Matrix Games Forums

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/26/2008 8:28:35 PM   
Webizen


Posts: 1054
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline 		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.
Post #: 1
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/26/2008 9:26:38 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2011
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by seille -- 9/26/2008 9:27:52 PM >

(in reply to Webizen)
Post #: 2
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/26/2008 11:15:17 PM   
Widell


Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 3
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/27/2008 8:35:10 AM   
seille

 

Posts: 2011
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Yes Widell, i absolutely agree, but it´s a lot of work.
And Vic probably think it´s 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.

(in reply to Widell)
Post #: 4
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/27/2008 9:55:10 AM   
Widell


Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Status: offline 		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.....

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 5
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/27/2008 10:50:46 AM   
seille

 

Posts: 2011
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		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, i´m sure a lot of work for Vic to implement it yet, but i´m 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 i´m 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 don´t have a team for coding. Maybe he can think about again and can give it the AT community
as a Xmas present

(in reply to Widell)
Post #: 6
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/27/2008 11:10:31 AM   
british exil


Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/4/2006
From: Lower Saxony Germany
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill

WitE,UV,AT,ATG,FoF

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 7
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/27/2008 6:05:40 PM   
Vic


Posts: 3419
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: online 		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

(in reply to british exil)
Post #: 8
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/29/2008 6:19:40 PM   
lion_of_judah


Posts: 813
Joined: 1/8/2007
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by lion_of_judah -- 9/29/2008 8:56:07 PM >

(in reply to Webizen)
Post #: 9
RE: Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals - 9/29/2008 7:51:27 PM   
Widell


Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to lion_of_judah)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Advanced Tactics 2.0 Proposals Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.379