Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha

Deathblane · Post by **Deathblane** » 28 Sep 2006, 19:06

Is it just a cosmetic effect or does it give them any bonus's (when prone as compared to moving)?

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 28 Sep 2006, 20:16

rattle wrote:
Bhaal wrote:It s not free.... think about the therms you agreed while installing...
TA content isn't free. And I doubt it will use TA content.

rattle wrote:Will your tracks reverse accordingly when the unit is turning? I'm asking out of interest... :)
Quoting myself, get me an answer
I've been trying to get this done for a couple of weeks now but failed in the last step because I suck at maths (especially trigonometry, can't think in 3D and so on).

No, the tracks won't reverse

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 02 Oct 2006, 09:07

Infantry that fire while prone will receive an armor bonus. Currently this would mean German MG42, Soviet PTRD, Soviet M1910 Maxim.

Okay, I modelled the FlaK 38, took me fucking hours, something like 700 tris or something. But you don't get to see it because Photobucket isn't working right now! AHahahA!

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 02 Oct 2006, 11:26

Try imageshack.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 02 Oct 2006, 14:25

What's wrong with good old fileuniverse? It even puts out a nicely sized thumbnail for you.

- I think it's important that you ship those new models with your AA demo if at all possible. People will be put off by the old TA models, I think.

- Wasn't it quite clearly decided that no bonuses should be gained by prone infantry, other then minor accuracy bonuses? In the numerous playtesting that occurred between Nemo and I, we found that if prone infantry were significantly more powerful then mobile infantry, charging with infantry became suicidal, and the game turned into shifting musket-line type combat. The friendly fire stuff will certainly fix that, as well as the truck solution, but the overly-defensive nature of the game will certainly not be improved by infantry gaining armour bonuses over mobile infantry, especially when coupled with the other advantages prone infantry get.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 02 Oct 2006, 19:19

let me just make this clear. company of heroes is a pack of douche. it is an even more dumbed down version of dawn of war. in short, its not comparible to spring. the only good point is OOOH SHINY. yay for communists! whens this mods first release? the infrantry demo?

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 02 Oct 2006, 19:26

yay for communists!

Yay indeed.

Snipers kill machineguns!

I don't like the old models going out either.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 02 Oct 2006, 21:34

Okay here's the pic I didnt show last night:

And here's the finished product:

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 02 Oct 2006, 22:23

[Off-topic]

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:let me just make this clear. company of heroes is a pack of douche. it is an even more dumbed down version of dawn of war. in short, its not comparible to spring. the only good point is OOOH SHINY. yay for communists!

Wait... What!? Are you retarded? State some damn reasons for saying its a "pack of douche" and maybe I will believe you. Maybe your just not understanding. Company of Heroes is a good strategy game, with amazingly good graphics that plays on my piece of shit computer!

I think it could almost be considered innovative. It forces players to say "Holy shit, I can't spam 500 riflemen and kill a tank!" It makes them think, which is apparently something you aren't too good at...

Now state your damn reasons here, Company of Heroes

[End Off-topic]

Looking pretty smooth, I think this mod is going places.. Gotta say, you got some pretty sweet models.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 03 Oct 2006, 02:07

Mmm, I don't think snipers should be the only counter to machinegunners. Firstly, it's a bad "counter-for-counter" precedent, which is similar to 'rock-paper-scissors'. Machinegun kills infantry kills sniper kills machine gun. If you get me.

Secondly, it is frustrating to have a whole advance be brought to a halt every time you run into some MG or entrenched infantry so that you can fetch your sniper and micro him to get him to take out the MG.

I think you definitely need to think out the prone situation very carefully.

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » 03 Oct 2006, 02:29

unsupported MGs are fodder for a group of 3 or more riflemen, one sniper, or 5-6 SMGs, depending on spread. This is because the cloak allows them to get well into their firing range before opening up for the rifles, and very near to their range for the SMGs, and 2-3 rifle bullets=dead MG.

However, a few MGs in good positions laying down supporting fire on enemy forces that are already engaged can absolutely destroy that force. The key is keeping the enemy from focusing on the MG, since on their own they're potent, but pretty vulnerable.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 03 Oct 2006, 03:10

Secondly, it is frustrating to have a whole advance be brought to a halt every time you run into some MG or entrenched infantry

Unfortunately, that's how it was. Troops on the ground, when running into MG nests, had to either maneuver around it, bring in a sniper, bring in some armour, call an airstrike or artillery, etc. Snipers aren't the only thing to "counter" machineguns. There's obviously tanks and armoured vehicles and snipers and mortars and artillery and field guns and flanking and bigger machineguns and and and.. you get the point.

A well-placed machinegun is capable of stopping an entire infantry company dead in its tracks. Hell, in this here book I have, it tells how a lone British machinegunner managed to fend off a German tank w/ accompanying infantry single-handed...

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 03 Oct 2006, 04:16

SpikedHelmet wrote:
Secondly, it is frustrating to have a whole advance be brought to a halt every time you run into some MG or entrenched infantry
Unfortunately, that's how it was. Troops on the ground, when running into MG nests, had to either maneuver around it, bring in a sniper, bring in some armour, call an airstrike or artillery, etc. Snipers aren't the only thing to "counter" machineguns. There's obviously tanks and armoured vehicles and snipers and mortars and artillery and field guns and flanking and bigger machineguns and and and.. you get the point.

A well-placed machinegun is capable of stopping an entire infantry company dead in its tracks. Hell, in this here book I have, it tells how a lone British machinegunner managed to fend off a German tank w/ accompanying infantry single-handed...

True, or rush like retards... And lose half a battalion against it...

If its an MG or 2 in bunkers.. Your just screwed, retreat and flank, or something..

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 03 Oct 2006, 04:44

Will bullets do any damage to armour?

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 03 Oct 2006, 05:10

If by armour you mean tanks, no, bullets will not damage them in the least bit. They will do limited damage to unsealed armoured vehicles (such as halftracks).

And yes, a couple of machinegun bunkers will need to be dealt with by flanking with bazookas/flamethrowers/demolitions, precisiou air attack (nearly impossible), or tanks.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 03 Oct 2006, 15:40

That may well have been what it was like; but will it play well?

It's the same argument with regards to friendly-fire. Sure, in real life units can't shoot through other units, but in real life a squad will be able to use manuevres to make sure they aren't firing at friendlies, as well as be able to fire within several widths of a friendly, which they can't do in Spring.

Sure, units would intelligently flank an MG nest, and call up snipers, or just use their own marksmanship skills to clear out the nest, but in Spring, you can't do that, and units will just charge blindly at the MG, and be mowed down. In a game which can move very fast at times, and a game which has the potential to be on such a massive scale, it is very risky making certain things absolutely obliterate other things (such as MG's obliterating infantry), unless they are intelligent enough to deal with that danger, which they invariably won't be.

Another problem, I found during my beta testing, that comes with having such decisive elements of the game design (ie: one little MGer can wipe out a huge force of infantry if you use him right), means that if the MGer has any little game hiccup, such as he decides to redeploy for no particular reason, or is unable to deploy because of some sort of scripting fart, or has his range halved by some invisible little clump of heightmap, then it means that your unit, who should by all rights have done heaps of damage, is wiped out in a flash through no fault of your own. Little things like that can make 1944 quite frustrating, on occasion, and I think it stems from having a large amount of units in play, but having certain combinations (or 'counters', if you will) be catastrophically decisive.

I'm not saying MG's shouldn't be a huge threat to infantry, but I am saying you need to be very careful in balancing those things, and with these new bonuses, I wonder if you are heading in the right direction.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 03 Oct 2006, 20:50

The balancing we have now is fine.

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 04 Oct 2006, 00:13

I love the balance ideas... It sounds like COH, and I like COH... Hehe

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 04 Oct 2006, 04:25

Its pretty much how we've always done it. A rifle simply can not hurt a tank!

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 04 Oct 2006, 11:26

Spike, the balancing is not fine. It is improving heaps, and it is lightyears better now that Nemo has put some real time and effort into it.

But it is still horribly unintuitive, has a huge learning curve, is impossible to come back once you start losing, and is very much production based, rather then strategy based (ie: the person who knows what to do best in the first 5 minutes will generally win).

Which is not to say the balance is bad, or is hopeless. As I said, it's improved heaps recently, thanks mainly to Nemo's balancing, friendly-fire issues being solved, as well as the introduction of trucks, the standardisation of resources (to a certain extent), and the BF-flag captures. But it still needs a lot of work.

I've raised a bunch of points which I think need to be attended too. Dismissing them won't solve the problems.

Spring RTS Engine

Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha