Wish List
 

1. Auto Resolve Combat
Eliminate having to fight each and every useless battle.
Auto Resolve battles like (20 bombers vs. 1 tank), these type of battle get old real fast on a large map.

2. Random (hit/miss)
All weapons always hit, add some randomness to combat.

3. End Game and Victory
The game needs some different victory conditions, having to go back and eliminate some neutral countries after defeating all other opponents seems like a waste of time.
- Win when all computer/player regions are eliminated even if there are still some neutral countries left.
- Win based on selected percent ownership of the map (70, 80, 90, 100 percent of all regions).

4. Unit/Weapon Balance
- Bombers still seem way over powered with their long attack range.
- Infantry should be much harder to kill, maybe they should be hidden/invisible until you are either next to them or after they fire

5. Fog of War
The exact number of enemy units should off a little or not be know without Surveillance Aircraft in range.

Re: Wish List
 

Based on my limited experience with the demo I do agree with your points 1-4 completely Togo. Make firing on infantry with a significant chance of missing the targets!
And I really don't like the squares of the combat map. Is it not possibe to move the units in a coordinate system like in SE V?
One more suggestion: you should have the possibility to split up stacks of units in the combat and use the individual units seperately.

Re: Wish List
 

1)Agree

2)Not sure about this. It sounds fine,...unitl you are the one getting screwed over by lots of consecutive bad 'rolls'. I think the current method is probably best. The randomness is HOW much damage you do.

3) Comnpletely agree

4) Agree about bombers.....especially them being able to do significant damaghe to other air units. Bombers just dont stand a chance against fighters in the real world. Infantry should be harder to hit ONLY if they are defending.

5)Intersting idea. I would say three levels of detection would be good. Far, medium, and close. -Far being just knowing they are there (numbers could be off a good bit-- units being adjacent give this). -Medium-(better knowledge of the numbers but can still be wrong--Radar stations give this) --Close--( perfect recon.-- suveilance aircraft give this).


--Some things I would like to see

- store game settings and names in setup so I dont have to keep typing in the names of the nations I use and their leaders.

- Make quitting a game take you to the main menu instead of completly exiting the game.

- a LARGER tactical combat area so there is a little more tactics involved.

- since level 1, 2 and 3 units cost the same, give us the ability to hide level 1 tech if we have level 2 etc.

- TUTORIAL

Re: Wish List
 

There is a file called NationNames.txt in the World Supremacy/GameTypes/Data folder that you can edit. You should copy that file to a safe location, and then edit the one in the game folder and delete all of the names they use, and just type in the names you want to use for countries...then it will always be that way. The file for leader names is there too, PlayerNames.txt.

Speaking of having different tech levels...if you have different level technology units go into battle, they fight independent. It makes a big difference. I mean, they won't stack together when in the same territory, so in the tactical battle, you could have three different tank units to maneuver if you had all three tech levels. I thought that was pretty cool.

Re: Wish List
 

An 'Are you sure?" confirmation after hitting end turn.

Re: Wish List
 

This are all good suggestions, the victory conditions are the most important, I think. It's very annoying having to transport your units across half of the globe to conquer some leftover neutral nations. This increased the length of my first full game significantly, but the end game was very boring. Hehe, maybe the neutral nations should be able to attack after you have defeated all other players:).

Re: Wish List
 

Definately agree with the victry conditions being one of the most important things.
I would add making the tactical battle map larger as one of the most important also. After a few battles the limited tactics we can use in such a small area makes the tactical battle boring. At least against the AI.

I think the AI has to be improved as well.............in the tactical battles they only use one tactic,....rush right at me and die. I have also saw the AI move units out of a region with a city and factory in it when I had units next to it,.....instead of trying to defend it (and they already had enough to defend it without buying more units). REALLY odd behavior.

Re: Wish List
 

In the loading/unloading screen there needs to be a way to undo an accidental unit that gets loaded.

Re: Wish List
 

Yeah, I saw that too. This defensive retreat tactic of the AI doesn't always make sense. And I definetely agree with your remark to the tactical battles. I agree on the idea bombers should have a short range, that they must be one square away from the target, because you see: If they bomb a target, they have to be directly over it.

Re: Wish List
 

Bombers dont use bombs,...they use air to ground missles which do have a much longer range in real life than any air to air missles,..so bombers having a longer range than fighters is realistic. However,...the tactical map is too small for fighters to use their addvantage effectively,..the ability to move faster. A bomber can make two moves and be in range to hit anything on the map.

