RE: Feature Request (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Tigers on the Hunt



Message


decaf -> RE: Feature Request (3/12/2016 3:35:42 PM)

Dear Peter,

I'd like to put a request in for Multi-Hex Firegroups. I'd like lots of other enhancements, too. But, my number one request
is "Multi-Hex Firegroups".

Please allow me to expand on "how" and "why".

How?
My handle, javafiend, is because I like programming in Java (not because of caffine). I'm familiar with the software machinery
needed to support a UI, such as events and tasks. So, I'm sensitive to the amount of work a UI change can entail.

Right now you have a MouseListener that recognizes LMB and ctrl-LMB for your Unit control Panel (lower left).
You also have a MouseListener that recognizes LMB for your Tactical Map.
I propose you extend the Tactical Map MouseListener to include ctrl-LMB, and that this mouse gesture will signal the selection
of multiple Firegroups.

The implementation flows from this extention. Simple LMB operates as before -- clear Unit Control Panel and refresh with the
new unit list. Now, ctrl-LMB will append more units to the Unit Control Panel. Only allow an append if the selected hex
is Personnel, not a solitary Leader, and adjacent to one of the other hexes in the Unit Control Panel list. User may repeat
ctrl-LMB on multiple hexes as desired. Not adjacent, no append, maintain current Unit Control Panel list.

Once the multiple location list is finally selected, then the user can select and deselect one or more units as is currently
done in the Unit Control Panel. The only difference is that the Unit Control Panel contents can be longer than before, and
encompass multiple locations. Of course, it will be necessary for the Unit Control Panel to shift to a scrolling mode as it
fills up. I note that you already have this function implemented in your Action Log Window.

Combat algorithms should be pretty much unchanged. It will be necessary to account for variable range in the subroutine.

The advantage of this approach is that it retains your current UI look-and-feel. It merely provides an extra, optional,
mouse gesture, ctrl-LMB, in the Tactical Map. This does not provide any burden to player's current play style. It can
easily be ignored as a feature if a player desires.

Why?
The rest of this section, Peter, you are probably familiar with. Please skip if you like.

I go back to the old ASLML days. "Those who know" would *always* advise ASL newbies, "Don't stack!" For one example:

>>McGrath's Tactics 101, Mon, 27 Dec 1999,...
2. Don't Stack. "Always spread out and form firegroups. It is
better to have one squad in a stone building and another in the
woods than to have both... in the same location in a stone
building... By not stacking, the most your opponent can hurt
with a single attack is one squad. My rule of thumb is one squad
with a '-1' leader and two squads with a '-2' or better leader."


For you TOTH-ers who've never done ASL; you've seen terrible, horrible things happen to your stacks from just one shot.
The computer rolled a "2" on it's fire attack, and the badness hits every unit in the stack (followed by much wailing
and gnashing of teeth).

Now we see the TOTH combat experience depart from ASL. You have to stack to get a good firepower -- because TOTH
only has Single-Hex Firegroups.

(This is *not* designed to restart ASLML discussions on how much to stack. My view -- tactical situations will vary.
I really want dispersed fire for some of those situations.)

What about AI?
Well, Peter, for starters, you might want to leave the AI alone regarding how much it stacks, and leave it doing
Single-Hex Firegroups. See what user experience has to say. If the players start smashing the AI because the players
disperse and the AI stacks, then add some new AI behaviors.

Closing...
Thanks for listening, Peter. I know that bugs come first, etc... Just wanted to offer some thoughts on how to
tame the "UI beast" regarding Multi-Hex Firegroups. Hope this helps.




fluidwill matrix -> RE: Feature Request (3/12/2016 5:37:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GeneralChaos

How about LIVE 2 player games? No file saving/sharing. Just load game, go online, find player, and have fun!



This or PBEM please




aaatoysandmore -> RE: Feature Request (3/12/2016 8:14:27 PM)

My request: Don't worry about the rest of the stuff like UI and what not but work on the AI. A game without a quality AI is nothing more than a bunch of numbers.

The difficulty levels should be by implementing "sliders" for things like AI attack points and AI defense points and AI movement points. From 1 to 10 on each. It could also have Die roll modifiers from like 1 to 5 points added to the die roll depending on where the slider is set. I've always asked for this, never understood why it's not implemented since it's so easy to add just a bonus number system imho.

Battlefront is the closest I've seen to this with their bonus of up to +3 for the AI combat modifier and then +10% or +25% and up more troops in the setup screen. I hate to think Battlefront is the only one using this AI modifier setup.




