New Requested Features
 

Please use this thread for changes to the game you're hoping to see that are not bug issues. Thanks!

Re: New Requested Features
 

OK, here's some suggestions:
- A Retreat option for battles. At present, there's no way to retreat from battles you can't win, and either you or your enemy lose all your troops in a battle. That makes it easier to defeat AI opponents, because they can't retreat and organize their defenses (of course that would need some AI modification to make it retreat if odds are against it).
- Nuclear subs and nuclear missile launchers shouldn't have infinite ammo like they have now. You can fire only a certain amount of shots at the moment, but they suffice to destroy most of the AI troops (especially because they can't fire back, since they do not use nukes). They should be able to load missiles you build separately, because there's also a problem with stationary nuclear missiles: They can't be moved once you have built them, so you have to sell them when the enemy is out of range.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Duuude -

This mule's been flogged to bone and tatters. Malf is aware of the wishlists and issues. Nothing here is news to them. Bunches of us mailed them direct on fixes and "wishlist" upgrades (the weak is implied, because this is less about 'gee, wouldn't it be cool! if we could ..' and more 'this #%@ don't work; it makes shooting fish in a barrel seem sophisticated and erudite by comp').

I even sent a 15-page booklet to Aaron after the release of v1.05that summarized, classified, and described various logic errors and disfunctionalities with the game, from unit balance to AI. Even outlined different approaches for correction. If there's flaw or idea for improvement that baby don't cover, it don't exist.

Indeed, this 'manifesto' was the second I sent; the first ran after one of the earlier releases and was a mere 7 pages in length. Malf actually incorporated some of those ideas in v1.05.

Needless to say, I probably need more hobbies.

And there's a 50-50 chance my email's been blocked ("ah, #%#, not THIS #@%)-$*#@ again").

Regardless, the point's been made. The areas needing improvement have been outlined, scored, and highlighted by dozens of hopeful fans. There ain't nuthin' new under this sun. The only question of relevance at this point is whether or not Malf has chosen to act on the plethora of recommendations that have bombarded its office, and what kind of a time-table they're operating on. Some of this stuff is going to take a lot of time to properly fix - if that is their intent.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Aaron did request that will formally start some threads so he can gather information, so it sounds like some of this will get a second look.

Re: New Requested Features
 

- Give neutral nations less troops. They have way too big armies for their size and that poses a big problem for the AI. They should receive reasonable troop strengths and develop according to their size.
- More parameters for the map generator, for example amount of land and sea territories. Small maps always look similar at present, a sausage-like landmass spanning from west to east surrounded by sea and some islands.
- Victory after defeating all enemy players, instead of having to conquer each neutral territory at the end of each game (which is simply boring and annoying).
- Different victory conditions, for example a certain percentage of territory you have to conquer in order to win.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Hey, that certainly true, but simply not constructive at the moment. I'm sure Malfador have received all the requests and are aware of player's wishes (if they haven't ignored the E-Mails), but maybe it's useful for them when we collect all suggestions, bug reports etc. in one place in this forum to remind them of the errors of the game.
Just post some of the stuff that we are missing here.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Seven and fifteen - that's 21 pages en totale. And at least 17 pages of what it tallies & summarizes would be 100% familiar to anyone who's scouted through the WS forum since release. Not really breaking new ground here. And I was far from the only one to contact Malf directly - as also evidenced by discussions in this forum.

So, pretty sure they've got a list and know the issues. This request from Malf is probably more about letting jets cool than it is about harvesting unknown data points. (I'm hoping, though, that Malf has been working this nut for the last couple months and hasn't just decided to start cracking these issues. With the informational black-hole on WS, it's hard to tell what direction this thing is going.)

But what the heck. In the spirit of detente, here's a four-cent summary of mission-critical issues with WS:

The AI is hopeless.
Units are severely imbalanced.
Many unit abilities make no sense / are contra-indicative.
The Tactical Map combat system is very imbalanced.


1.) The AI is hopeless.

Although it NOW knows how to get off an island, it still has no idea how to attack (makes one strike per turn), how to defend, what units to use, how to use them, or how to manipulate game statistics to its advantage (ie. taking the most efficient route from A to B & etc. within the established game parameters). Basically, it doesn't know what to build, where to put 'em, or how to use 'em - and it fails to appreciate the importance of material acquisition (ie going 'Hitler' on everything in reach).

2.) The units are way imbalanced.

Stock unit statistics strongly (massively) favor two unit types and drive the remainder to complete and utter irrelevancy. You can win the war with just fighters; just need tanks and a couple transports to effect actual seizure of the land once cleared.

3.) Many Unit Abilities don't make sense.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles! ... that are restricted to purely inTRAcontinental strikes. Stealth units that aren't 'stealthy'. Fighter-interceptors that can't intercept on their Flag's behalf ... unless the enemy attacks them. Cruisers that can surface-to-surface land targets ... but not enemy fleets. Mobile Nuclear Ballistic Missile launchers! that don't carry nuclear ballistic missiles ... Ballistic Missile subs afflicted by the same. etc.


4.) The 'tactical' map is very imbalanced.

The way tactical combat is set up leads to seriously imbalanced results. There is no possibility of an "in-between". The winning side will always win overwhelmingly, suffering very few losses (if any at all), while the losing side loses ... well, pretty much everything plus the kitchen sink. This quickly leads to a 'virtuous' cycle - or vicious, if you're on the wrong end of it. Win one good fight, and the loser's ability to recover is severely hampered, while the victor's potential for advancement increases exponentially. And while the human player holds the advantage now, if you boost the AI's IQ without fundamentally overhauling the tactical side of the game, the computer will stomp the pants off of everyone.


Those are the biggies. Other issues are just window-dressing or lesser symptoms of these shortfalls. Fix the biggies, and pretty much all the rest will fall into place.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Hmm, seems there's not much participation in those two new threads except two guys or so. Come on Malfador, fix this friggin' game!

Re: New Requested Features
 

OK, seems the forum dies down again. Latest action seems to be pretty pointless. Just two people who post in this thread (SR from Shrapnel not counted)? Seems no one cares about this game anymore.

Re: New Requested Features
 

I don't have anything positive to add to this.

My intention was to just get a few tcp/ip games going with a few people. I have written off the AI as ever being a worthy opponent. Multiplayer doesn't work,so this software as it sits, is completely worthless to me.

There's nothing more to really say at this point.

:cold:

Re: New Requested Features
 

Yeah, and there's completete and utter radio silence by Malfador. Man, they could at least drop some lines here. I wonder what's happened to them.

Re: New Requested Features
 

The thread's barely been open a week, give Aaron some time. His MO during Beta testing was to collect errors, complaints, etc. all week, and then roll out a new patch each Monday.

Re: New Requested Features
 

But how many weeks has it been since we have heard ANYTHING AT ALL?

His MO in beta doesnt mean anything at this point especially considering his MO now,...which is complete silence and has been since the game was released.

Maybe if he communicated with his paying customers at least as good as he communicated with the beta testers then we wouldnt be having this discussion. Then again maybe if the beta test wasnt a complete failure and the game was worth playing we wouldnt be having this discussion either.

At this point it seems there are many more qusetions about the future of this game than there are answers..........well there havent really been any answers so....................

Re: New Requested Features
 

It should still be possible to fix the issues of the game, so the question is: Are they working on fixing them or not? And we don't get any information by Malfador, only from Shrapnel who don't seem to know if there is any progress. Malf should simply put a few lines here about the current state of the game. Any comment would be better than no comment at all. We simply don't know if they're still working on the game at the moment.
Selling the game at full price in this state also isn't very reasonable for Shrapnel, I think.
Man, I'm wondering if Shrapnel ever played the game to see if it's alright. Seems they just released it when Malf told them it was finished.

