Wish List for Patch 1

[Rich Mac]

IronBMike wrote:

Here is another idea I've been toying with. Not sure if it's even possible, but I'll throw it out there maybe for the next game.

As we all know, in real life there are way more variables than in any game. For example, leaders like Napoleon and Jackson could get their troops to marcher faster and longer than other generals, while McClellan was great at organizing, Lee great at defense, etc. I think it would be great to have the player choose their "style" before a battle, which would then give a bonus to a certain aspect of their game. The player could choose from predetermined historical styles like Lee or Jackson, or pick something like two attributes to create a custom player style.

This way, the player could custom tailer their armies to strategy. Want to dig in? Go with Lee. Want to have better artillery? Go with Napoleon. Want to have faster marching speed? Go with Jackson. Want troops that are less affected by units retreating around them? Go with Grant. And etc etc.

This also brings me to another point that was present in the Waterloo and Austerlitz games from the SMG engine: unit cohesion. As units marched, fought, retreated, etc their cohesion would suffer just like morale. I think this would be great if it was implemented in the game just like it was in those two titles. And with this, choosing a McClellan style of command would give your troops a boost to overall cohesion.

Thoughts?

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. It sounds like an RTS gimmick. This game is no RTS.

Fatigue is taken into account and I believe that it affects morale and general combat effectiveness. Not to mention that units with a higher fatigue cannot follow through with more arduous move commands such as run or charge.

[IronBMike]

Rich Mac wrote:

IronBMike wrote:

Here is another idea I've been toying with. Not sure if it's even possible, but I'll throw it out there maybe for the next game.

As we all know, in real life there are way more variables than in any game. For example, leaders like Napoleon and Jackson could get their troops to marcher faster and longer than other generals, while McClellan was great at organizing, Lee great at defense, etc. I think it would be great to have the player choose their "style" before a battle, which would then give a bonus to a certain aspect of their game. The player could choose from predetermined historical styles like Lee or Jackson, or pick something like two attributes to create a custom player style.

This way, the player could custom tailer their armies to strategy. Want to dig in? Go with Lee. Want to have better artillery? Go with Napoleon. Want to have faster marching speed? Go with Jackson. Want troops that are less affected by units retreating around them? Go with Grant. And etc etc.

This also brings me to another point that was present in the Waterloo and Austerlitz games from the SMG engine: unit cohesion. As units marched, fought, retreated, etc their cohesion would suffer just like morale. I think this would be great if it was implemented in the game just like it was in those two titles. And with this, choosing a McClellan style of command would give your troops a boost to overall cohesion.

Thoughts?

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. It sounds like an RTS gimmick. This game is no RTS.

Fatigue is taken into account and I believe that it affects morale and general combat effectiveness. Not to mention that units with a higher fatigue cannot follow through with more arduous move commands such as run or charge.

It's unreasonable to acknowledge that not all units had the same stamina?

[norb]

I think that a lot of what you are talking about is sort of in the game Mike. We have many different factors that were researched about each unit and each commander. These factors affect the game in many different ways. Our model seems to work pretty well so far, but you'll have to really run it through to see if it's what you are looking for.

[IronBMike]

norb wrote:

I think that a lot of what you are talking about is sort of in the game Mike. We have many different factors that were researched about each unit and each commander. These factors affect the game in many different ways. Our model seems to work pretty well so far, but you'll have to really run it through to see if it's what you are looking for.

I realize that, but I was thinking about this more for multiplayer. As in, players could create a player profile, or their General profile, and select one or a few attributes for their style. Sort of like an RPG. It would add more variety to online play, plus I do think it is historical because all commanders were able to extract different feats from their men on the field. I realize that in-game generals have morale effects, bonuses, etc and that everything is calculated very thoroughly and meticulously, but this would in a sense make the player his own general, rather than the troops in the field.

Heck, now I'm getting way off topic and thinking about meshing an RPG and TC2M style game, where you could create a general and play through the ranks, gaining attributes and such. Maybe I'm just a dreamer

[Rich Mac]

IronBMike wrote:

norb wrote:

Heck, now I'm getting way off topic and thinking about meshing an RPG and TC2M style game, where you could create a general and play through the ranks, gaining attributes and such. Maybe I'm just a dreamer

Now you're on to what I disagreed with. That was exactly my point. Not a bad idea for another type of game, but it just doesn't seem to fall into the realm of the Take Command series. I suppose that this might be something that could be modded for folks that are interested in it. Personally, and simply my opinion, this isn't what I picture this game to be.

I'm also afraid of the slippery slope that this could add to the gameplay. Before you know it, you can get bonuses to fire artillery at further ranges or your infantry can run everywhere with little to no fatigue. Then you'll be able to raise hordes of undead to swarm upon those damned Rebels

When it comes to unit quality, I think you just need to play the hand your dealt. Then, the tactics, or lack of them, are solely up to you.

[norb]

I've set up the entire game with the RPG aspects. They don't really do much for single battles, but when we move ahead to campaigns, they are going to play a major role. I'm a huge fan of RPG games, so I always try to get aspects that I think will work into the games. I think that there are a lot of places where things like experience should play a factor in a long campaign. For those that don't want to mess with rpg stuff, it can be ignored, but I believe that once people see how it's meshed they will enjoy it. There are also a lot of plans on how to enhance the mp experience. But as we are very small, we take baby steps. So the first step is to just get everything working. Get to where the previous games left off, then move ahead of that with mp and other improvements.

[Hancock the Superb]

I believe that a little RPG is good, but mashing an RPG game with a tactical and strategic game is difficult, and often proves to have messy results.

[IronBMike]

Something I just thought of:

In real battles commanders could only communicate with couriers. But at the beginning of the battle they would usually have a council of war. Can there be a deployment phase of a multiplayer battle where all the commanders of one team can be in a real-time chat room until the action starts?

[norb]

There is really no way for us to enforce anything about chat. People can have chat rooms going or voice communications going during the game and there is nothing we can do to prevent that.

It would be a nice feature, they could do a private room in the lobby before the game.

[Hancock the Superb]

Another question, is the 20 yard yelling rule from TC2M still work? That means courier messages appear instintaneously within 20 yards of the person sending the message?