RE: I'm not so sure about ATG

RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (Full Version)

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

Message

AlanBernardo -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 4:29:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barthheart I think the simplest way to put it is this: If you could do it in AT, you can do it in ATG. ATG is AT expanded, as in added to not taken away from. I'd even go so far as to say you could use ARHS directly in ATG. I've never used ARHS in AT or ATG and yet I'd bet it still works. Hope that helps. [8D] How 'bout helping us with a estimated release date? :) Are we close, or far away? Edit: that's okay, I found my answer. :) Alan

cdbeck -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 6:07:43 PM)
Rich, There was never anything officially stated, but Vic did mention that a discount for previous owners of AT is possible. Here is a link to one time he stated this: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2631848

Vic -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 6:14:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort Rich, There was never anything officially stated, but Vic did mention that a discount for previous owners of AT is possible. Here is a link to one time he stated this: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2631848 yeah. thats still the plan. since ATG is a major upgrade and not a fully new game some measure of price reduction for existing AT owners is justified. :) Matrix will soon tell the actual $$ figure. best, Vic

Grymme -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 8:06:33 PM)
Rich You wrote One main question seems to form. With ATG how easy will the random be for different scenarios? Like changing units/graphics to other time or world areas similar to what ARHS does? I took my time, answered and explained the following. Rich12545. Everything that was in AT will still be in ATG so it will still be as possible to change graphics & units to other eras. Actually it will be much nicer to simulate new areas because it will now be possible to change almost everything in the game. Say for example you have a SpaceRace scenario. It looks really boring to have buttons of artillery & other artwork in the main screen with WWII-style artwork. Now you will be able to mod that so that instead there are spacetypelike buttons in the mainscreen for movement, attack etc. Then you responded by laughing at me. and saying i dont understand you. But its not my fault if you cannot communicate clearly or dont understand the explanations given to you. Since you laughed at my atempt at helping you i wouldnt start whining about personal attacks.

cdbeck -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 8:37:46 PM)
Erik just posted during the chat that a $15 discount for owners of AT is planned.

Erik Rutins -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 9:15:47 PM)
Yes, we're planning to release during April, hopefully in the next two weeks or so and we will offer owners of the original Advanced Tactics a $15 discount on this new release. Also, AT Gold can open, play and edit all your old Advanced Tactics scenarios, it is fully backwards compatible. Regards, - Erik

rich12545 -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 9:28:47 PM)
Grymme, the way you wrote your post it looked like you might have been referring to the classic random game and that didn't help anything. I wasn't laughing at you or your attempt to help, I was laughing at the idea of a space game in AT. That was really pretty obvious. Regardless, you made a personal attack with no provocation and, real frankly, you owe me an apology. Even if I somehow misunderstood exactly what you said, that's no excuse for an unwarranted personal attack. Son of Montfort, I think $15 is generous and will go a long way toward me buying gold. In any case, some of the posts here have been very helpful and I'm satisfied ATG will be worth it and along with the nice discount I'll very likely be buying. Giving my opinion and getting information to help with this quandry was why I started this thread and it looks like I have the answers I need. Thanks to everybody.

Grymme -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 9:43:04 PM)
Rich12345 This is not very productive so i will try to make this my final word on the matter. I tried to help you politely in several posts. You responded by laughing at my words. If you do not se that such behavour is rude i cannot help you see it. I do not owe you anything. I merely pointed out that you seemed to have a problem comprehending things. I stand firmly by that assessment.

rich12545 -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/28/2011 10:40:42 PM)
It seems YOU have a reading comprehension problem. I even explained it again and you still don't get it. I wasn't laughing at you. Ok, read my lips. I wasn't laughing at you. I was laughing over the idea of a space game in AT. Do you understand now? Since you refuse to apologize for making an unwarranted personal attack, I'll just consider the source and move on.

82ndtrooper -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/29/2011 12:22:55 AM)
the space game scenario is actually well built with a very different play style and fun to play. [;)]

rich12545 -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/29/2011 12:32:39 AM)
Really? Well, maybe I'll take a look. It just struck me as funny. A space game in AT lol.

JMass -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/30/2011 7:52:14 AM)
I have just one question. It is possible now to lock historical formation to have i.e. tanks replacements used to fill (or only tank formations and leg infantry only infantry division? The same with the possibility to move subformations between units. In the old AT after a while historical formations become a soup...

