Editor ideas

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

While much of the editor code is done (No, I don't know what release yet ), I still have a lot of flexibility with the feature set so here is your chance to chime in.

Tell me some things you like to see the editor do.

[Jimmer]

Limit the time span of the game.
Force certain wars
Prevent certain wars
Create or delete leaders
Allow leader stats to be changed
Change movement rate of fleets
Make winter more troublesome in some places (i.e. have two winter lines rather than one; in the second, war is nearly impossible.)
Change the trade value of ports
Change starting troop counts
Change the prices of units
Change starting PSD position.
Add a "multiple winners" feature: Game adds in the manpower of each nation to their VP total. All nations whose total now exceeds their goal are also winners.
Allow GB to do anti-piracy on behalf of another nation (or, two nations that share a common coastline not too far apart, like Russia and Prussia).
Change the amount of "damage" done by pirates.
Change the ratios at which anti-piracy works, and the amounts thereof.
Allow pirates to return some of their loot to the sponsoring nation.
Add "bridges" (some rivers which can be crossed without the penalty), as a purchasable item.
If "bridges" are added, perhaps the game might start with some already in existence (for instance, across the Thames north/south).
Change morale rates
Create superstates

[dodod]

I think it would be absolutely vital to have adjustments to dominance as part of the editor...to allow for parameters to allow dominance or fall from dominance so that longer campaigns can be formed.
 
Also, kingdoms and corp morale and strengths should be alterable for minors, kingdoms, and major powers.
 
Time to build ships should also be alterable or cost for each major/minor power to produce units as well.

[Killerduck]

Edit any and all forces on the map.
Edit money in treasury.
Edit leaders available, including adding new leaders.
Edit date of the game.
Create new units, including guerillas for all countries.

A fine editor is number 1 on my wishlist.

[Adraeth]

To edit everything should be awesome.

My ideas:

Edit countries boundaries
Edit minor alliances (control-free state)
Edit minor attitudes (Saxony more prone to Austria? or Russia?... and so on)
Edit leaders (so i can make Turenne, Eugene de Savoy etc...)
Edit political status (dominant etc..) starting positions
Edit time length of a game (from 1 year to X years)
Edit treasury
Edit starting diplomacy alliances
Edit AI priorites targets (if it is possible, so Russia will focus on Balkans and Scandinavia or if i want only on Germany... and so on)

For now those above [:)]

[alaric318]

indeed for me it is about the order of battle, so, i will break a lance about the ability to edit "corps composition", in example, guards and artillery available for all corps, so onwards for cavalry increased in all nations, it leads to more freedom on making scenarios, sure that it is not in the original, but i say, please, for what not take advantage and enhance, as an option, the computer version with the computer capabilities?
 
added in, the ability to change/mod the national morale attributes will be good as the ability to mod the available corps and, as said, his composition.
 
thanks for read,
 
with best regards,
 
murat30.

[Marshall Ellis]

Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both?
 
 

[Killerduck]

Allow everything.

We all want Lannes (241D, imho) and my FtF group plays with LaSalle (French cossack unit with morale 5).

Currently I am playing a 1788 campaign as Russia and I really like Suvarov (454B*), even though he'll be sacked come 1800.

Editor is a nice temporary answer to a lot of problems and is absolutely needed for this game to reach it's (very high) potential.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


Add "bridges" (some rivers which can be crossed without the penalty), as a purchasable item.
If "bridges" are added, perhaps the game might start with some already in existence (for instance, across the Thames north/south).

Laugh
Good one Jimmer, there are bridges in the game already. It just not as easy to cross those when you march into enemies on the other side.
Thats why the movement slows down.
Thats why no extra movecost when no enemies on the other side, since then it wont slow you down.

Regards
Bresh

[Adraeth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both?

Both is better, but if not possible i would prefer to create my own, for in this case i should modify existing ones or create new ones.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Adraeth Montecuccoli

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both?

Both is better, but if not possible i would prefer to create my own, for in this case i should modify existing ones or create new ones.

It would be best if we can edit & create leaders/corps/fleets in the editor.

I could foresee maybe one problem regarding Nelson and Nappy, since they affect pp gain/loss to ?

Regards
Bresh

[Grapeshot Bob]

Give the person editing the chance to buff up the AI. Add a feature that gives each country a "forced" set of objectives or alliances. Or perhaps a "forced" set of 1 - 4 objectives. The country could pick one at random to spice things up.
 
 
GSB
 

[Adraeth]

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

Give the person editing the chance to buff up the AI. Add a feature that gives each country a "forced" set of objectives or alliances. Or perhaps a "forced" set of 1 - 4 objectives. The country could pick one at random to spice things up.


GSB

Really interesting feature, it is quite what i intended in my first editor's wishes [;)]

[Grognot]

It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al).

