An Advanced Tactics Series?

[Alan Sharif]

As I often see this title referred to as Advanced Tactics WW2 may we conclude there may be further titles in the future ie WW1, Napoleonic, Post WW2 etc?

[Vic]

I dont want to confirm anything right now
Maybe.
 
I am planning to support AT as good as i can however.
And i dont think i will be able to stop game design/programming.
 
kind regards,
Vic

[Alan Sharif]

Thanks for your reply Vic. Heres hoping there are more games in the future, not that this one wont keep us playing for years!! 

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Vic

I dont want to confirm anything right now
Maybe.

I am planning to support AT as good as i can however.
And i dont think i will be able to stop game design/programming.

kind regards,
Vic

That's good to hear. I know this is a fairly small market, but it sounds like you enjoy what doing it.

Please, consider looking at your next game having a smaller scale focus - i.e. small unit tactics with LOS (I know A whole other area of programming complexity), at the squad - platoon - company scale. With your talent and skill this would make for an nice combination on a game at that scale.

Rick

[Vic]

@rick,
 
yes i enjoy this very much
 
and next game i am going to keep secret for now. There is nothing as bad as saying you are going to do something and then not doing it
 
the v1.1 patch is however for now getting my full attention. That patch is aimed for Christmas.
 
kind regards,
Vic

[freeboy]

Well the game has the ability to do so much... future add ons will most likely be adjusting  or expanding those.... IMO, not I am just an observer and have no say so unoffically or officailly.
 
What would be nice is line of site for the smaller scales [&o]

[ravinhood]

I would like to see Advanced Tactics goto squad and/or platoon level of playing field. Where maps are comprised of large city areas and house to house and building to building fighting. Also rural areas ala Combat Mission Maps or Steel Panther W@W maps. I've just never been a big fan of operational type games. And the Combat Mission series doesn't allow for supply and medical features I'd like to see in squad or platoon level games. In fact I don't know of but one turn based single squad/platoon level game that does model in a supply feature and none (unless you count X-Com) that model in medical attending feature...anyone know of others? I can only think of one real time game that models in supply and that's Mad Minutes Civil War games. SPW@W is the one I seem to remember you could buy ammo supply trucks. Jest my 2cents of wehre I'd like to see AT go.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Vic

@rick,

yes i enjoy this very much

and next game i am going to keep secret for now. There is nothing as bad as saying you are going to do something and then not doing it

the v1.1 patch is however for now getting my full attention. That patch is aimed for Christmas.

kind regards,
Vic

Vic,

Whatever you decide, I can pretty much say I'll give it a go, just based on how much I've enjoyed AT. I pretty much treat game designers the way I treat authors, if I like the first game I play, I'll go for the next without much question. Besides, good work has to count for something doesn't it?

Rick

[PDiFolco]

I'm against any move towards "tactical" : AT is an excellent operational+ level game, but mechanisms are not adaptable to tac games with any degree of success : supply, chain of command, production, buildings things would be irrelevant. Sorry ravhinhood I really don't get your point about supply or medics in tac games, that'll be pure chrome.
Transforming AT in a tac game would result in a rather bad game, it won't be a bright move. It's really hard to compete with CM !
I won't ask say Volvo to make sports cars or Ferrari to build trucks, same here, so please keep AT as it is, polish and upgrade it - new units, better AI scripting, historical OOBs, maps..- there's really much to do ! [;)]

[Hertston]

I'd like to see a couple of 'official' scenario packs before any new game.  Or maybe 'stand-alone expansions'.

[lking]

Vic.i'd like to see offcial add-ons or expansions rather than a new game.AT is good enough at this scale.i think there are still many things to do such as historical oob and more consummate system and i very expect to see more official scens packs.

[Alan Sharif]

I too fail to see the need to 'go tactical'.

[IRONCROM]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

I'm against any move towards "tactical" : AT is an excellent operational+ level game, but mechanisms are not adaptable to tac games with any degree of success : supply, chain of command, production, buildings things would be irrelevant. Sorry ravhinhood I really don't get your point about supply or medics in tac games, that'll be pure chrome.
Transforming AT in a tac game would result in a rather bad game, it won't be a bright move. It's really hard to compete with CM !
I won't ask say Volvo to make sports cars or Ferrari to build trucks, same here, so please keep AT as it is, polish and upgrade it - new units, better AI scripting, historical OOBs, maps..- there's really much to do ! [;)]

I'm in total agreement here.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

I'm against any move towards "tactical" : AT is an excellent operational+ level game, but mechanisms are not adaptable to tac games with any degree of success : supply, chain of command, production, buildings things would be irrelevant. Sorry ravhinhood I really don't get your point about supply or medics in tac games, that'll be pure chrome.
Transforming AT in a tac game would result in a rather bad game, it won't be a bright move. It's really hard to compete with CM !
I won't ask say Volvo to make sports cars or Ferrari to build trucks, same here, so please keep AT as it is, polish and upgrade it - new units, better AI scripting, historical OOBs, maps..- there's really much to do ! [;)]

I'm in total agreement here.

