wish list...
- blackj3sus
- Lux Messiah
- Posts: 3223
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm
- Location: sillysoft.net/roman-battles
- Contact:
- blackj3sus
- Lux Messiah
- Posts: 3223
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm
- Location: sillysoft.net/roman-battles
- Contact:
- blackj3sus
- Lux Messiah
- Posts: 3223
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm
- Location: sillysoft.net/roman-battles
- Contact:
It would have to be a slow replay to see the moves clearly.Pars wrote:I have asked for that 2, and I think Djdee also asked for that.Mud wrote:A replay button that would show the last turn and the fighting for that turn would be nice. It would let me analyze what happened in better detail.
What about a still shot of the board which recalls all troop placements and moves in the turn just made?
There would probably have to be a 'view player by player' function so the board wasn't thick with crisscrossing arrows and bunches of troops stacked on top of one another. Ideally you'd be able to click on each individual player's name or colour to see just their moves.
I wouldn't mind that last function while making moves to be honest. I often have to undo my moves to double check troop numbers, placements and movement because I can't see clearly with all the units, numbers and arrows overlapping each other in such a small area.
I've noticed that friendly units are now placed flush against one another when more than one team member occupies the same country.
This goes some way to making things clearer but I still think it could be improved. The idea of a single troop with multiple numbered spheres was a really neat solution to this issue I thought.
(Left image below shows how it is now - right image shows multiple sphere's idea)
I've noticed the new players are confused about where to learn if maps are team maps or not.
They're expecting the information would have been provided on the tracker which i think is kinda fair enough. If i was new I wouldn't know where to look for details about the maps.
So yeah, I think team info included on the tracker would be ideal.
They're expecting the information would have been provided on the tracker which i think is kinda fair enough. If i was new I wouldn't know where to look for details about the maps.
So yeah, I think team info included on the tracker would be ideal.
Like the map plug-in manager shows the information.
I noticed a few players joining a game with the assumption they would play solo... then discovering they were on a team when they were on one.
One other thing. I suppose it's good there's a 24 hour turn game up but is 100 years the right map for it? It's a great map but it's not an especially large one. There's only so much to consider each turn. 24 hours seems like overkill - better suited to a larger map like Alexander or Napoleonic..?
I noticed a few players joining a game with the assumption they would play solo... then discovering they were on a team when they were on one.
One other thing. I suppose it's good there's a 24 hour turn game up but is 100 years the right map for it? It's a great map but it's not an especially large one. There's only so much to consider each turn. 24 hours seems like overkill - better suited to a larger map like Alexander or Napoleonic..?
Yes, it would be much better for maps with small regions (countries). I loved this solution!Behemoth wrote:
This goes some way to making things clearer but I still think it could be improved. The idea of a single troop with multiple numbered spheres was a really neat solution to this issue I thought.
(Left image below shows how it is now - right image shows multiple sphere's idea)
Last edited by Odanan on Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My wish list:
1- To make possible for the mapper to rename the units (ex: knight = armored, pawn = infantry, castle = fortress);
2- To be able to drag the recruit panel (because it sometimes annoyingly cover some important information);
3- To have most of the console commands in the upper menu during the match (simplifying the playability).
4- To show the allied planned movements before the turn ends (this helps coordinating attacks);
5- To add the option for a player to give a territory to other player;
6- To make possible for the mapper to edit the units’ stats;
7- To make possible for the mapper to have different images for units from different players;
8- Multiplayer: to add a lobby where the players make their choices before the game starts;
9- To make possible for the mapper to add more units and buildings types (ex: cities = only recruit; forts = only bonus to defense);
10- Long ranged units: can attack an adjacent territory without the need of moving in to it (ex: archers, artillery). Drawback: cannot fight units in the same territory. It would be kind of tricky to add this to the game's mechanism, but imagene how much it could improve the strategy complexity of the game for better.
11- Different terrain types, like mountains (take two turns to cross), flooded (only crossed by infantry) and so on.
1- To make possible for the mapper to rename the units (ex: knight = armored, pawn = infantry, castle = fortress);
2- To be able to drag the recruit panel (because it sometimes annoyingly cover some important information);
3- To have most of the console commands in the upper menu during the match (simplifying the playability).