Barthheart -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/30/2011 12:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JMass I have just one question. It is possible now to lock historical formation to have i.e. tanks replacements used to fill (or only tank formations and leg infantry only infantry division? The same with the possibility to move subformations between units. In the old AT after a while historical formations become a soup... ATG, like AT, is not a "unit-centric" game. The "units" are just buckets for SFT's (sub formation types). So the direct answer is no it's not possible to lock the units. However Vic mentioned that there might be a way to do it through the use of cards for reinforcements. My modding skills are really rusty so I can't help more than that.

british exil -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/30/2011 1:36:26 PM)
Will still be tons of fun to play. Esp with the new feature of real logistics, oil/ fuel will really mean planning to create ur forces. Mobile and Fast and hungry for fuel. 1 horsepower but less hungry. Will create a few headaches. Mat

cdbeck -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/30/2011 6:49:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper the space game scenario is actually well built with a very different play style and fun to play.�[;)] Wait, the space game scenario is a real thing? Awesome! I'd love to play that! Where can I get it? I once had this crazy idea that I wanted to build a group of scenarios that were based off of Emperor of the Fading Suns (remember that awesome game). IMHO the AT system would word very well with that. However, I am not a scenario editor and know nothing about it. So that stopped me! Rich, glad to be helpful. Hope you buy and enjoy ATG!

Steely Glint -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/30/2011 11:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Yes, we're planning to release during April, hopefully in the next two weeks or so and we will offer owners of the original Advanced Tactics a $15 discount on this new release. Also, AT Gold can open, play and edit all your old Advanced Tactics scenarios, it is fully backwards compatible. Great decision, Erik!

GrumpyMel -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/31/2011 5:50:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort quote: ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper the space game scenario is actually well built with a very different play style and fun to play.�[;)] Wait, the space game scenario is a real thing? Awesome! I'd love to play that! Where can I get it? I once had this crazy idea that I wanted to build a group of scenarios that were based off of Emperor of the Fading Suns (remember that awesome game). IMHO the AT system would word very well with that. However, I am not a scenario editor and know nothing about it. So that stopped me! Rich, glad to be helpful. Hope you buy and enjoy ATG! Montfort, if you like Fading Suns (I'm a huge fan too), then check out Space Opera in the scenerio bank. It was in part inspired by the old Fading Suns computer game. Only thing is, it's a human only scenerio. I honestly haven't tried it with the AI, but in order to simulate the Space/Ground thing, I had to play around with the mechanics in such a way that I don't think the AI will really be able to handle. There are a bunch of other good space/sci-fi scenereo's in the bank as well, I believe.

Jeffrey H. -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (3/31/2011 9:45:27 PM)
Lunaticus did a couple of space game mods, one for random games and one more of a scenario I believe. There are quite a departure from the basic WWII smash 'em up so it'll take a bit to get used to them.

Hertston -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 1:35:06 PM)
Is there a list of exactly what changes and additions to AT that ATG includes anywhere? I may well be missing the obvious, but I can't spot one.

Hexagon -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 2:59:24 PM)
I only find this http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=97 i dont know if have all new features... expect that it help you.

Tac2i -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 3:15:44 PM)
From memory here is a list of ATG additions/changes that I've noted. Has been awhile since I played AT so hopefully my list doesn't include things in the original game. Correct me if it does. I'm also sure I've probably left stuff out. The biggest change affecting game play, in my humble opinion, is that captured enemy cities can not produce combat units. The second biggest would be the addition of resources (oil and ore). Random Game Changes At start countries with a standing infantry army in place Countries start at peace Costs 20PPs to declare war AI players randomly declare war on other AI and human players Can make alliances with other human players Can give hexes to an ally Can give units to an ally Can trace supply through ally's territory Can stack with ally's units Automatic map sharing with ally (they see everything you see) Production Oil and Raw (ore) hexes added to map Motorized units consume fuel (oil) as they move Production of "metal" units consume ore. Captured enemy cities can only produce Political Points, recycled oil or ore. Can build factories - Gun, Plane and Tank Units Torpedo Bombers Strategic Bombers Mobile Assault Guns Tank Destroyers Miscellaneous Three zoom modes Beautiful new map graphics New unit graphics Revamped Random Game creation panel More powerful scenario editor In general, defense against attack is slightly stronger. Armored units, without infantry support in the same hex, are more vulnerable to infantry attacks. quote: ORIGINAL: Hertston Is there a list of exactly what changes and additions to AT that ATG includes anywhere? I may well be missing the obvious, but I can't spot one.

