An addendum on the army:
One option would be to treat the army like an RTS, so the player commanding the army can move and place individual units (say, at the company level, so maybe the "Army" is actually more like a "Regiment" instead. For gameplay purposes, mortar and machine gun sections, and artillery batteries would be treated like a separate company).
Maybe give the "commander" a map screen with the position of all friendly units that he works from. Enemy ground units can be "marked" on the map either by contact between the enemy and part of the "Army," or if overflown and by aircraft like the Storch (maybe add the L-3 Grasshopper as an Allied version).
Oh, and require that anyone managing an army must first take command of the army to be able to do so.
Frankly, I'd rather see as much as possible implemented whole rather than in pieces. It would be much easier to make sure it all plays nice together that way.
I don't see why you'd need to create separate TG types for an American carrier and a Japanese carrier. If an American TG and a Japanese TG are going to have the exact same capabilities (ship types, closest approach to shore, etc.), with the only differences being the capabilities of the individual ships THEMSELVES (IE number and types of guns, the amount of damage they can take, etc.) just set it up so when the map designer creates a TG he selects what class of CV, CA, DD, etc. to use.
Not types. Actual object layout. The current CV TF has the Essex object. If an IJ CV object is modeled then a second type of CV TF exists. Not in form and function (layout) but in object composition.
With new objects come new fleet compositions to select for maps. If I'm wrong in this then a map designer can correct me.
There's no reason there should be a need for separate "Essex" Task Groups and "Hiryu/Soryu/Shokaku/Whatever" Task Groups.
Likewise, there should NOT be Iowas in the EW or MW arenas. I'd even argue against Yamato and would advise keeping her for LWMA as she didn't see much in the way of forward-deployment until that period.
I'd argue that you could do away with destroying town buildings entirely.
How is the game going to know which nationality of ships to portray without the different map objects being connected to the map?
Like I said, all the map object should define is that particular task group is a CV fleet, bombardment group, or invasion fleet. The rest is options specified by the map-maker. Maybe something like this:
Task Group Name: Automatically populated to use next available field number. IE C6 = Carrier 6, B8 = Battleship 8, etc.
Task Group Type: <Drop Down Options: Carrier, Battleship, Invasion>
Default Country: <Drop Down Options: Bishop, Rook, Knight>
Port: <Drop Down>
Show Decal: (Radio Buttons: Yes, No)
Decal Type: (Radio Buttons: Owner Country, Text)
Decal Text: [Text Entry Box] This is greyed-out unless the Text button above is selected.
Primary Ship Class: <Drop Down Options: Yorktown, Hiryu, Essex, Ark Royal...> The available classes are dependent on type of TG. Primary is the ship that triggers respawn of the group if sunk.
Secondary Ship Class: <Drop Down Options: Baltimore, Brooklyn, Hood...> If you want to tie nationalities, have it determined by the Primary ship. IE, selecting an American carrier means only American ships are available in this list.
Number of Escorts: <Drop Down>
Escort Ship Class: <Drop Down Options: Fletcher, Clemson...> As above you can have the primary ship act as filter.
So the object itself isn't a US task group or Japanese task group or British task group. It's JUST a task group.
I have a feeling we're talking about the same thing but misunderstanding each other horribly. ;)
From what you're describing, you want to make two completely separate map object types for an American CV group vs. Japanese CV group.
What I'm saying is, the map object type would just be, "CV Group."
Does the drop-down selection list you describe exist or is it how you envision it would be if additional coding is applied?
It's how I envision it.
And obviously, this would just be for establishing the default settings on a given map. Give the CMs the ability to change the group settings on the fly for special events.
Nice .... but .... would that actually be easier time/code-wise than just adding an IJ CV model then adding a second type of CV group much like small, medium and large air fields are different but selectable already? I'm still advocating having a quicker immediate impact with less coding to have to be implemented alongside the modeling. Even with my suggestion of coding % based town captures, I believe such would and could be based on existing code (or at least the foundation and framework) and would not require all that many lines from scratch. You seem to be suggesting code be added for functions based on your experiences with other games (if I'm understanding correctly). Such would not be impossible but it does seem to neglect the additional workload that may make the project take longer and be less attractive to the programmer (based on other projects that may be easier to implement) and player base (based on the additional time it would take to see the addition come to pass). - [Picture the current workload the graphics update is taking and the amount of impatience the player base seems to have in it finally becoming a true-blue update.]
