Call for random game ideas

[rome87]

Would it be possible to add this feature to the Strategic Information Map ? (add colour to the squeres that repersent corps of a hq to show each HQ group to make it alot easier to see what corps belong to what Hq on the Strategic Information Map)

[Zocker2]

Hi,

wenn I start a new game i create 6 new units and send 1 staff in it.
In the 2 Round  I can move them an send Inf in it and the staff out. Thats sensles work to do that in every new game. I would like a option that all start with 6 (8?) units with1 (10?) inf in it!

Ad Astra
Rainer

[BULLDOGINTHEUK]

Poor old Vic.... He only asked about testing the nuclear option, lol [:-].

[ghoward]

In some of the wargames I have played it is possible to start a random game and save it as an editable scenario after a few turns have been played. I dont think this can be done in AT--once you START the scenario can no longer be edited. There are clearly some security reasons for this in AT PBEM games, but if it could be allowed for human-AI games it would allow the player-designer to test various parameter tweaks without having to restart at turn one each time and work his way back to the thing he didnt like. He could peek and see how many (sic:cargo ships) the AI is really building with that setting. It would also allow for the building of scenarios with fully populated armies where the AI had done most of the grunt work. Let the AI play itself for 20 turns and then take over.

[Vic]

@barerabbit,
 
i hear you. maybe in a next patch.
 
@all
 
The v1.17 has been improved upon in private beta. but there are so little private testers left that i decided to move it to public beta as v1.20. Especially the new advanced random games will require some feedback to finetune. I am not sure if i want to keep nukes in. some more feedback might be usefull.
 
Matrix is moving though so i dont know when they'll get their servers up again.
 
but i am sure it will be soon.
 
kind regards,
Vic

[Arditi]

  Vic,
  Why don't you continue to keep the nukes as an optional choice?  There is nothing lost through keeping it as an option, but not in the regular game.  I enjoy the nukes on occasion.
  Best Regards, Arditi[:)]

[Vic]

its still in there. but i want some more feedback. i am not quite sure. it feels like it should be nudged a bit. any good ideas will be welcome. we are still beta testing.. (if matrix gets around to uploading the thing )

[british exil]

Hi Vic
do you mean nukes as in atomic bombs?

If yes then would it be possible to load them into transporters to drop on the target?
Or do you mean nukes as in the rocket version? Inter contis etc.

Mat

[explorer2]

Vic-
Not sure if you're still considering new ideas, but let me add one more.
An option for simplified supply system, and one for simplified unit creation.
Reason:  When I first started on AT, I was sooooo frustrated I nearly gave up, and supply and unit creation were the main reasons.  I would not now use simplified option, but I think it would GREATLY help noobies to decrease the learning curve/frustration level, and thus add to sales.  I've had 2 friends I 've tried to get to use AT with me, and they both found it too difficult to learn and gave up.
 
How it would work:
Simplified Supply: units are either in supply or out of supply, based on if there's a clear line to their HQ, and HQ has clear line to production center.  No distance modifiers, no level of supply, no different amount consumed, etc...  (I like your system now much better, but it was difficult to learn)
 
Simplified Unit Production:  Create set units, not SFTypes, for the simplified, or beginner's version.  Armored division, infantry divisions, fighter wings, or whatever.
 
I believe both of these options would greatly ease learning AT and I believe increase our base of players.  Most would move on to the better, but more complicated and tedious, full rules, but I think it would make beginning far more enjoyable.
 

[Fintilgin]

While it might seem like a minor addition, I'd like a 'Real Nations' option, that would make your random opponents real countries instead of generic ones.  For me at least it's much more fun to fight France or the Germans then the 'Caliphate of Generica'.
 
You could even throw in non-WW2 countries.  A list like: USA, France, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, Poland, USSR, Japan, China, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, Ottomans, Confederacy, Greece, Australia, Canada, etc.
 
I already go in and change the names manually for random scenarios, but it's a bit of a pain.

