ATG: Wishlist thread

[Meanfcker]

Quite often when a suggestion is made to change the game (for better or worse), it is pointed out how easy it is to do it in the editor.
First thing wrong with that, is I like to spend my game time gaming not learning how to edit the game, but that is just me.
More importantly though, we play a lot of team games, and prefer to play a stock game that everyone understands and is familiar with.
It is not fair to open the editor, it gives such god like powers for the guy who starts the game.

I would like to see much wider use of techs, I wish the map generator wouldn't make isolated cities, and I would like a new cadillac, it doesn't mean that any of it is going to happen. They are just ideas and wishes, that's all.
Meanie.

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

Quite often when a suggestion is made to change the game (for better or worse), it is pointed out how easy it is to do it in the editor.
First thing wrong with that, is I like to spend my game time gaming not learning how to edit the game, but that is just me.
More importantly though, we play a lot of team games, and prefer to play a stock game that everyone understands and is familiar with.
It is not fair to open the editor, it gives such god like powers for the guy who starts the game.

I would like to see much wider use of techs, I wish the map generator wouldn't make isolated cities, and I would like a new cadillac, it doesn't mean that any of it is going to happen. They are just ideas and wishes, that's all.
Meanie.

So sorry, was just trying to help.

[Tac2i]

Agreed... the editor is very powerful and if someone wants to modify the game for play vs AI that is all well and good. It is a different matter for a human vs human game. Any changes here must be well understood by all players and kept to as few as possible. Normally it is best to use the stock game for multiplayer games. That is why we petition Vic for changes we think would make for a better stock game.

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

More importantly though, we play a lot of team games, and prefer to play a stock game that everyone understands and is familiar with.

[kombrig]

If somebody mods the game (let's say decreases the cavalry power) then some guys start to have difficulties to understand it? But if Vic introduces this, then everything is clear? Logical...

The problem is that Vic can't be according to everyones taste. Some want cavalry to remain the same, some want it to be decreased. Some want guerillas for all, some want them to be changed. And Vic actually has other projects too...

The most simple and comfortable solution for everybody is actually to edit the game according to your own taste and to play it.

[phatkarp]

I think Ernie was just trying to be helpful! As for my suggestions, consider them the views of a random dumbass.

Still, consider this a prayer to the Great and Powerful Vic to have my humble idea made part of the core game. If He wants to. Because it's His game.

[Meanfcker]

That is why this is a "wishlist".
The discussion on guerrillas needed to be a discussion on it's own, as know one really seemed to understand them until we took them mainstream, in a big game.
The rest of my mutterings are merely my opinion, and the rational behind them.
I complain about tech all the time, but have to admit, I am in a game where my team has purchased 3 techs already, and the infamous guerrilla III was obviously a series of tech upgrades. The techs are cost prohibitive though, and that is why they are largely unused.
I would be happy if Vic made no changes in the next patch, but I hate the thought of having to fight against guerrillas and not being able to respond in kind, so I am still up for that one.
Meanie.

[Meanfcker]

I wish to clarify something. I am not implying in any way that a person who edits a game is likely to cheat. I, and most of the guys that MP would agree, feel that if the game creator does not edit anything, then there cannot possibly any suspicion of ill-doing. Even the slightest wiff of something like this would be very disheartening and is avoided by playing stock games. That is all I was attempting to say with my earlier post.
Meanie.

[kombrig]

The person who creates a multyplayer game from the stock version can very well edit the file before creating the game. So there's no guarantee against cheating or ill-doing.[;)]

[Twotribes]

If you are so paranoid that you suspect everyone of cheating, that is your problem. My personal opinion is that if it can be done in the editor it should only be done in the core game if a vast majority of players, not the most vocal ones, want the change.

[kombrig]

If you are so paranoid that you suspect everyone of cheating, that is your problem.

I'm not sure to whom you responded, but if you think that I suspect everyone of cheating, then there has been a misunderstanding. I wanted to point out that no matter if the game is official or not, there are equal possibilities to cheat. So the argument by Mean that stock game allows to avoid ill-doings is not valid.

[Meanfcker]

If you are so paranoid that you suspect everyone of cheating, that is your problem. My personal opinion is that if it can be done in the editor it should only be done in the core game if a vast majority of players, not the most vocal ones, want the change.

