RE: Call for random game ideas

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: Call for random game ideas

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: Call for random game ideas

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Call for random game ideas - 7/26/2008 12:07:46 AM

Ande

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/5/2007
From: G�teborg/Sweden
Status: offline

a feature that would add a lot of realism is traficjams, for each unit and the more supply that passes through a hex the greater is the cost for moving an additional unit through.
For this to work there would have to be several levels of road ranging from dirtroad to highway. This would probably be quite hard to do though

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 61

RE: Call for random game ideas - 9/10/2008 11:49:45 PM

lancer

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

Goodaye,

A simple idea for Random games. An option that allows you to use towns and cities as airfields (default) or, if selected, you can only use your capital and any airfields that you build.

This would require careful planning and mananagement of airfield bases as you gradually spread throughout the map. Of course there is no affect on the AI's ability to plonk down planes whereever.

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to Ande)

Post #: 62

RE: Call for random game ideas - 9/13/2008 11:52:23 AM

lancer

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

Goodaye,

Another suggestion that would enhance gameplay and probably (?) not involve a lot of programming effort would be to display a maximum range circle on the map (a-la-WITP) for air units when you click on them (or press some sort of hot key).

This would give you a good overview of the area covered by your air units. Of course you can always count the hexes at present but the range circle would be a lot quicker and more effective than methodically counting hexes in order to figure out can my divebombers attack this point.

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 63

RE: Call for random game ideas - 10/7/2008 6:53:00 AM

Magpius

Posts: 1632
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

I'd like to be able to run a random scenario on a pre-built map.

(in reply to lancer)

Post #: 64

RE: Call for random game ideas - 10/7/2008 10:05:52 AM

Vic

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

@Agent S,

thats an interesting one. i am adding it too the list.

(in reply to Magpius)

Post #: 65

RE: Call for random game ideas - 12/2/2008 4:44:12 PM

pzpat

Posts: 78
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: California
Status: offline

I'd like to see more levels for the troops. Four just don't seem to be enough. I mean it is when you're taken by surprise by the AI's Medium Tank III's attacking your Light Tank II's. But when my expensive Fighter III's are taking the same casualties as the AI's Fighter I's I want to advance them to a level where they can inflict significantly more damage and level 4 just isn't enough. I'd like to see an option where the player can improve his troops up to level 10 or 15 or so, with the corresponding escalation in cost. (I thought if I used such high numbers you might respond with a somewhat lower one.) Too often in many games you max out your most important troops at level 4 and you're not even halfway through the game. The idea is that you could never max out the troops during the war, that important research would be going on throughout the game, just as it did throughout WWII.
I'm not asking this to make certain troops invincible. This change would have the effect of making research an important part of the game for the whole game, not just the first half. This would have a greater application in the larger games where you have more PP to spend. That's why I think it better to make it a player option, like showing the hex grid. Just a thought.
Pat

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 66