RE: Wish List (Full Version)

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



Message

dazoline II -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 1:13:23 AM)

Second designer name saved after exiting the editor. Currently it only saves it until then.



Kipper -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 1:38:28 AM)

1) Be able to step up default combat results, i.e. spreadsheet or diagram.
2) Turn history/plyback.



serg3d1 -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 10:36:52 AM)

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv
Instead of predefined classes (which of cause remain if user don't want to mess with units) - light tank I, II, III etc
define units component - armor I, armor II, infantry cannon I, II,  close defence (MG) I, II, ATG I, II , chassis - light/heavy tracks, light/heavy wheels etc.
After that if user have all component - armor III, heavy tracks II, heavy infantry cannon III, MG I and sped additional pp on the  "design integration" - blam - IS-2 heavy tank :)

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.

The good thing that wouldn't require modification of tactical AI, and AI could steal/accumulate good design from player.

New strategic choises - if the enemy have haevy fortifications that require vehicles with infantry guns. If it have a lot of tanks - vehicles with ATG. If there is a good road network  - build wheeled vehicles.

So, what is community opinion ?




seille -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 11:18:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: serg3d1

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv
Instead of predefined classes (which of cause remain if user don't want to mess with units) - light tank I, II, III etc
define units component - armor I, armor II, infantry cannon I, II,  close defence (MG) I, II, ATG I, II , chassis - light/heavy tracks, light/heavy wheels etc.
After that if user have all component - armor III, heavy tracks II, heavy infantry cannon III, MG I and sped additional pp on the  "design integration" - blam - IS-2 heavy tank :)

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.

The good thing that wouldn't require modification of tactical AI, and AI could steal/accumulate good design from player.

New strategic choises - if the enemy have haevy fortifications that require vehicles with infantry guns. If it have a lot of tanks - vehicles with ATG. If there is a good road network  - build wheeled vehicles.

So, what is community opinion ?




From me you get a clear NO here. The game is already complex enough and iīm not willing to spend now two hours on a single turn
just because i have to create my own subunit types during the game. There is already more than enough to do and i would let the production as it is.
No delay and no unit components. Asking for these drastic changes for a finished game.....the game is not longer in development and i would wonder if Vic
starts now to turn it inside out.
engineers with body armor.....this is a ww2 strategic game and not phantasy. Sounds a bit like Frankenstein [;)]



kafka -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 12:01:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: serg3d1

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv
Instead of predefined classes (which of cause remain if user don't want to mess with units) - light tank I, II, III etc
define units component - armor I, armor II, infantry cannon I, II,  close defence (MG) I, II, ATG I, II , chassis - light/heavy tracks, light/heavy wheels etc.
After that if user have all component - armor III, heavy tracks II, heavy infantry cannon III, MG I and sped additional pp on the  "design integration" - blam - IS-2 heavy tank :)

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.

The good thing that wouldn't require modification of tactical AI, and AI could steal/accumulate good design from player.

New strategic choises - if the enemy have haevy fortifications that require vehicles with infantry guns. If it have a lot of tanks - vehicles with ATG. If there is a good road network  - build wheeled vehicles.

So, what is community opinion ?


a more flexible and deeper econimoc model would be fine, especially for the modder, introduce i.e. the option of increasing the production capabilities of cities, to gain additional production slots, to give a penalty for switching production or to lock specific slots for user-designed scenarios

to avoid too much micro-management for those unwilling to do it, just make it optional, no one has to play the scenarios which one feels there is too much micromangement in

quote:

this is a ww2 strategic game and not phantasy


the editor allows for much more than ww2 only, there is no reason to forbid anyone to use it for whatever era and scope (given the engine limitations) one likes to



seille -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 12:26:14 PM)

additional production slots ?
Do you see any space for more than the 4 slots ? I canīt....
In addition more slots will only bring more unfinished products/partial production.

And yes, the game allows fantasy of course, but the initial design is ww2 focussed, or ?
And i donīt think itīs necessary to be able to design own subunittypes here especially from lots of different parts/components.
Personally i think this would completely screw the game concept [:(]

How the AI should handle that ?? Yes, there are players who play the AI only.....
"Stealing" from human player ? How the hell ??

And how do you think you can keep the balance in the unit set here ?

(Small) penalty for switching production is the only thing here i would agree.
But only for switching from one class to another, so switching from rifle to staff = no penalty.
And it should be a small penalty and only as a option not as standard !



serg3d1 -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 12:43:20 PM)

Ok, I concede the point. That is production distribution was kind of boring and I thought it would live it up a little.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seille
engineers with body armor.....this is a ww2 strategic game and not phantasy. Sounds a bit like Frankenstein [;)]

You know, WW2 history is a complex and difficult stuff. You should be careful with sarcastic comments.
It's not coincidence that I mentioned engineers with body armor.

Here they are - assault engineers of RKKA from Assault Engineer-Sapper Brigades (ShISBR) of WW2
[image]http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/000159/thm/159573.jpg[/image]
[image]http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/000159/thm/159577.jpg[/image]
[image]http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/000159/thm/159581.jpg[/image]
Assault Engineer-Sapper Brigades were formed from 1943, and all personnel was equipped with body armor.
They were elite units for breaking through the heavy fortifications.



seille -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 1:07:23 PM)

Ok, but such equipment youīll make available for research ??
So little details ?
So flak suits for bomber crew members will give them more hitpoints cause the crew is less vulnerable to flak fire ?
Please not....

I still think that kind of SFT creation is no good way.
If you need these special engineers in a scenario iīm sure the scenario designer will make them available
by action cards or just adding a special SFT.



kafka -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 1:15:17 PM)

quote:

Do you see any space for more than the 4 slots ? I canīt....


to gain space in a GUI software developers have invented something like scrollbars

after all, you do not seem to get my point

I'd just like to make the editor more flexible for modders, that is for the creation of user-designed scenarios not everyone is forced to play, no standard is meant here

why prevent others to use the engine the way they want to, given the fact it has such potentials



seille -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 2:31:44 PM)

As long as this doesnīt become standard Vic can add here as much as he want.

But Serg3D1 asked for comments and i posted my comment to that points.
I donīt think itīs possible to implement his part based unit construction that easy (and to handle for the AI)
and i donīt think adding production slots will bring any advantages.
A delay in drastic change of a slot from planes to lets say tanks is ok, but the penalty should be small.
If you say one month no production for that slot this could easily screw the balance of some existing scenarioīs.
But, i forgot, we talk about possible NON STANDARD additional settings for the editor [:D]

Btw, the ski infantry idea i like. Would be a great addition to the russia 1941 scenario as a special russian infantry type.



hazxan -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 3:05:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: serg3d1

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.


One of the attractions of AT for me is that I don't have to manage what my soldiers are wearing ;-)

What you're describing looks totally appropriate to a Tactical level game (Steel Panthers has exactly what you list, for example), but not to Operational or Strategic. This level of detail is beyond what AT aims for - and a good game design has to remain focussed. Also Moo, GalCiv have AFAIK considerably lower numbers of units that the large scenarios of AT. Managing the rifle types and body armour of the Barbarrosa campaign...yukk, sorry but life is too short!

OK, so a scenario may not use these options, but any GUI additions and underlying code to manage them will still be there, cluttering up the screen and wasting processor time. OR you go for a GUI that changes for 'tactical' scenarios - by which point you may as well make a different game.



dazoline II -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 3:11:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kafka

quote:

Do you see any space for more than the 4 slots ? I canīt....


to gain space in a GUI software developers have invented something like scrollbars

after all, you do not seem to get my point

I'd just like to make the editor more flexible for modders, that is for the creation of user-designed scenarios not everyone is forced to play, no standard is meant here

why prevent others to use the engine the way they want to, given the fact it has such potentials



A good workaround for the 4 sub formation limit is to use multiple hexes to represent cities, such as 7 cities for Moscow instead of one. Although I agree, I would like more production spaces.



ShadowB -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 4:26:46 PM)

quote:

One of the attractions of AT for me is that I don't have to manage what my soldiers are wearing ;-)

What you're describing looks totally appropriate to a Tactical level game (Steel Panthers has exactly what you list, for example), but not to Operational or Strategic. This level of detail is beyond what AT aims for - and a good game design has to remain focussed. Also Moo, GalCiv have AFAIK considerably lower numbers of units that the large scenarios of AT. Managing the rifle types and body armour of the Barbarrosa campaign...yukk, sorry but life is too short!

