RE: ATG: Wishlist thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread

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 >> RE: ATG: Wishlist thread

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 11 [12]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 9/23/2018 7:59:05 AM

Khanti

Posts: 317
Joined: 8/28/2007
From: Poland
Status: offline

TOE suggestion.

I would like to force AI to use ONLY predefined units.

(in reply to lion_of_judah)

Post #: 331

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 1/14/2019 11:31:11 AM

TC2712

Posts: 12
Joined: 12/24/2010
Status: offline

Second the suggestion to make the AI use fixed TOE's...the current strange compositions the AI uses are immersion breaking.

(in reply to Khanti)

Post #: 332

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 1/29/2019 5:06:36 AM

ColRosenberger

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/11/2017
Status: offline

My wish would be to have a Naval AI good enough to at least give a newbie a challenge on a random map. Right now even the basic initial race for resources seems to be a problem for the AI on naval maps. I've systematically observed by testing random maps (starting with the Stone Age option) that if the AI is isolated on an island, it'll either stay locked there for 10+ turns stockpiling units, or occasionally send a single cargo ship with infantry on it to take another island, and then return the boat home and give up on further conquest despite tons of juicy islands with raw/oil/cities being available for the taking.

With a decent Naval AI that works well on random maps (I especially have single-people scenarios like the old AT Risk for Three map in mind, where every town gives you full production), this game would be the ultimate replacement for Empire Deluxe-type games. As it is, being restricted to land when playing the AI despite all those shiny naval toys being available really feels bad.

(in reply to TC2712)

Post #: 333

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 1/29/2019 10:37:11 AM

ernieschwitz

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I agree that the Naval aspect of ATG needs some TLC. Even in pure multiplayer games it seems strange that you can surround a unit and then force it to surrender, by attacking with enough force from one side, and the other units surrounding it, are pushovers.

The AI thing for navies is a peculiar one. The AI works best with enough units to make a front. Obviously that is the exact opposite of what is going on at sea. Still it shouldn't be too hard, I think, to make invasions work. At least those are my 2 cents.

(in reply to ColRosenberger)

Post #: 334

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 2/26/2019 8:30:23 PM

Jabod

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/23/2004
Status: offline

Having made a very close study of the game editor over the past several weeks, I know exactly what I'd love to see in future developments of the engine.

I'd like to see more options for using the editor to model pre-20th Century warfare - and this relates in particular to how fortifications are handled.

As I try to design scenarios, the problem I keep running up against is that there is no limit to the number of strength points that get the defensive benefits of a particular Location Type - e.g. a city or a fortress. Park 100,000 men in the hex and the whole army gets the defensive benefit.

This is quite unhistorical, and greatly complicates scenario design for pre-20th Century warfare. Fortress or city garrisons typically ranged from a few hundred men to a few thousand. Any forces above that would be outside the fortifications and not get the benefits.

We see this reflected in games like EU4 - and in general the concept of fortress capacity is routine in games that involve fortifications and sieges.

I realise that this game is based in particular on WW2, but one of the beauties of the engine is that it could potentially be used to model "any battle in any era" (this is how the game is described on the Matrix site).

What's more, it seems such a simple thing to implement. The idea of fortress capacity is similar to other concepts in the game, like airfield capacity, transport capacity, structural damage etc. There are so many other variables one can assign to a hex, why not something like fortress capacity?

It seems to me very logical to be able to limit the number of strength points that can receive defensive benefits from a particular structure.

Relevant to 20th Century warfare too!

< Message edited by Jabod -- 2/28/2019 7:49:27 AM >

(in reply to ernieschwitz)

Post #: 335

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 2/26/2019 11:54:05 PM

ernieschwitz

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Let me first say that I think your idea is ok. Probably not something too hard for Vic to implement either. There is however two things I have to point out.

quote:

This is quite unhistorical, and greatly complicates scenario design for pre-20th Century warfare. Fortress or city garrisons typically ranged from a few hundred men to a few thousand. Any forces above that would be outside the fortifications and not get the benefits.

