AATA Beta 0.9

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 11 Jan 2006, 04:16

In my cursory glance, I spotted these:

- Heavy mortar (american, from the first available barracks) animation is a bit strange, as the two men go into each other when it is time to fire
- US Sniper aiming animation is messed up
- Prone units hover a large distance above the ground (I'm sure you know this one)
- Crashed when I selected the second-tier US engineer (built from the first available barracks - not the HQ thingo) and then attempted to fire; holding attack and force firing on the ground.

EDIT: Also, regarding the buildpics, I think they are pretty cool, but they are a bit too busy. It is often hard to differentiate the important part (the foreground weapon/rank) from the unimportant flag in the background. I think the flag needs to have a reduction in contrast and brightness, to make it recede more, and bring the important part clearly into focus.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 17 Jan 2006, 16:39

I need some specific testing, so I'm going to give you guys a testplan. Anyone interested, reply to this.

This will be to test resizing of all models. For this I will give you a checklist to go over. It is below.

1. Do all unit footprints match their models (mobile units and structures)?
2. Are all factories able to build everything in their build menus?
3. Are all mobile units able to climb realistic slopes? (Use best judgement)
4. Are all mobile units able to cross realistic water depths? (Again, use best judgement)
5. Are there any other strange effects, such as wierdly-shaped footprints (rectangular, etc)?

That is the whole purpose of this particular test. Nothing else. Do not report anything else except crashes. Simply go over the checklist for all units, and mark down each pass or fail, and then send me back a list of which units failed which tests.

And yes this is different then your regular "here's the build, go find bugs". Why? 'Cause I recently landed myself a job as a game tester, so I know how to do this shit properly now :D And if you're thinking, hey, he tests games for bugs for a living, why can't he do his own testing?!?! To that I say SCREW YOU, I do that for 7.5 hours every day I ain't gonna do it on my off-time!

Anyway again if you're interested just reply and I'll hook you up with the build. If the build FLOZI released DID have resized models, those who got it can do it.

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 17 Jan 2006, 17:27

*interested*

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » 17 Jan 2006, 17:44

I'll be glad to help. I don't have nearly the same experiance, but perhaps it would be a good idea to assign portions of units to different people? Say, hae 2-3 people cover american infantry. and another few cover american vehicles..ect.

I remember an AA:OTA with a LOT of units, so this might help ease the workload/help people to give better/more focused reports.

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 17 Jan 2006, 19:16

There are alot of units, but it wouldnt be excessive for one person to test an entire side for 1,2 & 5, atleast.

The version I uploaded did NOT have resized models.

Not sure if Spiked has put up a fixed version of the resized one, yet. The old one (with a fair few of the aforementioned issues) resides at the URL you have minus the /downloads/ part of the URL.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 17 Jan 2006, 20:13

Lazy arses... I could do it all in 24 hours if I really tried. Instructions:

1. All you have to do is build (or .give) each engineer/construction unit (GERCOM, USCOM, gerabtpion, werkpion, panzerpion, gerluftpion, kriegspion, labourer, uscbteng, usaafeng) and go through its build menu, click something to build, move to place it on the ground, and see if the little green squares match the side of the "ghosted" building. For mobile units all you'd have to do is build one of everything (or .give), and select them, and see which units have "groundplate" sizes that dont match (the green square around every unit).
2. Just .give each factory (heerbarr, usbarr, troopbunker, heerlightvehyard, heermedvehyard, heerheavyvehyard, heerassaultyard, heerartyard, usartdepot, usvehyard, gerbomberpit, gerfighterpit, gerattackpit, usbomberpit, usfighterpit, usattackpit) and go through its buildmenu to see if builds everything.
3. Forget infantry. Load a map with a good slope or two, build all vehicles, etc..
4. Get a map with water crossing (River Dale), make things cross.
5. During your adventures, look for any wierdly-shaped baseplates.

See, I even listed all the relevant units' unitnames for your .giving ease.

I can understand doing only 1 at a time (ie, Guessmyname does #1, Nemo does #2, etc), but if you guys need to split it up into even smaller chunks then don't bother. I'll do it over a weekend or something.

heroesdoexist07 · Post by **heroesdoexist07** » 17 Jan 2006, 20:57

Hit me up, man. I'll do alla that shit. I have free time now...it's exam week, and I excempted 6 out of 7 of them.

raikitsune · Post by **raikitsune** » 17 Jan 2006, 21:35

sorry about this guys seems i'll be out of testing for a couple of weeks my 'puters powerbox blew and gotta wait for new one and then i'm off to finland for a week!

