Feature request

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

Feature request

alkexr
Here are some ideas about features I could imagine being added to TripleA. I do not necessarily support all of these ideas, as some of them might be too complicated to implement, still they can be valuable ideas.

1. Special attacks
Reently I've heared that more and more maps have units with special attacks, which are implemented with AA attacks, since they were made fairly flexible in the recent versions of TripleA. I've seen anti-tank and heared of siege attacks, and I personally like the idea very much - this is pretty obvious for anyone who has tried my Large Middle Earth map. AA attack has got limits, however, which I felt when planning my map.
The most obvious problem was that one unit could only have 1 type of AA attack. This was at most annoying to me, but can be an inpenetratable wall to someone who wants to create a space battle map with ray weapons, torpedoes and fighters mounted on a single ship, for example. The solution in my idea would be to create something called specialAttack, which would have attatchments like units, in which there would be a general description on how that works. There are currently some options to AA which need to be the same for all units with the same AA attack type anyway, so you wouldn't need to repeat them again and again. Units would only have options that are really optional, like <option name="specialAttackType" value ="name_of_special_attack1:name_of_special_attack2...">, <option name="offensiveSpecialAttack" value="attack_value_of_type1:attack_value_of_type2...">, same for defense. (NOTE: the names I use are always just random names, clearly not the best ones)

2. AA support
(NOTE: this is not only for AA, but also for special attacks described above. The same goes for everything below. I just want to describe my ideas independently.)
It is what it sounds like. Allow units to give support to AA of the specified type of another unit. I couldn't implement that spearmen stop the AA-attack called "charge" of enemy cavalry. It is not a particularly difficult idea, so I do not expect it to be my own.

3. AA territory effect
The same as above, could not prevent cavalry charge in a forest. Just fancy.
I can imagine att/def bonuses, but even changing maxRoundsAA, though I guess implementing that would be complicated.

4. Configurable battle rounds
Not an exact necessity, but if we have delegates for turn phases, why not do the same for battles? I remember someone mentioned he wanted siege bombardment to last as long as there are walls or siege units, and normal combat should have begun after that. Or it would be nice to determine when different AA attacks happen and when casuaslties are taken. There are lots of possible uses of this, but would require too much work - I would say it isn't worth the trouble.

5. Marksman
I don't exactly know what this should be or where it should be added, but I find it to be a good idea to have some specific units or special attacks (or even specific battle rounds) when the attacker chooses the casualties. Like marksmen do.

6. Damage indicators
Yeah, we have now the option to include units with six hitpoints, but I know no way to make the slightly damaged ones look different than heavily damaged ones, which is already annoying in the case of 3 hitpoints. Allowing different unit icons (like unitname, unitname_hit, unitname_hit2 etc.) would do it.

7. turnsIntoWhenDamaged - turnsIntoWhenRepaired
Another way to make units have multiple hitpoints, and to make damaged ones behave differently, and it is not even a hard coding work. The battle screen would simply display the whole chain of units which are damaged into each other, and you can select casualties the same way as in the case of multiple hitpoints. It would also allow units to grow with time.

8. Unit display filters
Some newer maps have pretty complex economy, which is usually solved with tons of noncombat units. These will just swarm around and the strength of armies on particular territories is no more clearly visible. Filtering which units to display using checkboxes or configurable hotkeys (only military units during combat move, only spaceships without transported ground troops when preparing for space battle, or any other combination of categories created by the mapmaker) as an optional feature surely wouldn't spoil the game.

9. Individual retreat
Submarines can basically retreat (submerge) individually in the sea. Brigands can do the same in a forest. I guess this was already requested, but nothing is easier than allowing something to be affected by territory effects, as it is only a simple check. Same for destoryers (i. e. not allowing this kind of retreat).

Some of this together would make it possible for brigands to attack an army in a forest, kill the general with their ambush special attack, where they have chosen casualties, and then "submerge" into the forest, because the cavalry accompanying the general is only a destroyer on plains terrain. Yeah, I do like complex games.

Thank you if you have read my post or even responded to it, and sorry if my English was troublesome to understand.
Have you played any of my maps? Share your opinion!
Large Middle Earth
Russian Civil War
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

beelee
you have some good ideas    I think territory effects is already possible,but maybe not to the degree you suggested IDK

your english is fine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

bluelionman
I am brand new really at playing but love Triple A Big World 1942 and just wished / wondered how hard it would be to introduce a timer option?

