What direction would you like to see ATG go? (Full Version)

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



Message

Vic -> What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/6/2015 9:31:04 AM)

Just posted a new weblog on my website on ATG development with a big community preference poll.

Surf over here please:
http://www.vrdesigns.nl/

best wishes,
Vic



Josh -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/6/2015 3:33:29 PM)

Thx for the update Vic.

I think most players against the AI would agree it could use an upgrade, AI landunit composition is *much* better than it used to be, but it still does weird things every now and then. Let alone naval warfare, I'm pretty sure the AI gave me a hard time in the early AT but lately with ATG sometimes I don't see any AI naval units at all. [:(]
The AI still outproduces its force, meaning lots of troops get too little supply. As in they are at 10% readiness and are no longer able to attack because the units receive too little supply.

Also I would love to see cities be "upgradeable", such as more production power, Flak facilities, added extra fortifications.
Give the engineers the capability to destroy railtracks.

I concur with you that although the idea of an unit template is tempting, and auto replacement could be nice, it would be a major undertaking to write that into the game. From my personal game experience I use templates .. sort of. An Inf unit consists of .... and an Armoured unit consists of... A Flak battery consists of...it's all in my head and I know what I want to create. Then again there are many instances where I do different things, this involves maybe a bit more mouseclicking but has the huge advantage of giving you more liberty to do what you want. So yeah the whole exercise of writing and implementing the autorefill/unit template maybe ain't worth your time.

I'd love to see more "historic" unit types, instead of the generic ones, it would definitely give the game more flavour. No need for historic OOB and TOE in ATG such as your DC series has. Well that's my idea at least. Other opinions might vary [:D]

As it is I see ATG evolve to a empire building game, and DC more a grognard wargame.

Thx for your hardwork Vic. [&o]



rich12545 -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/7/2015 2:19:46 AM)

Vic, before doing anything, get the AI working properly. Land, sea, air and everything else. Make it so the AI will use carriers and airborne properly. Make a slider for giving the AI a bonus. This is absolutely the most important thing you can do for ATG. Anything else means nothing until this is done.



ironduke1955 -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/7/2015 3:04:30 AM)

Graphics upgrade combined with some form of civil tier to your nation, Fascist Democratic Communist some form of impact in the game that defines the political system of your nation. A upgrading of transport to have a more detailed representation from Dirt Roads to tarmac metaled to autobahns with the option to destroy rail and road communication links. Generally anything that creates a sense of personalization of your nation, making it more distinctive less generic. The possibility of a trade network so that say oil can be obtained on a simple market, a very basic economy with perhaps one or two additional raw materials, Rubber or Nickel. Certainly the possibility of using the Historical equipment of nations in random scenarios uniforms and tanks from the 88mm to the 6pndr from the Tiger to the T34. I am fairly sure I would never use generic models given a choice. If the AI could be improved that would be great but if a improved AI requires a general simplification of aspects of the game then to hell with the AI. To my mind if the AI cannot beat me with all things being equal then just giving the AI huge production or Tech bonuses feels wrong because there is no logical explanation as to why the AI should be able to out produce a human opponent, after all a AI playing Chess is not given extra pieces to balance the game. I prefer just one AI level good.



Bombur -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/7/2015 10:40:38 PM)

My wish list

-Ships should be able to recover readiness only when in friendly ports and recover should be slower than land units. It would simulate battle damage.
-Minelayers and mine warfare
-Radar stations, able to improve the effectiveness of fighters in a given area (editor defined)
-Helicopters and VTOLS (aircraft able to fly from areas without airfields)
-Seaplanes (aircrafts able to fly from ports)
-Limits to the number of aircraft that could fly from a single airfield (editor defined, so you can have many levels of airfields). Also big aircraft should be able to fly only from big airfields
-Limits to ports too
-Bring back strategic airlift
-Air searches should cover all the way to the selected area
-HQ for airforces
-Refuel aircraft (when stationed in a HQ it increases the range of aircraft under this HQ control)
-Standoff aircraft (able to attack from a given distance from target and suffering interception effect in this hex)

-These changes would allow me to create a Pacific scenario and also a Cold war mod.




budd -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/7/2015 11:51:49 PM)

I voted my 2 cents, all about the AI. Haven't played in awhile but i always get back to it. Question: is Lancers mod a part of the stock game yet or do you still have to install as a mod.
Vic thx for the continued support and pass on to Lancer it's been about 6 weeks since the last DC3 blog[:D]



Bombur -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/8/2015 12:18:36 AM)

More wishes.

1-Supply ships to act as provisional source of supplies in disembarks
2-A better system for disembarks, where the assaulting troops could reembark if defeated (the all or nothing system is unrealistic)



Jafele -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/13/2015 8:52:52 AM)

Most of the game scenarios should be updated with the latest rules of new dawn (commanders, tanks, etc.). They are really good but guess nobody play them. ATG scenarios need a bit of love and coherence or perhaps it´s time for AT II. [:D]



Vic -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/13/2015 9:25:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jafele

Most of the game scenarios should be updated with the latest rules of new dawn (commanders, tanks, etc.). They are really good but guess nobody play them. ATG scenarios need a bit of love and coherence or perhaps it´s time for AT II. [:D]


My plan is to keep adding features to the New Dawn BETA for the moment. Once enough new features are in I might consider an ATP/AT2 game and actually schedule some more serious development time to really roll this New Dawn ruleset out over more scenarios and provide it with more detail and a much demanded AI improvement. So basically the New Dawn BETA is a bit ATP/AT2 in embryonic form. In a way you can compare the approach here to a (very) early access game ;)

@all
The poll results where interesting. Thanks everybody for participating and adding extra comments.
It gave me new energy and I can already disclose that the first new feature from the list entering into the new patch is the ability to set TOE's for your units and have them automatically reinforced. I thought it could not be done, but with fresh courage seeing quite a lot of players who wanted me to persist I have found a way to do it.

There will be an in-game TOE design window where you can create your TOE models that you can assign to units in the field.

The new TOE units (similar to the historical units in DC) will be completely mixable with regular units (without TOE) and commanders. The auto-reinforcements will use (land, navy, rail) transfer capacity points from your HQs and will use exactly the same rules as regular transfers. There will be an option to set reserve transfer capacity points for HQs to avoid having no points left to make manual adjustments.

It is a complex feature in many ways and will require some public beta testing to nail it down completely.

best wishes,
Vic



major.pain -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/13/2015 3:38:27 PM)

Wow, really awesome news Vic on your focus for ATG, in fact from my point of view even better than i dared to hope.
I love ATG and think its a wonderfully unique little known gem of a game but after an hour or two into a random map with numerous fronts spanning different continents ect the massive amount of clicking involved to reinforce and create the units i need wears down my will to carry on playing.
Over the years of owning and playing ATG i have played dozens of random maps but very very rarely seen them through to the end because of all the admin involved, the clicking eventually drives me bat sh*t and i turn it off.
So many thanks for having a look at sorting this out, top bloke :)

Can we expect to get our mits on Shadow Empire this year Vic or is DC3 your next release??????



Tac2i -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/13/2015 4:14:15 PM)

My rather generic desires for ATG:

1) more improvements to the random map routines

2) anything that improves multiplayer gaming

and one specific request,

3) ability to select the people groups for your random games.



Jafele -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/13/2015 6:00:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

There will be an in-game TOE design window where you can create your TOE models that you can assign to units in the field.

The new TOE units (similar to the historical units in DC) will be completely mixable with regular units (without TOE) and commanders. The auto-reinforcements will use (land, navy, rail) transfer capacity points from your HQs and will use exactly the same rules as regular transfers. There will be an option to set reserve transfer capacity points for HQs to avoid having no points left to make manual adjustments.