[Magpius]

[:D] Agreed, I often enjoy an Australia vs New Zealand or Australia vs Indonesia random scenario.
-related question: How do you change the regime and town names list, that the random generator draws from?

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: Agent S

[:D] Agreed, I often enjoy an Australia vs New Zealand or Australia vs Indonesia random scenario.
-related question: How do you change the regime and town names list, that the random generator draws from?

you cant. but i am always making notes of interesting new ideas

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

While it might seem like a minor addition, I'd like a 'Real Nations' option, that would make your random opponents real countries instead of generic ones.  For me at least it's much more fun to fight France or the Germans then the 'Caliphate of Generica'.

You could even throw in non-WW2 countries.  A list like: USA, France, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, Poland, USSR, Japan, China, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, Ottomans, Confederacy, Greece, Australia, Canada, etc.

I already go in and change the names manually for random scenarios, but it's a bit of a pain.

I kind of like the random generated names, let the historical stuff reside in scenarios.

[R.E.LEE]

Vic i realy think we need the abilty for our enginers to build anti tank ditches/mines/obstacles etc.Also the ability to take prisoners that would go into a prisoner of war camp that our enginers can build.And every certain amount of prisoners would give pp or supply to the side that has them,the other side could also try to break them out to get them back[;)] well mabey that prsoner things abit much[:D]

[seille]

ORIGINAL: R.E.LEE

Vic i realy think we need the abilty for our enginers to build anti tank ditches/mines/obstacles etc.Also the ability to take prisoners that would go into a prisoner of war camp that our enginers can build.And every certain amount of prisoners would give pp or supply to the side that has them,the other side could also try to break them out to get them back[;)] well mabey that prsoner things abit much[:D]

You could do all this yourself using the editor in a creative way [;)]
When i asked Vic for a minefield first time in alpha testing he said that minefields
are parts of the fortifications the engineers can build. And i think this is ok.

If you still need them you can add such locations yourself.
I don´t want this to be standard in the game. Same for prisoners. How they should improve that game ?

[british exil]

If you still need them you can add such locations yourself.
I don´t want this to be standard in the game. Same for prisoners. How they should improve that game ?
[/quote]


Would be nice if an enemy division losing units either through KIA or POW would affect the morale of the other Divisions belonging to the same HQ.That the morale would affect the HQ in control, that they have to give of more supplies to bolster morale in their divisions/Army.
Of course only nice if it happens to the enemy.[:D]

How often did troops go AWOL/desert because of bad morale in their units?
Another way to simulate this would be by giving the divisions with low morale less AP.

I'm no computer ace so I've no idea how much time and effort goes into making such things happen.

Mat

[rhinobones]

Seems that your request for ideas was based primarily on things that might improve the option selection in the random game generator. Some ideas received apply to the random game, but it would seem that most ideas are directed toward the betterment of AD in the general case. Here are a few ideas that should apply mostly to the random game generator.

1. Make the player sequence random. Seems that the Cheyenne player should not have prior knowledge of when his turn will begin. Let the AI have a few first turns.

2. For the map generator give an option for “All Islands” so that no land mass has a side on the map boarder.

3. For #2 have an option for the minimum size of each inhabited island and the minimum number of cities and ports per inhabited island. There could be smaller islands, however, the small island would not be an enemy nation but could have neutral ports, cities and airfields.

4. Like cities, make an option for the numbers of ports and airfields during random map generation.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Grymme]

Hi
 
I cant se anything in the members area since the 1.16 patch on the 17th of may. Is the 1.20 patch really posted? If not, then when?

[Vic]

it is not posted yet i guess. sorry. matrix will do it as soon as they can.

[Arditi]

  Vic,
   How about an option where an AI side can be picked up by a Human player based on a vote taken, by all players, every ten turns.  I have a great scenario that I am working on.  I think this would solve my house rule intent.  Actually, I have to give credit where due.  I believe Tweber may have mentioned this.
  Regards, Arditi