Once again, I am not implying that anyone cheats. By the expedient of not going into the editor, the game creator merely removes any possibility of "favorable editing".
I agree that any changes to the core game should be very carefully considerd. As I have stated, these are just thoughts, some of them are wishes, and we won't know if anybody likes or dislikes them, unless they are discussed in the forums
I personally have never made any attempt to play any of the mods. I really like the way the core game plays and feels, just as it is.
If anyone cares to look back, the only major change that I ever proposed, was to make guerrillas available to all factions.
I cited historical references, in an attempt to show that most of the armies that fought in the jungles used this type of troops.
It was just an idea, and ideas don't hurt.
Really though, no matter what changes are, or are not made, I will continue to play this game,and annoy other players, until it starts to lose its flavor.
If nothing else comes from it, just voicing my opinion helps to create good grudge matches for team games.

[kombrig]

By the expedient of not going into the editor, the game creator merely removes any possibility of "favorable editing".

Once again - if somebody wants to do "favorable editing" then this person can do it no matter if the game is official or not. This person simply will not tell you that he has gone to the editor before generating the game. It's always a matter of trust really.

PS it should made clear that we are talking about editing the game file before creating a multiplayer game (and not after). This is what Vic does when he decides to change/add something and this is what a modder does.

[phatkarp]

More Wishes:
- I wish I could see the detailed battle view in the turn replay so I can see how my units fared in defense.
- I wish there was a robust game replay-viewer available after a winner has been determined. I'd like to be able to peek behind the curtain to see what the other guy did, to better analyze and learn from my many and varied defeats. These games tell a great story. It would be better if you could see both sides.

[Konrad_Novak]

In my opinion, ATG's conception shines on larger\largest maps, where the logistical half of the game almost dominates the combat one. Unfortunately, ATG interface is lacking in the logistical department, and over the years I've found myself struggling with interface as much as with the enemy. It is especially true on larger maps, and sometimes I wage war on two fronts - against the enemy, and against the boredom.

Below are some of my thoughts on streamlining the interface. It would be great if the changes will be made in ATG, but I'll be delighted if they will be useful for the next installment of the series.

Wishlist (sorry if someone already posted some of it):

1. Creating, editing saving\loading templates for units. It gets tiresome to create standardized units in big scenarios. Especially if those units are similar. If players could create\edit, say, "Standard Tank Unit (2 light tanks, 7 rifles, 3 mortars)" template and then load it into new unit, it would be great.

Creation\editing must be available during the game - the game is very fluid and it's difficult to anticipate your needs beforehand (i.e. in scenario editor).

1.1. "Reinforce to template" button. Expansion of the previous. It gets VERY dull to reinforce several hundred units. Especially if most of these units need only 2-3 subunits to get to full-strength. It would also be great if there was some kind of "Reinforce all units of this HQ to their templates" button

2. Graphic representation of unit hierarchy. With colored lines, like in WiTE. Sure, colored bars on units' icons are very useful, but "WiTE-style" is much more informative on the grand scale. Note, that there's no need to remove colored sidebars. Both these graphic tools will compliment each other.

2.1. Graphic representation of "city-HQ" subordination. It's very difficult to fine-tune logistical subordination of industrial centres. Players must go back and forth between Production Overview and Logistical Overlay - it's OK when you've got up to ten cities (usually, players know them by names ), but not when there are dozens of them. Again, colored lines (as in WiTE) should do fine, and there's no need to remove colored bars on cities' icons.

3. Several display filters. After several turns on large maps players get disorientated with the sheer number of units present. Some units are "lost", some tasks are forgotten etc. It would be great to implement filter tools, which can turn on\off display of infantry\artillery\aircraft\engineer\etc. units.

It's wonderfully implemented in Airborne Assault\Command Ops series. In ATG it would be great to have checkable list of unit types. So, for example, you may "check" artillery, aircraft and HQ, and all other units will be "hidden" from view.

4. Hotkeys. It's a pain in you-know-where to maintain a large army. To ease the strain on players' wrists (and reduce risk of carpal tunnel), we need AT LEAST these:
- "do transfer", to transfer selected unit subtype to selected unit;
- "do transfer 10X", which sends 10 selected subunits to selected unit;
- "select next\previous subunit to transfer"
- "create new unit";
- "select next\previous unit in the selected hex";

These are so obvious, that they may be implemented already. If so, please point me to the hotkey list. I haven't found one

5. "Movement tasks", which span several turns. Again - it's very difficult to return to the saved game after a couple of days. "Where should these go?", "Why I've sent this one there?". Writing it on a sheet of paper doesn't help - there's just too many units (several hundreds of them!)

So, we need "movement tasks" - automated movement orders, that players can program for several turns. The best implementation I've seen was in Heroes of Might and Magic series. I could just point my units across the maps, and see their exact path and how many turns it would take them to get there. And in the end of the turn, they would go to their destination automatically.

Of course, it's inadvisable to use "movement tasks" in the vicinity of enemy units. So, to avoid accidental use of this feature, there may be some sort of "plotter" view, to specifically tell player, that he's plotting movement for several turns.

6. Unimportant:
- more functional "Strategic Map". With filters, colored units (different colors for different HQs), graphic "city-HQ" hierarchy etc.
- ability to control for how much time will arty fire. Sometimes spending all 100 APs is overkill.
- increased scrolling speed or "scroll whole screen up\left\down\right" hotkey.

That's all for now. And thanks for a lovely game, Vic - it's wonderful that you keep on supporting it over the years!

[ernieschwitz]

I would like the ability to make a note to oneself in game, that comes the next turn.

People can message everyone, except themselves, would be nice to remind yourself sometimes of some things... this way.

[phatkarp]

I REALLY like Konrad's idea about filters for certain unit types. Artillery, aircraft and engineers tend to get buried under stacks. I hate losing a close assault, only to discover that I had an available artillery unit nearby that I had missed. And I hate finding a group of engineers buried in an army who were supposed to be heading to some important task, but I forgot about them for a couple of turns.

I also like the idea of a note to oneself. I would expand that idea, and suggest a filter layer for "strategic planning" that could include some simple drawing tools (line, circle, arrow) and a note tool. Not only would that be convenient for keeping your own plans in line, just think how useful that would be when working with an ally!

I would also like an autonaming algorithm for formations. Instead of "X Division", I'd like the formation to get an autoname, locked in place after the first turn after its creation, determined by the makeup and size of the unit. Like "X Fighter Squadron" or "X Armored Brigade."

[Konrad_Novak]

A couple of additions:

More hotkeys:
- Cycle through units subordinate to the selected HQ (I think this one will be difficult to implement, so its quite low on priority).
- "Do strategic transfer". Low-priority too. Usually you do strategic transfer not nearly as often as normal transfer.

More display filters:
- Show only units subordinate to *** HQ. New officer system motivates the player to have many small formations to quickly level-up their leaders. These formations tend to overlap and it's a pain in the behind to manage them properly. If you could filter out all other units, it would be much easier.
- Show units that haven't received their full supply demand for whatever reasons.

Another feature:
Show how much oil will selected unit consume for, say, 10 AP of movement. I'm all for resources - they make game much more deeper than AT. But we need some tools to properly plan our moves. Currently, we've got "Fuel Move" statistic, which updates only AFTER movement of unit.

Update 1:

BTW, could you enhance the "Auto-Save" feature a bit, so it creates two saves - one at the beginning and one before the end of the turn? Also, it would be nice to store them like the AAR screenshots, not to delete them after the turn. In this case, players will have their whole game history - 2 turn per save. It will immensely help in writing the AARs. In fact, I'm doing exactly this in my ongoing game, but manually.

[Hollywood7]

+1 on the game replay above. This is a great game, which would be a lot more interesting if you could watch a replay similar to many other wargames.

Two requests for Vic:
1) Allow us to play with everything researched at the start of the game. I've NEVER played a game where V1 rockets were employed nor Super Hvy tanks etc. Give us a click box as an option to say "All Research Completed" and let us go from there. That can't be THAT (it's all relative) tough to implement
2) Allow us to pick People as opposed to always Random. Please add a selector list with 1) Random or 2) all the Peoples from which to select for each player. It's VERY basic functionality but could add a LOT of replayability to the game.

Also, given a number of good requests in this thread, I think you should do a $10 or so download charge on next release (1.5?) so your time is well-spent. I think you have a loyal enough following that the community would cough up a couple of bucks to support your contuining efforts here for this great game engine.

Thanks.

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: Konrad_Novak

1.1. "Reinforce to template" button. Expansion of the previous. It gets VERY dull to reinforce several hundred units. Especially if most of these units need only 2-3 subunits to get to full-strength. It would also be great if there was some kind of "Reinforce all units of this HQ to their templates" button

Agree.

[Tac2i]

In v2.15 Vic added a new option: Cheap Research. Using that option it is possible to very quickly ramp up research. Still, I like your idea about an option with everything already researched.

ORIGINAL: Hollywood

1) Allow us to play with everything researched at the start of the game. I've NEVER played a game where V1 rockets were employed nor Super Hvy tanks etc. Give us a click box as an option to say "All Research Completed" and let us go from there. That can't be THAT (it's all relative) tough to implement