4- To show the allied planned movements before the turn ends (this helps coordinating attacks);
5- To add the option for a player to give a territory to other player;
6- To make possible for the mapper to edit the units’ stats;
7- To make possible for the mapper to have different images for units from different players;
8- Multiplayer: to add a lobby where the players make their choices before the game starts;
9- To make possible for the mapper to add more units and buildings types (ex: cities = only recruit; forts = only bonus to defense);
10- Long ranged units: can attack an adjacent territory without the need of moving in to it (ex: archers, artillery). Drawback: cannot fight units in the same territory. It would be kind of tricky to add this to the game's mechanism, but imagene how much it could improve the strategy complexity of the game for better.
11- Different terrain types, like mountains (take two turns to cross), flooded (only crossed by infantry) and so on.
These exactly. Ranged attacks, different unit names, different terrain types for movement/costs/prohibitions/etc. Ranged attacks being at the very top of my list.Odanan wrote:My wish list:
1- To make possible for the mapper to rename the units (ex: knight = armored, pawn = infantry, castle = fortress);
10- Long ranged units: can attack an adjacent territory without the need of moving in to it (ex: archers, artillery). Drawback: cannot fight units in the same territory. It would be kind of tricky to add this to the game's mechanism, but imagene how much it could improve the strategy complexity of the game for better.
11- Different terrain types, like mountains (take two turns to cross), flooded (only crossed by infantry) and so on.
- blackj3sus
- Lux Messiah
- Posts: 3223
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm
- Location: sillysoft.net/roman-battles
- Contact:
1- To make possible for the mapper to rename the units (ex: knight = armored, pawn = infantry, castle = fortress);
5- To add the option for a player to give a territory to other player;
(and option for a player to give cash to other player)
6- To make possible for the mapper to edit the units’ stats;
7- To make possible for the mapper to have different images for units from different players;
11- Different terrain types, like mountains (take two turns to cross), flooded (only crossed by infantry) and so on.
would like to see these happen
----------------------------------------------------------
9- To make possible for the mapper to add more units and buildings types (ex: cities = only recruit; forts = only bonus to defense);
10- Long ranged units: can attack an adjacent territory without the need of moving in to it (ex: archers, artillery). Drawback: cannot fight units in the same territory. It would be kind of tricky to add this to the game's mechanism, but imagene how much it could improve the strategy complexity of the game for better.
probably not gonna happen based on what dustin has said previously
----------------------------------------------------------
2- To be able to drag the recruit panel (because it sometimes annoyingly cover some important information);
3- To have most of the console commands in the upper menu during the match (simplifying the playability).
4- To show the allied planned movements before the turn ends (this helps coordinating attacks);
8- Multiplayer: to add a lobby where the players make their choices before the game starts;
not priority but good ideas
5- To add the option for a player to give a territory to other player;
(and option for a player to give cash to other player)
6- To make possible for the mapper to edit the units’ stats;
7- To make possible for the mapper to have different images for units from different players;
11- Different terrain types, like mountains (take two turns to cross), flooded (only crossed by infantry) and so on.
would like to see these happen
----------------------------------------------------------
9- To make possible for the mapper to add more units and buildings types (ex: cities = only recruit; forts = only bonus to defense);
10- Long ranged units: can attack an adjacent territory without the need of moving in to it (ex: archers, artillery). Drawback: cannot fight units in the same territory. It would be kind of tricky to add this to the game's mechanism, but imagene how much it could improve the strategy complexity of the game for better.
probably not gonna happen based on what dustin has said previously
----------------------------------------------------------
2- To be able to drag the recruit panel (because it sometimes annoyingly cover some important information);
3- To have most of the console commands in the upper menu during the match (simplifying the playability).
4- To show the allied planned movements before the turn ends (this helps coordinating attacks);
8- Multiplayer: to add a lobby where the players make their choices before the game starts;
not priority but good ideas
Nobody is taking more than 15 minutes, I dare say to make any one round of moves. The benefit of the 24 hour turn cycle, is some of us have demanding jobs, with long hours, and are unable to log onto vox while at work.Behemoth wrote:
One other thing. I suppose it's good there's a 24 hour turn game up but is 100 years the right map for it? It's a great map but it's not an especially large one. There's only so much to consider each turn. 24 hours seems like overkill - better suited to a larger map like Alexander or Napoleonic..?
