ralphtrickey
26 Nov 05, 17:19
Here's my wish list...
To attract new people...
New tutorial. Don't get me wrong, the Korean scenario is great, but it's a bit overwhelming for someone just coming in, I know it was for me. I'd like to see a simple tutorial with a dozen or fewer units.
Working 3d version, I mean, put in hit point, and possibly attack and defense bars like most other modern games. If you had those, and possible the apparent ability to move the camera to a hagher angle instead of the low angle it's at, it might make it more usable. I'm not sure that it would look reasonable with the current engine, but it should be easy to do and might be worth a try. Also let the view shift 60 degrees to each side like Civ4 (CTRL-left/right Arrow)
If the opponent's piece is obscured, how about still putting the unit type at the top. I'm afraid that I don't know exactly what the pyramid with a dot and an m means without looking it up. :confused:
For existing players...
Hotkeys. Preferable configurable, with an option to use keys similar to SPWAW.
Zoom levels. Can we add in a new zoom level, a little closer. Some of us are getting a bit older, and I know that I would like to be able to zoom in closer.
If the opponent is fully visible, why not show the little light on the unit on the main screen as well as on the copy on the top-right corner?
Remove the data from the code. Put it into XML files and allow it to be overriden by scenario.
Python scripting instead of the current method for events. This would be a fairly big bite to take, but it may be worth considering.
PO/AI...
This is the toughest. If you look at the Korea scenario, you'll see that each side is attacking and defending at different times. This is something that very few games have to deal with. It also should be able to produce historical results, which is a constraint that very few other games have. The combination is very difficult to program for.
It might make sense to consider adding some basic attitudes to each formation like aggressiveness, greed, viscosity and home defense. These would be the willingness to attack, to advance when successful, how far to spread out the units, and how much to allocate to home defense. For example, a formation garrisoning might be set to agg 20, greed 0, viscosity 80, and home defense 100. A formation that is defending the supply lines might be set to 100, 100, 100 and 100. Maybe an attribute (paranoia) needs to be added for VP and supply line defense?? (Set to 100 for things to act like they currently do <g>
Did I mention that naming thigs isn't my 'thing'<g>
It might make sense to consider adding some basic stances to the force as a whole like Attacking, Attacking with BreakThrough, Defending, Defending against BreakThrough, Retreating, Running Away, etc. These could be set through the editor or through events. These are needed to make sure that the scenarios are played with close to historical results.
The only way that I've been able to think of getting the AI to play well in a scenario like Korea is to either allow events to totally control the stances or to allow that AI to cheat mildly. By that, I mean to allow the AI to consider the whole battlefield, including hidden units and use that to set the force stance. There is a very fine line that needs to be walked while trying to make the AI both fun to play against and to not make it appear as though it has extra knowledge. This is something that people do without thinking about it based upon having played the scenario previously, read the introduction, the several previous turns, etc.
Cutting Supply. This is probably the most difficult thing to deal with, and the biggest rationale for allowing the AI to cheat.. Go is similar in some ways to the requirements here, except that the rules are much simpler, and there is no fog of war. I have not heard of an AI for Go that can reliably beat the best humans. All the variables that I was talking about above for the formation and the force are to allow the AI to attempt to deal with those issues without trying for an optimal solution.
I believe that everything that I'm asking for is possible, although things like an improved PO may be a bit difficult. While I think that the variable I've talked about make sense, I'm not sure it's going to be possible to have them make a difference, or that they're needed.
To attract new people...
New tutorial. Don't get me wrong, the Korean scenario is great, but it's a bit overwhelming for someone just coming in, I know it was for me. I'd like to see a simple tutorial with a dozen or fewer units.
Working 3d version, I mean, put in hit point, and possibly attack and defense bars like most other modern games. If you had those, and possible the apparent ability to move the camera to a hagher angle instead of the low angle it's at, it might make it more usable. I'm not sure that it would look reasonable with the current engine, but it should be easy to do and might be worth a try. Also let the view shift 60 degrees to each side like Civ4 (CTRL-left/right Arrow)
If the opponent's piece is obscured, how about still putting the unit type at the top. I'm afraid that I don't know exactly what the pyramid with a dot and an m means without looking it up. :confused:
For existing players...
Hotkeys. Preferable configurable, with an option to use keys similar to SPWAW.
Zoom levels. Can we add in a new zoom level, a little closer. Some of us are getting a bit older, and I know that I would like to be able to zoom in closer.
If the opponent is fully visible, why not show the little light on the unit on the main screen as well as on the copy on the top-right corner?
Remove the data from the code. Put it into XML files and allow it to be overriden by scenario.
Python scripting instead of the current method for events. This would be a fairly big bite to take, but it may be worth considering.
PO/AI...
This is the toughest. If you look at the Korea scenario, you'll see that each side is attacking and defending at different times. This is something that very few games have to deal with. It also should be able to produce historical results, which is a constraint that very few other games have. The combination is very difficult to program for.
It might make sense to consider adding some basic attitudes to each formation like aggressiveness, greed, viscosity and home defense. These would be the willingness to attack, to advance when successful, how far to spread out the units, and how much to allocate to home defense. For example, a formation garrisoning might be set to agg 20, greed 0, viscosity 80, and home defense 100. A formation that is defending the supply lines might be set to 100, 100, 100 and 100. Maybe an attribute (paranoia) needs to be added for VP and supply line defense?? (Set to 100 for things to act like they currently do <g>
Did I mention that naming thigs isn't my 'thing'<g>
It might make sense to consider adding some basic stances to the force as a whole like Attacking, Attacking with BreakThrough, Defending, Defending against BreakThrough, Retreating, Running Away, etc. These could be set through the editor or through events. These are needed to make sure that the scenarios are played with close to historical results.
The only way that I've been able to think of getting the AI to play well in a scenario like Korea is to either allow events to totally control the stances or to allow that AI to cheat mildly. By that, I mean to allow the AI to consider the whole battlefield, including hidden units and use that to set the force stance. There is a very fine line that needs to be walked while trying to make the AI both fun to play against and to not make it appear as though it has extra knowledge. This is something that people do without thinking about it based upon having played the scenario previously, read the introduction, the several previous turns, etc.
Cutting Supply. This is probably the most difficult thing to deal with, and the biggest rationale for allowing the AI to cheat.. Go is similar in some ways to the requirements here, except that the rules are much simpler, and there is no fog of war. I have not heard of an AI for Go that can reliably beat the best humans. All the variables that I was talking about above for the formation and the force are to allow the AI to attempt to deal with those issues without trying for an optimal solution.
I believe that everything that I'm asking for is possible, although things like an improved PO may be a bit difficult. While I think that the variable I've talked about make sense, I'm not sure it's going to be possible to have them make a difference, or that they're needed.