I find sometimes I take to long over a turn which is no fun for opponents and vice versa so some kind of timer would help me to speed up... I kind of liked the idea of say being able to set it but say 1 min for weapons development/purchasing, 2 mins for combat movement, combat is unlimited and then 1 min for non combat movement and finally 1 min for putting on units.

Also any time saved from the earlier stages is added to the later stages so in affect if your quicker at any point you have the extra time later but essentially with battle time excluded you have about 5 mins for a turn.

Is that something that would be majorily hard to add in?
Where would you rather be than right here, right now?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

Frostion
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by alkexr
I don't know if the following is already possible in tribleA: I find it a bit annoying that I, after I finish my turn, have to watch the AI or my friends' combat and move around. Sometimes I would rather just look around the map freely, think and plan my next move. I propose that if a player looks around the map, then he is not "forced" to look at other players do their stuff.  If that player is attacked or does not look around, then the camera/screen moves to the ongoing actions.

If there was to be implemented a "timer" function on some maps, like mentioned above, then it would be really nice to be able to use other player's turns to look around and plan.

Another thing: I woud appreciate that a maybe 3 seconds mouse-over on units would result in popup with unit specs/stats, just like in the purchase screen,  but requiring more time to pop up.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

eurofabio
Frostion wrote
I don't know if the following is already possible in tribleA: I find it a bit annoying that I, after I finish my turn, have to watch the AI or my friends' combat and move around. Sometimes I would rather just look around the map freely, think and plan my next move. I propose that if a player looks around the map, then he is not "forced" to loo at other do their stuff.  If that player is attacked or does not look around, then the camera/screen moves to the ongoing actions.

If there was to be implemented a "timer" function on some maps, like mentioned above, then it would be really nice to be able to use other player's turns to look around and plan.
I agree that would be nice, but so far it is not possible

Frostion wrote
Another thing: I woud appreciate that a maybe 3 seconds mouse-over on units would result in popup with unit specs/stats, just like in the purchase screen,  but requiring more time to pop up.
Just hover the mouse over an unit and then press "i"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

Frostion
In reply to this post by alkexr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

eurofabio
In reply to this post by bluelionman
bluelionman wrote
I am brand new really at playing but love Triple A Big World 1942 and just wished / wondered how hard it would be to introduce a timer option?

I find sometimes I take to long over a turn which is no fun for opponents and vice versa so some kind of timer would help me to speed up... I kind of liked the idea of say being able to set it but say 1 min for weapons development/purchasing, 2 mins for combat movement, combat is unlimited and then 1 min for non combat movement and finally 1 min for putting on units.

Also any time saved from the earlier stages is added to the later stages so in affect if your quicker at any point you have the extra time later but essentially with battle time excluded you have about 5 mins for a turn.

Is that something that would be majority hard to add in?
Although I like this idea, it has at least 2 problems:

- first of all, I believe many of the other players won't like this idea, so the developers would put some effort in a feature that won't be largely used. It is the kind of feature that both players have to agree to play with.

- lets say we are playing using this option, player A is about to do a few decisive moves, but then he has to answer the phone. Because the call, he lost precious minutes, could not do the moves and lose the game. Should his opponent allows him to play his turn again?

When playing through internet, you never know what could happens in the other side.

This is why I like to play using PBEM. Everyone plays your turn in your own pace, no rush.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

Frostion
In reply to this post by alkexr
I really like the "damage indicator" idea with unitname_hit.png, unitname_hit2.png and so on.
And it would be nice if this was implemented with higher hit point max then 6.

The "marksman" idea (or precisionStrike?) where the enemy chooses casualties would also open op a few unit opportunities. I could imagine assasins, precision bombers, special forces, fifth column, terrorists ect.

What about adding "cloaked" and "antiCloak" abilities for land and air units. Like units that were only visible to the owner, maybe allies,  but could be detected by antiCloak units. Is this already possible? Like saboteur units, cloaked starfighters, stealth bombers, ghosts and wraiths for fantasy maps ect. That would be nice. Maybe with values that described if the cloaked unit are detected in combat (if never detected maybe they should only have 1 strike), maybe the detection unit can se cloaked in bordering territories, maybe further?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

bluelionman
Is it just me that has real trouble distinguishing on the board of play battleships from cruisers - this always costs me as sometimes I move a ship in thinking I will get naval bombardment and when I don't only then realise it was a cruiser (not a battleship) or attack a bunch of enemy navy thinking it's not battleships to discover it was 2 battleships meaning they can suck up hits with no loss. I personally would love to see those two units more distinguishable from each other on the board of play - perhaps a solid border around battle ships or a star underneath - something to help me identify and avoid these costly errors.
Where would you rather be than right here, right now?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

hepster
You can make modifications to the unit images yourself.

