ATG v2.12 Beta Questions and Issue Reports

[Tac2i]

Thought it would be good to collect these in one location.

Condition: Playing dwnNATO.at2 (based on anewdawn.at2) with Higher Prod Cost option

1) Gained an action card for one of my HQs. When I create a new unit and attempt to assign it to that HQ a popup tells me doing so will cost me that card. Correct behavior?

[Tac2i]

2) Officer experience question: my Supreme HQ and one other subordinate HQ are not on the front line commanding combat units. Will they not gain any experience because of this?

[rich12545]

Question: Is the Generic.at2 a new one with changes? I ask because it has the old date but why include it if it isn't new.

[ernieschwitz]

No rich12545 its anewdawn.at2 i believe that is the file you are looking for...

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Question: Is the Generic.at2 a new one with changes? I ask because it has the old date but why include it if it isn't new.

Its included because the patch is applicable to any ATG version v2.00-v2.11.

best,
Vic

[Vic]

@Roy & @All

The losing of handcards (not of deckcards however) is intended because it doesnt allow gamey tactic of switching a unit between lots of commanders and playing a card each on them.

Empty units however cannot be abused this way. I think this could indeed be changed.

Also i think the player should have the option to buy a HQ without leader for the orignal 5pp.

As for higher HQs not getting experience... well their staff does not gain experience either right? But i see your point. I think for the next patch i'll have to add some special cards/feats that are of a more high command/logistics nature that give their own experience when played. This way you could promote an officer which shows apptitude for high command in the frontline to a high command position.

Furthermore i noticed i cannot see the stats of the officers in the officerpool. This should be fixed. Maybe also an option to just recall the officer without exactly replacing him.

Thanks for the feedback so far!

best,
Vic

[mgaffn1]

Is it possible to move leaders from 1 HQ to a different HQ? (I have tried, but can't figure out how to do this)
thanks,

[Tac2i]

Officer Level Upgrade Speed

This officer, leading an army involved in combat for each of the past six turns, has gained 6 levels in those six turns. Is this the expected speed of level gains?

Update: As I've continued to play this random game I've noted that the level gains begin to slow down as they cost increasing more experience to get to the next level.

Minor editorial: "Bernard Fischer was recruited..." vice "Bernard Fischer has been recruited..."

[Meanfcker]

I see that I posted in the wrong thread this morning, my bad.
Thanks for giving our thoughts your consideration.
With the officer upgrade being made an optional purchase there will be a minimum of disruption for the "luddites" who will not likely embrace the change.
If that were done and the ability to reinforce a combat command that you and Web were discussing, it will be absolutely AWESOME!
I agree with Josh...[&o][&o][&o]
Just when I thought this game couldn't get any better... wow.
Great work Vic.
Meanie

[RockKahn]

I agree with the suggestion of keeping the purchase of HQs and purchase of leaders for existing HQs separate. Leave the cost of purchasing of HQs without leaders at 5 pps. I think the cost of leaders should be fairly expensive. Great leaders should be fairly costly to keep them a rare commodity on the battlefield. If leaders are rare, thinking about where leaders will best be used, will be part of planning strategies.

That way, if a leader gets killed, a player can purchase a replacement leader for that HQ.

I was originally thinking maybe, when purchasing an HQ, a leader being included would be random, but I like the above suggestion of purchasing leaders for HQs better.

Edit: Oh! And great job Vic. This already great game just keeps getting better and better.

[rich12545]

ORIGINAL: Vic

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Question: Is the Generic.at2 a new one with changes? I ask because it has the old date but why include it if it isn't new.

Its included because the patch is applicable to any ATG version v2.00-v2.11.

best,
Vic

Thanks, I get it now. I don't need to make the same changes to a new generic at2 file but I will to the other when the release patch comes out. Very good keeping them separate.

[Tac2i]

Hope we can get a hotfix for the issue I reported in the first post of this thread. That popup about losing a card when trying to create a new unit has become somewhat bothersome as you get cards rather frequently if the HQ is leading troops in constant combat. If you are not ready to use the card, you have to lose it, especially early in the game when you are creating lots of new units.