If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files.  This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked.   Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Grognot

It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al).

If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files.  This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked.   Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked.

A host-editor would also be nice for ongoing pbm games, if some bugs affect gameplay.

If host could edit corps minors, locations factors etc (while those changes show in gamelog).
This could help us pbm-gamers to keep playing past some bugs Like disapearing/teleported units(garrisons and so on) to name a few,(offcourse we pre fer a propper fix), but this way we wont have to accept bugs in ongoing games, that would make us have to restart. 1815 seems so far away sometimes

But I agree, testing sometimes takes forever to recreate a situation.

Kind Regards
Bresh

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: Grognot

It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al).

If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files.  This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked.   Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked.

A host-editor would also be nice for ongoing pbm games, if some bugs affect gameplay.

If host could edit corps minors, locations factors etc (while those changes show in gamelog).
This could help us pbm-gamers to keep playing past some bugs Like disapearing/teleported units(garrisons and so on) to name a few,(offcourse we pre fer a propper fix), but this way we wont have to accept bugs in ongoing games, that would make us have to restart. 1815 seems so far away sometimes

But I agree, testing sometimes takes forever to recreate a situation.

Kind Regards
Bresh

oooooh.....i really like this one......maybe not even for host (might cheat) but for an arbitrator or referee type.....

[dodod]

I hope the editor is not too far off...because at least it would enable people to comfort themselves in regards to some of the other inadequacies in the game...
 
I suggest a editor for new games and host-editor for ongoing games is a must.
 
In regards to options for the editor...
 
years played
leaders and leader stat changes
if kingdoms can't be changed, at least create all the kingdoms in the original game
set up stats, corp size editing
limitations on number of stacked corp option
fleet production time, movement limit,
unit costs (able to change for each major power), and unit morale changes
I still think dominance gain/loss is critical with morale changes, etc.
VP alterations for major powers
capacity to give kingdoms leaders
enable guards for all majors (including spain) for other older campaigns.
Corp composition changes (russia with mixed cav/infantry corp)
initial alliance/war status
allowing insurrection corp for any country (with variable counters)
movement during phase determined by dominance issue.
variability in different kingdom formations
 
that should be good for a start...so when do we get all this, next week? lol.
 
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: Grognot

It might accelerate bug-testing if you release a basic editor at least to beta-testers, that lets them set up game state (force dispositions, economy, et al) even without any extras that would presumably require additional engine support (like scripted events or objectives, modified OOBs, rules alterations et al).

If one runs into a nasty issue during a PBEM game, being able to replicate the plausibly relevant area in a single-player edited scenario may be more convenient than asking forbearance from other players to deviate, test, and return to backup files.  This probably wouldn't help with particularly nasty issues like any data corruption due to writing bits in the wrong places, but outright rules violations due to improperly handled edge cases or other omissions might be more readily checked.   Some of the players might have pretty weird minds that will consider what might otherwise have been overlooked.

A host-editor would also be nice for ongoing pbm games, if some bugs affect gameplay.

If host could edit corps minors, locations factors etc (while those changes show in gamelog).
This could help us pbm-gamers to keep playing past some bugs Like disapearing/teleported units(garrisons and so on) to name a few,(offcourse we pre fer a propper fix), but this way we wont have to accept bugs in ongoing games, that would make us have to restart. 1815 seems so far away sometimes

But I agree, testing sometimes takes forever to recreate a situation.

Kind Regards
Bresh

oooooh.....i really like this one......maybe not even for host (might cheat) but for an arbitrator or referee type.....

If all changes are shown in game log, i think host can do it fine.
Like
H>Egypt turned GB-free state.
H>15 Garrisons arrived in Cairo,
H>A Egypt corps with 4 Cav arrived at Alexeandria etc.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hmmmm? Everybody wants more leaders. Should we allow you to create your own OR just expand our list OR maybe both?

I, for one, want to try to recreate the campaign that The General magazine came out with about 10 years after the game itself. I forget the name, but it was essentially 1792-1802, in the spirit of the grand campaign. France wasn't dominant, Nappy doesn't show up until 1796 (and is a 5.5.3 leader at that point), the Russians had Suvorov (sp?), a 4.5.4 cavalry leader, etc.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: bresh

Laugh
Good one Jimmer, there are bridges in the game already. It just not as easy to cross those when you march into enemies on the other side.
Thats why the movement slows down.
Thats why no extra movecost when no enemies on the other side, since then it wont slow you down.

Regards
Bresh

It may have been funny to you, but I was serioius. Of course there are bridges. I'm talking about BIG bridges, capable of running an entire army across, even WITH enemies on the other side. Or, one could think of them as a part of the river where there are numerous small bridges, such that one can cross without taking the penalty.