Feature request request

[IBBoard]

The title does make sense - this is a request for feature requests

Now that v0.1 is very nearly done (~90% of the tickets complete, and most of those that are left are GTK or Qt version work) I thought it was time to do a request for feature requests: What does WarFoundry need to do to be useful or to be better than the alternatives? There are probably two halves to this (the same as the comparison with other apps) in that we'll have "things they do that we don't" (missing core features) and "things we could do that they don't" (bonus features that make us better).

Ideas I've had so far include:

• Army collection helper
• Army 'modification' saved files
• Requirements/validation (we need to discuss and expand what is required)
• More outputs/exports (templated HTML, PDF, GW List-like HTML)
• Import of Army Builder data files
• Import of Army Builder army files

There's probably more, and I've just put some more tickets in for things I realised v0.1 might need.

Don't forget that we also have ticket ratings for members, so you can tag the existing tickets that you think are most important, and I'm open to suggestions on moving features forwards and backwards.

[Frostlee]

well, i don't use armybuilder, so anything related is quite not interesting for me.

the collection seems a nice addition for me. i've already seen a similar feathure in the free (as in beer, not as in speech) Tabletop commander. option for tagging as owned/assembled/colored and the ability to add a custom pic is something useful.

i'm not sure i 'modification' is something useful for an early version, sice i use to create a copy and then add what i need... well, with a text editor this is the fastest.

i think that something really more useful could be both th e ability to "validate" (whatever this could mean ) and to output in different and possibily custom manner.
anyway keep in mind that i belive that this two features should be provided by plugins rather than by the core...

[IBBoard]

The validation framework will be core and I think it is already in the ticketing system and tagged for v0.2. The a lot of the actual validation rules themselves will be plugins, but I first need to create the plugin architecture (more accurately, learn the Mono.Addins architecture and how to use it). Some of the core rules from Rollcall will be core, though, but they're just simple number and exclusion limits (e.g. 4 of X for every Y, or no X if you have Y).

In terms of the collection mod, what you described would be slightly different to what I was thinking of. I was just going to write a simple list generator of "you need X High Elves with Spears", but a full "I have this many assembled/basecoated/painted" would be interesting. Definitely something to either leave for later or let someone else write as an addon while I focus on the core, though

[Frostlee]

now i understood what you mean with collection...
but actually i would call it "summary" or something like that. in my mind its something (another plugin?) that tell me various statistics, like total model, number of model armed with what, % of points for each category and other stuff like that...

anyway you are the leader and since you do the work you should decide whatever do first, but in my opinion the plugin architecture in going to rise it's importance and priority. once done i think that you could split developement into something like:

• core: basic that sticks everything together.
• core plugins: like the validation, these are essentials but works on top of the core
• 3rd party plugins: it's just a name, but you understand what i mean , these do all of the optional but useful things like collection, summary and export...

but still this is just my ideas and i dont know if it is possible.

[IBBoard]

That probably is roughly what the architecture will be like. Core plugins will probably include things like the existing HTML output (since output will be modularised, but having HTML is quite core). The Army Builder support would be a "third-party" plugin, even if I made it, as it is less essential but useful functionality.

As for what takes priority, I may be the developer but I'm not so much of a gamer these days. If the app is to be useful to gamers then it needs gamer input. I'll still influence the list slightly with my preferences, but knowing what gamers think would be important would certainly be useful.

[clutch110]

My son plays Necrons and the ability to use Warfoundry today to build an army is great already.

The validation framework will be much appreciated.

Some of the things that I think are hurting right now are output. It is ok at the moment but as a 40k player it would be nice to have the stats of the weapons broken out at the bottom of the list.

For features, how about basic stats per army built? Average cost per unit, weapon strength, etc. After a battle I can take these numbers and make an educated guess and just how much they influenced the game play.

Also, it would be nice to compare two armies. I would like to load up my Space Marine vehicle heavy army along with my Space Marine troop heavy army and be able to see them side by side with the stats of each unit visible.

Finally, how about supporting a note taking ability so I can save information about each battle the army has encountered.

Thanks for the great work so far. As a "way out there" idea, what about a port to the iPad?

Clutch

[IBBoard]

I'm glad it is proving useful for your son already - I don't know how old he is, but if they're gaming then they're old enough to be taught community spirit and the benefits of open source

I think validation is probably the next priority - I might have to shuffle some tickets around to make a small second milestone that is almost purely validation (tickets 27, 33 and 52)

A break-out of the weapons would be useful in the output, although the existing output is intentionally quite basic just as an example. That requires a) a new output method and b) stats for equipment (tickets 71-74)

Stats per army would be quite interesting and probably quite simple as it is pulling numbers from what we've already got. Weapon strength might be difficult as we go for maximum flexibility and have all stats as text strings (WH/40K normally use numbers, but sometimes have dice, and other game systems can have special codes). Feel free to start up a separate topic with some ideas on what kind of stats you'd like to see.

Side-by-side windows (what I've been calling "sessions" in my own notes) has been on my mind but never documented anywhere other than my little book of scribblings. I think someone else mentioned it before but it never got ticketed.

Note taking per-unit is already in as ticket 212 - we have "unit type" notes, so I thought it only made sense at the time that we'd eventually add custom notes

The iPad is, in theory, actually possible - we'd just need to check some of the requirements, and find someone with a Mac and a MonoTouch license. The iPad doesn't support C#/.Net/Mono directly, but MonoTouch compiles code down to something that will run on it. There are already MonoTouch apps in the app store. As long as we stick to a core set of libraries then my understanding is that there shouldn't be anything to stop it happening but time and effort

Thanks.

[snowblizz]

Similar to clutch110 I've been thinking about a roster summary, though I've just always take it for granted sort of. Since we don't have stats for equipment I haven't been pushing it yet (I need the multistat units and contains units more).

Getting the stats/descriptions of weapons, and other equipment as well as special rules (ie abilities) listed at the end of the roster (but let's not exclude the need to list them in other places as well, I know of at least one such example) is very useful.

I'll have to think more, usually these questions turn up at use-time after all.

[IBBoard]

Fair enough - I hadn't really thought about roster summaries before, but I guess they could be useful and they'll be easier with an app than with pen and paper

We now seem to have two/three priorities: requirements and stats (both for equipment and for multiple unit-types). I'd probably see the requirements as the priority, since stats don't affect army creation as much and can be copied/referenced from a book if necessary. Do the actual gamers agree or are the stats more important?

I've been thinking about the stats a little and I think I might need to break perfect backward compatibility before v0.1 is released, even if I don't break the current files. I'll discuss that in another thread, though.

As Snowblizz suggested, please keep in mind any features you want or problems you encounter when you're using the tool as it is definitely the best way to improve it. I've been doing the same thing with MonoDevelop and did a quick idea dump in a text file, which quickly got a response from a MonoDevelop dev