When speaking of forts and fortifications, perhaps it is best to think of them as series of such. Single trench is not something that would be well represented in the game, and neither would a single fortification. When thinking of cities, think very big too. London for instance would be defensible by a very big army. House to house fighting would be difficult.

Also, you might want to factor in being overstacked. There is a defensive land stack, after all.

With these notes done, I think there could still be a good place for your fortress stack. :)

(in reply to Jabod)

Post #: 336

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 2/27/2019 12:40:12 AM

Jabod

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

When speaking of forts and fortifications, perhaps it is best to think of them as series of such.

Thanks for your reply. The point is I want to use the engine to model historical campaigns, not imaginery ones. The campaigns I'm interested in had significant fortresses and fortified towns, but typically you couldn't fit tens of thousands of men in them and this did not happen.

This is a glaring problem with the "Age of Napoleon" scenario, for example (one scenario I have been studying to see how the engine could be used for non-WW2 campaigns). You have fortresses - Glogau, Ulm, Metz, Smolensk etc - but as the engine stands you can sit the entire Grand Armee, 200,000 men, in them. This is nothing like what actually happened!

In the game there will seldom be battles like Waterloo, Leipzig, Borodino etc, because the common sense thing to do is just sit your army on a fortress!

Indeed, the stacking limit is a factor to bear in mind. But the point about modelling pre-20th Century warfare is that in general you want to encourage big stacks (concentrated armies), not long front-lines with units spread all along them. This is done in the Punic War scenario, for example, by setting a high stacking limit (500 stacking points).

But then this stacking limit will also apply to every town and fortress, though you couldn't fit a big army inside any of them. In both the Napoleonic and ancient eras - and in most eras in fact - you had a few large field armies that fought battles, and lots of much smaller garrisons that defended towns and fortresses. You didn't defend a fortress with an army, because the army would quickly starve (even if it could fit in there in the first place).

I think this engine has great potential for modelling warfare in different ages, not just the modern era, by tweaking variables such as stacking limits etc. But this issue of fortress capacity is the biggest problem I have come across.

Like you say, it seems a simple thing to change. It also seems logical within the current game system. The fact that "structural damage" to a fortress does not diminish its capacity to act as a fortress is extremely... odd.

Here's what the manual says about structural points:

Structural Points
These can be damaged in combat and dictate the efficiency of production. Also they give
penalties to aircraft in airfield or ships in port if not at full level.

So you damage a port and it penalizes naval units there. You damage an airfield and it penalizes air units on the field. So why doesn't damaging a fortress penalize the defensive benefits to land units in the fortress? Very odd.

(in reply to ernieschwitz)

Post #: 337

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 2/27/2019 7:00:27 PM

Jabod

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/23/2004
Status: offline

If my idea for fortress capacity were to be implemented, I can see exactly where and how it could be included.

Under Locations Type, there is a Property Sheet for "Statistics". At the bottom of the first column on the left there is an option that can be selected for "TopAirStack", which is the airfield capacity ("the ideal amount of stack points stationed on airfield"). The default option is "0", which in fact means unlimited capacity.

To my mind, this page is crying out for a similar button below this for fortress capacity (TopLandStack?) This could simply determine the number of stackpoints that gain the entrenchment benefit.

E.g. you have a stack of 100 points, on a structure (e.g. a fortification, a fortress, a city) with a fortress capacity of only 50. So the entrenchment benefit is divided by 50%. So simple! So flexible!

This could be further modified by structural damage, just like airfield capacity is. Such an elegant extension of existing game principles!

And it wouldn't change the base game in any way - the default option could be "unlimited capacity" as with airfields. What it would do is enhance the editor to give greater options and flexibility to scenario designers.

What's frustrating for me is that there are so many options for modding the conditions for building location types (what research? what regime? what cost? what resources?), yet such limited options for modding what these locations actually do!