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 8:17:59 AM)

I really, really think we need the ability to export the map to a .png or at least a .jpg file so that they can be printed out for planning (that and I could really use them for the custom scenario cards I am working on). [8D]




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 3:01:13 PM)

Peter, I am sure you are managing the feature requests in your own internal tracking system there and forgive me if something like this has already been suggested but I wonder if it would be helpful for the community overall to use a site like http://idea.informer.com to track these change requests? We use it for the Fantasy Grounds VTT and it seems to be well received.

It wouldn't need to be 'official' but it would give a central place to recommend and vote for feature without a running forum post where stuff will get repeated multiple times by people who may not know its already been requested or asked about?

With something like this us users could see if something is already suggested as well vote and comment on the things we as a whole would like to see. By the same token Peter, you could add his comments saying, not gonna happen, too much work, etc and avoid the same things being asked over and over.
Just my 2 cents. [8D]




Peter Fisla -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 3:14:49 PM)

I'm not sure using something like informer.com is necessary, I'm mostly focusing right now on fixing bugs and make it easier for the user to use the interface. For the future however, having a centralized list of requested features would help though as I don't need to go other 500+ posts to find features that the users want.

Cheers!




genesismwt -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 6:18:10 PM)

Russian elite rifle squads, there's two different Russian elite smg squads.

IFE and the units that use IFE.

Transport

Emulation of paradrops and glider landing. (Maybe something as simple as moral checks when the unit is first placed on the board.)

Thanks,





Gerry4321 -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 6:50:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

I really, really think we need the ability to export the map to a .png or at least a .jpg file so that they can be printed out for planning (that and I could really use them for the custom scenario cards I am working on). [8D]


Would love this!




Monkie -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 7:23:04 PM)

1) Hotkey request: Key to cycle through the units that haven't been considered yet, or those that still have action ability.

Could be useful in larger scenarios where some units might go forgotten.


2) How about some color coded text? If a unit fails to rally that could be shown in red text, if they succeed that could be shown in green. Also in the bottom left unit info maybe have "broken" in red, "moved" in orange? etc.




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 8:20:59 PM)

Was thinking of this the other day, the ability to add text to a map, via an editable overlay maybe?




genesismwt -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 10:59:05 PM)

Reduced graphics for the set up zones. When stipulating that an enter sector is an allowable set up zone, it is hard to tell the terrain features under the full set up zone graphics.




Tejszd -> RE: Feature Request (3/13/2016 11:15:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Franciscus

A ZOOM function, please!!

(although due to the fact the game uses a single png file as the source for all graphical elements I am not sure if it is at all possible...[:(])


Agreed these 2 should be a priority!

Zoom to make things more readable on high reesolution monitors and individual graphic files to allow multiple mods to be used....




aaatoysandmore -> RE: Feature Request (3/14/2016 8:49:26 AM)

Remember the K.I.S.S. feature. Too many details bog a game down.




shaddock -> RE: Feature Request (3/14/2016 5:31:08 PM)

Would it be possible to make the arrows on the covered arc buttons a bit more distinct? Right now, I'm having a problem seeing which one is clockwise and which is counter-clockwise.




blackcloud6 -> RE: Feature Request (3/14/2016 6:48:57 PM)

Could we have the option to set the game to automatically save to the current file name when just clicking the save button instead of the current four click process?




Bradley62 -> RE: Feature Request (3/14/2016 10:36:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shaddock

Would it be possible to make the arrows on the covered arc buttons a bit more distinct? Right now, I'm having a problem seeing which one is clockwise and which is counter-clockwise.



Could we just click on an outside hex to point the hull or turret in that direction. So much more intuitive as now vehicles/tanks are not as easy to manage or awkward and detracts from the fun the game has to offer.




Doraniner -> RE: Feature Request (3/15/2016 4:29:09 PM)

Don't know if this has already been asked but adding axis and allied minors (even if this is just infantry and some SW) would be very nice... Polish, Belgians, Rumanians, Greeks, Hungarians etc.. A lot of good scenarios could be created with just that...




DoubleDeuce -> RE: Feature Request (3/15/2016 6:09:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doraniner

Don't know if this has already been asked but adding axis and allied minors (even if this is just infantry and some SW) would be very nice... Polish, Belgians, Rumanians, Greeks, Hungarians etc.. A lot of good scenarios could be created with just that...

I would think, adding new countries would be one of the easiest paths to go down, at least without coding special rules for those countries who need them.




