Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 10 Oct 2006, 09:06

Nations...

Germany
USSR
USA
United Kingdom

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 10 Oct 2006, 09:49

Would it hurt to change UK to something more representitive of their forces? NZ, Australia, Canada etc?

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 10 Oct 2006, 10:17

How about... British Empire?

Britain, Egypt, India, Palestine, Canada, NZ, Australia...

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 10 Oct 2006, 10:20

It wasn't much of an empire at that stage, perhaps commenwealth?

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 10 Oct 2006, 16:00

And what exactly would these forces entail? Gurkhas? With few exceptions Commonwealth forces wore the same uniforms, were equipped with the same weapons and operated in the same fashion as the British Army, so there's no real point in differentiating. The "stock" British could be representative of any of those. And hell, Britain barely contributed to the war as it is, certainly not enough to warrent their side being fleshed out more than any other

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 10 Oct 2006, 16:17

Bah, I think the veterancy upgrades are silly, as they will either be so insignificant as to be pointless, or so overpowered as to be infuriating. This is squad-level design, and has no place in 1944. Units die way too quick for you to be able to keep track of whether one guy has 4 or 8 kills, and whether he has that StG 44 or not.

I explained my thoughts to Nemo and Flozi quite clearly in IRC a while ago, and persuaded both of them as to why their inclusion is a pointless waste of time. How did it crop up again?

raikitsune · Post by **raikitsune** » 10 Oct 2006, 16:32

Best to call the grouped UK forces including those of the former empire Commonwealth i think

Also "And hell, Britain barely contributed to the war as it is"

what the hell

BlackLiger · Post by **BlackLiger** » 10 Oct 2006, 17:44

SpikedHelmet wrote:And what exactly would these forces entail? Gurkhas? With few exceptions Commonwealth forces wore the same uniforms, were equipped with the same weapons and operated in the same fashion as the British Army, so there's no real point in differentiating. The "stock" British could be representative of any of those. And hell, Britain barely contributed to the war as it is, certainly not enough to warrent their side being fleshed out more than any other

Come over here and say that mate.

Did your lot spend the war under threat of bombings? No.

So unless you can backup your statement, stop that kind of trolling now.

j5mello · Post by **j5mello** » 10 Oct 2006, 17:49

easy now gentleman lets get back on topic

hrmph · Post by **hrmph** » 10 Oct 2006, 18:04

BlackLiger wrote: Come over here and say that mate.

Did your lot spend the war under threat of bombings? No.

So unless you can backup your statement, stop that kind of trolling now.

Sounds like your not being very 'impartial.'

British Commonwealth makes the most sense IMO.

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 10 Oct 2006, 18:15

Warlord Zsinj wrote:Bah, I think the veterancy upgrades are silly, as they will either be so insignificant as to be pointless, or so overpowered as to be infuriating. This is squad-level design, and has no place in 1944. Units die way too quick for you to be able to keep track of whether one guy has 4 or 8 kills, and whether he has that StG 44 or not.

I explained my thoughts to Nemo and Flozi quite clearly in IRC a while ago, and persuaded both of them as to why their inclusion is a pointless waste of time. How did it crop up again?

Because you didn't convince either of us.

And its been the British Commonwealth as a side fort as long as I can remember, I do keep mentioning it to Spiked. But, of course, relatively few weapons/vehicles were used by commonwealth forces in action that were not also used by the british army.

edit: p.s. Spiked is canadian, so he is/was commonwealth too

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 10 Oct 2006, 18:52

BlackLiger wrote:
SpikedHelmet wrote:And what exactly would these forces entail? Gurkhas? With few exceptions Commonwealth forces wore the same uniforms, were equipped with the same weapons and operated in the same fashion as the British Army, so there's no real point in differentiating. The "stock" British could be representative of any of those. And hell, Britain barely contributed to the war as it is, certainly not enough to warrent their side being fleshed out more than any other
Come over here and say that mate.

Did your lot spend the war under threat of bombings? No.

So unless you can backup your statement, stop that kind of trolling now.

RRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLL

Oh. My. Fucking. God. That is absolutely hilarious. Not that you're an idiot or anything, just the level of intensity in your defensiveness, it's ridiculously funny!

Anyway, when I said the British didn't contribute much to the war as it is, I didn't mean it as a matter of principal, motivation or the heart the British put into it. I meant, rather, the small numbers of British soldiers and airmen that served. I, of course, was absolutely wrong about this. According to the BBC, fully 8,500,000 Commonwealth men entered Military service, 5,000,000+ from the British Isles, 1,000,000 from India, 650,000 from Canada, 400,000 from Australia, 150,000 from S. Africa, and almost 150,000 from other colonies. This is, of course, compared to Germany's 18,500,000 fighting men, 8,500,000 for Japan, 34,500,000 for the Soviet Union, and America's 16,300,000.

