Wish List

[Smirfy]

Fortress infantryand Artillery, SF units that are imobile and ignore retreats. (would make games were there are defence lines a bit more practical)

[Vic]

@smirfy,
 
The engine already allows for that. You'll just have to make a "Fortress" movement type for those SFTypes and a very heavy weight for them too. that way they cannot move into any landscape. That way those subformationtypes will not be able to retreat.

[Smirfy]

Created a Fortress infantry type and let you know how it helps Marita

[BULLDOGINTHEUK]

My wish is that I get the game for Christmas. No sign of it in the post [:(]

[Tattico]

I would like to see the units in the OOB screen sorted by type... right know is kind of messy...

[miral]

1) At least one zoom level; would save a lot scrolling.
2) Generals, historical and fantasy. Could add power to attack and defense or increase movment. Or, could reduce all these; after all, havent there always been more bad than good generals. And it would add flavor to the game.
3) Ability to name cities and towns in random scenarios.

All minor things though; great game!

[Bombur]

Bigger maps....is it possible to increase the map limit to 400x400 to allow entire world scenarios????

[Westheim]

ORIGINAL: miral
2) Generals, historical and fantasy. Could add power to attack and defense or increase movment. Or, could reduce all these; after all, havent there always been more bad than good generals. And it would add flavor to the game.

I doubt you'll get them. This was a People's Tactics feature, and axed in development for Advanced Tactics. [;)]

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: miral
...
3) Ability to name cities and towns in random scenarios.
...!

You can already re-name the cities and town in random games. Just click on the name.

[T_K]

Ability to make units upgradeable to several different types? I might not want a straightforward research tree but something more flexible. This would allow for things like field conversions (say you have a halftrack and you can mount a flak vierling or a 7,5cm pak or a nebelwerfer).

[serg3d1]

The thread "Thinking about buying the game" gave me idea -
1. Allow map scrolling and data inspection during AI turn.
2.Allow to give delayed order during AI turn, at least for production.

[T_K]

Victor, do you think you could make an Excel import/export feature for the SFTypes, it would make editing large numbers of units simultaneously much easier.

[Delyn Locksmiths]

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been mentioned. But one thing I miss from PT is, when playing PBEM at the save game stage it tells you who to email it onto. Not needed in 2 player games, but useful on multi player games I reckon. Is there anyway we could put peoples email addy's there when setting up a pbem game?

[miral]

Many many good ideas. In the large sense the best thing would be to reduce the amount of clicking needed for many actions. For instance, it would be nice if we could upgrade all the units of a type with one or two clicks rather than having to go unit to unit to do so. Or can you? If so I can't find it in manual.

Would also love to have the name of cities appear on the tactical map; it would make it easier to keep up with things.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: miral


Would also love to have the name of cities appear on the tactical map; it would make it easier to keep up with things.

I"m not positive, but I thought this would be a scenario designer option in the 1.1 patch. But perhaps I misunderstood. One reason I'm waiting to make a couple of changes to SalernoVICorp is to do this.

Rick

[T_K]

Ok after some extensive adding and adjusting of new units - actual WWII German and Soviet units - I'd like to note the following issues:

1. The current system doesn't allow proper dual-use artillery. Two examples: the soviet 122mm A-19 corps gun; it could be used in direct fire mode against heavy German tanks or concrete fortifications or it could also (mainly, actually) serve as a long-range artillery employed mostly for counter-battery fire. So if I want to set up a unit that can do both, I have only one set of kill % on target, which is, standard, 6% for indirect fire and 25% for direct fire. I don't know what I could do except settle on some mean kill % of, for instance, 15%, which would make a gun that's like twice as powerful in indirect mode compared to other artillery but also an ineffective direct-fire gun.

A workaround would be to create two identical SFTypes with different fire properties and make each upgradeable to the other at no cost but that's pretty cumbersome at best.

Another example, I would like to be able to use the 8,8cm FlaK as an anti-tank gun if need be. As an AA gun it has very high initiative of 50/50, which is just not balanced for the anti-tank role.

2. It would be nice if it was possible to upgrade one unit not just to the next in the ladder, but to have several options instead. Like in PG, you can convert any armour to any other armour.

3. Like I mentioned already, some form of mass editing of SFType properties would make balance work vastly easier. An export/import to Excel would do that.

4. When I want to change some string it'd be nice if the string was loaded in the editbox and I didn't have to type it all again.

4.1 Also if I change my mind or just accidentally clicked on the button if I hit cancel the original string gets deleted. That's frustrating.

I'm sure I'll think of other stuff as I go along.

---

5. In "combat sim" sound should be automatically disabled.

6. When you make a random game and, for example, have two regimes, and set one to "people x" and the other to "people y", then when you click on "set research to level 1" the game should NOT give people y level 1 research that is only available to people x, and vice-versa. Right now it doesn't make a difference and I have to manually change all research which is just too much unnecessary work.

[tweber]

I think you can already do your first point with the current game.  I would look at the 'Flak 88' unit that I introduce in the World at War scenario.

[T_K]

Your 88 isn't fundamentally different from the default unit and the problem is more acute when trying to simulate gun-howitzers like some soviet systems.

[T_K]

Would it be possible to implement capturing of equipment? I've seen often in battles units with white flags but that doesn't seem to actually mean anything. Captured equipment pressed in service with the captor was pretty common in WWII even sometimes on large scale (soviet 76,2mm F-22 comes to mind immediately). Please think about it.

[tweber]

There are checks that return casualty levels and there are execs that provide reinforcements.  So, there is no reason why you could not write an event that gives a player a certain percent of the units eliminated.