Development To-Do list

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
106 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

panguitch
Abstracted Subs
I know it's been discussed before and would take a lot of work, but I'd also love to see sub abilities abstracted so that there can be stealth air units, and land units like special ops and terrorists. I'd love to try a map focused on Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or today's Ukraine using sub-like land units.

Pursuit
I'd also like to have an ability for certain units called pursuit. For example, a cavalry unit could get a free shot at an infantry unit that retreats. If both sides have pursuit ability, then it would just require another round of combat before the retreat is accomplished.

Greyhawk Wars
TripleA in the original Dungeons & Dragons world

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

eurofabio
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Hey Veqryn, what about an updated "future development to do list.docx"?

And what about the card engine? I know that at this point, is very unlikely to be developed to 1.8, but for 1.9 maybe?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Sooo much interesting stuff... That will be sooo hard to be seen...

BTW, thinking about Trisk, you may want to take a look at this:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13873.0
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Eschelon
This has been suggested before I think:

Pre-assignment of the various AI's in the game/player selection window.

Yes, I know that you can put AI before the name now, but this just assigns one of the AI's.  What I'm suggesting is a tag or something that you could put HardAI, EasyAI, LandAI, etc. so that when someone chooses your map, the application automatically preassigns the AI categories, after which the player can change them to Human or another AI if they so choose.

This will allow map designers to preselect the AI that best works with the map in question.  This becomes important if some AI's aren't using some special feature of that map correctly/at all.

Others have suggested a separate file, I'm thinking adding it to the map.xml is fine, and I'd think the best place to do the assignments would be in the same spot in the .xml where the various empires/countries are called out (or immediately below this, before the turn sequence is assigned).  This might be important for maps with multiple .xml versions with different country assignments and such.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

blumb
Eschelon wrote
What I'm suggesting is a tag or something that you could put HardAI, EasyAI, LandAI, etc. so that when someone chooses your map, the application automatically preassigns the AI categories, after which the player can change them to Human or another AI if they so choose...

...adding it to the map.xml is fine, and I'd think the best place to do the assignments would be in the same spot in the .xml where the various empires/countries are called out (or immediately below this, before the turn sequence is assigned).  This might be important for maps with multiple .xml versions with different country assignments and such.
I would love to see this. Sure would help with some FFA games in the lobby. Dropper during a bot hosted FFA... No prob.

Imagine if  all the clans in Feudal Japan were hard AI unless selected by human players. Wouldn't that be nice for lobby games Rolf.

And since Panguitch brought it up, I might as well once again post/agree about stealth/interceptors that are not dead end coded to only be sea, air or land.

Just a basic unit attachment with the ability to set values to select what unit types that a unit can hide from/be found by.

It is of course important be able to move through territories with enemy troops but no interceptors as well as have the ability to retreat before battle if movement ended on a territory with no interceptors.

I don't think the interceptors need thier own unit attachments. Just values set with the stealth unit should work fine and make it flexable in the long run.

That'd be one step closer to sub carriers that can submurge while loaded. (which would need a submerged capacity depends game option much like the allied air depends)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

beelee
A few good laughs is right :)

So the stealth unit would basically be a stealth tech that could attach to any unit? And stealth detection the same?
It seems the detection unit would have to not be allowed to undo their turn once they detected something. Otherwise you could just crank around until you found something then undo and attack where you want. IDK how much harder that would make it. Sure would have a lot of possibilities though.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Veqryn
Administrator
sorry to burst all bubbles, but i seriously doubt there will be any major new unit attachment features over the next year, unless they are strictly necessary for 1914
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

hepster
I'm pretty sure that in the official (un-released rules of) 1914 there are...

1) Airfields that dictate whether or not fighters can intercept as well as the # that may intercept.

2) Fortified Coastal batteries that may "Bombard" vessels attempting to execute an amphibious landing.


So I surely hope those are part of the 1914 "work in progress".  
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

hepster
In reply to this post by Veqryn
On a far more serious note...

After playing Civil War a house Divided, it would seem as though Pulicat has already achieved one of the main components to making 1914.  Contested territories.

