Most Wanted Features/Changes

Hepps

I like the selections people are making... wondering whether all the remaining things on the list require compatibility breaking changes to accomplish.

Deltium

Well, as you all know, I am highly in favor of a ranking module in the software. This is such a core feature in every other website that focuses on competitive board games. We really need this.

Thanks, Deltium

redrum

Some good suggestions so far and I added a votes tally to the first post.

@alkexr I'm kind of mixed on further enhancing territory effects as I feel that we'll end up with a lot of duplicate functionality to units. In this particular example, if your first point is implemented you could add invisible units to territories based on their territory effect to provide the support to AA attacks.

@Deltium I think we should start a feature thread on ranking system as there are a number of different pieces that need hashed out: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1034/player-ranking-rating-system

Hepps

@redrum

Here are my choices...

Unit Option Can Submerge/Hide for Land Units (Partisan/Guerrilla): https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/328/unit-option-can-submerge-hide-for-land-units-partisan-guerrilla
Require Airbase to Intercept: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/491/require-airbase-to-intercept
Positive and negative supportAttachments to AA types: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/915/positive-and-negative-supportattachments-to-aa-types

I will say it is hard to choose as there are just so many great requests.

Frostion

My votes =

Multiple AA possibilities per unit
Positive/negative support for AA attacks
Submerge/hide for land units and a way to "uncover" the hiden units.

prastle

My Votes are
1- Player Ranking system
2- isDestroyer units can affect a limited number of subs
3- Require Airbase to Intercept

wc_sumpton

My 2 cents.

1-Support Attachments for AA attacks (also airAttack/airDefense)
2-Custom Technologies attachments by Player/Unit instead of just unit
3-Territory Effect by the direction the territory was entered.

Cheers...

alkexr

@redrum With so much support for support for AA attacks, I think I can start re-planning several things in BFA...

zlefin

Having thought about it; I've decided what I'd like is improvements to the battlecalc in general. (there's a bunch of different proposals related to it). it always irks me when battlecalc results are inaccurate/less useful because of various quirks/interactions with newer features in particular.

I never got an answer to my prior question, so if it isn't in already, then I also want a way to lock the game state to the point in history I select so I can keep viewing it even if actions are taken in the current game.

beelee

@zlefin yea be nice if calculated your odds immediately. One less click is all, so not really a big deal, but ...I have to move the cursor too : )

Schulz

Upkeep and fractional numbers: Let me explain what is that. This feature should be optinoal for ever maps. It is especially a necessarrity for big maps. Every unit should have a upkeep value regarding of their prices and have to using fracional numbers for more playability.

Infantry and armour armour should not have the same upkeep for playability. Even 1 pus would be too high for infantry which is cost 3. My proposal upkeeps for basic units

Infantry= 3 Cost 0.5 upkeek per rounds
Artillery= 4 Cost 0.65 per rounds
Armour= 5 Cost 0.80 upkeep per rounds.

I really want it this feature as an optional rule for every map. Upkeep rates also can be arrangeable. If you don't like this idea than better to make a total maximum TUV limit for every maps as an optional.

Fog of war
Every tech should have different costs and players should be able to pick and buy these techs whatever they want per rounds.

Thank you.

Schulz

Also there is a sea mine bug that they can shot down planes when they get attacked by air units. It would be better if it will be fixed

redrum

@schulz If you can reproduce the bug then please open a separate forum thread or github issue with details.

Panther

I am not sure whether this leads to incompatibilty, but I would vote for fixing some rules issues, such as for example:

...

General_Zod

I'm on the fence for my last vote. But here are 2 of them for now.

Expand givesMovement Option To Require Specific Units At Destination https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1003/expand-givesmovement-option-to-require-specific-units-at-destination/42
isDestroyer units can affect a limited number of subs: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/184/can-set-isdestroyer-to-affect-less-than-all-subs

General_Zod

I do think the battle calc needs work, but I don't wanna waste my vote there because that requires a major overhaul imo. Plus there is no clear direction on what the improvements would actually be.

RogerCooper

Combat priorities, requiring that certain units be taken as hit first like in Fortress: America
Supply lines
Allowing (or requiring) defender retreat

General_Zod

@rogercooper I think @redrum wants us to choose from the current feature request backlog, which is located at. https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list

Combat casualties can be customized a bit with the AA (first strike) attributes.

There is a interesting big world map that uses supply lines, it's in your library actually.

RogerCooper

@general_zod said in Most Wanted Features/Changes:

@rogercooper I think @redrum wants us to choose from the current feature request backlog, which is located at. https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/182/guidelines-and-feature-request-list

Combat casualties can be customized a bit with the AA (first strike) attributes.

There is a interesting big world map that uses supply lines, it's in your library actually.

Yes, the AA rules allow some casualty choice, but this should be a more general feature.

The Big World 1942 - Logistics Mod does support supply lines, but it is slow and gives limited options.

odor

Player ranking/rating system

the only thing that would really let community grow