Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

aaalafayette
Administrator
This post was updated on .
What are the top two items on your wish list for tripleA? Asked another way, if there were two things you could improve or change about tripleA, what would those two things be?

For this thread, please start your two items, and then give some details and explain a bit how things would work. The goal is largely to brain storm and create a list of things we would want to do.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

aaalafayette
Administrator
My top two:
1. battle calc improvements, automatically load all units in range by country (not my idea, but top of my wish list)
2. Split display of units by movement, for example, do not group transports that have moved one with transports that have not moved
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

Cernel
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
1) Be allowed to retreat after having destroyed all of the units in a territory (a popup that ask you if you want to consolidate or retreat: if you choose consolidate, the fight end as normal, if you choose retreat you retreat like in normal retreats). Also, it would be better to be able to set, in the XML, if the territory (and any capturable unit in it) get captured or not if you win the battle but retreat.
I think this is, as now, the biggest absence of realism in the whole TripleA universe. If you attack and kill all of the enemy units except one, you can retreat; while, if you killed them all, you just attacked too well and can't retreat... As now, at least for me, this is the biggest reason why Low Luck has a bigger gaming dept, since it allows for safe strafing; not obliging you to the nonsense of letting "favourable" dice decide you can't retreat for no sensible reasons. At least, it's for me the biggest reason for playing Low Luck, instead of Dice, since; on the other hand, I love (sensible) randomness.

2) Finally having implemented the actual rule in existance since v1 about muliti-players defence; the rule being that if multiple players are defending toghether everyone must agree on the casualty selection, or the attacker chooses (this is most important for FFA). Currently, for land battle or in sea zones with territory ownership, it is the territory owner, as long as it is an enemy of the attacker, that chooses casualties (even if it hasn't units in the battle!) and you are not even able to know who the hell will do the clicks in defence when you are in regular sea zones!!! This is especially disturbing in FFA in which you can place in enemy seas (thus two enemies may defend toghether against a third one, but only one chooses casualties and you don't even know who will be).

(I've quite more than 2, btw, but I think these are the two most important ones)

p.s.: I've no skills, so can't help.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

alkexr
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
I support Cernel 1).

But here is my top two:

1) whenDamagedChangesInto - whenRepairedChangesInto
Two xml options for units. Units with this property would change into another unit (possibly something like wounded_whatever or damaged_whatever) when damaged, instead of losing a hitpoint. When repaired, they could change into the same thing they were before they were damaged (or something else). Taking multiple damage or being repaired multiple hitpoints would equal to repeated single-hit damage or repair. The "select casualty" screen would display the whole chain of units that are damaged into each other, similarly to the chain of the same unit with less and less hitpoints displayed in the current version. This would grant enormous flexibility for map makers, such as units that grow stronger or weaker over time (by being "repaired" into other units), units that go berserk rage and fight stronger when damaged, or even ships or forts that become capturable infrastructure if damaged, just to mention a few.

2) 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.

I have already mentioned these here: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Feature-request-td7586984.html
(The second is ctrl c ctrl v-ed from there)
Commenters there were inspired by the first (number 7 there) idea.
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: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

crazy_german
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
I would really like to change how casualties are chosen. A global property that makes all casualties random, or all chosen by the attacker, would be great.

What would be even better would be if we could set it as a unit attachment, so certain units might inflict random casualties, while others are chosen by defender, and others yet are chosen by attacker.

This can currently be done by through use of AA attacks, but only to a certain extent. They also cannot interact with terrain, and have several other harsh limitations.

I have a pretty big wishlist but this is the only thing I'm suggesting now because I really really want it. I have a map midway in its design point that would use this feature and it has so many possibilities. It also sounds very doable, hopefully the AA code would already provide a base to work with.

Edit- I like Cernel's idea #1 as well as alkexr's #1
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

hepster
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
1)  That airfields be given the ability to govern whether aircraft may, and how many can intercept Strategic Bombing runs as they can do for scrambling.

2)  To separate the "Bombard" capability from exclusively naval units.  Essentially to make the bombard function a unit attachment that can be attached to any unit.

Plus I am heavily in favour of the "changes into" feature as well.
“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: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

ZjelcoP
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
I definately support your no1 about the battlecalculator as I suggested something similar.
Think you got to the core of this wish, because what you essentially want to know is:
Can I stack here (relatively)safely or will I be wiped away (if so, at what cost to the opponent)?
To determine this now can be difficult, time consuming and sensitive to human errors that can cost you a game.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

The Red Baron
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
I'm a new guy on the TripleA map making scene for sure, but from what I've seen, and the maps and XMLs I've played with, here is my main idea, and it's a big one, so I'm sticking to one. Veqryn once said that someone should rewrite the transport validation code so that a mapmaker can specify which units can transport which other units, that is to merge land, air, and sea transporting into one system under the complete customization of the mapmaker how he wants units being transported to relate to transports. I second this and I also decided to give some reasons why some of the restrictions should be optionally lifted, and any class (land, air, sea) unit can carry any unit of any other class. Here is an illustration discussing the benefits.