I'm not sure but I think some folks are mis-intrepting my remarks. I'm not suggesting AT move tword the tactical. I'm only suggesting that Vic consider turning his talent to making a Tactical game.

I'm sure ( at least I hope) that AT won't be the last game Vic writes, and while I really like having a guy willing to keep upgrading his work, at some point he will want to release another game that may produce some additional income.

And to be honest, I'd like him to have as much income from his games as possble. He'll be more motivated to spend time working on them, and less distracted by the need to make money through some other pursuit.

Rick

[ShadowB]

What AT needs is to go modern! Imagine a series of Red Storm Rising-like scenarios, Middle Eastern conflicts or war with China (hell, any place in the globe)! It'd be a remarkable change, but not too difficult as any modder with enough determination would be able to pull it off.

Anyway, something like Advanced Tactics: Modern Warfare would simply rock. [:D]

[serg3d1]

AT-like engine is not well suited for modern war. AT is perfect for supply-dominated XXc wars. Real modern wars with emphasis on air superiority, air supply, air mobility, guerilla warfare, very strict rules of engagement and low tolerance of collateral damage wouldn't fit into AT engine well. Even if we are talking about WWIII, modern or alternative history Warshaw pact vs NATO, it doesn't look like it would have been a long war defined by logistic. For modern wars tactical games are more interested than operational IMHO.

[ShadowB]

I don't see how those concepts rule the AT engine out. The missing features could be implemented. Modern wars are still supply-dominated, and perhaps even more so than conflicts 50-70 years ago. If a WW3 in Europe would've been short, logistically, it'd be because battles were far more intense and supply-demanding than in WW2 (such is the case in Red Storm Rising).

- The low tolerance to collateral damage deal isn't much of an issue as AT doesn't need to deal with collateral damage at all.

- As for very strict rules of engagement, well, AT doesn't need to deal with that either, and rules of engagement haven't changed much in general. Except for these conflicts the US seems to be getting into against considerably less powerful countries, where every civilian could suddenly become a hostile. But that's a very localized thing, and AT always depicts roughly even-sized powers.

- Guerrilla warfare is important but not completely necessary (again, AT depicts roughly even-sized powers).

- As for the air concepts, AT already puts quite a bit of emphasis into air (and naval) superiority, air supply is possible (could be modified to be more efficient in modern scenarios), and air mobility (if you mean thorough use of helicopters) could be implemented without too much trouble.

On the whole, it wouldn't be too much of an undertaking task, considering AT isn't one of the most complex wargames around. It'd mean modifying most units (Dive Bomber -> CAS, for instance), removing a couple (like anti-tank and infantry guns, for example), adding a few (especially helicopters) and implementing a number of features. Oh, and of course, new graphics for units and many counters (unless you use the NATO symbols).

[ShadowB]

(Delete this)

[Alan Sharif]

I must confess I prefer games based on 'history' rather than Warsaw-Nato Pact stuff so am most likely biased but I would rather see a title on pre WW2 before post WW2 or failing that would like to see many historical scenarios (Arab Israeli, Korea etc)  to interest me.

[tweber]

- The low tolerance to collateral damage deal isn't much of an issue as AT doesn't need to deal with collateral damage at all.

- As for very strict rules of engagement, well, AT doesn't need to deal with that either, and rules of engagement haven't changed much in general. Except for these conflicts the US seems to be getting into against considerably less powerful countries, where every civilian could suddenly become a hostile. But that's a very localized thing, and AT always depicts roughly even-sized powers.

- Guerrilla warfare is important but not completely necessary (again, AT depicts roughly even-sized powers).

- As for the air concepts, AT already puts quite a bit of emphasis into air (and naval) superiority, air supply is possible (could be modified to be more efficient in modern scenarios), and air mobility (if you mean thorough use of helicopters) could be implemented without too much trouble.

I personally prefer more strategic scenarios so I am less interested in post - WW2 conflicts. However, I think there are a bunch of ways to model these things

- Collateral damage - Give urban areas more entrenchment so units will take less damage. Instead of being dug in, there is less fire directed their way.
- Strict ROE - lower initiative of units
- Guerillas - I have used different methods to simulate partisans in the Russia and Europe scenarios that might work here.
- Helos - Make so new SFtypes and locations (e.g., the LV) and I think you can model reasonably well.