Wish List

[SMK-at-work]

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

 
do you know how long it took to build the Suez, Panama and Kiel Canals??!!
 
the Suez took 11 years, Panama 10 years, the little Eider Canal, forerunner of the Kiel Canal and only 20 miles long (30km) took 7 years
 
I think it's really a bit outside the scope of the game!!
 
 

[Rik81]

Obviously I haven't looked at enough different scenarios. I now can see the differences you have pointed out.

[all5n]

Possibly the most useful and difficult enhancment suggested:

tcp/ip play where player may connect to a game server. The server is persistent to where players may disconnect and re-connect as needed for their turns. Players who are waiting for their turn may view battles that have happened involving your forces since your turn, view statistics, etc. E-Mail notification of battle results and a "your turn" notification if the next player is not signed in to the server. Implementation of a "lobby" where people can start games and find players.

Thats probably asking a lot. Maybe for Advanced Tactics II which will allow recuperation of the development cost...

PBEM mailing of turn files is cumbersome, although fairly easy to implement compared to the server based version so i can understand the logic there.

This game really shines when you have human opponents, as the AI can only be programmed to do so much. To me, making it easier to find and play with other human opponents would be a big plus.

[all5n]

ORIGINAL: pad152
Most of the requests (1-5) are for random games only, I would like the game to be a little more like the old classic - Empire Deluxe!

A better way to ruin a game i cannot imagine.

[Grymme]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

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

do you know how long it took to build the Suez, Panama and Kiel Canals??!!

the Suez took 11 years, Panama 10 years, the little Eider Canal, forerunner of the Kiel Canal and only 20 miles long (30km) took 7 years

I think it's really a bit outside the scope of the game!!

I do se your point to a certain extent. On the other hand wasnt the Suez built in the 1860s, the Panama opened in 1914 and the Eider in the 1880s. The game is default set to take place during the 1930-40s i.e. considerably better resources. Also the game allows for construction of Aircraft Carriers which took several years to build and fortresses (Maginot line was built in 10 years). And this in a single turn

In the end it all comes down to scale. On battalion size scenario, maybe not. But in a epic scenario definetly. But in the end i wasnt proposing it because of realism issues. I proposed it because it would be fun and increase playability

It could be done, but made extremely costly. 2-3 Engineer divisions a 75 engineers each working during a 3 turn period for each hex, for a maximum channel of 3-4 hexes.

[DasTactic]

ORIGINAL: Grymme

... the game allows for construction of Aircraft Carriers which took several years to build and fortresses (Maginot line was built in 10 years). And this in a single turn...

Touche!

I have kept meaning to try building a series of ports through an isthmus to see if that would act as a canal, but I keep forgetting to do it. Has anyone else tried this?

[SMK-at-work]

The lack of production delays is considered an issue by some too, and is already in this wish list thread IIRC, as well as having a thread or 2 of its own......it's not justification for adding more problems!

[T_K]

I don't think production delays are necessary. Just make CVs and BBs realistically super expensive and they'll take many turns to build automatically.

[SMK-at-work]

And then no-one will ever build them at all, which isn't desirable either.......

[Arditi]

Ciao Vic,
I had a couple of thought/requests for your outstanding game. I was thinking of a couple of things that would take AT up a notch in the interactive area(between players) in game. Have you thought about:

1] An allied player being able to move through another players domain without
boundaries changing? Perhaps drawing supply from an allied player with
permission?
2] Also, allied players being able to stack together and maybe even loaning an allied
player one of your own units?

My belief is that these features would add exponentially to the interactive/interest
aspect of the game and make for some interesting discussions in game, such as:

"The Western Republic is advancing on all fronts with their tanks! My production can't
keep up! Can I have some medium tanks to stop them?" or....

"Can I move through your southern dependency to attack your neighbor? I have no
ambitions on the land I move through; I only want to attack our mutual enemy!"

One could come up with their own interactive ideas; if these features were available.

It was just a thought Vic. Thanks again for the outstanding game!
Best Regards, Russ(Arditi)

[serg3d1]

While I not especially concerned by production delay, here is idea for future versions/expansions: Make two types of turns: war turn and peace turn. During peace tuen you can have BB, ports or fortification lines built in one turn, during war turns they can not be built at all. If it's some kind of one global war  scenario, it can be preceded by single peace turn. If it's historical period it could have several wars divided by peace turns.

[03_walk_alot]

Button to go straight to OOB screen would be nice.
Ability to edit unit name on OOB screen also.

thanks

[Philistine2]

A couple of things I'd like to see, dealing with potential unit capabilities. No idea how hard they would be to implement.

1. More than 1 type of attack--that is, allowing a unit to have more different # of/favorites/attack values (2 types would be great, more would be OK, but might be overkill).

I am envisioning the attacks as cumulative -- both attacks taking place. As an example--many modern AFV's have a quick-firing, low-caliber gun that would likely be modeled with several attacks but with a low attack factor against heavy armor. At the same time, they also have one (or a few) antitank missiles, which would likely be modeled with few (or 1) attacks with a high attack factor against heavy armor. Currently in trying to model such modern AFV's, you probably either overvalue the effectiveness against heavy armor (through too many attacks) or undervalue it against lighter units (through too few attacks).

Similarly a medieval cavalry charge might be given 1 high value attack to represent the initial charge with lance, and several lower-value attacks to represent a subsequent mounted melee with sword.

2. Intercepting of Land Units Allowing air units to "intercept" land units (e.g. participate in a land battle within the intercept radius. This would allow tac-air support (including helicopter) on defense.

Of course, there is the question of whether this "interception" would trigger interception by the other side's air units in range, so it may be complicated.

3. Defensive Artillery Support. Similar to 2. Allow artillery units in range to "intercept" by firing in support of an out-of-hex land battle on the defense.

Just a couple of thoughts.

--Philistine

[tweber]

3. Defensive Artillery Support. Similar to 2. Allow artillery units in range to "intercept" by firing in support of an out-of-hex land battle on the defense.

There is a setting that allows for artillery counter fire. It is turned on in the WWI 'Great War' scenario in the bank. However, it only impacts combat in the same hex.

[marcusm]

Just got a wish.

I would like the option to use a single graphic map file with alpha hex overlays.
This would be great for single map scenarios where you want maximum accuracy.

This would also help making maps easier of course. Even better if there was some API where you
could create maps from scripts.

[Vic]

Thanks for all the wise words.
 
I'll be sending the christmas patch to Matrix Games soon now. So it will probably be posted somewhere next week.
 
I added a lot of requests, but obviously not all.
 
It will however not be the latest patch. As i said before i am planning to keep this game supported.
 
I still like playing it way to much myself
 
kind regards,
Vic

[Vic]

Philisistine, marcusm,
 
both interesting posts. might be considered for v1.2.
both to late for v1.1

[marcusm]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Philisistine, marcusm,

both interesting posts. might be considered for v1.2.
both to late for v1.1

You know, it was a long shot but if you can do that then you I will forever grateful.
It will open up entirely new doors in scenario design (especially aesthetically).

Really, really crossing my fingers for this (1.2,1.3 or something)

Marcus

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Thanks for all the wise words.

I'll be sending the christmas patch to Matrix Games soon now. So it will probably be posted somewhere next week.

I added a lot of requests, but obviously not all.

It will however not be the latest patch. As i said before i am planning to keep this game supported.

I still like playing it way to much myself

kind regards,
Vic

Woohooo! Thanks VIc for your game and your continued interest in all our wacky ideas. This will be on my harddrive for a long time to come.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Vic

Thanks for all the wise words.

I'll be sending the christmas patch to Matrix Games soon now. So it will probably be posted somewhere next week.

I added a lot of requests, but obviously not all.

It will however not be the latest patch. As i said before i am planning to keep this game supported.

I still like playing it way to much myself

kind regards,
Vic

Great news VIc. - Now I wonder if anyone will even be aound at Matrix Games next week!

I hope you and yours have a wonderful Christmas and thanks for this game!

Rick