Hmm, methinks infantry buildtimes need a bit of tweaking, as Germany fielded more men than even America...

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 11 Oct 2006, 00:26

But it is such a silly idea...

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 11 Oct 2006, 00:28

I like the experience and veterancy...

Experience was 40% the war, and knowledge/tactics was 40%. The rest was weaponry...

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 11 Oct 2006, 01:26

Warlord Zsinj wrote:But it is such a silly idea...

Why? Because you say so?

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 11 Oct 2006, 06:43

Trolling is easy when you don't back up your figures.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 11 Oct 2006, 09:14

Just explain your position.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 11 Oct 2006, 11:31

Eh, have I ever trolled on these forums? Pretty fickle.

I have explained myself previously, when it came up when Nemo and Flozi were running the show (and Spike was MIA). Since he has returned, this thing has popped up again, and I really can't be bothered explaining further to the summary I have already given.

Bah, I think the veterancy upgrades are silly, as they will either be so insignificant as to be pointless, or so overpowered as to be infuriating. This is squad-level design, and has no place in 1944. Units die way too quick for you to be able to keep track of whether one guy has 4 or 8 kills, and whether he has that StG 44 or not.

Essentially, I don't think from a game design point of view, the upgrades bring anything at all to the game. It's fluff. It's a cool little thing that lets you go 'lookie, now my unit has a different gun', and lets you put more guns into the game.

There are two ways which this can go.
Either the veterancy upgrade is useless, and is a cute little gimmick that really serves no purpose. The problem with this is simply the time issue. It's a waste of your efforts for something which is really adding nothing to the game. Considering the monumental task ahead of you, and the tightrope your balance is already walking (er, no pun intended), I see no reason to expend effort on it. I want to see well balanced resources, fluid combat, vehicles and aircraft before I want my units to gain little gimmicky bonuses.

The second way is far worse. That is when the new upgrades are actually useful; or (more likely, seeing as it is an upgrade) exceptionally powerful.
In this instance, it means that you are going to have to be babysitting your troops through the upgrading process. Units die so quickly in 1944, that the only way you would get units to properly become veterans (other then by complete accident, or by simply dominating) would be to coddle them through getting the requisite amount of kills before they are able to upgrade. This is a level of control that is far too small-scale for 1944. You can't afford to care about the single soldier in 1944; if you do, your whole flank will get ripped out while you're making sure your one little guy, or your favourite squad, manages to get that new gun type.
From an intuitive design point of view, it is counter-productive. Say I need to get hold of a guy with a rifle-grenade launcher to flush out a nasty MG emplacement. From a logical point of view, I should simply go to my barracks, and build this unit. This is a logical progression given the design; I hate the way in Company of Heroes, even once I build a unit, I have to manually customise it's every weapon, whether it has a flamethrower or not, whether it has it's hair up or down (maybe a bow?). If I want a flamethrower unit, I'll build a flamethrower unit, if I want an engineer, I'll build an engineer.
Now, while that is getting a bit off topic, and things aren't as extreme as that in 1944 (I doubt we'll be seeing any flamethrower veterancy upgrades), in some ways it is worse. In COH, if I want BAR equipped infantry, I'll build standard infantry, research the BAR upgrade, and then upgrade my infantry (oh... the idiocy of the design...). If I want a rifle-firing grenade in 1944, I can't just select my unit and upgrade him (or even better, just build a unit armed with that in the first place), I have to babysit my unit to ensure that he gets enough kills for the weapon to magically appear in his arsenal.

Finally, it makes the situation currently in 1944, where it is bloody difficult to come back once you are losing, much worse, because the person who is going to be getting all the kills (and thus all the nifty weaponry) will be the player with the upper hand.

Either way, I simply cannot see any advantages from a veterancy upgrade system (or any upgrade system, for that matter), given the design and scale of both Spring and 1944.

It doesn't bother me if my units gain minor bonuses to things (ie: accuracy, rate of fire, most of the things you intended for vehicles/aircraft/etc) as they gain veterancy, as this is a small scale effect, and doesn't really change the game. One of the big problems in 1944 is the predictability of the game. You are regularly thrown curveballs (why is that MG which should be mowing down those advancing infantry trying to redeploy a metre away? And why is it now firing at a clump of dirt in front of it?), so throwing in bonuses as units gain veterancy (which, given the scale we are engaging in 1944, may as well be random) makes this even more difficult.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 11 Oct 2006, 14:38

Since he has returned, this thing has popped up again,

So I guess you didn't see Flozi's post? Here it is for your convenience:

Because you didn't convince either of us.

And you still haven't. It is a cool feature that people will (and do) like.

But I suppose it's because you're operating in the past. Things have changed in the game quite a bit.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 11 Oct 2006, 16:45

So, again, you're not going to actually respond to any of the points that I've raised?

And it's a WWII game. If I'm living in the past, I'm doing well

Spring RTS Engine

Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha