Wishlist New Requested Features

S.R. Krol · #1 March 10th, 2011, 09:42 PM

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

spillblood · #2 March 11th, 2011, 05:28 AM

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.

JCrowe · #3 March 11th, 2011, 12:41 PM

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.

S.R. Krol · #4 March 11th, 2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCrowe

Duuude -

This mule's been flogged to bone and tatters. Malf is aware of the wishlists and issues. Nothing here is news to them.

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.

spillblood · #5 March 12th, 2011, 06:54 AM

- 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.

spillblood · #6 March 12th, 2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCrowe

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.

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.

JCrowe · #7 March 12th, 2011, 11:46 PM

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.

spillblood · #8 March 15th, 2011, 01:59 PM

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

spillblood · #9 March 16th, 2011, 01:15 PM

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.

Skirmisher · #10 March 17th, 2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spillblood

Hmm, seems there's not much participation in those two new threads except two guys or so.

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.