Suggestions

[Brit]

I know there's no time to add that now, but for future reference, what format would user-created unit icons have to be in?

The unit and building images and animations are all in png format (24-bit RGB + 8-bit alpha channel). Pretty standard.

[Strider53]

BTW, I've been copying everyone's suggestions into a file on my computer. Just wanted to let everyone know that even if I don't respond immediately, it doesn't mean the suggestion was ignored.

Hey Brit. I am impressed with the demo and it keeps getting better with each new release. I have made my pre-order.

I have reported several hang-ups I encountered and can see no apparent cause for them. Different machines, different OS etc.

There is one thing I find irritating and that is map navigation. I would really like to be able to click and drag the map around. any chance of this seeing the light of day? I really don't care for the zoom in on the current cursor position.

Good work.

[N3rull]

You can scroll the map by holding middle mouse button and moving the mouse.

You can turn off or rebind the zoom in/zoom out keys in the game properties menu.

Or is it something else that you mean?

[Fangorn]

When the city build screen pops up it is always over that city in the map. So I have to drag it to the side to check the map. The small map in the city build screen isn't very helpful... would it be possible to have the city build screen pop up beside the city instead of over it?

Also, in the city build screen, I think it would be helpful to show the units currently in garrison of that city.

Finally, would it be possible to add an experience value option for the units. I guess some people wouldn't like the extra complication, but it would be something interesting to have in the optional rulesets.

[N3rull]

Also, in the city build screen, I think it would be helpful to show the units currently in garrison of that city.

They are shown - every time the city build screen shows up, whether you called it yourself or it popped up automatically, the city is automatically selected. The city as well as all units inside it are therefore displayed in the unit selection bar - below resource counters.

When the city build screen pops up it is always over that city in the map. So I have to drag it to the side to check the map. The small map in the city build screen isn't very helpful... would it be possible to have the city build screen pop up beside the city instead of over it?

If the window showed beside the city (I presume you want it some non-epsilon distance away so you can see what's around the city) then on the vast majority of monitors (like, below 30 inches) the window would be partially off screen. It would have to be dragged to the middle, anyway (which means nothing would change, you have to drag it around either way). Maybe try disabling the pop up (properties window) and manually bringing up the windows as the City Needs Orders reminder shows.

It did give me an idea, though.

Brit, would it be possible to add minimizing windows to the game?

For example:

+ add an option in properties that all "need build order" pop-ups start minimized and we'll have solved the issue. I must admit that it is sometimes annoying to see that my armada of 3 transports with nine Class 6 tanks on board is about to crash into an enemy battleship, but I can't order them to get away because the next game turn begins with 10 BUILD SOMETHING HERE windows jumping at ya. On the other hand, without those pop ups, it would be a nauseous task, keeping all cities working.

[N3rull]

A suggestion regarding the 1900-2030 ruleset technologies (nothing too important).

It is my honest belief that the technology tree is too... homogeneous.

Let's say you aim for tanks... you get class 4 tanks. Yay. Suddely you realize that with a handful of 10 research-point clicks you can have class 4 anything else, because everything else uses the same technologies.

I know it makes sense from the realism point of view - when a country has ultra-advanced aircraft, they typically don't sport WWI markV tanks at the same time.

It does take away from the 'strategy game' concept though.

I think that I wouldn't really feel any difference if the technology tree was simply a single line of fifty ever more expensive technologies, every second or third unlocking some units. That's how it looks now... if you've sweated 865 research points to get straight to that final class battleship, you realize that you're also 70 research points away from the Class 4 aircraft career or Class 6 infantry. You are, in fact, less than 200 research points from having ANY other unit in the game.

You realize that you have class 4 battleships, while the other guy has class 3 everything, including battleships.

I believe it would make the game more challenging (and interesting) if the furthest parts of different unit branches were slightly more.. well, different. So that after a player reaches some sensible technology level (like, 2/3 of the tech tree), he has to make a conscious choice of specializing in a handful of unit types, leaving others slightly behind.

My suggestion is to do one of the following:

1. increase the research cost of late game unit techs substantially, e.g.:

- class 1 battleship - 10 research points

- class 2 bb - 40 rp

- class 3 bb - 80 rp

- class 4 bb - 120 rp

2. add more branch-specific techs. e.g.:

- Aircraft Avionics level 1 & 2, somewhere after class 3 tac bomber level, required for aircraft beyond that level.

- Land tactics level 1 & 2, somewhere after class 3 infantry level, applicable to all land units beyond that level.

- and so on.

Phew. A wall of text there, but the changes aren't really so important. I don't even know if they're really necessary. But hey - if we already have an extensive research tree, why not really make it extensive intead of having the very same techs in all unit lines, just slowing your progress but not allowing any real decision making?

And after all, it is the suggestions thread, so here goes ;p.

[Brit]

A suggestion regarding the 1900-2030 ruleset technologies (nothing too important).

It is my honest belief that the technology tree is too... homogeneous.

Let's say you aim for tanks... you get class 4 tanks. Yay. Suddely you realize that with a handful of 10 research-point clicks you can have class 4 anything else, because everything else uses the same technologies.

...