Re: Wish List
 

Correction,...the bombers in this game dont use bombs.

I guess it would be possible to mod in bombers,.......a regular bomber that has to be within 1 or 2 hexes to hit,..but that does significant more damage..........

I also like to see a unit that can shoot down missles....... but I have no idea how that could be implemented without a major change in the game itself.

Re: Wish List
 

I meant carpet bombing, which modern bombers are also capable of, but
you're right. The movement range of the bombers should be reduced. Maybe the attack range could be increased with higher tech levels (better guided bombs/ missile tech available)

Re: Wish List
 

My wish (dream list)--

1. Radar stations would cost significantly more and have more range.

2. If the game can simulate the radar abilities of AWACs then it should be able to design in a Jammer plane. Oh like an Aardvark or a Prowler. That would be fun to see. Drape the fog of war over your opponent. (I've built and attacked with Stealth but what do they really do?)

OTHER THOUGHTs-- Air Transporting since the patch too easy. I run my attacks like Halo drop ships. In a single round, I can C5 drop in my tank, capture 3 countries, bring up the C5 and be loaded to fly next round onto virgin territories. This is far too easy. Prior to the patch I could cap like this if 2 countries were unguarded and then had to keep an eye on it. (Lets make it harder. Much harder.)

3. Someone already said this but--- aircraft should have a CAP presence and be able to flank off air movement in country beside them.

What do you think?

Re: Wish List
 

I'm working on some of this, I'm creating an "Intermediate Mod" which will leave the base "Standard" game intact and will address some of these issues, and I'm sure add others. But it will give folks another flavor to play. I'm playtesting and tweaking it now. See the mods thread above for some details, but since I've addressed you have AAA units from the beginning, as Air is just too powerful.

Re: Wish List
 

A 'wrap' feature for the map,...so the world is round instead of flat........

Re: Wish List
 

I'd like to see the ability to set each players resources individually.

This way in a single player game you can give the AI more resources than you to start.

Random maps in multiplayer.

The ability to change color or flag in multiplayer.

The ability to set number of AI opponents in multplayer.

Re: Wish List
 

Make it so you have to have X amount of infantry units to capture enemy structures.

Cities - 3
Fab Complex -1
Radar -1

If for example there were multiple structures,you would need more infantry to capture them.
Like a territory with 2 cities and three fab plants would require 9 infantry to capture. The player could just elect to destroy everything or some and capture the rest.
ADD in a new type of infantry (engineers) to do the capturing.

Fix Multiplayer

Re: Wish List
 

You'd just need anti missle missles, then maybe advanced lasers in the higher tech.

Re: Wish List
 

The advanded area SAM (anti air) might allready cover that.

I have not built any anti air units yet because I haven't needed them. Standard fighter aircraft have been doing a nice job of that.

Re: Wish List
 

Some modifications I can think of:
- Include some kind of retreat option in battles (some other users of this forum already suggested that). In the present version battles always end in the total annihilation of either your or your enemy's troops. I don't think this is realistic. You should have to try reaching your starting end of the map to make your troops retreat so that the enemy can decimate fleeing troops when he's in range. When there's no adjacent own territory to the one that's being attacked retreat should be impossible (you could cut off enemy troops this way).
- Fortifications are totally pointless when having no troops in the territories. This is a bit annoying at present because you always have to destroy them and they can't fight back when you attack a territory containing fortifications. Bunkers should be able to fire back even if there is no infantry in the territory. Another option would be that a battle involving fortifications and no other units in the defender's force should automatically end in defeat for the defender.
- AI should be modified again to not attack neutral territories when it's threatened by a strong enemy.

Re: Wish List
 

Different AI difficulties you can set for each player would also be nice. And more game modes need to be included. Having to conquer every neutral territory after you defeated your opponents is just boring.

Re: Wish List
 

Another thing: Nukes are way too powerful and too cheap. A way to hinder players from just buying 20 nukes and destroying half of the map would be for example specialized anti-nuke defenses. Nukes should be made more expensive. Maybe a new building type could be included, a silo that can load up and fire nukes that have been produced in the same territory so that you can't fire all nukes at once. And mobile launchers and subs should be able to load up nukes, too. In the present version they seem to have infinite nuclear ammo and you just can bomb your opponent every turn with them. Having to load up ammo would reduce their power. Another thing: Why can nukes only be fired at targets on the same continent (At least it seems so)? You can't bombard sea territories and other continents with nukes in the present version which is a bit unrealistic.