I don't have a clue how hard/easy this would be, so take my suggestion with a grain of salt. Just throwing it out there, as I think a lot of mapmakers would like this (shoot me if you like ).

Here is the original comment from Veq: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Civil-War-A-House-Divided-3-0-tp6850952p6873558.html

I'm excited by your initiative, and look forward to your work on any of these great suggestions in this thread.  
"The aggressive spirit, the offensive, is the chief thing everywhere in war, and the air is no exception." - Manfred von Richthofen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

Cernel
In reply to this post by alkexr
Me myself, fantasy settings aside, thinks that multiple hitpoints units should not really exist in TripleA, aside for capturable infrastructures. Yah, I've always disliked the 2 hitpoints battleship addition from v1; I think also battleships should be 1 hitpoint.

If you think about it, for example, 1 heavy armor is like 100 real heavy armors; so it doesn't really make sense that they all get damaged before any of them is destroyed. But even if 1 battleship unit is representing 1 single battleship, it is still nonsense that if you have 12 battleships they are all damaged before any sink.

Thus probably, to make some sense, whatever advancement in handling the multiple hitpoint thing should be bundled with the introduction of some random casualties system (currently limited only to AA guns), so that the above battleships will be partly destroyed, partly damaged etc. on a random basis.

And, yeah, my point 2 is really only relevant if you play live FFA games with other people. It is of course not a problem for 1v1 or AI games, and a moot point for whatever not FFA games anyway.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

alkexr
Cernel wrote
Me myself, fantasy settings aside, thinks that multiple hitpoints units should not really exist in TripleA, aside for capturable infrastructures. Yah, I've always disliked the 2 hitpoints battleship addition from v1; I think also battleships should be 1 hitpoint.
You always have the game option "Two hit battleship", hidden somewhere in the xml if not editable. I can't think of a reason for the existence of this game option but that there was some opposition when introducing this, so it is meant for you among others.

Cernel wrote
Thus probably, to make some sense, whatever advancement in handling the multiple hitpoint thing should be bundled with the introduction of some random casualties system (currently limited only to AA guns), so that the above battleships will be partly destroyed, partly damaged etc. on a random basis.
I've already had an idea how to manage this, without randomness. I explain through an example: suppose you have 2 battleships (2 hp each) and 3 destroyers (1 hp), and your enemy got 5 hits. You can then either select 2 battleships + 1 destroyer or 1 battleship + 3 destroyer. They would all be destroyed, regardless of hitpoints, the only benefit of multiple-hit units is that you have to select less of them. It would add something new to the game, but only as an optional feature: the old (current) hitpoints system has got some uses as well.
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: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

Frostion
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
All my top improvement wishes are AI related, but I guess you are asking for game engine improvements? Then here are a few that I hope could be done with ease and improve the game playing experience:
1.
A fix for something that really bugs me: Whenever the purchase screen pups up, it pops up too small, resulting in vertical and horizontal scroll arrows. It seems like the game always opens the purchase window 1 pixel too narrow in the height. Here are two pics of how it looks like before I adjust the window to be a bit higher:

2.
When getting into combat and looking at the Combat Window. I would really like to be able to press on the combating players’ displayed phases – the ones displayed in the left side of the window. Like a way to backtrack what just happened in this single combat round – like what did the enemy actually roll with his dice.
(3. )
(If I got a bonus wish, then I would like to see that a two- or three-second mouseover over a unit would display its stats. This is how it works in many other games, like Civ5 for example. (I know that one can just press I, but also that many (most?) players don’t know this), and an automatic popup would be preferable… if you ask me)

PS: About the “Be allowed to retreat after having destroyed all of the units in a territory”: The way that the normal rules are, where one is not able to retreat after successfully defeating every enemy in the attacked territory, is this not just simulating that (in real life) an army that launches a campaign into another territory cannot/or do not have time to both make an organized attack, defeat the enemy in every corner of the territory and also withdraw all troops back to where the army came from? I think it is very realistic not to be able to also withdraw.
I know that one can retreat before defeating the enemy, but I would guess that this simulates the attacking army not successfully overcoming the defenders and therefore not actually getting very far into the enemy territory before making the retreat.
But again ... if it was an xml option that could be turned on/off it would be nice.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

hepster
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Now I know I already spent my 2 wishes Genie in the computer... but I wondered if I might hazard a third?

