New game with the same engine. (Full Version)

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



Message

Grymme -> New game with the same engine. (5/5/2008 11:26:20 PM)

So, i now i have asked before. But can anybody (Vic) say anything about the work that is being done on the new game featuring the same game engine. Any info is velcome.

At least how long do we have to wait (approximatly) before we will now more? i promise we wont hold it against you Vic.


Please!!



Vic -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 11:23:07 AM)

I am keeping a strict lid on info, since i dont like to tell you guys things which might not happen.
But i think i will be able to tell more in a month or two.

As it stands i am getting a fair ammount of work done, but still mountains to do :)

kind regards,
Vic



gnrss -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 12:32:56 PM)

i appreciate this great thought of Vic that making a new game with a great and mature game engine(AT engine). this thought can be applied on many other new games.i think this new game with the same engine will be as excellent as AT.i'll wait and pay for it when it comes.
and i also want to know that if AT engine is synchronized to be updated when improve this new game?[&o]



DeadInThrench -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 3:18:02 PM)

IMO.... what the wargaming community could stand.... is a generic ahistorical game (with scenarios with historical flavor) that is set in the ancient/mideval/pre 1870 era.

The thing that would be different in a game like this... combared to AT..... is your armies are pretty much consolidated, as opposed to having a continuous front, and when it comes time to fight, the game would go to a battlefield and that's where the battle would be fought.

In 1870.... there was the Franco-Prussian War.... and IMO... this is when continuous front warfare first started..... increasing to a greater extent in WW1 and since then. However, previous to this when nations went to war, they pulled their armies together and found a place to fight and, whomever won the battle won the war. This was most extreme in ancient times, but by the time of the American Revolutionary War and the Seven Years War, they stilll fought it out on battlefields but things had gotten to the point where winning just one battle did not win the war. Things continued along these lines through the Napoleonic Era and the American Civil War. Then in 1870, things had gotten to the point where continuous front warfare took hold instead of the battles of the past.

So, IMO, if you are gonna have a game on the wars of periods previous to 1870, when it comes time to fight the battle you must break down to a battlefield and fight it out there, or otherwise you lose the gist of what was going on during those periods.

(Hmmmm.... actually, one might say that continuous front warfare actually started with Lee vs Grant... with U.S. Grant, in fact 'inventing' continuous front warfare.)

Anyways.... just thought I'd say this re possibilities for games along the lines of AT except covering different periods. Haven't otherwise thought of the applicibility of the AT engine to something like this.

The only other applicibility I can think of for the AT engine, is the possibility of a more historic WW2 game, say, with Panthers and Tigers instead of Medium Tanks and Heavy Tanks.

Whatever,

DiT



Grymme -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 3:34:24 PM)

Actually i think the AT engine could be well equipped to handle both conflicts with continuous fronts and more "battlefield"related conflicts.

During all times there have been, except for the major army, different detached corps/raidingparties/whatnots that have separated from the main force and fought on different grounds than the main army. It would never be just 1 army vs another nations 1 army.

To see the change in AT you could just change the cost of creating a corps from 1 pp to 5pp and a headquarter from 5pp to 15pp. Suddenly you would, in my opinion, get an entirely different game, whithout continuous fronts.



BvB -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 6:58:42 PM)

The Ostfront scenario uses historic equipment instead of generic light, medium heavy tanks.  It goes a step further by having depots with tank parts to have a unit go to upgrade.  The designer of that scenario did a lot of work but it is too big a battle to easily manage.  But a lot of the features look good to put in some other scenarios. And the OOB would be great to have in some of the other east front scenarios.
I agree with Vic on keeping things quiet till he is ready. Look over at battlefront where they released the idea of the CMC game years ago and then all the players getting angry wanting to hear more when the thing stopped for various problems.



zook08 -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 9:44:32 PM)

Despite the name, AT is a strategic game. At the scale of AT scenarios, it doesn't matter one bit whether you call your unit a Panther or a Tiger because you're usually talking about army corps, not tank companies. The abstraction Medium/Heavy tank with tech levels I-IV is IMO perfectly sufficient. All wargames at that scale are fantasy games anyway, or they would be unplayable.

