Gving the machineguns too wide a spread would reduce their effectiveness by a lot (had to fuck around with the sprayangle a lot, as its a very fine line between too spread and not spread enough). Remember, the bullets will spray both left and right AND up and down. Because the firing points are so low to the ground for machinegunners that means a heck of a lot of bullets will be not hitting.
In any case I like the pinning idea too, but seems to me this will simply lead to even MORE powerful MGs. With its ability to not only kill things but also pin them it will give them an even bigger advantage... one that you suggested we deal with with bigger sprays (lower damage would also be a way) but as I said, that would make them too ineffective. And lower damage will negate their use.
Also keep in mind this is relative to different types of machineguns. The MG42 for instance has a high rate of fire (1000rpm) with medium range, while the Soviet's Maxim has a higher range (on account of it having a stable mount) but a much lower rate of fire. So things change.
Anyway, here's a hypothetical situation: 10 riflemen vs. 1 machinegun. Who should win? Should the riflemen get wiped out? Should perhaps half of them die? Almost all of them? Should it be fairly even (sometimes the machineguns wipes them out, sometimes the riflemen kill the MG with few surivors).
Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha
Moderator: Moderators
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Also, completely unrelated to machineguns but also a balance factor, I've been thinking a lot about bombers in Spring, how bombs function, and how they might affect gameplay...
Last time I tried, bombs in Spring are incapable of spreading. Bombers drop their bombs ONLY in a single line, with very good accuracy. In Spring: 1944 terms, bombs will be very powerful and capable of ruining large areas, unless they are nerfed somehow, either by bombload, bomb strength, or low buildtimes, etc...
But I don't like any of that very much. But I WAS thinking about the nature of S:44 and it hit me. I think bombers should go in as very powerful and capable of annihilating greath swathes of land. This should force players to spread their bases out a lot, to ensure that such air attacks don't annihilate the better portion of their base. Instead such an attack might take out a single Yard or Barracks (as it is my intention to utilize the FUEL feature for both fighters and bombers, there won't be any "lingering" over the battlefield with bombers continuously bombing the crap out of things... one bombload and it'll have to go and refuel. Fighters too will get low enough fuel that they're only good for say 5-10 mintues airtime). Anyway, I'm drinking and starting to forget what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is, powerful bombers would be a way of forcing players to spread out, though this will lead to micro-ing several factories in different parts of the map. But I think its cool.
Last time I tried, bombs in Spring are incapable of spreading. Bombers drop their bombs ONLY in a single line, with very good accuracy. In Spring: 1944 terms, bombs will be very powerful and capable of ruining large areas, unless they are nerfed somehow, either by bombload, bomb strength, or low buildtimes, etc...
But I don't like any of that very much. But I WAS thinking about the nature of S:44 and it hit me. I think bombers should go in as very powerful and capable of annihilating greath swathes of land. This should force players to spread their bases out a lot, to ensure that such air attacks don't annihilate the better portion of their base. Instead such an attack might take out a single Yard or Barracks (as it is my intention to utilize the FUEL feature for both fighters and bombers, there won't be any "lingering" over the battlefield with bombers continuously bombing the crap out of things... one bombload and it'll have to go and refuel. Fighters too will get low enough fuel that they're only good for say 5-10 mintues airtime). Anyway, I'm drinking and starting to forget what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is, powerful bombers would be a way of forcing players to spread out, though this will lead to micro-ing several factories in different parts of the map. But I think its cool.
I think if 10 riflemen went against an MG open field, full fire points open, then the riflemen should be cut like wheat before the scythe...
However if they got the slip on him, or have some flanks to get, they should suffer light to medium casualties...
edit: Damn, I like spread bombers. Bombs in WWII had accuracy for crap, literally could have been 100 yards off target, but were devastating...
However if they got the slip on him, or have some flanks to get, they should suffer light to medium casualties...
edit: Damn, I like spread bombers. Bombs in WWII had accuracy for crap, literally could have been 100 yards off target, but were devastating...
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Well, I was thinking that pinning would work instead of the mass-killing of an MG. So, MG's would still be a threat to infantry, but instead of just wiping them out in a flash, it still effectively neuters the presence of those infantry, but it doesn't mean that the player loses a squad in a heartbeat. It gives the player on the other end of the MG time to respond, and see if he can unpin his infantry, or otherwise get them out/wipe out the MG. If he doesn't, his infantry will be killed - but not instantly. And, he can use pinned infantry to distract the MG so that he can kill it from another flank, etc.