Re: New Requested Features
 

some more suggestions:
- map wraparound (since it's a full world map)
- Bunkers are useless when there are no units around. Battles involving a bunker and no enemy units always mean you have to move up to the bunker and destroy it and it can't fight back (and always takes some hits). Maybe they should be given some attack ability, or battles involving a bunker and no troops should immediately end as a victory for the attacker.

Re: New Requested Features
 

- AI should react to players getting too strong. At present the AI just attacks a weaker opponent (usually another AI) instead of concentrating on the player (which means an easy win for the player).

Re: New Requested Features
 

-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.

- a LARGER tactical combat area so there are more tactics involved
- a TUTORIAL

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

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

- a 'wrap' feature so that units can go from the east edge of the map to the west edge and the same for north and south.

- Level 1, 2 and 3 units need to be adjusted....currently someunits have the same values at level 2 and 3 as they do at level 1, and all level 2 and 3 units cost the same as level 1 units.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Hmm, no, only east/west. North/South wraparound is illogical on a world map.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Some more predefined maps would be pretty nice (the existing multiplayer maps (the map pack) are randomly generated, aren't they?). For example a map of the earth, map of Europe and stuff like that (hehe, if you can manage to do that, introduce scenarios with predefined starting positions (so that you can recreate historical scenarios), that'd be awesome).

Re: New Requested Features
 

Expanded and fixed this game could really become awesome, so please release some more fixes and improvements.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Hi All,

Sorry I've been MIA. I have heard your requests, and I do read this forum (just this week!).

I'm planning on starting a new patch next week. I'm hoping to improve the AI and fix any outstanding bugs at a minimum. After that its all suggestions.

Please keep the suggestions coming. And if there are any "manifestos" floating around, please re-email them to me.


Aaron

Re: New Requested Features
 

Oh yeah, keep in mind bugs come first. Poor AI is what I would consider a bug. So please post any bugs you've run into in the 1.06 bug log thread.

This thread should only be used for improvements and new features.

Thanks,

Aaron

Re: New Requested Features
 

Uh-oh..........Aaron finally posts to let us know he is around and reading and working,.....and its on April fools day.............. I hope it isnt a joke :)

Seriously though,...thanks for giving us an update.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Thanks for posting Aaron, I think this will motivate further participation here. I think it'd be good to play the game again and try to notice all bugs to post them here.

Re: Manifestos
 

Message received & understood.

Will download to your location when able.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Yeah, this manifesto would be useful for sure, I think.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Aaron seems to have been missing out the last months, but willing to improve the game now. He sure has his own (personal) causes for that.

Re: New Requested Features
 

I'd really like to know how well the game sells at the moment. Seems not well 'cause I don't see any new participants here.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Thats pretty much the size of it.

If alot of people bought it,there would be more reason to do something. Everything about this game is very casual.

There's a handful of us that bought some stock in WS and it hasn't panned out. Perhaps it will someday,only time will tell.

As for multiplayer, If it works or not isn't completely relivant
because the fact is nobody plays multiplayer tcp/ip or wants to.

I've had the game over three months and have only played ScottWAR once using the tcp/ip method. So WS 1.06 may actually
work using tcp/ip but nobody want's to play.

But on the flip side nobody at all has confirmed that a TCP/ip game was ever played using any version.

So somebody lets try.

Re: New Requested Features
 

One little thing: A popup or some other kind of message when a new technology is discovered would be good. That's missing at present. You only now you have a new technology when you look at the buy screen.

Re: New Requested Features
 

I second the motion for the inclusion of a techno-pop up alert. It's a really good thought. The guessing game is a pain, especially when some buys go through, others fail, and you're trying to remember what was what before you hit 'turn end'.

On that score, I'd also suggest expanding the drop-down box selector. As it stands, if you want to pick something from a drop-down box, you have to click precisely on the downward-pointed arrow for the box. Clicking inside the box itself does nothing. The "clicking on the box" method has become a standard MO on many platforms (Windows included), and it's so much nicer than having to scroll on over here and clicking on this tiny arrow box, etc. etc.

?

So sue me - I'm lazy. Human, too. Kinda goes hand-in-hand.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Yeah, this techno pop up was really included in V 1.08.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Yes, improving the interface would be pretty nice. It's very click-intensive at the moment. Having to use the keyboard to define the number of troops I want to send isn't very user friendly. You either have to enter the number using the keyboard or click 10 or 15 times to define numbers of troops at present. It should be possible to give order more quickly. A selection rectangle that enables you to select all troops you want would be neat. And there should be more buttons (arrows) in the number selection, to for example send 10 troops with one click. The interface is pretty 90s like which should turn off most of today's casual gamers (although it isn't really a casual game, I think) or even strategy gamers that got used to modern interfaces.
Another method would be the one Triple A and Castle Vox use: Drag and Drop. Just take for example the tank symbol with the mouse, drag it to the desired territory, and press the mouse button for each troop you wanna send, or use a hotkey in connection with this to send 10 troops or all troops at once. That's much easier than the present system.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Another thing: transport planes and sea transports should move in groups (in one move instead of moving each unit in a territory one after another) like tanks and other attack units do. At present, you have to wait for each plane to move to the destination before you can do anything. That's pretty annoying with bigger numbers of planes or transports.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Another visual improvement that has been suggested before (and implemented in the tank mod, but for tanks only): Some kind of visual difference between different tech level units. They simply look the same now. Could be different pictures or just a little 1 to 3 number under the unit icons.

Re: New Requested Features
 

I think the intent is to segregate units of like character. For example, let's say you fly two jets into territory X, which is already occupied by three jets. If you move all five jets to another location, they move as one group of two and one of three, because the first two jets have already 'burned fuel' and are no longer "equal" to the three jets that have not yet moved.

In the case of transports, their movement points might be equal, but the cargo they contain might be dissimilar, so the game segregates them in order to convey that fact to the player.

I'd agree, though, that while segregating on the basis of movement points is a good idea, taking it to cargo carried is not as beneficial, and might be worth skipping.

One way to accelerate play is by going to the game OPTIONS where you save scenarios, and set unit movement from "decaf" to "espresso". Personally, I don't use it, just because I like watching my armadas assemble & sortie.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Ooo - Something else.

I brought this up as a suggestion for v1.01 and its worth bringing up again.

UNIT ANIMATION ON STRATEGIC SCREEN
Instead of showing the units moving from the center of one territory to the center of the next, cut the middleman and show the units moving directly to target, or along a "great circle" curvature from their point of departure to their destination.

For land forces, the existing center-to-center-territory-by-territory system of movement animation isn't terrible. But the jets! Oi! It can drive you nuts!

My jets might only have to fly three inches across the video screen, from Base A to Target B. But there might be two or three of those massive, irregular sea-territories between both points.

So, instead of flying three inches "to the left" from A to B, no, the jets fly northEAST and off-screen, then return on a southwest-westerly course for 10 inches, then veer southeast for five ... and ten minutes later we land in Pretoria, the kids are screaming, the stewardess is crying in the restroom, and people are looking at me like I'm supposed to know what to do with the stupid duck's head.

Basically, it's like being stuck in connecting-flight hell.

I say, if you've got the ORANGE SODA movement points to go from Point A to Point B, then just animate the movement directly between A & B. Don't worry about 'verifying' it through Ulan Bator as Continental Flight 101 routes through Pittsburgh with a stopover in Kenya.

Please - Please ... can we upgrade our seat to a direct flight? Hawaii's great, but not if I'm leaving New York for L.A.

Re: New Requested Features
 

Hehe, yeah, planes moving over a sea territory to an island in the same sea territory always take pretty strange paths (instead of directly flying to the island).

Re: New Requested Features
 

Hmm, increasing the animation speed not really makes these planes that are moving one by one go faster (and I think they don't move full speed 'cause my PC is too slow).
Hehe, but you can just give orders to other units while you're waiting for them to reach their target. But it's a bit annoying anyway.

Re: New Requested Features
 

- different AI difficulties, different AI personalities (that for example concentrate on air power, land units, nuclear attacks or sea power), once the AI is fixed properly