What AT could really use is a different naval model. At the moment, I can have 50 battleships guarding my coast but an enemy transport fleet could easily slip through and land a massive army in my backyard if there is only one free hex, because naval interception isn't possible yet. That alone would make for much more realistic scenarios. Also, air interception of naval units. Why would anyone do island-hopping in a WW2 pacific war scenario? Mostly because these tiny islands were unsinakble aircraft carriers, but the game doesn't reflect this.



jjdenver -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 10:17:21 PM)

Ah some interesting thoughts on this thread. Another thing that I've noticed is that naval bombardment is too strong. It's basically impossible to position air on pacific islands or any coastline because naval units can bombard and kill the air or at the very least drastically reduce their effectiveness due to airfield damage. I think naval bombardment should be more selective.



BvB -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/6/2008 10:17:44 PM)

On one hand the scale is not set with this game. Like TOAW it can be different depending on the scenario and map.  Some games consider each tank a company, some a battalion, regt or division.  So the type could be generic or specific depending on the player wishes.  In the east front scenarios they seem to be companies with in each icon being a division. In WaW type each icon could be a corps or army so each point might be a bn or regt.
But bottom line you are right, with the naval model.  I just brought up the specific unit example of Ostfront with all the people wanting more air types with differing ranges and to show the flexibility of the game engine for game designs.
Naval is a different ballgame as you point out with the way the game runs...



Vic -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/7/2008 2:26:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zook08

Despite the name, AT is a strategic game. At the scale of AT scenarios, it doesn't matter one bit whether you call your unit a Panther or a Tiger because you're usually talking about army corps, not tank companies. The abstraction Medium/Heavy tank with tech levels I-IV is IMO perfectly sufficient. All wargames at that scale are fantasy games anyway, or they would be unplayable.

What AT could really use is a different naval model. At the moment, I can have 50 battleships guarding my coast but an enemy transport fleet could easily slip through and land a massive army in my backyard if there is only one free hex, because naval interception isn't possible yet. That alone would make for much more realistic scenarios. Also, air interception of naval units. Why would anyone do island-hopping in a WW2 pacific war scenario? Mostly because these tiny islands were unsinakble aircraft carriers, but the game doesn't reflect this.



i agree. i am working on preventing this loop hole.



Tac2i -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/7/2008 4:26:38 AM)

This game borders on being the single best IGOUGO wargame ever. An improved naval model and the ability to form alliances (share resources/supply lines) would cement that title in my opinion.



Arditi -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/7/2008 4:33:20 AM)

  This is the greatest game in my opinion.  I also agree that sharing of resources, crossing an allies land(without border change) and stacking with an ally would make the game even more special.  Personally, I like the naval model now, so if it is changed I hope the earlier model remains as an option.
Respectfully, Arditi[:)]



zook08 -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/7/2008 1:54:30 PM)

A bit more information about what actually happens in battles would be nice, too (What do you mean, this thread isn't the new Wish list? It is!). I think a lot of newbies don't really understand what's going on there, and why their 200 Power Points force loses against 50 PP. For the record, neither do I sometimes. Some extra information would help, e.g. the combat window could display a flashing BREAKTHROUGH when one happens. At the moment, some units suddenly become yellow but it doesn't say what this means. Or units with a high entrenchment factor could have a different counter frame.