In actuality, such a thing would never happen. Firstly, you'd never get your infantry to charge straight into a waiting MG. There would be cover which the riflemen would make use of. They wouldn't all charge in a single clump, but would spread out, flank, and use grenades or smoke to clear out an engagement.
In reality, 10 riflemen vs. 1 MG would be an engagement that could easily go either way, and my guess is that the riflemen would probably win in most engagements.
The problem is, most of the above 'real' ways of dealing with an MG position are possible in 1944, and others require intense micromanagement that the player can't really afford to be giving every time his units run into an MG position. Does this mean that every engagement is effectively a "charging across a flat plane" style engagement, and that MG's are super powerful? Which is really more realistic?
... Also, you could probably give units smoke grenades, if it isn't too CPU costly with all the particles (maybe give it to a more rare unit, or make it D-gun fire only). Just make a weapon that gives off a lot of smoke, but does not damage, have the smoke be generated for a little while, and make the unit that through the grenade, or perhaps the weapon itself (possible?) generate an invisible shield that gives them an armour boost. The weapons hitting the shield would be hidden by the smoke, for the most part.
Perfectly good example. In an open plane, with the riflemen simply charging at the deployed MG, the MG would wipe the riflemen out without taking a scratch. This is the Spring Reality.Anyway, here's a hypothetical situation: 10 riflemen vs. 1 machinegun. Who should win? Should the riflemen get wiped out? Should perhaps half of them die? Almost all of them? Should it be fairly even (sometimes the machineguns wipes them out, sometimes the riflemen kill the MG with few surivors).
In actuality, such a thing would never happen. Firstly, you'd never get your infantry to charge straight into a waiting MG. There would be cover which the riflemen would make use of. They wouldn't all charge in a single clump, but would spread out, flank, and use grenades or smoke to clear out an engagement.
In reality, 10 riflemen vs. 1 MG would be an engagement that could easily go either way, and my guess is that the riflemen would probably win in most engagements.
The problem is, most of the above 'real' ways of dealing with an MG position are possible in 1944, and others require intense micromanagement that the player can't really afford to be giving every time his units run into an MG position. Does this mean that every engagement is effectively a "charging across a flat plane" style engagement, and that MG's are super powerful? Which is really more realistic?
My biggest criticism was the way the power of MG's puts an incredible onus on both players to ensure that all units are being micromanaged intensely to ensure they aren't doing anything stupid (ie: charging blindly into an MG point, or firing stupidly into a hill when other units are in range). I think this solution would counter-balance in the wrong direction, making MG's require heaps of micromanagement to work. I think restricted firing arcs requiring redeployment for infantry is a level of micromanagement that may work for COH (and even there it can be an irritating chore), but definitely is far too small-scale for 1944.they should have to reset to a new firing angle as it is in real life
... Also, you could probably give units smoke grenades, if it isn't too CPU costly with all the particles (maybe give it to a more rare unit, or make it D-gun fire only). Just make a weapon that gives off a lot of smoke, but does not damage, have the smoke be generated for a little while, and make the unit that through the grenade, or perhaps the weapon itself (possible?) generate an invisible shield that gives them an armour boost. The weapons hitting the shield would be hidden by the smoke, for the most part.
Because making squads of units that don't look stupid when rotating or climbin hills is really hard.CoolColJ wrote:also at the scale 1944 is focusing on, why even have separate MG teams and such. Each infantry unit would be a squad at least
I mean you have ships, planes and then individual soldiers, the scale is just wrong
Come on, AA does just fine having both Krogoth-scale and peewee-scale units. 1944 just has to keep away from battleships and stick to landing-boats and river-boats if they really care about scale.
Edit: just thought of something for the "machinegun nest" problem: it would be a PITA to script, but perhaps the C&C style of "lying prone when taking fire" trick would be cool? I'm assuming some scripting tricks here - like being able to change speed and sight-range of a unit. Here's the thought: make bullets two-part projectiles, one of which is a very small, low-damage explosion (call it flying dirt, shrapnel, whatever). That functions more as a warning "people shooting near you". When damaged, infantrymen hit the dirt and lie prone - when firing prone, they're more damage resistent but immobile and have slightly reduced sight range. They're like popups in reverse. By default, they go prone the moment they take damage, or when not moving... unless turned "off" where they always stand up - this way you can force retreats or do more effective recon. Plus, you'd have less of the silly civil-war style combat where everyone stands and fights.