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:36

Done a bit of work (not yet available in the uploaded version).

Here's the current changelog - which now shows who's done what and what we are currently working on. N.B. b1.6 is not uploaded, the small-version that is available is just a slight extention of b1.5. Also includes the issues you folks have spotted, nudge me if anything important is missing!

Code: Select all

AATA0.9 Changelog

~~~~~

TODO:

Graphical:
-Add tracks to units
-Exhausts for all ground vehicles
-GER towed guns tow-detect scripts [FLOZi]
-give towed guns universal heights [FLOZi]
-fix old infantry models [Spiked]
-texture fighting on the M4A1GMC
-buildpics for airpits
-Smallarms as tracers [Spiked]
-Tiger II lacks a modelled cupula
-Tank wreckages need more differentiated textures
-Infantry animations

Additions:
-M1A1/M2 90mm AAA
-B25J Mitchell
-B26B Marauder
-A26 Invader
-P61 Black Widow

Conversion:
-Fix prone infantry
-Spring aircraft tags [Spiked]
-Smallarms/AT rockets OnlyTargetCategory
-M19 corpse
-Random crashes. A lot of these seem to be aircraft-related
-Some FPS mode crashes (engineers, somehow - WTF? They don't even have weapons)
-Gunpits suck
-Resource balancing - should become better if we get AATA-specific resource balanced maps
-LOS, though now effectively doubled

~~~~~

b1.6
-Resized everything to half, fixing footprints on the way [Spiked]
-Fixed supply tent to large for buildplate, as above [Spiked]
-Fixed steam roller wheels [Spiked]
-Fixed C47, but removed it for now because it sucks in Spring [FLOZi]
-Changed SWTA transport scripts to default Spring scripts [FLOZi]
-Fixed rocket models not showing [FLOZi]
-Fixed USBomberPit SoundCategory [FLOZi]
-Removed R4M weapon, it saw limited use and was a pain [Spiked/FLOZi]

b1.5
-Add set ACTIVATION to 1 to EVERY F*ING MOBILE GROUND UNIT [FLOZi]
-*Altered* burstweapons, May reverse this! [FLOZi]
-Improved JU87G accuracy - can now actually hit tanks! [FLOZi]
-Fixed ugly GER HQ/barracks innards [FLOZi]
-Temporary fix of B25C Carpet bombs [FLOZi]
-Fixed flamethrower graphic [FLOZi]
-Increased 5/6cm mortar accuracy & decreased range [FLOZi]
-Made new 20mm KwK to replace 20mm Flak on Sd.Kfz 250/9 SPW [FLOZi]
-Fixed mobelwagon sides animation [FLOZi]
-Fixed build menu orders [FLOZi]
-Gave the Me-262 R4M rockets, and made them only fire at bombers [FLOZi]
-Added and balanced M19 40mm SPAAG [Spiked/FLOZi]
-Buildpics for all US units except air factory and repair [FLOZi]
-SmoothAnim=1; for all infantry and towed guns [Spiked]
-Typo: US MOtor Carriage Depot [FLOZi]

b1.4
-Included missing debris 3dos [FLOZi]
-Fixed all the missing build menu problems i could find [FLOZi]
-Fixed GER turretless SPGs not firing [FLOZi]
-Fixed panzerfaust huge muzzle flash bug [FLOZi]

b1.3
-Fixed US towed guns tow-detect scripts [FLOZi]
-fixed amphibians moveclass [FLOZi]
-fixed resource generation of lvl1 resources [FLOZi]
-Fixed Jeep firing points and cleaned script [FLOZi]
-Fix US turretless SPGs not firing [FLOZi]
-Removed ugly US HQ/barracks innards [FLOZi]

b1.2
-Fixed infantry AT weapons start velocities [FLOZi]
-Fixed NOWEAPON warning and related issues [FLOZi]
-Removed M4GMC HMG pending weapon-specific HighTrajectory tags [FLOZi]
-Removed 2mb worth of useless drone2.wav! [FLOZi]

b1.1
-Converted to Spring format! [FLOZi]
-Gave mortars correct HighTrajectory FBI values [FLOZi]

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 18 Jan 2006, 05:38

Report from the couple of games we had tonight:

US storage shed's footprint is too small
German heer divisionen kaserne, has very slightly too small footprint
PzKpfW IVG/J has too small of a footprint
Marder (all models) have visible black groundplate
JagdPanther has rectangular gp
PzrIII has rectangular gp

Also, after yet again suffering at the hands of a King Tiger rush, I feel I must push for a new resource system, here's my idea:

Command Points - More or less as now, a units CP cost is a function of how combat effective it is, e.g. armour thickness, gun damage, mobility (flags will however give less, to fit more into Springs resource model)

Logistics - Again similar to the current implementation, logistics cost is the cost to produce and run/train the unit, the more complex the more expensive.

