Wish List

[SMK-at-work]

the ability to lock unit composition would be nice....so a division stays a division rather than having the ability to grow and shrink to anything from a company to an army corps!!
 
Link this to the ability to buy only pre-defined units, so all units in a particular scenario are essentially forced to maintain thse compositions.  Allow composition change by expenditure of a relatively small number of PP's....maybe 2-3 or so to change the composition of any 1 unit type.

[rickier65]

This would be an excellent feature, I'm not sure how you would do it, but being able to lock the units so that they remained "historical" would really be a great feature.

Thanks
Rick

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

the ability to lock unit composition would be nice....so a division stays a division rather than having the ability to grow and shrink to anything from a company to an army corps!!

Link this to the ability to buy only pre-defined units, so all units in a particular scenario are essentially forced to maintain thse compositions.  Allow composition change by expenditure of a relatively small number of PP's....maybe 2-3 or so to change the composition of any 1 unit type.

I agree.

[SlowHand]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
--- snip --
Link this to the ability to buy only pre-defined units, so all units in a particular scenario are essentially forced to maintain these compositions.  Allow composition change by expenditure of a relatively small number of PP's....maybe 2-3 or so to change the composition of any 1 unit type.

I 3rd or 4th this idea !!! That would be a great option to have in the scenario editor for future scenarios.

[Westheim]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

the ability to lock unit composition would be nice....so a division stays a division rather than having the ability to grow and shrink to anything from a company to an army corps!!

Link this to the ability to buy only pre-defined units, so all units in a particular scenario are essentially forced to maintain thse compositions.  Allow composition change by expenditure of a relatively small number of PP's....maybe 2-3 or so to change the composition of any 1 unit type.

Disagreeing, heavily. Just why do feel some people the crazy need to limit the possibilities of the game again and again? [8|]

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: Westheim


Disagreeing, heavily. Just why do feel some people the crazy need to limit the possibilities of the game again and again? [8|]

Maybe we don't have the same game...[:(]....I purchased AT. It happens to have a very very powerful editor...this particular option would not "limit the possibilities of the game." Giving something more optional features does not "limit" something. It would however make some scenarios possible to design with more accuracy and historical flavor. Some people might like that, or they might not. The point is, however, that if this were an "option" (look up this word if you are unsure of its meaning), you would have the "option" not to play scenarios designed by the community. I do not mean to be glib but it strikes me that some people can make comments like this when they have probably not taken a good look at the games strongest features, such as the editor.

I hope I am not putting words into SMK's mouth, but it is my understanding he wants to see this as something available in the editor. Thus it would only affect scenarios designed with it in mind, not the stock versions.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: Westheim

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Why do some people hate improvements?

They're not improvements when they change the game into some other game it's not meant to be.

Those ... are NOT improvements ...[:-]

This one was from earlier and it bugged so since I already threw my hat into the ring I am going to mention it...sigh, I know I am going to regret this...

@Westheim, what exactly is AT "meant to be?"

sure, I know, sequel to PT but according to Matrix, the second item listed under game features is:

A Wargame Construction Kit-like editor allowing you to make any wargame scenario you like.

So I ask you, how are some of these suggestions (many of which would be optional) preventing a designer/player from accomplishing a stated feature such as "allowing you to make any wargame scenario you like?"

[JaguarUSF]

1. The ability to import unit settings from scenario files without a master file for random games.
2. See #1.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: SlowHand

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
--- snip --
Link this to the ability to buy only pre-defined units, so all units in a particular scenario are essentially forced to maintain these compositions.  Allow composition change by expenditure of a relatively small number of PP's....maybe 2-3 or so to change the composition of any 1 unit type.

I 3rd or 4th this idea !!! That would be a great option to have in the scenario editor for future scenarios.

I fifth it [:D] !

How could it work ? We need something to be able to define named units "shells" (ie "Armored Div", "Arty Regt"), indicate the wanted composition (ie 3xLt Tanks, 5xInf, 2xMG and 2xTrucks, regardless of tech levels), store them somewhere, then to call them back to create real units that'll be automatically filled with available assets in HQ.

That's some work, but I'd like it ! [;)]

[Max 86]

ORIGINAL: wolflars

ORIGINAL: Westheim


Disagreeing, heavily. Just why do feel some people the crazy need to limit the possibilities of the game again and again? [8|]

Maybe we don't have the same game...[:(]....I purchased AT. It happens to have a very very powerful editor...this particular option would not "limit the possibilities of the game." Giving something more optional features does not "limit" something. It would however make some scenarios possible to design with more accuracy and historical flavor. Some people might like that, or they might not. The point is, however, that if this were an "option" (look up this word if you are unsure of its meaning), you would have the "option" not to play scenarios designed by the community. I do not mean to be glib but it strikes me that some people can make comments like this when they have probably not taken a good look at the games strongest features, such as the editor.

I hope I am not putting words into SMK's mouth, but it is my understanding he wants to see this as something available in the editor. Thus it would only affect scenarios designed with it in mind, not the stock versions.

It depends what you are using the game for. Having pre-defined units makes great sense if you are playing a historically based scenario but for the random games it is not necessary. There is no reason to limit the player's OOB/TO&E choices and I find this flexibility one of the game'sbest features.

Making it an option would be the best situation as long as it included the ability for the player to define what the units consist of and not pre-determined like in CS. If the player can adjust the armor/infantry/arty mix of a "Armored Division" then that would be ideal.

[Vic]

Actually i tried to do this fixed units approach somewhere between alpha and beta, but i removed it again since the only thing it did was basicly adding an extra layer of administration on top of the game.
 
Maybe my next game will be unit based though.
 

[PDiFolco]

Vic,
You're right from the developper's PoV (obviously) [;)], but from a player's perspective it's easier to manage a few "unit cadres" in this additional layer and duplicate them at will than having to manage individually all units composition...

[JaguarUSF]

Oh, and team randomized games was my other desire. 2v2!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Westheim

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

the ability to lock unit composition would be nice....so a division stays a division rather than having the ability to grow and shrink to anything from a company to an army corps!!

Link this to the ability to buy only pre-defined units, so all units in a particular scenario are essentially forced to maintain thse compositions.  Allow composition change by expenditure of a relatively small number of PP's....maybe 2-3 or so to change the composition of any 1 unit type.

Disagreeing, heavily. Just why do feel some people the crazy need to limit the possibilities of the game again and again? [8|]

this option would allow a game designer to design a scenario in a way that is not possible now - how does that limit anything? It's not compulsory - it's an option - an additional feature - it expands the game!!

AT is a game design tool, so the more possibilities that it has available for scenario design the better IMO.

[Xenomath]

Here is my wish for additional combat options:
- I would like to be able to tell specific front line sub formations to stay in the rear and not to attack to save them for later. This would be useful with scouts in a tank formation or machine guns on attack.
- I would like to be able to tell a unit to withdraw so I have some AP left, especially for artillery formations: move - fire - move back

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Xenomath

Here is my wish for additional combat options:
- I would like to be able to tell specific front line sub formations to stay in the rear and not to attack to save them for later. This would be useful with scouts in a tank formation or machine guns on attack.
- I would like to be able to tell a unit to withdraw so I have some AP left, especially for artillery formations: move - fire - move back

could you do the last one by adjusting the retreat %?

Rick

[SlowHand]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Xenomath
--- snip ---
- I would like to be able to tell specific front line sub formations to stay in the rear and not to attack to save them for later. This would be useful scouts in a tank formation or machine guns on attack.
- I would like to be able to tell a unit to withdraw so I have some AP left, especially for artillery formations: move - fire - move back

could you do the last one by adjusting the retreat %?

Rick

In part, but any unit so ordered would suffer tough retreat penalties to Readiness and Morale. But Xeno's point (and just about all his points have been very good) about being able to retain APs (Action Points) so Arty can "shoot and scoot" would be a an extremely good tweak.

I also agree that being able to toggle certain unit types to "Frontline" or "Behind Front" depending on your End-of-Turn situation would be very useful ... a chance to preserve certain Unit Types for their optimal role in the event that their Parent Unit gets mauled during your opponent's turn.

But again, only if it's feasible for Victor. Maybe something for AT2?

[SMK-at-work]

An option to choose historical names & graphics for regimes in random games would be nice....sure we can edit them....but it's a bit of a hassle!

[tweber]

It depends what you are using the game for. Having pre-defined units makes great sense if you are playing a historically based scenario but for the random games it is not necessary. There is no reason to limit the player's OOB/TO&E choices and I find this flexibility one of the game'sbest features.

Making it an option would be the best situation as long as it included the ability for the player to define what the units consist of and not pre-determined like in CS. If the player can adjust the armor/infantry/arty mix of a "Armored Division" then that would be ideal.

I think this could be done with the current editor. Let's say you define an armored unit at 2 tanks and 10 infantry. Make a new sftype that move like a tank, costs more, weighs more, inflicts and takes more damage, and fights like a blend.

[SMK-at-work]

yes but it's a poor solution - you can't "weaken" it by killing off some sub-units, nor could you change the internal composition at some stage.