mgaffn1 -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 6:17:01 PM)
Webizen, thanks for including pics from the editor. AT has the best game editor I've encountered - not necessarily the easiest, but the more powerful the tool, the more there is to learn. As far as the concerns about the AI, I agree with the chorus of comments about, but can also say that I've never found ANY game with AI that is truly satisfactory. In most cases, the AI plays as sort of a "hive mind" - as if you were competing against a nest of termites or colony of ants. No masterfully strategic moves or surprises, but more of an overall swarming of masses of troops. That is just the way AI is for any game. That said, if I play against multiple AI with one or two nations set at AI+, I usually have a challenge at hand. Similarly, with the game editor, you can create events or edit other factors to make the AI more competitive and give it some personality. My opinion here is biased or course, as I am a hopeless game editor addict. I will buy the expanded game, and whittle away hundreds of hours of my life experimenting with the editor, and maybe, just maybe, even play a game or two. cheers,

Westheim -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 9:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Webizen The biggest change affecting game play, in my humble opinion, is that captured enemy cities can not produce combat units. ... which will blow the bottom out of the game ... quote: ORIGINAL: Webizen Automatic map sharing with ally (they see everything you see) Just curious. If the Romulans are allied to the Cardassians, they would see the Cardassians' map. However if the Cardassians were also allied to the Klingons, the Cardassians would see the Klingons' map. The Romulans and Klingons are not allied, for reasons we all know. However, both their maps would be part of what the Cardassians would see - would the Romulans then also see the Klingons' map? You know, they would really love to. [:'(]

rich12545 -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 9:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Westheim ... which will blow the bottom out of the game ... What do you mean? Is this a positive or negative statement?

Tac2i -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 9:48:50 PM)
re "... which will blow the bottom out of the game ..." -- Disagree. I believe that in play testing random games that this feature has proven to have a positive effect on game play. Combined with at start countries and at start infantry armies, it does have the potential to create longer lasting games. The one city start games with its attendant race to discover more cities faster than your opponent are over (caveat - there is still a 1 city start option for those who wish to play that style of game). The snowballing affect of capturing your opponent's cities and churning out ever more units is also over. Basically, by capturing your opponent's cities you have reduced his ability to turn out more infantry and supply. By using captured enemy cites to produce Political Points, you can then increase troop production in your own cites by lessening the amount of Political Points produced in your own cities. re "Automatic map sharing with ally (they see everything you see)" -- A and B are allied. C is allied with A but not B. C will only see of B what A's units can see. That said, I'd advise all players not to offer or enter into alliances without much thought about the purpose and intent of that alliance. quote: ORIGINAL: Westheim quote: ORIGINAL: Webizen The biggest change affecting game play, in my humble opinion, is that captured enemy cities can not produce combat units. ... which will blow the bottom out of the game ... quote: ORIGINAL: Webizen Automatic map sharing with ally (they see everything you see) Just curious. If the Romulans are allied to the Cardassians, they would see the Cardassians' map. However if the Cardassians were also allied to the Klingons, the Cardassians would see the Klingons' map. The Romulans and Klingons are not allied, for reasons we all know. However, both their maps would be part of what the Cardassians would see - would the Romulans then also see the Klingons' map? You know, they would really love to. [:'(]

rich12545 -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 10:47:29 PM)
Ok, not a positive statement. I like the new rules better.

Westheim -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 10:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rich12545 quote: ORIGINAL: Westheim ... which will blow the bottom out of the game ... What do you mean? Is this a positive or negative statement? Negative. As I said before, this kills random games for me, and random games is all I play.

Josh -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 11:00:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Westheim quote: ORIGINAL: rich12545 quote: ORIGINAL: Westheim ... which will blow the bottom out of the game ... What do you mean? Is this a positive or negative statement? Negative. As I said before, this kills random games for me, and random games is all I play. In all fairness, we have to play the game to give it a fair judgement. My hunch so far it could be a big improvement, because many random games ( like you I play them mostly) tend to end up in a rush, capture as many as fast as you can. That probably is still the same, only it won't end up in the many huge armies I many times ended up with. There was always a tipping point at which I couldn't lose anymore, I hope (so not sure yet ofcourse) this tipping point will be much later in the game---> longer games with less all powerfull armies ---> more fun. So I'd say it's positive. Gonna buy it anyways so I can judge it better within a few weeks or so. We'll see.

cdbeck -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 11:02:17 PM)
If you can build factories, could you not just build a factory near a captured city and churn out units? Can the AI use factories now?

Tac2i -> RE: I'm not so sure about ATG (4/5/2011 11:51:56 PM)
Re first question: Yes - artillery type units, planes and armored units. (not infantry/infantry support weapons or trucks). Re second question: Yes they do and the AI has built some in every game I've played against the AI. quote: ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort If you can build factories, could you not just build a factory near a captured city and churn out units? Can the AI use factories now?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375