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Like Zsinj said, giving machineguns a limited firearc makes them nearly useless. That was our original goal, but after awhile I found that they constantly move and do other stupid things and end up firing only 25% of the time, making them useless. So they were switched to 360 degree field of fire, BUT, they have have slowish turret turn rate (the turret being their entire body) -- you can't really spin yourself around on your stomach with a fully-loaded machinegun and set it up to point behind yourself very quickly! That's atleast a 5 second job.
Also, I might mention now that the scale of engagement of Spring: 1944 is going to be much smaller, in practice, than it was in AATA. Our focus will certainly be on infantry in Spring: 1944, with vehicles and tanks having much larger buildtimes, so you won't really see the massive 50-tank invasions (unless its a very long game). Instead, the way I see it, most engagements between opposing forces will involve perhaps 100-200 infantry (easily grouped into 4 groups of 50, or 8 groups of 25, etc) and maybe 10 or 20 vehicles or tanks. Micromanagement might be a little difficult but certainly not impossible.. it's easy enough to set groups and such in Spring for easier maneuvering.
As for reduced LOS for prone infantry, I don't think its possible to set sightrange... also, I don't like the idea of on/off'ing the infantry to either stay standing at all times or hit the deck when needed.. though that may be the only way to do it properly. Afterall, the Japanese and Soviets sure loved running en masse into certain death.
And I like the comment about the mod being bi-polar... you're probably right. We are kind of trying to do what SUPCOM will do, which is allow players to either concentrate on the fine-points of battles, or zoom out into a more strategic role, or both. Perhaps when SUPCOM comes out, AATA/1944 will find its true platform.
In an open plane, with the riflemen simply charging at the deployed MG, the MG would wipe the riflemen out without taking a scratch. This is the Spring Reality.
Exactly. Spring maps are not yet detailed enough to include all sorts of cover and stuff, nor is the AI advanced enough to know what to do with it even if they were. Hopefully this will change but perhaps not for a long time... in any case,In actuality, such a thing would never happen. ...
I've always liked this idea, and up until now it hasn't been possible. Now, however, it IS possible (infact quite easy) to A) make infantry drop to their stomachs when taking fire, B) increase their health when they do so to signify being harder to hit, C) have a new movement animation for when they're on the stomach and D) change their speed so that they crawl slowly while on their stomachs. I think this might be the way we go with some (or all) infantry reguardless of whether they're being attacked by machinegun or bombs or whatever. It would play in with the machinegun-pinning idea as the troops would be effectively pinned, however it would also work with all other weapons. However I don't really like the idea that going prone would reduce accuracy or stop soldiers from firing. I do however like the idea and I think we should go with it... it would provide for some interesting battles, to see one group of infantry hitting the deck while you use another to swoop around, etc...but perhaps the C&C style of "lying prone when taking fire" trick would be cool?
Also, I might mention now that the scale of engagement of Spring: 1944 is going to be much smaller, in practice, than it was in AATA. Our focus will certainly be on infantry in Spring: 1944, with vehicles and tanks having much larger buildtimes, so you won't really see the massive 50-tank invasions (unless its a very long game). Instead, the way I see it, most engagements between opposing forces will involve perhaps 100-200 infantry (easily grouped into 4 groups of 50, or 8 groups of 25, etc) and maybe 10 or 20 vehicles or tanks. Micromanagement might be a little difficult but certainly not impossible.. it's easy enough to set groups and such in Spring for easier maneuvering.
As for reduced LOS for prone infantry, I don't think its possible to set sightrange... also, I don't like the idea of on/off'ing the infantry to either stay standing at all times or hit the deck when needed.. though that may be the only way to do it properly. Afterall, the Japanese and Soviets sure loved running en masse into certain death.
And I like the comment about the mod being bi-polar... you're probably right. We are kind of trying to do what SUPCOM will do, which is allow players to either concentrate on the fine-points of battles, or zoom out into a more strategic role, or both. Perhaps when SUPCOM comes out, AATA/1944 will find its true platform.
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Ok, I tested out my own example,. and here it is:
Over open ground, 10 Rifle vs. 1 MG
Machinegun is pwned, killing perhaps 2 or 3 of the riflemen.
10 Rifle vs. 2 MG
MGs are both owned but manage to kill half or more riflemen.
10 Rifle vs. 3 MG
Here it's fairly dead-even.
I might point out though that I tested this with some experimental boosting to infantry... namely, I increased all infantry speed (by about 50%) which I thought would really help as they moved extremely slowly, making it impossible to do such things like flanking and encircling -- by the time your flank force got there, your original force would be dead!), and I decreased MG damage vs. infantry. Now however, infantry pwn, so I'm going to put damage back but keep speed (since I think it is VERY needed, makes for a faster and smoother game)
Over open ground, 10 Rifle vs. 1 MG
Machinegun is pwned, killing perhaps 2 or 3 of the riflemen.
10 Rifle vs. 2 MG
MGs are both owned but manage to kill half or more riflemen.
10 Rifle vs. 3 MG
Here it's fairly dead-even.
I might point out though that I tested this with some experimental boosting to infantry... namely, I increased all infantry speed (by about 50%) which I thought would really help as they moved extremely slowly, making it impossible to do such things like flanking and encircling -- by the time your flank force got there, your original force would be dead!), and I decreased MG damage vs. infantry. Now however, infantry pwn, so I'm going to put damage back but keep speed (since I think it is VERY needed, makes for a faster and smoother game)
I think having played CloseCombat (search the web for a free demo, my favorite is CC2) is a requirement for anyone going for a realistic WWII RTS. There is a lot there to be gotten about how to balance a "real" WWII RTS and things to think about.
(inspired from CC-->) Smoke (i heard a mention of it) should be a heavily relied upon strategic tool. I'm not sure of how the engine works, but the smoke should be a radar screen that causes complete visual and radar loss of units. If you're ever in an open field charging a MG, you use smoke grenades to get closer (or call in mortars with smoke).
my two cents (and shameless plug for one of my favorite games evar).
-|2edcoat
(inspired from CC-->) Smoke (i heard a mention of it) should be a heavily relied upon strategic tool. I'm not sure of how the engine works, but the smoke should be a radar screen that causes complete visual and radar loss of units. If you're ever in an open field charging a MG, you use smoke grenades to get closer (or call in mortars with smoke).
my two cents (and shameless plug for one of my favorite games evar).
-|2edcoat
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I'd rather just have those units dive to the deck and go prone for a few moments, rather then freeze. In SWTA, a long time ago, we had units freeze any time a friendly unit nearby died. It looks mighty silly when units are jerking about the place, and it can be quite frustrating too.
Also, using the custom explosion generator, I think you could probably do a smoke screen that was enough to obscure vision somewhat (and more importantly, hide the shield effect), but wasn't too costly. So long as you balance so that hundreds of the things aren't going off all the time (say, give it to a commando, or a 'sergeant' type unit, and make it command-fire only), I think it should be ok. Speak to Argh about that sort of stuff; he was saying that his nuke explosion wasn't too costly on CPU, and you would need only a fraction of the amount of smoke he is using.
Redcoat: Close combat is often fought on a scale with a couple of squads engaging at any given time. whereas 1944 is fought on a scale where 100-200 infantry are quite common on the field. The scales, and the pace, are completely different, so the balance can't be approached on the same level.
Also, using the custom explosion generator, I think you could probably do a smoke screen that was enough to obscure vision somewhat (and more importantly, hide the shield effect), but wasn't too costly. So long as you balance so that hundreds of the things aren't going off all the time (say, give it to a commando, or a 'sergeant' type unit, and make it command-fire only), I think it should be ok. Speak to Argh about that sort of stuff; he was saying that his nuke explosion wasn't too costly on CPU, and you would need only a fraction of the amount of smoke he is using.
Redcoat: Close combat is often fought on a scale with a couple of squads engaging at any given time. whereas 1944 is fought on a scale where 100-200 infantry are quite common on the field. The scales, and the pace, are completely different, so the balance can't be approached on the same level.
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Okay, well, I just had a like 3-hour-long battle with Oasis... it was a dirty war of complete attrition, for several reasons. A) it was infantry only as there are no vehicles other than the trucks, B) Infantry don't have nades, so only AT infantry are good at killing buildings. Otherwise, normal infantry have to shoot a barracks 5000 times (literally) to kill it. C) 300 unit limit (I TOLD him we should have gone higher but nooooo...
Here are some screenshots with commentaries.
Random screenshot of my 250-man Army chasing what I thought was Oasis' last squad of 10 guys.
Travelling through the industrial complex (Map was Severnaya Industrial Complex)
Assaulting the mountain... part 2. Oasis had started the game in the bottom-right of the map in the shadow of this mountain, and used the mountain as a fortress. I bypassed it to take out his base, never bothering to sweep the mountain afterwards.. big mistake.