Simply go into the unit folders of the games you most often play and add a border, star, BB or whatever you want to whatever units you need to make more distinguishable from other units.

If you go into TWW I think you will find that the Battleships & Cruisers are very easy to distinguish from one another.  I added antenna arrays and pronounced turret barrels to the Battleships and they are very easy to tell from the cruisers.  You could even copy those images into the unit folders of the game you play most(you might have to rename them to whatever the names are in the game you are putting it into to match the existing name).
“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: Feature request

eurofabio
In reply to this post by Frostion
Frostion wrote
I really like the "damage indicator" idea with unitname_hit.png, unitname_hit2.png and so on.
And it would be nice if this was implemented with higher hit point max then 6.

The "marksman" idea (or precisionStrike?) where the enemy chooses casualties would also open op a few unit opportunities. I could imagine assasins, precision bombers, special forces, fifth column, terrorists ect.

What about adding "cloaked" and "antiCloak" abilities for land and air units. Like units that were only visible to the owner, maybe allies,  but could be detected by antiCloak units. Is this already possible? Like saboteur units, cloaked starfighters, stealth bombers, ghosts and wraiths for fantasy maps ect. That would be nice. Maybe with values that described if the cloaked unit are detected in combat (if never detected maybe they should only have 1 strike), maybe the detection unit can se cloaked in bordering territories, maybe further?
Frostion, I also like very much these ideas, but lets have a look at them:

- damage indicator - I can't see any problem with this idea

- precision Strike - what about if I'm playing PBEM? Or even if I'm playing my turn against someone, this person knows that my turn is going to take a while, so this person goes AFK. Then I have to wait until this person comes back to choose my unit to die. A better idea im my opinion would be, you can have this only when attacking. At least the game would not stuck

- cloak units - this is the most hard to implement. Again, lets say I'm playing PBEM, in most of the cases I like to see what my opponent did. How the game will know that I would not supposed to see that cloaked unit? Unless every player would have some kind of login/password for each game, but in this case you are creating a new layer of complexity

PS: I loved your star wars maps!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

ZjelcoP
In reply to this post by Frostion
Frostion wrote
I don't know if the following is already possible in tribleA: I find it a bit annoying that I, after I finish my turn, have to watch the AI or my friends' combat and move around. Sometimes I would rather just look around the map freely, think and plan my next move. I propose that if a player looks around the map, then he is not "forced" to look at other players do their stuff.  If that player is attacked or does not look around, then the camera/screen moves to the ongoing actions.
Will Viewtab > lock map do that for you? I use it to look around without having the camera move where i don't want it. You only get some popups for dice etc but those can be moved and/or minimized.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

Zim Xero
i really liked the idea: "when damaged, turns into:"

This creates some interesting strategy.   Many units in war are not hunting you unless you attack them first, then they turn their full force on you.  Also, some defensive positioned units "dig in" and become entrenched, once attacked.  This ability probably has other creative opportunities:

An egg in an Alien movie. (would become mobile and stronger once damaged)
A mob of peasants. (would become weaker once damaged)
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

hepster
I really like the idea as well.

That way if you have units in a game that have multiple HP each damaged unit can then have different images to distinguish the degree of damage as well as varying things such as movement or att. def. values due to damages.

100% in support of this idea.
“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: Feature request

Zim Xero
SUPRESSION

Right now we have bombing and we have damage and we have support.  In WW2, bomber supression played a large role.  Right now the only way to simulate this is through high damage and support bonus.  Everything occurs real-time during the present round.

Supression as a feature, would allow bombers the option of suppression role when bombing.  Any hits would simply mark the units in the territory for one round.  Supressed units which are susceptible to supression, would receive a -1 att/def penalty.  This simulates the softening up of infantry and entrenched units before an assault.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

Frostion
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by alkexr
Didn’t want to start a new thread just for this:
I think it would be nice and convenient if the game screen moved and centered view/focus onto my own nation/capital when it is my turn to act. On my computer, when I play against AI, it seems that the screen just stays at the previous player’s last act.
(Or is all this dependant on the played xml?)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

agoorjest
In reply to this post by bluelionman
Bluelionman,
I've had that problem too with battleships and cruisers. I still hover the mouse over them to make sure it's the right one.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature request

Navalland
In reply to this post by Frostion
please explain me what is fifth column tech?