Re: Wish List
 

Yeah, it's strange that you can't cross over from one side of the map to the opposite side if it's a full world map.

Re: Wish List
 

Ha! Right on the money. My last "manifesto" included a whooole section on nukes. All very theoretical, of course, since the AI likes to build 'em, but won't use 'em. Have to think what the gameboard would be like with five or six half-decent AI's that have twitchy fingers on The Button. Ugly. Very ugly. Could easily turn into a nuke-all slugfest.

I pushed for the ability to move nukes onto Ballistic Subs and Mobile Launchers (... which is the whole point of each platform ...), the ability to bombard sea spaces, and to "shoot over" water and whang opposing continents. (INTERcontinental vs. INTRAcontinental). Pushed for a six-space range on silo'd nukes, too. As a counter, I suggested cruisers and AA Emplacements having a chance to intercept inbound missiles. The more you've got, the better the odds, up to a 60% cap. (So a bunch of cheap AAs don't instantly confer immunity from nukes.) I also suggested that the anti-missile units 'project' their coverage to neighboring turf, or at least to neighboring turf if the missile flight path arcs over their location near the point of impact.

My fav, though, was suggesting that using nukes carried a level of opprobrium in the 'world community'. Basically, anyone initiating a first strike is far more likely to be nuked in turn by other players (AI), without warning. And that using something extra heinous, like neutron bombs, would pretty much guarantee that other parties would go out of their way to retaliate with first-strike nukes. (Naturally - the victim of a first-strike can retaliate without incurring worldwide opprobrium - they get a pass.) This way, using nukes becomes a lot more "expensive", because anyone who launches a nuke attack is going to take a lot of radioactive flack from everyone else.

Well, at least in a game that has a lot of AIs. In a more "human" world, you might simply reduce AA defense costs for the victimized party. So if Joe nukes Bob, Bob gets an automatic 25% reduction to anti-missile defense costs. Joe gets squat, so he has an incentive NOT to nuke ... unless doing so would be totally cool and wipe out that massive 'Death Fleet' Bob's got hovering way out yonder.

Re: Wish List
 

Yeah, in the present state of the game you can just nuke half of a continent and the AI doesn't really react to that. They should concentrate their attacks on players nuking them instead of fighting with some other AI enemies. You can effortlessly take half of a continent using nukes and the AI doesn't really react. I saw AI players building nukes but they never used them (I could just take them with my troops and use them myself!). The AI seriously needs to be made more agressive and capable of making rational decisions instead of wasting its troops on other enemies instead all going against the strongest player.

Re: Wish List
 

You know, speaking of AI behavior, I'm wondering if you may have experienced something I noticed in every game scenario I ran: that each AI player only makes ONE attack per game turn.

I think I've seen a COUPLE exceptions to this "rule", but if so, they're rare enough for me to doubt my own memory. The AI might move other units about the board, but in strict terms of "attacking", it will only do so once per turn.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think this self-imposed nerf is largely what keeps the AI's in check from a strategic perspective. They always seem to expand decently enough in the early stages of the game, but once they come into contact with someone else, both team grind to a halt and go "WW1" on each other. It might also explain why they seem to leave neutral territories alone when major hostilities commence.

Re: Wish List
 

Yes, I think that's true. The AI does move various troops in each turn, but only makes one attack, I think. The AI still needs major rework. The game is far too easy now. I've never lost against the AI so far.

Re: Wish List
 

I have gave up at this point until the game is at least ready for beta, which it is not at this point.

The last game I played I stopped at turn 9 becasue I had more than twice as many territories and income as any AI player. Several Ai players still had less than 6 territories total.

Re: Wish List
 

The AI of this game seems severly unfinished and it also needs more polish in other areas. I'm starting to regret I've bought it. Finished another far too easy scenario yesterday. I think I won't recommend it to other people in its present state. But it could be really great if Malfador spent some time improving it. Yes ScottWAR, I think mods also can't improve the game until the AI is improved. Rebalancing isn't really useful when the AI simply can't make any sensible strategic decisions. Hehe, another bug I noticed, AI players ALWAYS build 1 Destroyer, 1 sub and 1 cruiser, and never carriers or stuff like that. And you can always easily crush their fleets because they simply don't expand them!