This is the aftermath of several assaults by atleast 500 infantry. Apparently higher ground, especially like this, is extremely effective. It wasn't until I built about 50 mortars to pummel the top of the mountain that I finally took it...
And here's my Barracks complex which I built under the mountain to create a non-stop assault wave... and to mass-produce my mortars.
All told it was the bloodiest, most brutal game I've ever had. And I'm very tired now because of it.
Here are some screenshots with commentaries.
Random screenshot of my 250-man Army chasing what I thought was Oasis' last squad of 10 guys.
Travelling through the industrial complex (Map was Severnaya Industrial Complex)
Assaulting the mountain... part 2. Oasis had started the game in the bottom-right of the map in the shadow of this mountain, and used the mountain as a fortress. I bypassed it to take out his base, never bothering to sweep the mountain afterwards.. big mistake.
This is the aftermath of several assaults by atleast 500 infantry. Apparently higher ground, especially like this, is extremely effective. It wasn't until I built about 50 mortars to pummel the top of the mountain that I finally took it...
And here's my Barracks complex which I built under the mountain to create a non-stop assault wave... and to mass-produce my mortars.
All told it was the bloodiest, most brutal game I've ever had. And I'm very tired now because of it.
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
I played a 1hour+ game earlier today and noticed a few things.
1. Standard military tactics really work. Combined arms are awesome.
2. Micro==win, more than once I used a few units to kill loads by microing them, only to have an assault blunted by a similar tactic form my opponent.
3. High ground is the key to victory. We played on eurogreen and the game basically boiled down to take and fortify the hills.
4. Hitting the ground is way too commen, and given the almost 'instagib' nature of a lot of stuff it could be quite frustrating to watch my support halftrack continuously hit a small (insignificant) bump while some enemy jeeps killed my infantry.
5. Flags are way too hard to kill. Probably a combination of being buildings and being tiny, the best way to remove them is to reclaim them. Infantry do little damage and tanks usually miss.
6. It's really hard to controll things (as in you cant see your men). The best way I found was to zoom out untill I could see the map icons, then I knew where and what my troops were.
All in all an incredibly awesome mod, but it did get boring once it bogged down in hill taking, though thats probably jsut a consequence of being a alpha. My only real concern would be the insane bonus microing and lucky shots can give you.
1. Standard military tactics really work. Combined arms are awesome.
2. Micro==win, more than once I used a few units to kill loads by microing them, only to have an assault blunted by a similar tactic form my opponent.
3. High ground is the key to victory. We played on eurogreen and the game basically boiled down to take and fortify the hills.
4. Hitting the ground is way too commen, and given the almost 'instagib' nature of a lot of stuff it could be quite frustrating to watch my support halftrack continuously hit a small (insignificant) bump while some enemy jeeps killed my infantry.
5. Flags are way too hard to kill. Probably a combination of being buildings and being tiny, the best way to remove them is to reclaim them. Infantry do little damage and tanks usually miss.
6. It's really hard to controll things (as in you cant see your men). The best way I found was to zoom out untill I could see the map icons, then I knew where and what my troops were.
All in all an incredibly awesome mod, but it did get boring once it bogged down in hill taking, though thats probably jsut a consequence of being a alpha. My only real concern would be the insane bonus microing and lucky shots can give you.
Oh, grah, I forgot to set flags as unreclaimable.
The way to kill them is to have rifles or SMGs sit close to them for a bit - think BF1942 style flags. You'll see a small light go up on the flag when they're in range.
If things are hitting the ground, its likely because they're moving. Almost every unit in the game suffers from noticable inaccuracy while moving, so its best to try to keep things still while firing - especially halftracks/armored cars.
I would suggest mortars to clear out fortified hills, since they outrange any other infantry unit, and one or two well placed shells can end a group of infantry.
Thanks for the feedback, its much appreciated
The way to kill them is to have rifles or SMGs sit close to them for a bit - think BF1942 style flags. You'll see a small light go up on the flag when they're in range.
If things are hitting the ground, its likely because they're moving. Almost every unit in the game suffers from noticable inaccuracy while moving, so its best to try to keep things still while firing - especially halftracks/armored cars.
I would suggest mortars to clear out fortified hills, since they outrange any other infantry unit, and one or two well placed shells can end a group of infantry.
Thanks for the feedback, its much appreciated