BuildTime - Should not be based on production numbers AT ALL, rather it is a function of CP and Logistics (It's harder to get a tank to the frontline than a guy with a rifle).

Production - the number of production, however, would play a role. It would be a kind of 'efficiency modifier'.

This is an (entirely arbitrary) example of what I mean:
A tank with 50mm armour and 10 damage/sec costs 1500L and 250CP by default, with a BT of 2500.
Let the default production be 1000 for a tank.
Say our example tank had 3000 units built, then we decrease the costs by a certain percentage, say 30%.
Our tank now costs 1050L and 175CP, but still has a BT of 2500.

So, a unit that would have been more available in the war is cheaper to procure (It's being mass produced - so the design has been simplified to make it economically feasible), but takes just as long to be shipped to you.

What does anyone think?

Part of the reason KTs are so attractive right now is that they are pretty much the only tank to be able to withstand a fair amount of punishment. I think the way armour is calculated (an amalgamation of sides, glacis, turret front, turretsides) should take into account that the turret was the part of the tank most often hit (and also the most armoured), which would push up armour levels a little. I should perhaps also come up with a revised formula for damage-dropoff of lighter weapons that already do not destroy a unit with one hit.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 18 Jan 2006, 20:53

interesting.
in the name of RTS functionalbility can spring support more than 2 resources? will it allow alternative means of gaining resources? can it do things like lower cost in relation to how many factories you have?
a mod with new features would be awsome

submarine · Post by **submarine** » 18 Jan 2006, 21:21

are there any new versions available for the public?

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 18 Jan 2006, 21:39

Min3mat wrote:interesting.
in the name of RTS functionalbility can spring support more than 2 resources? will it allow alternative means of gaining resources? can it do things like lower cost in relation to how many factories you have?
a mod with new features would be awsome

It would be manually edited into the logistics and CP costs, doesn't require Spring to do anything it doesn't already.

Submarine, not exactly. The 'new' version is just the same as before except with half scale models. I'll PM you the URL anyway.

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 19 Jan 2006, 02:19

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

We need to find some way to exaggerate weapon damage and/or armor. As FLOZi pointed out, pretty much everything but the PzKpfW VIB Konigstiger dies in one shot from pretty much anything. If there's no practical difference between a PzKpfW V Panther and a PzKpfW IIIC, why build the more expensive Panther? Same with TDs - if there's no difference between a Marder I and a Jagdpanther, I'm more likely to build the much cheaper and faster building Marder I.

Note that I've ignored gun range in my examples, I judge range to be a secondary factor, especially since they all have ranges exceeding LOS radius, so it's irrelevant unless you happen to have brought along some observation vehicles. I've also ignored speed, however, speed is another secondary factor - it's more of a concern if you combine different tank types as I did in our game last night, where my PzKpfW IIIG's outran my PzKpfW VIB Tigers and got killed and ruined a lot of the tactical surprise as well.

I concur with FLOZi's resource system and would add that I'd love to see it if doing actions cost VASTLY more logistics. I'm willing to bet that more of the German war production in World War 2 was directed toward transport, ammunition, food, water, command training, spare parts, repairs, medicine, etc. than in the actual production of tanks and training of infantrymen. We should reflect this by making even the movement of a good number of tanks require a significant logistics income, not to mention actually having the tanks fire, or producing things back home on the side. This would have the dual effects of making it a (probably) more accurate simulation and encouraging the use of lower-maintenance alternatives such as infantry and light vehicles.

It would be good if logistics roughly mirrored the logistical requirements of each unit. A Tiger would cost more to move than a Panther simply because Tigers required much more maintenance much more frequently than Panthers.