OK, so a scenario may not use these options, but any GUI additions and underlying code to manage them will still be there, cluttering up the screen and wasting processor time. OR you go for a GUI that changes for 'tactical' scenarios - by which point you may as well make a different game.

He meant designing the units, not managing the inventory and equipment of every single unit you have! You'd design a unit, save it and then produce as many as you want. It'd be neat, but yes, a very radical change.



tweber -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 4:53:10 PM)

I think component based research is an interesting idea.  The game already has regime variables.  If research could be set up to increment a regime variable and sftypes were able to use regime variables for their fields as well as constants, you could do this.  The only trick would be how to do upgrades.  At some point, you may no longer be able to increment an sftype and have to opt for a full upgrade. 

I am actually going the other way on this in the current scenario I am working on and simplifying research somewhat.  But, this game is all about flexibility. 




freeboy -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 6:16:47 PM)

Tom, one of the things that could be done is allowing a type of weapon, but the reaserach for it being so high it is effectively only available to one side, if that is what you desire.. unless I am way off.. for example.. u want Germany to have tiger tanks at setup, and no other nation to have the ez or be able to research. Set them up as having this tech in the startup, then set the tech needed very high. I am not saying it should be this way, just that one could manipulate .. I think variability and some differentiation would be interesting... thanks for keeping this thread going..

fyi is there a designers thread somewhere for at?



dazoline II -> RE: Wish List (12/13/2007 6:31:45 PM)

I've been using this one as a list for the editor as well.

There's some threads discussing aspects of design in the mod forum as well as here but no generalized thread.


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Tom, one of the things that could be done is allowing a type of weapon, but the reaserach for it being so high it is effectively only available to one side, if that is what you desire.. unless I am way off.. for example.. u want Germany to have tiger tanks at setup, and no other nation to have the ez or be able to research. Set them up as having this tech in the startup, then set the tech needed very high. I am not saying it should be this way, just that one could manipulate .. I think variability and some differentiation would be interesting... thanks for keeping this thread going..

fyi is there a designers thread somewhere for at?




T_K -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2007 6:03:57 AM)


I think we definitely need to be able to create research that doesn't just allow new units but upgrades unit characteristics across the table, for example upgrade all infantry's damage by xx% Also research that can influence things like town production points.


Another thing I'd like is to be able to set different names for each unit, like you can set different pictures per faction. Like you have say medium tank with four different pictures, I'd like to be able to set four different names for it. For example Panzer IV for Axis, T-34 for Soviets, Sherman for Allies. You'll tell me just create additional units but that's too much work just to have different names.



seille -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2007 1:27:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: T_K
Also research that can influence things like town production points.



ExecChangePeopleProdMod

But this would change more than a specified location.
It would affect all locations with specified people fighting under a specified regime.

ExecChangeLocationType ( x, y, loctype, people )

Here you just place a bigger city on that hex. Problem could be that you lose the production of one turn or at least
have to set the production new the next turn. Donīt know if it will keep the production values.

Many things are possible here.

Tweaking single stats of single SFTīs (like rifle) is imho not possible actually.
But hey, iīm not a scenario designer. Iīm sure tweber and others can help you much better here [;)]



Ande -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2007 2:00:39 PM)

something that would be confortable:
doubleclicking on a savefile, leading to that the game opens and loads the file
is it doable?



tweber -> RE: Wish List (12/14/2007 4:06:41 PM)

quote:

I think we definitely need to be able to create research that doesn't just allow new units but upgrades unit characteristics across the table, for example upgrade all infantry's damage by xx% Also research that can influence things like town production points.


You could do research for other things but it would have to be done with action cards. I am releasing an adaptation of 'Axis and Allies' with V1.1 and you can research non-unit things like 'Industrial efficiency' and 'Long range aircraft'. I do this through the use of regime variables and events.




serg3d1 -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2007 10:00:33 AM)

Another thought - streamline production tasks, it could be tiresome in big scenarios for now.
1. drag and drop production centers into HQ hex to redirect production
2. Make a small pop-up windows with production slots sliders then hovering mouse over production centers (optional)
3. ability to make, store and name several production profiles which could be applied to any production center in one click. Like I have profile "def_I_AT" 60% infantry, 20%MG 20%AT and could apply it to any center in one click.
Store profile not per game, but globally, carry them from game to game

I think it aleady was here-
clicking through units which can move or fight this turn.



