Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series



Message


Tac2i -> Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/26/2008 8:28:35 PM)

One thing I would like to see in a future Advanced Tactics: WWII is the ability to form an alliance with another player(s). In the game today are two basic states: 1) at war or 2) at peace. The "at peace" state is really just another word for neutrality: you stay out of my territory and I'll stay out of yours. I proposed a third state: alliance. With an alliance you are allowed to move into your allies territory and trace supplies through it (without actually taking over possession of it). An interesting twist would be to charge PPs to make/break any of these states. Another interesting twist would be the ability cede a hex to another player. That would make for some interesting negotiations for alliances, map and PP sharing. Perhaps the ability to give away or trade research could be added as well.

Example: In one game I was playing I made peace with another player. A few turns later I was under heavy attack by another player and needed my "at peace" ally to help me repel the aggressor. In order for him to help me, he had to declare war on me so he could enter my territory to engage the aggressor forces. This is why I propose a new "alliance" state.

I believe the addition of this third state would advance an already great game to a truly outstanding game with huge replayability. The twists I mentioned would just add to that.




seille -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/26/2008 9:26:38 PM)

I asked Vic for exactly this a while ago and he said "NO" [:(]

Such a alliance feature would be a real improvement for multiplayer games.




Widell -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/26/2008 11:15:17 PM)

If that's really a NO, then something is not completely right with AT. Imaging WWII real life with this setting.... No US troops in Europe or Africa.... I hope Vic can change his mind here as having an ally is about 1000% more realistic being only at peace. Don't get me wrong, I think AT is great game as it is, but this would be a huge, huge improvement.




seille -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/27/2008 8:35:10 AM)

Yes Widell, i absolutely agree, but its a lot of work.
And Vic probably think its too much work for improving the multiplayer part.
But i think such a feature is worth to spend some more time of coding.
Maybe some more comments here will help to change his mind.




Widell -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/27/2008 9:55:10 AM)

Well, given that (it seems) many of the scenarios are PBEM, and that multiplayer is a huge driver for why AT differ from other titles...... Anyway, I guess if the change would imply a huge re-write of core code, I can understand his position however sorry I would be to see a great development path for AT blocked by some decision in the original code crunching phase.

Vic, please..... [;)]




seille -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/27/2008 10:50:46 AM)

Vic implemented a lot of great things that were missed in Peoples Tactics,
but not to allow real alliances may be a wrong decision.
It is, im sure a lot of work for Vic to implement it yet, but im sure he would find a solution for
with enough feedback and some time left for.

Personally i would trade all the latest features added like seasons to have such a alliance feature
where i can send production to my allies and use the same terrain for movement.
And im sure all AT players who play multiplayer games think the same.

1. shared vision
2. shared production (the option to route production to allied top HQ)
3. shared territory (movement and supply)
4. maybe the option to set complete units under control of the allied player.

Too sad Vic is alone and dont have a team for coding. Maybe he can think about again and can give it the AT community
as a Xmas present [:)]




british exil -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/27/2008 11:10:31 AM)

Mehring is working out a setup for a grand GPW. Being able to have other players as allies could be a great step in this direction.

It might also encourage newer players to play PBEM games knowing that they could join a side for a while and be helped with tactics and advice, till the time comes when all allis are potential enemies.

I have no idea how much work goes into such programming, I only see an icon that I have to click to decide on what setup I would like. But it would be great fun esp. in random games.

Vic think about it.

Mat




Vic -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/27/2008 6:05:40 PM)

I am always thinking about it. ;)

Seriously. I agree it would be an improvement. But it would be something that has to wait for a new title.

Kind regards,
Vic




lion_of_judah -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/29/2008 6:19:40 PM)

i would like to have the new options that are available in 1.20 to be used when your building a scenario not just in random ones. I would like to be able to ask for a cease fire and it either accepted or not.[sm=00000002.gif]




Widell -> RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals (9/29/2008 7:51:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lion_of_judah
i would like to have the new options that are available in 1.20 to be used when your building a scenario not just in random ones. I would like to be able to ask for a cease fire and it either accepted or not.[:@]


Fully agree... but with a [:)] instead of a [:@] ..... [;)] sort of.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.953125E-02