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE it if we could determine placement within a territory based on the size of the unit image.  So that when you run the placement picker you could specify placement for certain unit image sizes.

So say all my production units were 55p x 55p then I would run a placement picker and put them in certain locations (ie. the center) within each territory.  Then my infrastructure units would be a different size  44p x 44p... these would be placed in the area within each territory (ie. bottom right corner) .  Then my combat units at 48p x 48p would then populate the rest of the vacant space within each terr.  

This would go a long way to help map makers to have consistency within a map when looking at each terr. as you would know where to look in each terr. for certain types of units.

I know this is probably a fantasy... but I thought I'd put it out there anyway.
“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: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

crazy_german
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Here is a thought on the retreating when no defenders remain idea

What if a new delegate was added, which was just a clone of the combat move delegate, except that the decision to retreat/ remain is the very first stage of combat. So the attacker must choose before any dice are rolled. Then after all diced are rolled and casualties taken, the retreat is executed. It would be exectured regardless of whether the defender lives or dies.

Makes some realistic sense, no more retreating on a dime, raids and attacking with intent to occupy become quite different. Hopefully this wouldn't require any massive additions to the code.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

Stohrm
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
1.  Improve(/change) Transporting and add Towing

2.  Add Targeting ability (aka Attacker Chooses Enemy Casualties).

In regards to numeral Uno: I pretty much agree with everything that was said in an earlier post; but I would like to add that the distance the unit can travel be based on whether it loads and/or unloads.

For example: a sea transport can load and move two space and then unload; or it can load and move three spaces (but not unload); or if it's already loaded, it can move three spaces and then unload; and if it neither loads or unloads it can move four spaces.  Then again, that might be a bit much and one might want to reduce all of them by one; but one can configure that in the xml as one chooses (if the code allows it).

I suggest the following distinctions: IsLandTransport; IsAirTransport; IsSeaTransport.  Plus: CanTransport; CanTow.  And one more set: IsLightTransport; IsHeavyTransport.  Just to name a few; as you'll probably also want: IsTransportable; IsTowable; plus IsLight; IsHeavy; and a few others still.

As for numeral Dos: When one attacks an area he/she should be able to select Primary, Secondary and Tertiary targets.   For example: when the British went after the infamous Bismarck they chose to target it and ignore it's escort and yes it took more than two shots to sink it!

I hope that's sufficient detail for both.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

redrum
Administrator
@Frostion - Those scroll bars really look awful. I've never had that happen so I wonder why it happens to you and what settings you have that are different? Is it on all maps? You should submit a bug for that if you haven't already as that's not a feature request but a bug in my mind.

In terms of AI, it is sort of a separate priority list for engine changes though if your improvements aren't captured in the TODO list in the AI development thread please post there and I'll review them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

Cernel
It always happens to me too. But despite the bars being on both sides, it is actually only the height being off. If you increase the Y dimension of the pop up of 5 pixels, both the Y and the X bars disappear. The X bar is there only because the presence of the Y bars (being there because the pop up is always short of 5 pixels) reduce the usable wideness of a few pixels, making necessary a bar for the X too.

So, for me, despite both bars being present, the pop-up is only short of 5 pixels on the Y, while it is fine for the X dimension.

I imagined this was something happening to everyone.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

Frostion
In reply to this post by redrum
@redrum and Cernel
Yes it is on all maps, and on every TripleA version I have played. It is true that it is only the height that is off, and that the other horizontal scrollbar is only there because of the vertical. As a note, this happens on my home pc (Windows 7 Home Premium, 64 bit) no matter what resolution I set (I can only set 1920x1080, 1600x900, 1280x720, 800x600). However, it does not happen on my old laptop with 1366 x 768 resolution (also a Windows 7 Home Premium, 64 bit).
It is strange that I only have to widen/correct my height of the purchase screen with 1 pixel to get a normal view and Cernel with 5. The bug is most likely the same, but maybe our operating system rendered window and scrollbar graphics are different?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

eurofabio
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

Frostion
@eurofabio
Are you asking that pictures of territory income of "other resources" than PUs (and maybe also the PUs) be displayed in the bottom of the screen when hovering the mouse over a territory?
Lets put your wish and my idea of an info screen poping op after 2-3 seconds mouseovering on units/territories together, and we could have a popup info with ressource pictures included
Or both ideas could of course be implemented separately.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Your Wish List for Top Two TripleA Improvements

redrum
Administrator
@eurofabio - You have my vote. I think trying to update the interface to show more information around the edges would be great. I think something more similar to Civ 5 style (which many other games have adopted) with info along the top, bottom, and sides but keep the middle nice and clear so people can see the map.

@Frostion - Agree. I hate the Ctrl+i to see info. Really would be nice to have hover over effects along with just have more info available in the interface.
12