Yeah, I had setup the technology system so that people couldn't get too far in one branch while ignoring others. I don't know if I have the balance right. One thing that I didn't want to happen is this: some player would decide that aircraft was the only thing they wanted to research, then they ignored the rest of the tech tree and flew around advanced aircraft destroying relatively primitive enemy ground units and ships because those units didn't have the technology to effectively combat the advanced aircraft.

You're right in saying that branch-specific technologies could be a way to make advancement through the tech-tree less homogeneous. Another possibility is that I could increase the cost of the applied technologies and decrease the cost of basic technologies. In that case, players could advance along exclusively one branch more easily. Although, that would allow players to advance their technology very exclusively in one area - allowing them, for example, to get advanced jet fighters while ignoring tactical bombers and strategic bombers. The branch technologies would at least keep sub-branches of the tech tree relatively equalized.

[Brit]

When the city build screen pops up it is always over that city in the map. So I have to drag it to the side to check the map. The small map in the city build screen isn't very helpful... would it be possible to have the city build screen pop up beside the city instead of over it?

Something like this?

By the way, the size of the application in the screenshot is less than 1000x700 pixels, which means it should work for most people.

Finally, would it be possible to add an experience value option for the units. I guess some people wouldn't like the extra complication, but it would be something interesting to have in the optional rulesets.

Yeah, I see no reason not to do that for optional rulesets.

[Brit]

+ add an option in properties that all "need build order" pop-ups start minimized and we'll have solved the issue. I must admit that it is sometimes annoying to see that my armada of 3 transports with nine Class 6 tanks on board is about to crash into an enemy battleship, but I can't order them to get away because the next game turn begins with 10 BUILD SOMETHING HERE windows jumping at ya. On the other hand, without those pop ups, it would be a nauseous task, keeping all cities working.

I don't know if I want that solution exactly. There might be some other ways around this. Right now, you can turn-off the automatic city popups, but (even though cities are in the left panel) it's a little more difficult to make sure all your cities have orders. I suppose another option might be: don't show any city popups until I click a particular button, and then the popup sequence starts - might be a good middle-ground. That way you're controlling when the city popups begin appearing, rather than having them automatically appear at the end of turn replay.

[Fangorn]

Something like this?

By the way, the size of the application in the screenshot is less than 1000x700 pixels, which means it should work for most people.

Yeah, I see no reason not to do that for optional rulesets.

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind!

Thanks a lot, Brit, you really know how to keep your customers happy.

[N3rull]

Yeah, I had setup the technology system so that people couldn't get too far in one branch while ignoring others.

Well, I am aware that was the intention. But it's just my feeling that you might have gone a little bit too far ;p.

Anyway, I'm just sittin' here, posting ideas.

Use what you want, discard all else, ban me if you're tired of my spam - it's your domain after all.

Good luck!

PS. Any updates comin'? ;p

[Brit]

Well, I am aware that was the intention. But it's just my feeling that you might have gone a little bit too far ;p.

(nod)

PS. Any updates comin'? ;p

Think it will be the end of this week.

[N3rull]

I wonder why the forums seem to be dead recently. Brit, are you still receiving feedback? I must admit that my participation is mostly halted because I'm just sick of the demo map ;-p. I wonder if it iz just my own weakness or a general syndrome. If the forum silence is caused by a contageous allergy to the demomap spreading among the fellow players, maybe it would pay off to give us another map?

[Boris Balaban]

I think Brit is working on the release of the full version

I also think everybody is waiting for it, maybe

[Brit]

I wonder why the forums seem to be dead recently. Brit, are you still receiving feedback? I must admit that my participation is mostly halted because I'm just sick of the demo map ;-p. I wonder if it iz just my own weakness or a general syndrome. If the forum silence is caused by a contageous allergy to the demomap spreading among the fellow players, maybe it would pay off to give us another map?

Yeah, it's been kind of quiet in here the past few days. I plan to put out an update tomorrow, maybe that will wake things up a bit.

Brit, are you still receiving feedback?

Yes, I still get feedback from people everyday through the bug-report system.

[Kelly's Heros]

Yeah, I think everyone is just waiting for something new to test. The last release was more fixing and the simulator. You'll see it pick up again once we have something to talk about :-)

[Makris1821]

I saw this mentioned by one other poster, but I thought I'd throw in my 2c.

I'd love to see rivers in this game. Key rivers, bridges and their bombing, demolition and repair would add lots of gaming and scenario options. (My particular agenda is to make an Avalon Hill Blitkrieg scenario ... while I've seen someone else has already done their interpretation of that, I think without rivers and bridges it doesn't quite feel right to me).

Also, thanks Brit for being so active on this board!

[Brit]

I saw this mentioned by one other poster, but I thought I'd throw in my 2c.

I'd love to see rivers in this game. Key rivers, bridges and their bombing, demolition and repair would add lots of gaming and scenario options. (My particular agenda is to make an Avalon Hill Blitkrieg scenario ... while I've seen someone else has already done their interpretation of that, I think without rivers and bridges it doesn't quite feel right to me).

I'm making a note of it.

[raauthaa]

This may have been brought up before --- territorial zones for your cities.

IE enemy units cannot move within those bounds unless they declare war or are an ally (Like Civ series).

At the moment it seems rather easy to just load up your units on an enemies land mass, and THEN declare. Kind of takes the risk out of an amphibious attack. It also would bring up new strategic issues like blocking you out of an ocean or land mass forcing you to move to war or alliance.