Ande -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2007 2:31:06 PM)

Another thing that makes production management easier would be the ability to create production groups, gather small  production cities to be treated as one, it might be a problem how to handle "stuck" production that is too far away to be delivered though



T_K -> RE: Wish List (12/15/2007 5:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

quote:

I think we definitely need to be able to create research that doesn't just allow new units but upgrades unit characteristics across the table, for example upgrade all infantry's damage by xx% Also research that can influence things like town production points.


You could do research for other things but it would have to be done with action cards. I am releasing an adaptation of 'Axis and Allies' with V1.1 and you can research non-unit things like 'Industrial efficiency' and 'Long range aircraft'. I do this through the use of regime variables and events.




I understand that, but I'd like to have this capability in a random scenario.


Another thought: Direct shortcuts on the main game screen to the OOB screen and the production overview screen would make my life a lot easier!



T_K -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2007 12:57:45 AM)

One thing I just found out - if specific research is not available to my regime, I still see it in the "Not yet available" column, with price of -1pp. It should be pretty simple to remove -1 and 9999 research from the column. :)

And another minor issue is that when you go to select production, unit types are in the order they were made in the editor, which sometimes isn't intuitive. Would be nice to be able to change the order they appear in in the production selection screen.



yoggi75 -> RE: Wish List (12/17/2007 8:45:34 PM)

What about an option in a random game to allow for all factions starting with more than one city and larger teritory. Maybe a slider from 0 - 100% where 0 means all starting with just one capital and 100% meaning all land is divided between the factions. Teritory is devided among the factions by distance from capital and maybe other variables.

Why? The AI can never cope with the rate of expansion of a human player which leads to a bit predictable random games. Also I find the expansion phase to be less interesting.



Smirfy -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2007 2:52:08 AM)


The option to lock establishments if you so choose would be really welcome



Grymme -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2007 7:56:21 PM)

Hi

Thanks for a beautiful game. My girlfriend doesnt like it though :)

Some suggestions:

- Instead of AI, AI+, AI++ you could have a slider giving the AI a production/figthing advantage/disadvantage between 01%-500% etc. (a la Empire Deluxe).

- Ability for engineers to build channels (Suez channel, Panama channel etc.).

- Ability to set up for a several turn long march or auto exploration (a la Civ).

- An separate screen with more optional rules/optional use of units etc.

- It would be nice with an optional rule with a more advanced resource system (example a citys building points could have a "territory" and the points reduced when not all territory is under players controll, ability to have oil, rubber, metalspots) OBS! optional rule only.

- Severe penalties for setting upp new units, hq etc directly in the frontline (its too easy to plugg holes today).

- Better AI use of aircraft. Why build fighters when AI doesnt?

- Better way of handling Fleets (to much micromanagment when you always have to construct new units).

- Ability to "capture" enemy supplies from enemy HQ.

- Make Submarines more powerfull maybe? Not played enough, but they seem weak.

- Better AI use of ships. AI should escort cargoships after 10 first turns or something. More aggressive use of navies.

____________

But generally speaking its a great game!



Ande -> RE: Wish List (12/18/2007 10:05:36 PM)

channels should be able to be built by several makeshift ports, I do not work if this works and if it is possible to build them at noncoastal hexes



Rik81 -> RE: Wish List (12/19/2007 5:26:27 AM)

How about changing the graphics for the "cities", to reflect the differences from Village up to Capital?



rickier65 -> RE: Wish List (12/19/2007 5:48:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rik81

How about changing the graphics for the "cities", to reflect the differences from Village up to Capital?



What do you mean? I'm pretty sure this is already the case if you're referring to the map symbols that show up on the map. - At least there are different map symbols for village (3 bldgs) town (4 bldgs), city with blue-gray bldgs, and then slightly different for capitol. But maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Rick



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2