show only Air/Land/Naval/HQ units. With scenarios getting bigger and bigger, it becomes difficult to keep track of where all your units are amongst the stacks and stacks.

2) Change the way viewing history works: I'd like to be able to see my OWN moves from the previous turn. I have so many games going on right now, it's sometimes hard to remember what I was thinking the previous turn. Ideally, we'd have one huge history buffer that you could rewind to any previous turn and see what happened.

(in reply to Zaratoughda)

Post #: 14

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 11/30/2010 7:54:04 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

I was thinking the same thing and that leaves me a little cold since the AI speed seems to be the only part of the AI touted as being improved in AT gold. I've never had a problem with the AI speed, so if that's a major headline on the AT-G banner, I have to shrug.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to ehzorg)

Post #: 15

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 12/1/2010 4:42:54 AM

Zaratoughda

Posts: 714
Joined: 11/15/2008
From: NE Pa, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

I was thinking the same thing and that leaves me a little cold since the AI speed seems to be the only part of the AI touted as being improved in AT gold. I've never had a problem with the AI speed, so if that's a major headline on the AT-G banner, I have to shrug.

I'd have to agree with you on that Jeffrey. Getting the zoom levels would be nice but not sure that's enough for me to invest in a new version. Thinking of getting FWTP if it is part of the Matrix holiday sale so might not get ATG until the holiday season for 2011.

I realize the AI is difficult but right now the AI in AT is poor. Various dum-dums that it does in exploring, so that I why I invented 'countries', to make up for that problem, but there are lots others and usually the AI seems to have no clue as to what it is doing. Does not make good use of HQs, does not do concentric attacks, etc.

I would imagine that Vic decided it would be too difficult to use the AI in FWTP, which I hear is good. But, that just leaves ATG with the old AI which is not very good.

Zaratoughda

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 16

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 12/1/2010 8:52:47 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

It's my belief that the AI in DC:FWTP is not really as 'fully featured' as the AI that is needed for AT and ATG, and that the AT/ATG AI is significantly more complex.

The increased speed was implemented, as I understand it, in DC:FWTP, which is likely the same set of improvements that Vic has outllined for ATG. So, that was something 'easliy' portable.

But I agree that the base AI and it's issues as we've been discussing and you've been wrestling with might not be getting the type of overhaul we were hoping for. Rich12545 brought up a few other good points about paras and aircraft carriers, I forgot about those.

Maybe Vic has decided to charge ahead on near term 'as is' release and maybe an AI enhancement patch/AT Platinum release ? Or maybe he simply doesn't want to deal with it. Or maybe it's not worth the time and effort required ? Who knows.....

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Zaratoughda)

Post #: 17

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 12/2/2010 4:54:14 PM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

It's my belief that the AI in DC:FWTP is not really as 'fully featured' as the AI that is needed for AT and ATG, and that the AT/ATG AI is significantly more complex.

The increased speed was implemented, as I understand it, in DC:FWTP, which is likely the same set of improvements that Vic has outllined for ATG. So, that was something 'easliy' portable.

But I agree that the base AI and it's issues as we've been discussing and you've been wrestling with might not be getting the type of overhaul we were hoping for. Rich12545 brought up a few other good points about paras and aircraft carriers, I forgot about those.

Maybe Vic has decided to charge ahead on near term 'as is' release and maybe an AI enhancement patch/AT Platinum release ? Or maybe he simply doesn't want to deal with it. Or maybe it's not worth the time and effort required ? Who knows.....

Who knows? :)

well. I do of course.

Let me just say i will be frank on the state of the AI at release. It will be better then the existing one, but not much better, it will be faster though, much faster.

Keep in mind that AT Gold is not a new game, but a Gold version of AT, replacing the existing product.

Best regards,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 18

RE: AT2 Wishlist - 12/3/2010 4:28:28 AM

sabre1