BULLDOGINTHEUK -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/9/2008 8:51:42 PM)

The ability for ships and ground forces to fire missiles would be nice, an option button similar to the 'divebomb attack', 'shore bombardment' would be nice. Or perhaps have a few missile buttons for modern warfare. Surface to surface missles to represent long range ship combat in a modern age and subs launching cruise missles at targets a number of hexes away. Helecopters gunships too.  I love AT but it cannot recreate modern battles at the moment.



explorer2 -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/10/2008 7:26:58 AM)

My biggest concern with naval warfare is the limited nature of what a carrier can do. In real life in WW2, most carriers in Pacific Theatre had fighters on board to protect the fleet, scouts on board (often with about a thousand mile radius), as well at least one type of bomber (torpedo or dive usually, but occasionally even long range bombers, such as in Doolittle's raid).
As far as I can tell, we can currently only have one type on a carrier now, doing one mission only, unless I'm mistaken.

Along with that, I would like to see a naval scout plane. These were used extensively and very important in the Pacific. Spotting ships could be done anywhere along their path (not single hex radius as in AT currently) and at quite extended ranges. Even subs were fairly easily spotted from the air, until they got the ability to run with snorkels in 1944 - even then their snorkel wake was fairly easily spotted from the air in decent weather.

All in all this is an incredibly great game - good work Vic. Naval model is still tolerable in my opinion, though could definitely be improved, which would add greatly to enjoyment and possibilities.















zook08 -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/10/2008 9:07:26 AM)

Simulating carriers is a problem, but it's difficult to model them in a strategic game like AT. I don't want to issue orders to half a dozen scout planes each turn, not in a grand strategic game. But the beauty of the engine is that you can just increase the recon value of carriers in a scenario, and bingo.



BULLDOGINTHEUK -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/10/2008 2:35:03 PM)

As you can tell from my avatar I would love to see more options for naval warfare, modern and old [&o].



Delyn Locksmiths -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/10/2008 4:50:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BULLDOGINTHEUK

The ability for ships and ground forces to fire missiles would be nice, an option button similar to the 'divebomb attack', 'shore bombardment' would be nice. Or perhaps have a few missile buttons for modern warfare. Surface to surface missles to represent long range ship combat in a modern age and subs launching cruise missles at targets a number of hexes away. Helecopters gunships too.  I love AT but it cannot recreate modern battles at the moment.



Could you not just give ships a longer artillery range? Or does artillery not work at sea?



explorer2 -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/10/2008 6:11:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zook08

Simulating carriers is a problem, but it's difficult to model them in a strategic game like AT. I don't want to issue orders to half a dozen scout planes each turn, not in a grand strategic game. But the beauty of the engine is that you can just increase the recon value of carriers in a scenario, and bingo.


That's a GREAT idea! I agree, I don't like all the micromanagement of scout planes, but I find AT requires a lot of micormanagment anyway. The advantage is it allows flexibility.

The choice of the mix of scout plane/ fighters/ bombers you use on a carrier can make a huge difference. Especially if you have don't have adequate scout planes and the enemy finds you before you find them it won't matter much how many fighters/bombers you have. Take the Battle of Midway. Japan had VERY superior forces to US. US found them first (and got a little lucky by their own admission) and the Japanese never recovered.

Increasing carrier recon value is still a great idea, but in PBEM scenarios everyone would have to agree in advance to change the setting.



Grymme -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/11/2008 12:19:50 AM)

For the next uppdate or next engine game i would really like this suggestion.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1615537

Basicly that you can make modules within the editor. Modules for units, graphics, events, maps and so on. Then these could be upploaded and imported/exported to the scenarios that you want/created. I would be so sweet to have a huge database with all different maps, units and events people have created so that, when creating a scenario, you could just cherrypick and import to your own scenario. It would make scenariocreatíon much easier.

I think that, as it comes to securing a good player/forum commitment to the game this would be a huge step forward.




seille -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/11/2008 10:28:02 AM)

Just in case Vic didn´t stop reading here i have some wishes.