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 19 Jan 2006, 02:44

As far as the weapons go, its partly because everyone is spamming the best units, which will decimate anything in one hit anyway, if your TDs were facing PzIIIs you would probably want a JgPzIV or above rather than a Marder, the problem is that they mainly face Tiger IIs (though it should be noted that the JPanthers gun is considerably more effective vs. TII than marders... use the Nashorn which is just as cheap

)

This much of it will hopefully be sorted out when unitscosts are rebalanced - but you are right, weapons damage needs tweaking, especially for the middle-high range units (Sherman 76, M10, PzIVG etc) which will pretty much pop each other in one hit, making LOS even more important. (of course, there is a certain degree of realism here)

Units should already drain logistics that are somewhat relative to their size and weight.

Spring requires an extra bit of scripting to do this that TA doesn't, so I might have missed a unit or two when adding it in... do point any out you may stumble across.

Tiger II currently uses 100 whereas PzIII uses 20. I think part of the problem is that resources are too freely available, which is probably due mainly to how easy it is to level up to the logistics depots... In most of the games we have played I end up with several thousand logistics per tick (and pretty much all of it being drained when moving forces around).

EDIT: and how cheap engineers are... I think they should be made more expensive, and given smaller worker times (Org Todt spamming in particular is becoming a problem, too)

Though it might be an interesting experiment to really hike up the movement costs rather than cut the availability - it'll make it harder for the player to judge how much excess logistics they need available for when the move, without causing starvation at the factories (or perhaps more importantly the logistics required to fire weapons)

EDIT 2: I also think Spiked should play Felix online

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 19 Jan 2006, 03:31

Trying to hurt players through use of energy/logistics in-game isn't as effective as you might want it to be.

In SWTA, we have droids using a lot of energy (in large groups anyway) in order to balance them out. The problem is that even when they are working the way you want them, and stalling the player using too many droids, the detraction through lack of energy isn't as critical as it is in theory; not nearly enough to balance having a mass of units at the front, anyway.

It may be different in AATA where units use a lot more logistics.

IIRC, though, it is impossible to stop a unit moving when you are out of logistics.

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » 19 Jan 2006, 03:38

I know in the game that I played, I never had any issues with resources. At all. I expanded with command points and spammed energy producers like you would in any other mod/game of TA, and I never came close to touching my unit limit. I managed to get a "nice move" from FLOzi, but I have no idea what for...beginner's luck, perhaps?

The game really came down to who knew which units to make lots of, since everyone had plenty of resources and space. Again, this is partially a map issue...mars with command points that produce ~20 per tick = a TON of command ability (not sure what your offical lexicon for this is).

I found that AT infantry, along with infantry in general, were nearly useless. Realistically enough, I suppose, they got mown down before getting close enough to fire their rockets. I had plenty of LOS coverage, but all I could do was spread out my AT men and hope that they marched close enough to fire off a few rockets...I don't think a single bazooka was fired by my units the entire game. I suppose the key here is to hide them behind a hill or something, or just use them so hugely en masse that the tanks can't shoot them all.

Perhaps FLOz or spiked could correct me, but are infantry supposed to be useful at all? They're cheap, but seem too slow/easily picked off at range by vehicles to be used effectively. I think I just need to learn a bit more.

Testing report forthcoming in the next few days.

Edit: Masse mentioned something in the lobby today that might prove useful for truely limiting unit production/use.

Apparently, Spring can handle negative resource storage, even below a total storage of 0. So, for example, if a resource tent provides 1000 E storage, and each AT infantry has -100 storage, you can only build 10 of them until you're digging into your other storage..and eventually have none at all. This is different from simply using energy in that once you use up all of your storage, you can't build anything..not just that you build more slowly/nanostall - all production ceases completely, and I'd imagine that any energy using unit would halt. I'll have to play around with it a bit.

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 19 Jan 2006, 03:49

Nemo wrote:I know in the game that I played, I never had any issues with resources. At all. I expanded with command points and spammed energy producers like you would in any other mod/game of TA, and I never came close to touching my unit limit. I managed to get a "nice move" from FLOzi, but I have no idea what for...beginner's luck, perhaps?

It was for taking out a bunch of medium Shermans with only light Stuart tanks - with superior tactics

The game really came down to who knew which units to make lots of, since everyone had plenty of resources and space. Again, this is partially a map issue...mars with command points that produce ~20 per tick = a TON of command ability (not sure what your offical lexicon for this is).

Partly this is down to Spring maps and the Spring metal system, I think I will nudge Spiked into nuking flag CP production - metal is traditionally the limiting factor in TA, and it is in huge abundance in AASpring

I found that AT infantry, along with infantry in general, were nearly useless. Realistically enough, I suppose, they got mown down before getting close enough to fire their rockets. I had plenty of LOS coverage, but all I could do was spread out my AT men and hope that they marched close enough to fire off a few rockets...I don't think a single bazooka was fired by my units the entire game. I suppose the key here is to hide them behind a hill or something, or just use them so hugely en masse that the tanks can't shoot them all.

AT troops were really only effective in close quarters - dense forest/bocage and urban areas.

Perhaps FLOz or spiked could correct me, but are infantry supposed to be useful at all? They're cheap, but seem too slow/easily picked off at range by vehicles to be used effectively. I think I just need to learn a bit more.

They seem to be far less useful in Spring, not sure why, possibly the MGs are more effective. The balance needs redressing, in one game heroesdoexist07 made a HUGE force of infantry which just fizzled out when met with not-a-great-deal-of resistance.

Testing report forthcoming in the next few days.

That's what I like to hear!

Edit: Masse mentioned something in the lobby today that might prove useful for truely limiting unit production/use.

Apparently, Spring can handle negative resource storage, even below a total storage of 0. So, for example, if a resource tent provides 1000 E storage, and each AT infantry has -100 storage, you can only build 10 of them until you're digging into your other storage..and eventually have none at all. This is different from simply using energy in that once you use up all of your storage, you can't build anything..not just that you build more slowly/nanostall - all production ceases completely, and I'd imagine that any energy using unit would halt. I'll have to play around with it a bit.

That sounds... odd!

heroesdoexist07 · Post by **heroesdoexist07** » 19 Jan 2006, 04:48

I have to say that I love the negative energy idea. It'll take a smarter man than me to tease out the manner in which it should be used, but I think that it should be embraced.

Yes. Infantry are useless. The group you 'fizzled' was the smallest one of three which I had built. It.....ouch. Incidentally, I love the mortars in AATA and I believe that you did them BEAUTIFULLY. Please don't change them. Ever.

I still like the idea of hugely increasing the metal cost of tanks while keeping the build time the same. I think this should be done (in conjunction with AATA-exclusive maps) in such a way as to deprive players of tanks until the middle game. The focus really should be on infy and light vehicles for the first part, right? I'd much rather see a Greyhound rush than a KT rush. As things stand, the only light ordnance I've seen anyone other than myself use were a few M4A1 mortar carriers (and I think someone built an M16 and 3 jeeps in the last game I played). With this whole reworking of the resource system, I'd like to see tanks become much more expensive and rarer but without any increase in effectiveness. The balance, of course, will stay tactically the same between every unit as the cost is increased. We should just see more infantrymen per every tank that is built. The thing that nerfs infantry is SOLELY their speed - and I see no reason why it should be changed. Damage and shit is fine. This is why the focus now is on economics.

'I select 100 riflemen, and right click on one truck. 10 enter. I click on the next truck. 10 enter. So on and so on until all are loaded. I select the trucks and tell them to unload in an area.' Is there any way the process can be streamlined further? Using trucks to transport guns and infy is a really laborious process as I see it. Unloading is kinda iffy, anyway.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 19 Jan 2006, 04:50

I think once you work out your resource scheme (mainly, make resources more scarce, so players are having to carefully choose what they build, rather than mass produce everything, as well as build times, so that units aren't able to be fielded so easily), things will start to solve themselves.

The problem with infantry is the predominance of anti-infantry units. If tanks are far rarer, then infantry won't be mowed down so easily. If there aren't as many tanks as there are now, infantry will be able to get much closer to tanks, as there won't be as many tanks to slaughter infantry. I'm willing to bet that if a bazooka unit is able to kill a tank, even at the loss of 10 or so infantry, the player has just spent far less then it cost to build that tank.

So bazooka infantry become more useful. What do you do? Build more of your own infantry to act as a protective screen for your tanks!

If tanks are obsoleting infantry, then you really have to rethink the way you are using infantry. Tanks, to this day, have yet to obsolete infantry.

Following these conversations, flozi, I think it is becoming prety clear that you should do that 'add one bit at a time and balance' thing that you were talking about earlier, because I think that there are too many variables at work here for you to be able to fix it all at one clean sweep.

Spring RTS Engine

AATA Beta 0.9