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 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 7/21/2011 11:46:49 PM

Falkon1313

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/22/2009
Status: offline

One small request:
At the top of the screen, where we have [stockpile +/-usage production] for PPs, Oil, and Raw - could we also have one for Supplies?

The stats screen is good for getting more detailed info, but overall totals in the top bar would be nice.

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 121

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 7/27/2011 3:04:54 AM

billd

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/27/2011
Status: offline

Hi Guys,

I think having some more race/people specific units would really add some flavour to the game e.g. German panzergrenadiers which could have a bonus when fighting with tanks or maybe British LRDPG units that could ghost through front lines to fight in the rear-areas and get a bonus in desert terrain.

I'd also like to see 'basic' infantry rifle/smg reinforcements (only) being able to move to new parent units from HQ without Landcap penalties. It's frustrating when I build basic infantry reinforcements (which are more than capable of walking) but can't get them the units in that round. A round in this game is about a month?? Let them walk, infantry LOVE walking, it's their favourite :)

Also, may we please have some minefields?? Tank traps?? Barbed wire?? Snipers?? Anti-tank ditches??

It would be cool if we could research tactics for our units to use e.g. Rommel's 'Sword and Shield' where he used his tanks to lure enemy tanks onto his entrenched anti-tank guns, yum..

And only having 4 production slots in a city is a bit constrictive. I'd much prefer 6 or 8 slots.

Cheers

(in reply to Falkon1313)

Post #: 122

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 7/27/2011 5:51:27 AM

Falkon1313

Posts: 34
Joined: 3/22/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: billd
I'd also like to see 'basic' infantry rifle/smg reinforcements (only) being able to move to new parent units from HQ without Landcap penalties. It's frustrating when I build basic infantry reinforcements (which are more than capable of walking) but can't get them the units in that round. A round in this game is about a month?? Let them walk, infantry LOVE walking, it's their favourite :)

I've noticed that if they're close enough, they will transfer using 'own power'. That's only a few hexes for rifle/smg (the distance a newly-created unit could march, I think - dependent on terrain). But your units also get bonuses from having their HQ that close.

(in reply to billd)

Post #: 123

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 8/5/2011 10:05:44 AM

Grymme

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline

On thing that i think would really improve the modability and interface of the game would be to have customizable buttons whose function could be determined in the editor

The system of using actioncards for player selections is good. But when it starts to become a lot of different actioncards and selections this system start to become clumsy.

You could have 3-5 buttons, invisible as default and onjly visible as a result of changing a rulewar. Each button could have an option for a small sprite and be connected to a series of game/regimevars and/or alernativly trigger an event when pressed.

I think this would greatly enhance modding and interface of the game. If you want to play an actioncard say 100 times during a game then you might as well just make a button for it.

Or if there is another way to improve player modable selections that would be great. The multiselection message is one way, but it has its limitations.

Screenshot shows buttons,

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to DasTactic)

Post #: 124

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 8/8/2011 11:07:29 AM

Vic

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jafele

1-I wish produced units were placed in the same city or factory that they are made. If you have a HQ in that hex, then you could transport it in the same way and cost than transfer units. It�s really odd to have a factory in a far island and for the next turn the unit produced appear in a distant and unconnected continent because you�ve assigned a distant HQ to the factory.

By setting rulevar 312 active towns can only deliver production to HQs on their own hex. However the AI will not cope with setting this rule. For hardcore PBEM games it might suffice though.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 125

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 8/29/2011 7:25:18 PM

Grymme

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline

A couple of ideas

- An exec that sets +/- AP-cost modifier temporarily on a hex not a landscapetype but a hex. Could be used for simulating weather more realisticly for example.
- A way to disable and or change morale effects in combat, specificly there is no way to disable morale increases or make them happen faster or slower in combat beoyond the base morale (at least not that i know of).
- An Air-intercept for ground combat. Letting bombers help on the defensive against an ground attack during the enemies round. This could make the game much more interactive and realistic.
- A setting that let different peoples have different HQ symbols.
- Disabling letting different people exist in the same unit and a check that checks which people a unit is.

_____________________________

My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 126

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 9/3/2011 9:21:15 AM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

I have an idea how to improve the interface a little.
1. you have selected a HQ
2. pressed T button
3. selected a target hex
4. and here should be the new button "make a new unit (formation) under the current HQ"

< Message edited by Madlok -- 9/3/2011 9:28:47 AM >

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 127

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 9/6/2011 1:56:19 AM

Boggit

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/17/2011
Status: offline

A small thing to add. The gun and aircraft factories have their symbol types in reverse (i.e. a gun picture on the aircraft factory and vice versa). I assume it's an easy thing to fix?

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 128

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 9/6/2011 1:59:55 AM

Boggit

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/17/2011
Status: offline

I'd like to see captured (non-same people) production expanded a little to include "non-combat" stuff like supplies and transportation. I'd also like to see small arms factories for infantry type production.

(in reply to Boggit)

Post #: 129

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/2/2011 6:25:20 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Hi,

Currently defending artillery can do counter battery fire with rulevar 142 active. Could there be another rulevar which would activate defending artillery in range to support a battle? Thanks.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Boggit)

Post #: 130

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/2/2011 7:53:43 PM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

And "tactical reserve" for land units

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 131

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/2/2011 8:10:42 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Madlok

And "tactical reserve" for land units

Not really needed. Artillery units in range supporting defenders is a basic boardgame rule.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 132

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/2/2011 10:13:38 PM

budd

Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

agree with below, and also like to see engineers being able to build supply depots and maybe have to put trucks or horses in to get supply out, also the ability for the depots to change hands when taken over and use supply for own use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rander

Hello.

I would like:
Engineers that can destroy railroads. If they can destroy factories, why not to destroy -or damage- railroads.
- Rebellions on the random games.

Bye!

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to Rander)

Post #: 133

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/2/2011 10:34:06 PM

budd

Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

the ability to use more than one mod at a time, like i would like to be able to use the new graphic mod[looks great by the way, thank you]and the resource mod, with the random mod. they all seem to do different things, one map graphics, one supply system and one regime names and city names. Be nice if there was a system in place to load more than one mod and have it check for conflicts. Does ATG or can ATG be made to work with the jones mod enabler, i believe JSME is made to load and track multiple mods in one game.
budd

_____________________________

(in reply to budd)

Post #: 134

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/3/2011 9:07:01 AM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: **budd**

agree with below, and also like to see engineers being able to build supply depots and maybe have to put trucks or horses in to get supply out, also the ability for the depots to change hands when taken over and use supply for own use.

Now I can build HQ and I don't worry about enemies who can grab my stocks. Do you want it to lose the possibility of storing?

(in reply to budd)

Post #: 135

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/4/2011 2:04:22 AM

budd

Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

don't want anything with Hq's to change, and i guess you could do the same thing with HQ. I've been caught with immobile Hq's because of excessive supply weight. I do use some Hq's for line troops and others just for supply, but with a large force you have layer after layer of Hq's, thought if you could give out supply from a dump, might simplify things a bit, but maybe not. guess that is the hell that is logistics.
budd

_____________________________

(in reply to Strategiusz)

Post #: 136

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/4/2011 8:40:14 AM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Hi,

Currently defending artillery can do counter battery fire with rulevar 142 active. Could there be another rulevar which would activate defending artillery in range to support a battle? Thanks.

I'd like to add that it would work best if defending artillery would support battles with a half or one third of its ArtPow-value - Again according to common boardgame artillery rules.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 137

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/4/2011 5:07:10 PM

Josh

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Hi,

Currently defending artillery can do counter battery fire with rulevar 142 active. Could there be another rulevar which would activate defending artillery in range to support a battle? Thanks.

I'd like to add that it would work best if defending artillery would support battles with a half or one third of its ArtPow-value - Again according to common boardgame artillery rules.

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 138

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/6/2011 1:11:56 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Hi,

Currently defending artillery can do counter battery fire with rulevar 142 active. Could there be another rulevar which would activate defending artillery in range to support a battle? Thanks.

I'd like to add that it would work best if defending artillery would support battles with a half or one third of its ArtPow-value - Again according to common boardgame artillery rules.

+1

A case in point: I'd like the red arty regiment (see screenshot) to be able to support two red rifle divisions in range (either or both), when the gray units attack on the first turn. Otherwise it is useless unless the frontline holds, which is very unlikely.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 139

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/6/2011 2:19:41 PM

british exil

Posts: 1686
Joined: 5/4/2006
From: Lower Saxony Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Josh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Hi,

Currently defending artillery can do counter battery fire with rulevar 142 active. Could there be another rulevar which would activate defending artillery in range to support a battle? Thanks.

I'd like to add that it would work best if defending artillery would support battles with a half or one third of its ArtPow-value - Again according to common boardgame artillery rules.

+1

A case in point: I'd like the red arty regiment (see screenshot) to be able to support two red rifle divisions in range (either or both), when the gray units attack on the first turn. Otherwise it is useless unless the frontline holds, which is very unlikely.

At least with an option to choose a hex, (be given orders) to defend in case of an attack.
If the rifle div gives ground the Art reg is going to bear the brunt of the follow up attack. In real life the Art reg would have all guns blazing to hinder such an attempt or have their tails between their legs and getting out of Dodge.

Mat

< Message edited by british exil -- 10/6/2011 2:21:09 PM >

_____________________________

"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill

WitE,UV,AT,ATG,FoF,FPCRS

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 140

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/6/2011 4:41:02 PM

phatkarp

Posts: 131
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

I like these artillery ideas. It is problematic that artillery is unrealistically powerless if you are on the defensive. Readiness of the units you strike with your artillery mostly recovers between turns. So the "fringe benefits" of artillery (i.e., the effects beyond merely killing units), which make artillery a critical component of an attack, are worthless on the defense.

(in reply to british exil)

Post #: 141

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 10:47:58 AM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

I wish units could have a minimun number of troops required to occupy a hex. Seems to me there are a lot of gameins out there. I suppose a hex is too big for 1 single submarine, smg, etc. A large group of microscopic units can severily block the enemy movement.

< Message edited by Jafele -- 10/19/2011 10:50:23 AM >

(in reply to phatkarp)

Post #: 142

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 3:06:11 PM

Strategiusz

Posts: 236
Joined: 9/13/2008
From: Upper Silesia, Poland
Status: offline

1 PP = 5 Rifles and you need 1 PP to create formation. If you want to balance this just raise the formation cost.

Maybe formation cost should be variable and depending on map size like research cost?

< Message edited by Madlok -- 10/19/2011 3:11:25 PM >

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 143

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 3:26:51 PM

Josh

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jafele

I wish units could have a minimun number of troops required to occupy a hex. Seems to me there are a lot of gameins out there. I suppose a hex is too big for 1 single submarine, smg, etc. A large group of microscopic units can severily block the enemy movement.

Well not really. "ant units" such as existed in TOAWIII were/are never a problem in ATG. If you make lots of 1 rifle units, it's gonna cost you a lot of PP's *and* your opponent will have no trouble at all blasting through them. Probably will have defeated that unit in a 1/10 turn battle.

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 144

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 4:57:42 PM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

Anyway I think it�s almost ridiculous 1 smg cotrolling a hex. Just my opinion.

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 145

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 6:00:41 PM

phatkarp

Posts: 131
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

I would like a rule where unoccupied, surrounded hexes automatically change ownership if they are not connected to a hex with an actual friendly unit in it. It's obnoxious to have these little obsolete pockets of control where some enemy unit, now dead, once passed by. And it doesn't make logical sense, at least when it's an enemy hex in your home turf.

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 146

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 9:52:28 PM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

I think there must be a minimun number of troops to create an unit. Let�s say 10 infantry (just an example).During a battle an unit of 60 infantry receive heavy losses, they will continue fighting until the number drop to 10, at that moment the unit automatically surrenders to the enemy. This way is more logical and avoid the unrealistic "totally destroyed units".

If a player decides to build very small units (eg 15 infantry), he is taking a serious risk if the unit engage in combat. If the number drops to 10 the unit is lost. Furthermore, building very small units would be expensive in PP.

< Message edited by Jafele -- 10/19/2011 9:57:13 PM >

(in reply to phatkarp)

Post #: 147

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 9:59:43 PM

ernieschwitz

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

Not sure i like this idea, since it would basically mean that a Fleet of ships had to be very big...

Don�t forget that AT:G / AT: WW2 are very flexible with unit sizes. Also there are Mods that work with Formations being representative of much larger Formations. ie. in Bombur mod There are about 10-15 tanks in a Tank SFT i believe...

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 148

RE: ATG: Wishlist thread - 10/19/2011 10:06:09 PM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

10 infantry is just a proportion for infantry units, ships and other units could follow their own proportion. This rule would force players to build more reasonable and historical units.

< Message edited by Jafele -- 10/19/2011 10:41:24 PM >

(in reply to ernieschwitz)

Post #: 149