MikeMarchant_ssl -> RE: Feature Request (3/15/2016 6:30:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doraniner

Don't know if this has already been asked but adding axis and allied minors (even if this is just infantry and some SW) would be very nice... Polish, Belgians, Rumanians, Greeks, Hungarians etc.. A lot of good scenarios could be created with just that...


French maybe?


Best Wishes

Mike




gregb41352 -> RE: Feature Request (3/15/2016 7:29:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doraniner

Don't know if this has already been asked but adding axis and allied minors (even if this is just infantry and some SW) would be very nice... Polish, Belgians, Rumanians, Greeks, Hungarians etc.. A lot of good scenarios could be created with just that...



the French!




scaz -> RE: Feature Request (3/16/2016 2:46:37 AM)

Is bypass movement already accounted for in the game? Or is it something that could be added?

Also, What about multi-level counters in buildings? Are multi levels already accounted for or is it something that could be added?




shaddock -> RE: Feature Request (3/16/2016 6:06:52 PM)

I'd like to echo a previous request: the ability to name each unit. Being able to name the units would go a long way towards an accurate OoB. Also the ability to assign units to a particular leader would be nice. And to be able to click on a leader to see all the units assigned to it. That way we can have Major Tom of the 532nd battalion trying to capture a village or town.




Gerry4321 -> RE: Feature Request (3/16/2016 6:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mrscaz

Is bypass movement already accounted for in the game? Or is it something that could be added?

Also, What about multi-level counters in buildings? Are multi levels already accounted for or is it something that could be added?

Neither are in the game right now. But definitely desirable.




Ratzki -> RE: Feature Request (3/16/2016 7:52:49 PM)

+1. Yes, naming the units would be a bonus.




MikeMarchant_ssl -> RE: Feature Request (3/16/2016 8:25:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shaddock

I'd like to echo a previous request: the ability to name each unit. Being able to name the units would go a long way towards an accurate OoB. Also the ability to assign units to a particular leader would be nice. And to be able to click on a leader to see all the units assigned to it. That way we can have Major Tom of the 532nd battalion trying to capture a village or town.


Shouldn't he be conquering space?


Best Wishes

Mike




Monkie -> RE: Feature Request (3/17/2016 3:33:23 AM)

How difficult would it be to allow players to change the order of the stacks? I prefer to keep my leaders on top most of the time. Since the game is already keeping track of support weapon possession in it's super brain there really is no reason for any particular order of stacking correct?




LtBernal -> RE: Feature Request (3/18/2016 1:07:17 AM)

Hello Peter, I agree with aaatoys and the KISS principal and my suggestion for a long-term platform would be to build layers of added complexity in small, meaningful groups and set these groups of additional game features as modules which the player can choose from and add as the game is learned and more complexity is needed by the player as time goes on. Players may utilize only the features they are comfortable with ranging from the original game to items like multi-level buildings hero counters, armor leaders, etc. These mods would need to be activated from a new menu right after hitting the PLAY button in the opening menu, thus opening to a "complexity mod menu with a side-window defining the additional features being selected" which the user may read and then select from. The game should remember the last complexity module setting or combination of modules selected. However, game improvements not adding game complexity should be updated to the .exe and other parts of the game folder right away; items including but not limited to - zoom, hotkeys, etc.

**My complexity request additional feature would be to create other nationality counters and have the game select the appropriate counters (with varying colors would be nice), to match the nationalities of any chosen scenario.

Big fun imo!




UP844 -> RE: Feature Request (3/19/2016 12:27:14 AM)

In large scenarios, it is often difficult to tell which of our units has a LOS to enemy units. It would be nice to have the units that have a LOS to enemy units highlighted in some way, so as to avoid having to select all the units that might have a LOS to the target.




parusski -> RE: Feature Request (3/21/2016 3:41:27 AM)

Peter, I have just one request: PLEASE MAKE THIS BE EVERYTHING I EVER WANTED IN A GAME.[;)]




snowbird -> RE: Feature Request (3/21/2016 3:45:51 AM)

Split the Terrain.png into multiple graphic files.

Possible types of files that could split from Terrain.png:
1) Terrain (e.g. potentially could be split into multiple files for desert, europe winter, europe summer, etc)
2) Personnel and Vehicle Counters (e.g. potentially could be split into multiple files by nationality)
3) Informational Counters (e.g. contains Fire, Final fire, Pinned, etc)
4) Other Misc (e.g. contains Flags, Setup, and Exit hexes, etc)

This will be a bit of development work to reference the new files and image locations but sets up a good foundation for the future (easier modding and expansions).




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0546875