[mgaffn1]

After a weekend of playing with version 2.12, here are some observations:

1. ditto Webizens observations about leaders being promoted extremely fast. My leader was basically levelling up every turn. Seems too fast.

2. saw the message about leaders losing an event card when assigning a new unit to that leader, however when I did assign the new unit, the event card was not taken away, it was just made inactive, with the percentage activation appearing on screen again. Several turns later, after more experience, the card was active again. This MAY be an ok feature, simulating the organizational challenges of expanding a leaders command.... don't know, I'm on the fench for this one.

3. I have found that playing a leader card causes almost certain death to your leader. In one case I experimented and found that out of 9 tries, 7 times the leader was killed, 1 time he was wounded, and only one time did he live to play the card. While have some degree of danger in playing these cards makes it fun, the current odds are stacked way too high in favor of killing the leader.

4. Unable to shift leaders from one HQ to another, or place leaders back into the leaders pool. This would be a fun feature, enabling you to move skilled generals to the most active areas of your front, and assign lesser skilled generals to support roles.

Altogether, having leaders has added more depth and playability to the game - after some fine tuning, this will be an excellent addition.

[mgaffn1]

One more thing regarding Webizens NATO counters:
I rather like having all those buttons at the start screen, even if they cover up some of the artwork (& I'm an art/graphics person [:D] ). All those buttons show how many choices & variations of the game are available to play, & that is one of ATGs greatest strengths. I also appreciate the fact that they look consistent with the rest of the buttons on the screen.

[Tac2i]

Re leader mortality: the four or five times that I've played a card the leader was killed only once. I also noted that some cards are more dangerous to play than others.

[lancer]

Hi,

The Officers are a nice addition and appear to work well. Excellent artwork. Some feedback...

1. I'd agree that experience gain is awfully fast

2. I'd also agree that having the option to build a normal, non-officer HQ for 5 PP, as before, would be useful.

3. It'd be helpful if some information was forthcoming with regards to Max. Staff as it's an obtuse black box at present.

4. The Officer Pool is great but you are unable to see the stats of the new officers which makes any swap a wild guess.

5. The icon for accessing the Officer Pool could perhaps be made more obvious.

6. Perhaps it could be coded that the very first, default, officer that you get assigned to your supreme HQ could have a high Mx. Staff value instead of, what appears to be the usual, '25' value.

Other than the above, it's looking good.

---

And here's a suggestion, just 'cause it's Tuesday.

On the artwork for the officers (their pictures), you could plonk a small gold star down in a top corner. This wouldn't be for all Officers, only some (say 1 in 5), and would signify that they have been to 'Higher Command Staff College', or similiar.

The practical upshot of this is that only Staff Trained, gold starred, officers can command HQ's that have subordinate HQ's under them. You could easily (I think) code in a check for this when the player assigns his HQ to another - does it have an officer with a star? Nope? Can't be done.

The game effect of this would be a simple, but effective chain of command. Staff trained, gold starred, officers could benefit from your proposed 'logistical, command' action cards. They would also be valuable officers that you probably wouldn't want to risk in a front line command.

A secondary effect would be that you might be forced to put a less than optimum officer candidate in charge of a higher level HQ by virtue of the fact that he is the only staff trained one available. Kind of like real life when Colonel Outstanding can't get the job 'cause Colonel Blimp has seniority.

The first, default, assigned officer would have to be a gold starred one as he is in command of your SHQ. Any bog standard 5 PP HQ's without an officer would also be unable to act as higher HQ's which sounds about right.


Cheers,
Lancer

[lancer]

Hi Vic,

Some more feedback.

I had a look at your code, which didn't reveal much as it's mainly 'black box', but I saw how you've done the promotions/levelling up for the Officers. You've used a logarithimic scale (roughly) which is reasonable, it just appears unreasonable because of the rapid, early promotions.

I'm revising my earlier opinion and I'd say stick with what you've got but, perhaps, throw in some explanation of how it works - maybe a blog page - as this might clear up a lot of misunderstanding.

I've noticed that some of the early officers I got (for the Arabs) had Mx. Staff values of '250' instead of, what I assume, to be the default '25'. Couldn't tell whether this is WAD or a bug as that part of your code isn't on public display.

The cards and the associated risk/reward mechanism are a nice touch. An area that might also benefit from a brief explanation of the underlying mechanics.

The escalating PP costs for the Officers is interesting. I think that you've got two different target audiences with divergent requirements. For the single player vs. AI crowd anything that acts as a PP soak is a major plus as once you start steamrolling the AI you end up with an over abundance of PP's. All those captured cities...

However the Competitive MP group of players have more robust opponents and a subsequent need for as many PP's as they can lay their hands on. While they can still run, sadly, nobody likes to run slower.

By allowing the player to select the standard 5 PP non-officer HQ as an alternative to an Officer HQ you might cover both groups.

Which raises a few other issues. If you went down that route I'd be inclined to hobble the 5 PP HQ with a couple of limitations to prevent players from gaming the system. Maybe you could restrict the number of staff in a 5 PP standard HQ to the default 25. Can't be changed unless you throw an officer in there.

Or, to keep with your current system, provide a 'non-descript' officer (with a blank portrait) who doesn't level and has no bonuses.

Additionally you could prevent standard 5 PP HQ's from having subordinate HQ's unless they had an officer (simplifying my suggestion in the previous post).

This might avoid the imbalance between cheap, standard HQ's and Officer HQ's which incur a variable cost (depending on how many you have).

I'd better point out that nobody has elected me to speak on their behalf and that these are my opinions only. My dog loves me.

Cheers,
Lancer

[Jafele]

I miss a bit of personality for initial officers. All of them have +25% morale/+25% combat. Why not make these numbers random? ie +40% morale/+10% combat (a charismatic leader); +15% morale/+35% combat (a tactical leader), and so on. Of course having all of them a maximun bonus of +50%. Not all officers are the same. This simple rule increases the human touch for these units.

[Josh]

d/l the beta patch today with the officers [&o] a worthy improvement of an already great game.

I too have the same question as Lancer... how much Staff can an officer have? There are two numbers at present... it says 25 for a new recruited officer... but it also says 250... so what is it? 25 Staff would mean a small force, 250 Staff would mean (with 100% Staff) a fairly large combat group... a bit puzzled here.

/edit

I just created a third HQ and this time the officers info box says "max staff 250" which is the same info as the mouse over says, 250 Staff points... so that's different from the first two HQ's I produced?

/2 edit

And now it's back to 25 max Staff points for the same HQ, so it changed back from 250 to 25?

[Meanfcker]

Which raises a few other issues. If you went down that route I'd be inclined to hobble the 5 PP HQ with a couple of limitations to prevent players from gaming the system. Maybe you could restrict the number of staff in a 5 PP standard HQ to the default 25. Can't be changed unless you throw an officer in there.

Right now with no fancy HQ the game is very fun to play. Please do not put any restrictions on HQs
The game is very flexible and does not need restrictions of any sort. The new officer thingy should be an option, like buying Heavy Artillery. There should not be a negative stygma or penalty if you will, for deciding that the purchase is not worth the cost in a particular situation. In one of my 2v2 games we are just starting, on the first turn, we were unable to purchase even a single low level tech becasuse of the stultifying expense of the new officers.
I am just amazed at all of the posts suggesting some changes that will slow the game down. It is already pretty slow as far as games go.
I am part of the core of hardcore multiplayer gamers that regularly engage in big team games. We always comment that is it so much fun that it should be illegal.
I guess you guys are acting the part of the kill-joy bureaucrat and trying to regulate all the fun out of it.
Vic, please leave the standard HQ at 5pps with no penalties and no restrictions. The new officers will get used, and to their full potential in our games, if I am not mistaken. If they are worth the cost, it will show up pretty quickly as we all run our economies at the red line and there is no way they will continue to be used if they don't really perform as advertised. If they turn out to be too expensive for general use, the there should not be any negative styma attached to that decision.
The game is real fun right now, please don't be talked into any changes that will tend to slow things down any more.
Meanie.