Now, let me assure you that I'm not advocating recklessness and haste when it comes to suggesting changes to add more depth to the game ... but I am suggesting potential streamlining and practicality to make my 'step by step' version of our shared vision of additions be more of a steady flow of potential growth and improvement that the players see come to pass every 3 or 4 times they pay on their sub.
It's a matter of simplicity in the long run. Making an IJN task group a completely separate map object type from the US group is just going to be redundant clutter. What's the point of doing it this way if the behavior of the two are the same and the only difference is in the models used? So no, I don't see it as being the same as Small/Medium/Large fields at all.
And the more classes of carrier you add, that means adding ANOTHER task group object. So what if you want to add Yorktown or Illustrious? Now that means you have FOUR task group objects, all behaving the same way, and the only difference being what ship models are used.
That's going to be wasteful in the long run when you can just make the model types selectable options for one map object.
AFAIK there ARE no Cruiser task groups. TGs are tied to the carriers, so whenever there's a CA group in any event I've flown in the CM has had to manually sink the CV and tweak the respawn timers to make it work.
AFAIK there ARE no Cruiser task groups. TGs are tied to the carriers, so whenever there's a CA group in any event I've flown in the CM has had to manually sink the CV and tweak the respawn timers to make it work.
For those that are wishing for Japanese ships,just remember,they did NOT have proxi fuses on their AAA.
Time of flight or altitude fusing is different from proximity.
Okay, you can be right about that.
I was looking over the army idea and it seems like a real frame killer. Even a unit as small as a regiment would be 1,000 men, which means 1,000 times whatever the maximum polygon requirement for soldiers (which of course could be less with distance in the LOD reductions). But, as I understand things, if the original soldier is built at 2,500 polys, then each LOD reduction is about half (1,250 , 625 , 310, 155). That leaves about 155,000 at a minimum for a single regiment, upwards to 2,500,000 when a single regiment is engaged by a single tank. Throw in two, or three regiments total for all three countries and instantly you have a problem. And that's just at the regiment level and without the more complex elements of grenadiers, heavy machine guns, artillery, and so on. For a single-player game that's fine, but not something like AH.
Is this really what you are planning on asking for?
AFAIK there ARE no Cruiser task groups. TGs are tied to the carriers, so whenever there's a CA group in any event I've flown in the CM has had to manually sink the CV and tweak the respawn timers to make it work.
Indeed some MA terrains had two cruisers per CV fleet and at least one scenario terrain had fleets with multiple CV's all using the same tools.
HTC discourages the use of " modified" object groups these days.
Ground units/AI and otherwise. Sea units, AI and otherwise. Order of development that doesn't overwhelm the developers but can still offer an immediate draw for potential players and benefit for the existing base (whether ma or event-driven or both).Is your name AI in real life??? :D
On a bit by bit basis (whether it's a 'test the waters' thing or a dedicated plan to introduce a broader aspect to the game) I would be glad to see 2 things added:
1. a Japanese carrier
2. C-47s given 'formation' capability and various ground capture targets taking different numbers to capture (why destroy everything to white flag something when you can capture your targets intact? - Maybe, technically, it would be a third wish to see drunks engaging if dropped within a certain vicinity of each other (or a defending force being approached by invaders).
One, two or three things with what I perceive to be a degree of developer difficulty that increases in order of request.
Is your name AI in real life??? :D
I would love to see AI driven ground battles set to an equilibrium such that player intervention ( air, land or from sea) tips the balance one way or another.
There IS also the fact that if the aiming devices are made accurately for each ship class, things can get REALLY lopsided if one side has a South Dakota or Iowa with its radar ranging and target finding, but the other is in a Japanese ship, which didn't.