One is not new:

Naval interception. I wish to be able to let my ships intercept any incoming ships
in case i activate the "intercept-option" (like for planes)

More mission types for planes: Anti sub patrol for example.
This should work a bit like recon. If a player moves his subs thru waters that are controlled by my planes then
there should be a chance the sub is detected and attacked depending on the number of planes i have there and the distance between
airfield and sub.
for this job. Special long range plane types would be nice here. The planes do their job on enemy turn and they are NOT available while own turn
because of their anti sub mission setting. This is a bit virtual like the Anti Supply option yet.

Minelayer: Needed to prevent enemy ships to block own ports or to protect own coasts

AP Reserve setting: A thing i asked for already long time ago. Player can set a amount of AP that are reserved.
Ok, how this works ? Player can move a ship unit to a coast, fire some rounds (3-4) and then move back the ships out of the dangerous area.
He just has to set a AP reserve of lets say 40 before he starts bombardment, then switch the reserve back to 0 to free the reserve and more back.
Players who don´t like micromanagement don´t have to use it [;)]
It is definitely helpful and better for realism especially when i have turn lengths of 3 or 4 weeks.


AT has only a few weak points. Why not eliminate them ?
Hopefully it´s not too late for wishes like this !




Hertston -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/11/2008 11:16:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gnrss
i appreciate this great thought of Vic that making a new game with a great and mature game engine(AT engine). this thought can be applied on many other new games.i think this new game with the same engine will be as excellent as AT.i'll wait and pay for it when it comes.
and i also want to know that if AT engine is synchronized to be updated when improve this new game?[&o]


If the next game remains 'Advanced Tactics', as opposed to a completely different project, it is essential IMHO that user scenarios designed with one game will be compatible with the other or at the very least that designers using AT: 'Next Game' can create scenarios that AT:WW2 owners can play even if they don't use any new features introduced in 'Next Game'. Hopefully, like HPS do, earlier games could be 'retrofitted' with such improvements.



zook08 -> RE: New game with the same engine. (5/11/2008 4:56:22 PM)

quote:


Naval interception. I wish to be able to let my ships intercept any incoming ships
in case i activate the "intercept-option" (like for planes)


I think we should have a seperate thread for this.

quote:


More mission types for planes: Anti sub patrol for example.
This should work a bit like recon. If a player moves his subs thru waters that are controlled by my planes then
there should be a chance the sub is detected and attacked depending on the number of planes i have there and the distance between
airfield and sub.
for this job. Special long range plane types would be nice here. The planes do their job on enemy turn and they are NOT available while own turn
because of their anti sub mission setting. This is a bit virtual like the Anti Supply option yet.


My bombers should be able to attack all kinds of shipping, not only subs. The problem is that a fleet with strong AA units could easily destroy even a large number of bombers.

quote:


Minelayer: Needed to prevent enemy ships to block own ports or to protect own coasts


I like that one, but scenario designers should take care not to make this feature too powerful. In the WaW scenario for example, you wouldn't want the Royal Navy to mine the entire North Sea.
- Minelayers (ML) could work like Engineers, accumulating a few Mine Points every turn.
- ML should also be minesweepers, with very good chances to completely clean up a hex in one turn. In reality, you wouldn't have to remove all mines from an area, just sweep a wide corridor.
- Mines shouldn't sink too many ships, but mostly damage them.
- Mines should have a limited Anti-Supply value
- Minefields should deteriorate each turn

quote:


AP Reserve setting: A thing i asked for already long time ago. Player can set a amount of AP that are reserved.
Ok, how this works ? Player can move a ship unit to a coast, fire some rounds (3-4) and then move back the ships out of the dangerous area.
He just has to set a AP reserve of lets say 40 before he starts bombardment, then switch the reserve back to 0 to free the reserve and more back.
Players who don´t like micromanagement don´t have to use it [;)]
It is definitely helpful and better for realism especially when i have turn lengths of 3 or 4 weeks.


I think that could easily be lead to gamey play, exactly because the defender should have a chance to fight back. This advance, attack, retreat move is just exploiting the game sequence IMO.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.8125