Vic, this is an excellent idea: fight against the micromanagement!!! [&o]



MasterChief81 -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/14/2015 8:33:45 PM)

Webizen, concur on all!! Especially #3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Webizen

My rather generic desires for ATG:

1) more improvements to the random map routines

2) anything that improves multiplayer gaming

and one specific request,

3) ability to select the people groups for your random games.




Jeffrey H. -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/17/2015 4:53:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

@all
The poll results where interesting. Thanks everybody for participating and adding extra comments.
It gave me new energy and I can already disclose that the first new feature from the list entering into the new patch is the ability to set TOE's for your units and have them automatically reinforced. I thought it could not be done, but with fresh courage seeing quite a lot of players who wanted me to persist I have found a way to do it.

There will be an in-game TOE design window where you can create your TOE models that you can assign to units in the field.

The new TOE units (similar to the historical units in DC) will be completely mixable with regular units (without TOE) and commanders. The auto-reinforcements will use (land, navy, rail) transfer capacity points from your HQs and will use exactly the same rules as regular transfers. There will be an option to set reserve transfer capacity points for HQs to avoid having no points left to make manual adjustments.

It is a complex feature in many ways and will require some public beta testing to nail it down completely.

best wishes,
Vic


Sounds awesome Vic, cheers to you for taking it on. It will probably change the nature of the game and force people to manage logistics closer.

Looking forward to it, and of course the AI improvements ;>




Jeffrey H. -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/21/2015 6:54:26 PM)

One more thing comes to mind, is it possible to include a feature which will auto-dump the unit(s) DB info into a CSV file and vice versa import one into ATG ?



Khanti -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/27/2015 9:48:41 AM)

"Move whole stack" button? I can't see it in game.



Jafele -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/28/2015 5:39:08 PM)

Supply is one of the most important features of ATG, it depends on vehicles. IMO they need more realism/coherence (ie a halftrack shouldn´t have the same carry capacity than a truck or a horse the same supply consum than a human) and flexibilty (a section of 25 soldiers doesn´t need 2 trucks (40 carry capacity) to move). Instead a truck and a light truck (new unit with carry capacity 10) are enough for them and cheaper for building and maintenance.

So, I´ve modified some vehicle statistics and added others (attached). Obviously these important changes break the balance of the game currently. Perhaps some of them may be applied in the present or the future (AT II). The following table is based on several historical wwII units: The heavy halftrack (Skkfz 251s); the ligh halftrack (Sdkfz 250s); the light truck (Opel Blitz t3), etc.

You´ll have noticed important changes: trains need raw (coal) to move and one horse could only carry 1 soldier. Regimes with lack of oil will tend to use trains (wagons) or horses for their units. Those with lack of raw will prefer trucks. Now halftracks have less landtrcap due to lack of speed and carry capacity. The cost of vehicles (raw) is also different due to real weight. Supply consum (ammunition, food, water) is only required to vehicles crew and horses need more food/water (five times more than a human).



GaryChildress -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/28/2015 6:53:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Webizen

My rather generic desires for ATG:


3) ability to select the people groups for your random games.


Really agree with #3. Sometimes I cancel through 5 or more random games just to find the people I want play.

Other than that, loving the new TO&E feature! I think it is one of the single best improvements I've seen on it since I started playing. [:)]



Tac2i -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/28/2015 7:23:40 PM)

I would add, the ability to have just one people group if a player so chooses.

re TO&E: agreed, it is single biggest change to ATG since its release in Spring 2011. It fits perfectly with the design of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Webizen

My rather generic desires for ATG:


3) ability to select the people groups for your random games.


Really agree with #3. Sometimes I cancel through 5 or more random games just to find the people I want play.

Other than that, loving the new TO&E feature! I think it is one of the single best improvements I've seen on it since I started playing. [:)]




cpdeyoung -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/28/2015 8:12:48 PM)

I would love to have the ability to switch sides during a solo game. One of my favorite ways to play in other games is to take my original side to a near lock on victory and then switch and fight against them. Or you could give the AI a good start and then let them go on their own. This would involve the ability to switch nations, and to switch from AI to human as the game is being played.

It would also be great to switch from AI- to AI to AI+ to AI++ for each nation during solo play. If you realize you need a stronger opponent - presto.

Chuck



Tac2i -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (5/30/2015 5:16:46 PM)

Suggestion: A bottom panel that slides out the way so you can see more of the map.



gazfun -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/1/2015 4:24:05 AM)

To be able to code features in this game, and a if you like a more user friendly way of doing this right for us non coders out there. There is a lot here not explained. And although WW2 is good, would be great to be able to code other historical areas other than WW1 or WW2 with this game



gazfun -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/1/2015 4:31:41 AM)

Another feature I would like to see where there is large map games, multiplayers only in one side or the other type game, where 3 players control side A and 3 players control side B. This would be ideal in ACW where there are differing theaters of operation or "war in the east" or "war in the west" for that matter. Using the same password system for each player where it can be changed in case a player goes away temporarily for example.




Khanti -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/1/2015 7:22:25 AM)

Rulervar that grants that AI units (except HQ) will not contain more than 8 kind/branches of SFTs (for human player to view them all at glance).



GaryChildress -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/1/2015 7:17:31 PM)

Not sure if this has ever been suggested but how about being able to design warships? For example we can now design tanks and things like that. It would be really cool to be able to design warship details such as for battleships whether we want to go with 15", 16" or 18" guns, amount of belt armor, boilers (speed) etc. Maybe have a "Ship Designer Window" where we can sort of plug in variables to come up with different types of ships. Maybe it wouldn't be possible for ATG but maybe it might be an idea for AT Platinum.



Vic -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/2/2015 6:22:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Not sure if this has ever been suggested but how about being able to design warships? For example we can now design tanks and things like that. It would be really cool to be able to design warship details such as for battleships whether we want to go with 15", 16" or 18" guns, amount of belt armor, boilers (speed) etc. Maybe have a "Ship Designer Window" where we can sort of plug in variables to come up with different types of ships. Maybe it wouldn't be possible for ATG but maybe it might be an idea for AT Platinum.


The same game features and rules used for tank design could just as well be used for ship design. I just never found the time to implement them. Models for everything is planned for the final ATP game and any experimentation done now by modders would be helpfull to determine what works well and what does not. Documentation is a bit sparse: http://www.vrdesigns.nl/atwiki/doku.php?id=subformationtype_models&s[]=model but taking a good look at the current tank models in New Dawn will help.

best wishes,
Vic



arditidagger -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/3/2015 12:59:39 AM)

Id like to see more multiplayer options. Also, more of a rpg feel. Perhaps a single leader counter with a pic, history and stats to fluctuate and modify. Also, along with the climate fluctuations; how about disease, plague, radiation (tactical nukes) and the effects on units. This game has huge possibilities. Keep up the great work.
Russ



Jeffrey H. -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/3/2015 7:32:22 PM)

An improved map generator for random games where we no longer have isolated parts of an island or land mass belonging to different regimes. Perhaps this should be an option, something like "land masses hold 1 regime only" or something like that.



arditidagger -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/4/2015 2:28:38 AM)

How about a spy or saboteur unit/counter that can move through enemy units and attack resources/cities? It would require the nation on the receiving end of the saboteur unit to garrison behind the lines/interior and perhaps search for the unit.



GaryChildress -> RE: What direction would you like to see ATG go? (6/4/2015 8:33:01 PM)

Unless I'm mistaken (or maybe just haven't noticed), having an artillery unit adjacent to a regular combat unit confers no advantage in defense. Therefore I propose Artillery overwatch. If a friendly unit is in a hex, and you have a ranged artillery unit within range of that hex, you could set the artillery unit to "overwatch" on a prior turn in order to support the friendly unit if it is attacked. Setting the artillery unit to "overwatch" would of course cost APs so perhaps you could not both fire artillery in a turn and then set it on overwatch on the same turn as it fired.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5927734