Just curious what are the engine changes that still need to be achieved in order for 1914 to be fully functional?
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Eschelon
I have a request r.e. this tag:

<property name="Multiply PUs" value="2" editable="false">
                <number min="1" max="10"/>
</property>

I'd like to be able to input a fractional amount (say 1.2) into this multiplier.  I tried this, and the game just laughed at me/would only accept whole numbers.

With this simple change, if you are looking to fine tune your economy, you don't end up having to double/triple/quadruple/etc. your income, and then modifying all of the unit build costs in an attempt to scale things proportionally to your goal.  Or having to tweak a bunch of your Territory PU values in an attempt to dial in that increase, you can just add 20% or whatever via this tag, and the adjustment can be applied on the 'back end'.

Also, a similar tag along these lines for a tech, trigger, etc. might be nice.  Similar to the 'Industrial' tech that reduces unit costs in the 'traditional A&A' games, but instead increases PU output rather than adjusting unit costs.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

eurofabio
Eschelon wrote
I have a request r.e. this tag:

<property name="Multiply PUs" value="2" editable="false">
                <number min="1" max="10"/>
</property>

I'd like to be able to input a fractional amount (say 1.2) into this multiplier.
Very unlikely to happen.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Eschelon
eurofabio wrote
Eschelon wrote
I have a request r.e. this tag:

<property name="Multiply PUs" value="2" editable="false">
                <number min="1" max="10"/>
</property>

I'd like to be able to input a fractional amount (say 1.2) into this multiplier.
Very unlikely to happen.
Care to elaborate?  Multiplying PU's on the back end (after they've been totalled) seems like a very straightforward calculation.  It should be child's play to multiply by a non-whole number, and then round off any fractional points after the fact (say rounding 154.4 PU's to 154 PU's).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

eurofabio
The problem is, the whole system uses integer.

You said: rounding 154.4 PU's to 154 PU's, which I agree.

What about 4.5? Round to 4 or 5? I'm pretty sure, that many players would have different opinions on this.

Even 4.9, most of the people will say that should be round to 5, but some will say that should be rounded to 4, after all 4.9 is less than 5.

Try to buy something with less money than you supposed to pay. If you can negotiate, then maybe, maybe you get a discount. But you can't negotiate with a machine, at least not yet, Redrum might have a patch for this :)

So, you are not just creating more one option, you are also creating more problem to be managed. But this is just my opinion. Maybe Veq agrees with you.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Eschelon
nope, won't happen
this property was only added in order to allow people to play NWO and purchase a single artillery at a time
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Eschelon
Veqryn wrote
nope, won't happen
this property was only added in order to allow people to play NWO and purchase a single artillery at a time
This statement makes absolutely no sense to me.  What does multiplying PU's have to do with purchasing a single artillery?  I haven't played NWO recently, so I'm confused.

This tag should have a wider reach than just one map.  The tag actually has a lot of potential.  Simulating the gearinng up of mass production without having to create a whole new production frontier for each 'incremental boost', for example.  Also, the current implementation may have players asking the question 'so the territory says it's worth 2 PU, but I'm getting 6 PU's... why not just define the territory as 6 PU's?'  a 1x to 10x multiple range is rather extreme and a bit of a 'blunt instrument'.  


R.E. the rounding thing.  I'm actually good with fractional tenths floating around in my economy, accumulating over several turns into whole numbers.  Several other computer games do this actually.  Some people might find that annoying though.

For those finding .7 PU's in their PU totals annoying though, I'm good with a simple round off (fractional points after all territory PU's are added together then multiplied by the value in this tag are lost).  Economy of scale and all that.

This tag can have another use (if re-assigned to players individually) - economic exhaustion.  I.E. after you've been at war for so many turns, your economy starts petering out.  As an example, F&E does this on the boardgame end, and gives players a reason to not pursue total war over the entire game.  In this instance, limited war can help stretch the wartime economy a bit, peace allows you to regenerate your economy.

It's been a bit, but something along the lines of Peacetime economy x.5,  Limited war x.75,  War Economy x1.  15 turns of Total War until economic exhaustion (unless you are the Feds in F&E, then you get 20 turns).  Limited war only adds .5 turns to economic exhaustion every turn.  Peace regenerates the economy (subtracts from your total war turns allowed) by .5 or 1 each turn.

Once economic exhaustion sets in, then for the first 5 turns production falls 25%.  Afterwhich it drops to 50%.

Of course, in this instance you'd need to define what a limited war is.  The economic multiplier might be sufficient, but there may be other factors in play (less units can use strategic movement, etc.).

You could also start at 1x, and gear up to 1.5x or 2x once you activate your wartime economy.  But again, this tag would then need to be empire/player specific, and triggerable (so you can count off the turns until economic exhaustion via triggers).

I know there is a desire to do more on the diplomatic side of TripleA on a few maps going forward, and this would be something for that toolbox.

This specific example (economic exhaustion) isn't something I'd want to do at the moment, but other map makers in the future might find it intriguing...

Enough about that though.  I've made my request, so it's now up to you coder guys to see if there is value in it.  I think, IMHO, that it would be that 'one more thing' that would make TripleA more robust and add a bit more flexibility to the game on the economy/resource end, but it's not my call anyways.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Cernel
Eschelon wrote
Veqryn wrote
nope, won't happen
this property was only added in order to allow people to play NWO and purchase a single artillery at a time
This statement makes absolutely no sense to me.  What does multiplying PU's have to do with purchasing a single artillery?  I haven't played NWO recently, so I'm confused.
LMAO! You are so right, man; but the thing wasn't really making much sense to start with (is a silly issue).

Anyway, you can already basically have what you want to; just set the default value at 100 (or whatever) and multiply all of your units costs by 100 (or whatever), as well. Then you can set it at 80 or 125 or whatever, obtaning the same effect as being able to set it at 0.8 or 1.25 or whatever with default value at 1 and basic costs.

Then you just need convince the devs not having the AI going nuts because everything is multiplied.

Cheers
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

Cernel
In reply to this post by Veqryn
I suggest adding 1 history line giving info about which tech category you targeted.

Now it is like:

"
Germans spend 0 on tech rolls
Germans rolls : 3 and gets 1 hit
Germans removing all Technology Tokens after successful research.
Rolls to resolve tech hits:1
Germans discover Jet Power
"

Albeit not critical, nor even important, it would be interesting knowing what has been clicked upon, in case a same tech is shared amongst multiple categories.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

panguitch
Another blue sky idea. Or maybe just wool-gathering.

I really like the "gameProperty" option for conditions. It allows for a lot of customization and flexibility. I would love if there was something similar that could be used to set a condition on whether an AI is controlling a player. Then you could change triggers or attachments for units, territories, supports, etc., for AI players. You could disable things that the AI doesn't handle well, or buff the AI in subtle ways.

It's impossible to create an AI that can handle the variety of maps and rules that can be created with TripleA. An option like this could shift the burden to mapmakers--if they want to do something unusual that the AI can't handle, it would be up to them to try and implement conditions that keep their unusual design from crippling the AI for their map.

Such conditions could also flip triggers that fake the AI making use of user actions. For example, if an AI is controlling the USA in POS2, it currently just ignores the option of sending PUs to Britain. But with this you could set a trigger so that if the USA is AI, the user action is replaced with an automatic 2 in 6 chance of USA sending aid.

Greyhawk Wars
TripleA in the original Dungeons & Dragons world

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

paulshalom
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Would it be possible to make a unit that functioned like an AA gun, but against ships in an amphibious assault?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Development To-Do list

simon33
In reply to this post by Veqryn
I've got a couple of "wants" wrt UI improvements.

The first one is a Back button in the "Place Units" phase in particular. This will save a huge number of edits.

The second one is a combined "Purchase Units", "Repair Units", "Politics" and "Combat Move" phase. Second best would be to expand the back button to all the above phases except the first. Indeed, adding a "Back to Politics" button in combat move would mean you don't need to show it by default when war on neutrals is the only option. I guess that could be argued. Some of this violates the exact rule about turn order so that part might need to be an option. Particularly I want to be able to try combat moves and then change purchases.

The third one is a "Keep rolling until someone hits" button in combats. And why require pressing space to select casualties, for example?

Fourth one is when there is only one combat, why not just select it.

What do you guys think?
123456