Gyp
I hear you, I can't keep up with 24h much less than 16h turn times when I'm in the middle of a job. When working more regular hours though 16h turn times aren't an issue.
Some players do spend a lot of time (many hours) over their moves especially on larger more complex maps, so 24 hours makes perfect sense for those games.
All I was suggesting was that medium or smaller maps which are probably less time intensive to play might better suit a 16h timer.
When all or the most part of 24 hours are being used by one or two players on a medium or small sized map I struggle to stay interested, especially when the player(s) in question has got limited move options (which i've noticed happen quite a few times toward the end of a game.)
Some players do spend a lot of time (many hours) over their moves especially on larger more complex maps, so 24 hours makes perfect sense for those games.
All I was suggesting was that medium or smaller maps which are probably less time intensive to play might better suit a 16h timer.
When all or the most part of 24 hours are being used by one or two players on a medium or small sized map I struggle to stay interested, especially when the player(s) in question has got limited move options (which i've noticed happen quite a few times toward the end of a game.)
Glad to hear it.Odanan wrote:Yes, it would be much better for maps with small regions (countries). I loved this solution!Behemoth wrote:
This goes some way to making things clearer but I still think it could be improved. The idea of a single troop with multiple numbered spheres was a really neat solution to this issue I thought.
(Left image below shows how it is now - right image shows multiple sphere's idea)
The one unit idea was RG's spin on a similar idea in this <a href="http://sillysoft.net/forums/viewtopic.p ... thread.</a> I still reckon it would be the best solution to the space issue and make an all-round improvement to game play.
Also - It would mean map makers could design with much more clarity - when using the 'Set Vox Unit Points' you'd know exactly where the units would appear. At present the tool is only accurate when one team member occupies the country, there's no way to truly know how the units will look when multiple team members meet there.
The symbols available to assign teams are a bit limited.
Would it be possible to tailor the list somehow, as map makers do with unit icons?
I mention it because most of the popular maps (at least on-line) have themes based on actual conflicts. Ideally teams for these maps would be assigned a symbol that was historically relevant, especially for those set post industrial-revolution where many insignias are widely recognisable.
Would it be possible to tailor the list somehow, as map makers do with unit icons?
I mention it because most of the popular maps (at least on-line) have themes based on actual conflicts. Ideally teams for these maps would be assigned a symbol that was historically relevant, especially for those set post industrial-revolution where many insignias are widely recognisable.
I would also like to re-watch some games, I really like this suggestion. Maybe it's an idea to create an option for the game to automatically make screenshots of every beginning of the turn and movement fase. That way you could watch the entire game again later. Maybe also an option for the game to make a screenshot every X turns, so you can decide for yourself how many you want.Ramcat wrote:Gee, I hope this feature is not already in Castle Vox.
Replays, anyone?
I would love to be able to save a replay of all the moves taken in a game and rewatch the battles.
Hex Extreme for example.Odanan wrote:Yes, it would be much better for maps with small regions (countries)...Behemoth wrote:
This goes some way to making things clearer but I still think it could be improved. The idea of a single troop with multiple numbered spheres was a really neat solution to this issue I thought.
(Left image below shows how it is now - right image shows multiple sphere's idea)
This would be awesome or something like it. There needs to be a way of choosing who you get to play with.Odanan wrote:My wish list:
8- Multiplayer: to add a lobby where the players make their choices before the game starts
I am not going to sign up for any new games unless I am the last player in the game and I can see who is there.
I like the idea mud.
Raises an issue about who gets to do the picking though. First come first serve? Or would higher ranked (win%) players get more of a say... or would that be elitist.
Maybe multiple players could control the lobby and whoever fills the spots first gets to play the map?
Also... I think the player in control of the lobby should have to nominate a minimum number of players greater than the available spots, say 1.5 times as many, so 12 players for Napoleon.
Raises an issue about who gets to do the picking though. First come first serve? Or would higher ranked (win%) players get more of a say... or would that be elitist.
Maybe multiple players could control the lobby and whoever fills the spots first gets to play the map?
Also... I think the player in control of the lobby should have to nominate a minimum number of players greater than the available spots, say 1.5 times as many, so 12 players for Napoleon.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests