Wish List

[hazxan]

ORIGINAL: serg3d1

I'm thinking about quite radical change, not for the next patch of cause:
User-designed uints, like in MOO, or GalCiv

Indfantry could be designed too - infantry + light infantry gun = infantry recoiless, infantry + light armor III + flamethrower + satchel charge  + eng tools = assault engineers with body armor, infantry + ski = ski battalions, infantry + mountains training = mountain infantry/jaegers   etc.

One of the attractions of AT for me is that I don't have to manage what my soldiers are wearing

What you're describing looks totally appropriate to a Tactical level game (Steel Panthers has exactly what you list, for example), but not to Operational or Strategic. This level of detail is beyond what AT aims for - and a good game design has to remain focussed. Also Moo, GalCiv have AFAIK considerably lower numbers of units that the large scenarios of AT. Managing the rifle types and body armour of the Barbarrosa campaign...yukk, sorry but life is too short!

OK, so a scenario may not use these options, but any GUI additions and underlying code to manage them will still be there, cluttering up the screen and wasting processor time. OR you go for a GUI that changes for 'tactical' scenarios - by which point you may as well make a different game.

[dazoline II]

ORIGINAL: kafka

Do you see any space for more than the 4 slots ? I can´t....

to gain space in a GUI software developers have invented something like scrollbars

after all, you do not seem to get my point

I'd just like to make the editor more flexible for modders, that is for the creation of user-designed scenarios not everyone is forced to play, no standard is meant here

why prevent others to use the engine the way they want to, given the fact it has such potentials

A good workaround for the 4 sub formation limit is to use multiple hexes to represent cities, such as 7 cities for Moscow instead of one. Although I agree, I would like more production spaces.

[ShadowB]

One of the attractions of AT for me is that I don't have to manage what my soldiers are wearing

What you're describing looks totally appropriate to a Tactical level game (Steel Panthers has exactly what you list, for example), but not to Operational or Strategic. This level of detail is beyond what AT aims for - and a good game design has to remain focussed. Also Moo, GalCiv have AFAIK considerably lower numbers of units that the large scenarios of AT. Managing the rifle types and body armour of the Barbarrosa campaign...yukk, sorry but life is too short!

OK, so a scenario may not use these options, but any GUI additions and underlying code to manage them will still be there, cluttering up the screen and wasting processor time. OR you go for a GUI that changes for 'tactical' scenarios - by which point you may as well make a different game.

He meant designing the units, not managing the inventory and equipment of every single unit you have! You'd design a unit, save it and then produce as many as you want. It'd be neat, but yes, a very radical change.

[tweber]

I think component based research is an interesting idea.  The game already has regime variables.  If research could be set up to increment a regime variable and sftypes were able to use regime variables for their fields as well as constants, you could do this.  The only trick would be how to do upgrades.  At some point, you may no longer be able to increment an sftype and have to opt for a full upgrade. 
 
I am actually going the other way on this in the current scenario I am working on and simplifying research somewhat.  But, this game is all about flexibility. 
 
 

[freeboy]

Tom, one of the things that could be done is allowing a type of weapon, but the reaserach for it being so high it is effectively only available to one side, if that is what you desire.. unless I am way off.. for example.. u want Germany to have tiger tanks at setup, and no other nation to have the ez or be able to research. Set them up as having this tech in the startup, then set the tech needed very high. I am not saying it should be this way, just that one could manipulate .. I think variability and some differentiation would be interesting... thanks for keeping this thread going..
 
fyi is there a designers thread somewhere for at?

[dazoline II]

I've been using this one as a list for the editor as well.

There's some threads discussing aspects of design in the mod forum as well as here but no generalized thread.

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Tom, one of the things that could be done is allowing a type of weapon, but the reaserach for it being so high it is effectively only available to one side, if that is what you desire.. unless I am way off.. for example.. u want Germany to have tiger tanks at setup, and no other nation to have the ez or be able to research. Set them up as having this tech in the startup, then set the tech needed very high. I am not saying it should be this way, just that one could manipulate .. I think variability and some differentiation would be interesting... thanks for keeping this thread going..

fyi is there a designers thread somewhere for at?

[T_K]

I think we definitely need to be able to create research that doesn't just allow new units but upgrades unit characteristics across the table, for example upgrade all infantry's damage by xx% Also research that can influence things like town production points.


Another thing I'd like is to be able to set different names for each unit, like you can set different pictures per faction. Like you have say medium tank with four different pictures, I'd like to be able to set four different names for it. For example Panzer IV for Axis, T-34 for Soviets, Sherman for Allies. You'll tell me just create additional units but that's too much work just to have different names.

[seille]

ORIGINAL: T_K
Also research that can influence things like town production points.

ExecChangePeopleProdMod

But this would change more than a specified location.
It would affect all locations with specified people fighting under a specified regime.

ExecChangeLocationType ( x, y, loctype, people )

Here you just place a bigger city on that hex. Problem could be that you lose the production of one turn or at least
have to set the production new the next turn. Don´t know if it will keep the production values.

Many things are possible here.

Tweaking single stats of single SFT´s (like rifle) is imho not possible actually.
But hey, i´m not a scenario designer. I´m sure tweber and others can help you much better here [;)]

[Ande]

something that would be confortable:
doubleclicking on a savefile, leading to that the game opens and loads the file
is it doable?
 

[tweber]

I think we definitely need to be able to create research that doesn't just allow new units but upgrades unit characteristics across the table, for example upgrade all infantry's damage by xx% Also research that can influence things like town production points.

You could do research for other things but it would have to be done with action cards. I am releasing an adaptation of 'Axis and Allies' with V1.1 and you can research non-unit things like 'Industrial efficiency' and 'Long range aircraft'. I do this through the use of regime variables and events.

[serg3d1]

Another thought - streamline production tasks, it could be tiresome in big scenarios for now.
1. drag and drop production centers into HQ hex to redirect production
2. Make a small pop-up windows with production slots sliders then hovering mouse over production centers (optional)
3. ability to make, store and name several production profiles which could be applied to any production center in one click. Like I have profile "def_I_AT" 60% infantry, 20%MG 20%AT and could apply it to any center in one click.
Store profile not per game, but globally, carry them from game to game

I think it aleady was here-
clicking through units which can move or fight this turn.

[Ande]

Another thing that makes production management easier would be the ability to create production groups, gather small  production cities to be treated as one, it might be a problem how to handle "stuck" production that is too far away to be delivered though

[T_K]

ORIGINAL: tweber

I think we definitely need to be able to create research that doesn't just allow new units but upgrades unit characteristics across the table, for example upgrade all infantry's damage by xx% Also research that can influence things like town production points.

You could do research for other things but it would have to be done with action cards. I am releasing an adaptation of 'Axis and Allies' with V1.1 and you can research non-unit things like 'Industrial efficiency' and 'Long range aircraft'. I do this through the use of regime variables and events.

I understand that, but I'd like to have this capability in a random scenario.


Another thought: Direct shortcuts on the main game screen to the OOB screen and the production overview screen would make my life a lot easier!

[T_K]

One thing I just found out - if specific research is not available to my regime, I still see it in the "Not yet available" column, with price of -1pp. It should be pretty simple to remove -1 and 9999 research from the column.

And another minor issue is that when you go to select production, unit types are in the order they were made in the editor, which sometimes isn't intuitive. Would be nice to be able to change the order they appear in in the production selection screen.

[yoggi75]

What about an option in a random game to allow for all factions starting with more than one city and larger teritory. Maybe a slider from 0 - 100% where 0 means all starting with just one capital and 100% meaning all land is divided between the factions. Teritory is devided among the factions by distance from capital and maybe other variables.

Why? The AI can never cope with the rate of expansion of a human player which leads to a bit predictable random games. Also I find the expansion phase to be less interesting.

[Smirfy]

The option to lock establishments if you so choose would be really welcome

[Grymme]

Hi

Thanks for a beautiful game. My girlfriend doesnt like it though

Some suggestions:

- Instead of AI, AI+, AI++ you could have a slider giving the AI a production/figthing advantage/disadvantage between 01%-500% etc. (a la Empire Deluxe).

- Ability for engineers to build channels (Suez channel, Panama channel etc.).

- Ability to set up for a several turn long march or auto exploration (a la Civ).

- An separate screen with more optional rules/optional use of units etc.

- It would be nice with an optional rule with a more advanced resource system (example a citys building points could have a "territory" and the points reduced when not all territory is under players controll, ability to have oil, rubber, metalspots) OBS! optional rule only.

- Severe penalties for setting upp new units, hq etc directly in the frontline (its too easy to plugg holes today).

- Better AI use of aircraft. Why build fighters when AI doesnt?

- Better way of handling Fleets (to much micromanagment when you always have to construct new units).

- Ability to "capture" enemy supplies from enemy HQ.

- Make Submarines more powerfull maybe? Not played enough, but they seem weak.

- Better AI use of ships. AI should escort cargoships after 10 first turns or something. More aggressive use of navies.

____________

But generally speaking its a great game!

[Ande]

channels should be able to be built by several makeshift ports, I do not work if this works and if it is possible to build them at noncoastal hexes

[Rik81]

How about changing the graphics for the "cities", to reflect the differences from Village up to Capital?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Rik81

How about changing the graphics for the "cities", to reflect the differences from Village up to Capital?

What do you mean? I'm pretty sure this is already the case if you're referring to the map symbols that show up on the map. - At least there are different map symbols for village (3 bldgs) town (4 bldgs), city with blue-gray bldgs, and then slightly different for capitol. But maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Rick