Compare with Wesnoth

[pferdy]

Legions takes much less time to download. Wesnoth was about one hour
and required 0.5 gb of storage. Obviously different technology, and
more lively graphics. Similar hex terrain, but much more complicated
characters to learn. It had a one move undo for silly errors.

[E]

Ironclad could borrow at least one idea from Wesnoth: enemy move
highlights. When you mouseover an enemy unit in Wesnoth, you see
shading of where they can reach and hit next turn. Very useful.

Also, you can toggle a hexgrid, which also comes in handy sometimes.

Finally, I'd like to see a single giant multiweaponed unit, akin to
the Ogre in Steve Jackson's game. http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/

[Mikera]

Cool, thanks for the ideas! Agree that some kind of mouseover enemy
move highlights would be very helpful. Was also thinking it might be
helpful to highlight "at risk" hexes before you move your units into
them?

And don't worry, there are definitely some big units coming down the
production pipeline :-) In fact I was thinking that it might make
sense to have some sort of game mode where your army is centred and
formed around one or two massive "titan" units, with heavy duty
weapons, ability to build new units etc.

On Aug 15, 9:20 pm, E <warm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ironclad could borrow at least one idea from Wesnoth: enemy move
> highlights. When you mouseover an enemy unit in Wesnoth, you see
> shading of where they can reach and hit next turn. Very useful.
>
> Also, you can toggle a hexgrid, which also comes in handy sometimes.
>
> Finally, I'd like to see a single giant multiweaponed unit, akin to

> the Ogre in Steve Jackson's game.http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/

[E Corcoran]

"At risk" hexes is a better idea - that way you get the information without havng to mouseover the enemy unit.

Another idea, one that is probably too late, is to decide whether the game is going to be tactical or strategic with regard to production. That means choosing between 1) having factories produce and repair during a battle, or 2) having factories produce between battles, in a strategic-screen mode. Repairs would also be done at this time, and new battles chosen.

1) is the way it is now but 2) would be a bit more realistic - if I may use the word realistic in this context - as it is the way battles work in the real world.

Another idea would be "group attacks" - allowing the option for multiple units to fire upon an enemy simultaneously instead of sequentially as now. This might also be a bit more realistic as e.g. a single rifle unit couldn't damage a super tank but several acting in concert could.

I have another idea regarding airplane units should you choose to introduce them.

[pferdy]

What an excellent set of ideas.

Some more:

I liked Wesnoth footprints that show the route to be taken by a
character. Not actually much use though!

The random maps have Zeppelins and death ray balloons. Even if some
action points remain, they do have not enough to attack. I only find
out when I get close to a target - an indication before moving would
be useful or the ability for a lower energy attack.

Mainly because of poor eyesight, I would like the ability to magnify
the machine images and the text on the fly, without losing map area.
Permanent screen magnification is not so helpful.

Wesnoth has a toggle that changes the focus to the next character to
move. Very helpful if all the map is not in view. Because I am
interested in understanding how the AI works, I would like to slow
down the AI, unit by unit. This would with battle tactics, especially
since so much happens out of vision and I don't know which enemy
blasted me off the field of action. If is contemplated to be
multiplayer, then it would be even more useful.

Also worth considering is immediate retaliation. More "realistic" and
perhaps not replenished in the AI next turn. A toggle option could
turn it on or off. Or perhaps night attacks don't have retaliation?

I can see that developers must have a problem setting a priority for
new features.

On Aug 17, 8:44 pm, E Corcoran <warm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "At risk" hexes is a better idea - that way you get the information without
> havng to mouseover the enemy unit.
>
> Another idea, one that is probably too late, is to decide whether the game
> is going to be tactical or strategic with regard to production. That means
> choosing between 1) having factories produce and repair during a battle, or
> 2) having factories produce between battles, in a strategic-screen mode.
> Repairs would also be done at this time, and new battles chosen.
>
> 1) is the way it is now but 2) would be a bit more realistic - if I may use
> the word realistic in this context - as it is the way battles work in the
> real world.
>
> Another idea would be "group attacks" - allowing the option for multiple
> units to fire upon an enemy simultaneously instead of sequentially as now.
> This might also be a bit more realistic as e.g. a single rifle unit couldn't
> damage a super tank but several acting in concert could.
>
> I have another idea regarding airplane units should you choose to introduce
> them.
>

[E Corcoran]

The idea dam has been broken - let them flood forth! :D

Re: retaliation fire: here is an idea taken from SJG's G.E.V.: overrun attacks. In normal combat a unit shoots at a unit in another hex, combat is resolved normally and there is no retaliation fire. In overrun, a unit enters the hex of the enemy it is attacking. Then a series of fire rounds take place, with the defender firing first and certain multipliers being added - e.g. infantry has a x2 multiplier due to quick human reactions at close range as compared to a tank. I think in G.E.V. there were a max of three fire rounds before the attacker had to retreat. 

This overrun attack represents close quarters assault - again, a more realistic representation of combat as she is fought.

[Mikera]

On Aug 18, 1:28 pm, E Corcoran <warm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea dam has been broken - let them flood forth! :D
>
> Re: retaliation fire: here is an idea taken from SJG's G.E.V.: overrun
> attacks. In normal combat a unit shoots at a unit in another hex, combat is

> resolved normally and there is no retaliation fire. In overrun, a unit *enters
> the hex* of the enemy it is attacking. Then a series of fire rounds take

> place, with the defender firing first and certain multipliers being added -
> e.g. infantry has a x2 multiplier due to quick human reactions at close
> range as compared to a tank. I think in G.E.V. there were a max of three
> fire rounds before the attacker had to retreat.
>
> This overrun attack represents close quarters assault - again, a more
> realistic representation of combat as she is fought.
>

I really like the idea of overrun attacks - it probably would make
sense for only some types of units to be able to attack in this way
(e.g. tanks, infantry can overrun but not ships or artillery). It
could also be combined with the idea of infantry "defending" a
building from capture.

You could also have some unit types that only do close combat
fighting.

The main design issue I think is how to make this very easy to do in
the user interface. Some thoughts how this could work off the top of
my head:
1. Pretty easy to show an "overrun" command icon on top of an enemy
unit if you are able to do an overrun attack (equivalent of moving on
top of the enemy).
2. If you are also in range to do a normal (ranged) attack show the
one that would be the more natural (default) choice. Probably overrun
for infantry, shoot for tanks.
3. The alternative attack can be chosen if needed by clicking on the
appropriate attack type in the ability list on the right


Does that sound good?

[E Corcoran]

Definitely some units would either be forbidden or at a major disadvantage in overrun. Artillery would get slaughtered - overrun would be an equalizer for infantry against arty.

"Ship overrun" could be boarding. 

Your interface idea is good, though you could alternatively have a right-click submenu with options for the unit, like Bunten's Global Conquest did - overrun, sneak, forced march etc.

Actually now that I think about it overrun raises a problem: if multiple units are allowed to overrun one hex, and they win, do they all remain in the victory hex? This means stacking.