Development wishlist

[SimonLancaster]

From a friend: "What I'd love to see is a Slitherine game where there's an army builder and you can customize your own armies, with unit painting and all of that. Could be really fun."

[DIVM]

From a friend: "What I'd love to see is a Slitherine game where there's an army builder and you can customize your own armies, with unit painting and all of that. Could be really fun."

Oh yeah! I got one to mod my units from external apps and, although it worked, it was a pain.

[Athos1660]

Being able to save several Custom battle settings (Army 1 + Army 2 + scenario type + Map size + etc.) and give them names.

[Karvon]

I'd like the option to designate, and deploy in formation, flank marches on both flanks.

During the deployment phase, I'd like to see a flank march box measuring 3x10 along both edges. One could place a command of up to 30 units led by a subgeneral in the box. Once deployment ended those units would be removed and held offboard till arrival was determined. They would then arrive in the formation they were deployed in.

Flank marches would not be allowed on flanks masked by coast or impassable waterways.

Karvon

[Triarii]

I’d like an option to set visible range from default 20 to an integer of something between say 4 and 32 when setting up a game. Alternatively, if not possible, some predefined levels to choose Visibility Range from; e.g., Very Short (4), Short (12), Medium (20, default), Long (32).

This would create some very interesting dynamics in terms of gameplay, tactics, recon, manoeuvres, etc.

I would like to bump this original post.
Is varying LOS Range a popular development wish?
Certainly, for me, being able to change the visible range in battle set-up would be a welcome added 'chrome' benefit.

The possibility of reducing the LOS range due to weather effects would add another dynamic.
Given that ice/frozen is already possible could LOS range limitation be a further adaptation?
e.g.
Fog 1/4 - (25%)
Heavy Rain/Downpour/Snow - 1/2 (75%)
Light Rain/Mist - 3/4 - (75%)
- possibly with an option randomising or limiting the game turns in which it applied?

Have no idea on the practicality of any of that from a coding point of view, or whether there would be a wider appetite for it, though it has been raised in a separate topic as well as by the original post.
However, enabling weather events of the Teutoberger Wald, Towton, Barnet, Peipus type does seem a beguiling addition to this great system.

[SimonLancaster]

Is it possible to just code actual movements in the replay?

I just had an excruciating replay in the league where my opponent moved his skirmishers in front of me about 20 times. About 50% of the replay was him messing around moving units around.

[rbodleyscott]

Is it possible to just code actual movements in the replay?

I just had an excruciating replay in the league where my opponent moved his skirmishers in front of me about 20 times. About 50% of the replay was him messing around moving units around.

No, because as far as the game is concerned those were actually movements at the time they were added to the replay file.

[Ray552]

I think the addition of the ability to change the visible range in the game would be a great addition, if this is possible with the game engine.

An article regarding the effects of dust in ancient warfare: "Military Dust"

[Karvon]

FYI kronenblatt has created a small mod which sets LOS at 9, for those seeking a more limited view of the field. You can find it in-game under the custom content list.

Regards,

Karvon

[Ray552]

Thanks for the LOS mod information.

[Karvon]

Maybe this has been mentioned before, but it would be nice to be able to save a battlefield map. Likewise, it would be cool to be able to designate a custom saved map for use, either in the editor or for battles.

Karvon

[SimonLancaster]

From a friend: "Save and replay full match would be a great addition."

[SimonLancaster]

When a battle is over an option to play again would be great instead of having to exit and go back to menu.

[grahamed]

Would it be practical to review and refine some of the more strange movement qwerks, eg it is sometimes currently possible to move to places where you cannot move to any of the squares that would let you access the square you can finish in, seemingly especially when charging?

Also might it be useful and practical to significantly and progressively decrease the chance of a unit pursuing into a fresh enemy each time it successfully breaks a new enemy in the same round, a break , pursue, break again, pursue, break another sequence is not common, but not as unlikely as it should be if it is all happening in the same time period that an elite drilled infantry unit can turn…

[rbodleyscott]

Would it be practical to review and refine some of the more strange movement qwerks, eg it is sometimes currently possible to move to places where you cannot move to any of the squares that would let you access the square you can finish in, seemingly especially when charging?

Not really, as I cannot access the engine route-finding code. Replicating the same in scripts would have deleterious effects on game performance.

Also might it be useful and practical to significantly and progressively decrease the chance of a unit pursuing into a fresh enemy each time it successfully breaks a new enemy in the same round, a break , pursue, break again, pursue, break another sequence is not common, but not as unlikely as it should be if it is all happening in the same time period that an elite drilled infantry unit can turn…

This is a deliberate part of the game. As I have said before, FOG is not a time-slice model, and troops did not all move in mechanical precision and perfect synchronisation.

This is the way that the game replicate events where a wing suddenly collapsed.

It is not going to change.

[Hari72]

It is not going to change.

Good!!

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, I think the somewhat chaotic chain routs/charges/disruptions make the game exciting and unpredictable mixed in with all the chess-like deterministic moves.

[grahamed]

Thanks for the info Richard, On the movement logic that seems fair enough.

I appreciate your point about battles with a sudden collapse on one wing, although is it really reflective of common actual battle mechanics for this to be most often achieved by a single, albeit well positioned small group of troups (single unit) rather than a progressive morale collapse accross a sizeable number of troops? Still i guess the end outcome is the same if the mechanism is somewhat different.