(in reply to Jabod)

Post #: 338

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 3/1/2019 5:47:52 AM

Vic

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

Hi Jabod,

Sounds like a well thought through request with the potential of a possible new scenario being created as well :)

Thanks.

I am implementing it. Except for making the entrenchment minima and maxima depended on stack points. Cannot do that last thing since the nitty gritty of the rules gets to complicated if I do that. However you could just set the extra entrenchment of forts to something really light or nothing and only use the landscape combat modifiers for forts which will be subject to the maximum number of stack points the fort can support.

Private Beta 228b has been uploaded. It includes the changes.

Best wishes,
Vic

< Message edited by Vic -- 3/1/2019 10:28:38 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jabod)

Post #: 339

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 3/1/2019 11:36:04 AM

Jabod

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/23/2004
Status: offline

Many thanks Vic!!! This is excellent news.

Indeed, using the fortress cap to limit the benefits of the landscape defence modifier is probably the best way to implement this, rather than messing about with the entrenchment modifiers. This did occur to me after I had made my previous post.

A fortress limit is going to make a huge difference for my ability to design scenarios to simulate historical campaigns. A huge thanks!

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 340

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 3/8/2019 8:51:23 AM

Jabod

Posts: 26
Joined: 6/23/2004
Status: offline

Shouldn't there be a pink button to exit the page on the Setvar page of the events editor?

Every other page has one, so this looks like an oversight. Those pink buttons are useful if you just want to inspect the page, without changing any variables on it.

(in reply to Jabod)

Post #: 341

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 7/19/2019 8:40:54 PM

Lomaster

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/16/2019
Status: offline

A hotkey to toggle hex grid ON/OFF would save a lot of unnecessary mouse clicks.

(in reply to Jabod)

Post #: 342

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 4/29/2020 1:43:17 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

I REALLY, REALLY hope there will be an ATG 2. And in ATG 2 I would like to see a reworked naval aspect to the game, maybe something along the lines of how War in the Pacific handles naval warfare. Where ships have various thicknesses of armor and guns have to penetrate that thickness in order to be effective. And then, of course, there would be a "ship design" editor in the game just like the tank designer only a little more detailed.

I also think it would help realism if Engineering Points were erased whenever your engineers move. Otherwise, it seems kind of odd that your engineers can swoop down on a hex and suddenly build a massive fort in one turn. I think it would be more realistic if engineers had to sit stationary on a hex until they accumulate enough EP to build something.

I still think ATG is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest), most versatile, most innovative wargames of all time. You can play random scenarios or you can play pre-designed scenarios that recreate historic wars and such. It's also a modders paradise because of the flexibility of the editor, although, the learning curve of using the editor is a bit steep, it's not impossible to learn.

< Message edited by GaryChildress -- 4/29/2020 1:48:35 PM >

(in reply to Lomaster)

Post #: 343

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 1/9/2021 11:00:55 PM

CSO_Talorgan

Posts: 768
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

the learning curve of using the editor is a bit steep

Better documentation would reduce this

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 344

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 3/31/2021 7:04:07 PM

Kuokkanen

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline

I got the game just recently, so this may come bit late. Still may be of reference for updating Shadow Empire or future games.

1. Stack movement! When # of counters gets bigger, it becomes more of a chore to move them one by one. I want to move multiple units at once, that is multiple units in a given hex. In the games I have played, Sid Meier's Civilization IV does it best.

2. Cut down the trees. I want my engineers to chop down the trees, thus effectively transforming forest/jungle hex into plains hex. I understand it has been done in reality in order to have clear lines of fire. Civ4 game has it, and it has been very useful. Workers clean up the squares, enemy unit comes to the now open terrain, and my stack charges from forest hill. Why shouldn't ATG have this feature?

[edit]
3. Move To command. In case player want to move unit(s) further than they can reach in a given turn, those units would continue their movement through multiple turns without further input from the player.

< Message edited by Kuokkanen -- 3/31/2021 7:23:13 PM >

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)

Post #: 345