Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha

j5mello · Post by **j5mello** » 11 Oct 2006, 16:47

im gonna have to agree with Zsinj on this. I ve played ur demos and i think its fine without them.

Ur adding unnecessary depth to the game that, i think, will ultimately get lost in the chaos of battle. If those screens ur posted will be standard fare ingame, who gets what upgrade is gonna matter so little. I also think he has a point when he talks about the player who is winning getting the biggest advantage out of this.

I think that if u were focusing on smaller forces the upgrade idea would work (like it relatively does in CoH). In Spring and 1944 (which im assuming is about large clashes rather than just little squads) it has no place and is unecessary. Again this is my opinion feel free to disregard it.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 11 Oct 2006, 18:39

I already did, Zsinj.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 12 Oct 2006, 01:19

"You're wrong, it's cool so nyah" doesn't count. Especially when you're accusing me moments earlier of using the same logic - "Why? Because you say so?"

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 12 Oct 2006, 01:40

No, it's cool, and a lot of people seem to like it. It adds more depth and, yes, "coolness" to the game and where you claim it is a waste of our time, I disagree. And since it is infact our time being used on this game, in the end, whether or not we do it and whether or not it is a waste of time is up to us.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 12 Oct 2006, 06:20

Seeing as this thread has become a sort of 1944 discussion thread, I don't see why I shouldn't have the right to criticise it. I mean, I have helped 1944 out with a number of ideas which I feel have improved the game significantly (the resource model, early trucks, bf-flag captures, smaller balance changes), as well as given my time to beta testing it, so I feel my opinion should atleast be listened to rather then dismissed off hand.

It adds more depth

Okay, so I disagree with you here. I think that it would not at all add to the depth of the game. Please explain how you think it would add to the depth of the game, without resorting to "it's cool", as I have outlined my reasons as to why I feel it is a negative addition above.

Originally posted by Spiked Helmet
And since it is infact our time being used on this game, in the end, whether or not we do it and whether or not it is a waste of time is up to us.

Originally posted by Spiked Helmet
Why? Because you say so?

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 12 Oct 2006, 08:06

You do have a right to criticise it, and you have -- and you've been told by myself and Flozi that we do not agree, and that we're doing it our way. Now you have officially passed the boundery of mere "constructive criticism" as you continue to press the issue in a debate-style manner (can't let sleeping dogs lie, Zsinj?). It's over, done with.

I will explain this once, and only once.

Giving experienced troops adds advantages. First off, it simply gives them more flexible weapons. It doesn't give them better weapons (obviously they will be balanced so that your experienced riflemen doesn't turn into a sniper) but it does give them different weapons that may allow them to survive situations they otherwise may not -- for instance, German and Soviet riflemen with G43 or SVT-40 semi-auto rifles will be able to obviously shoot faster, but at a reduction of accuracy and range. For the Germans especially, this will allow them to fight on-par with their American counterparts who start off with the Garand (a semi-auto rifle not unlike the G43). For Soviet and British assault infantry, the addition of high-explosive bombs makes them more lethal close up against armour and buildings. For British and American riflemen, the addition of rifle grenades allows them to fire them off further, though they lose their normal grenades so can't deal with close-up infantry as well.

All-in-all it adds a certain level of character and dare I say "randomness" to the feel of the game, something that is very lacking in most other games out there, who have only a handful of units (most of which are utterly useless so that games quickly boil down to mass-producing one or two types) that never change and are never different. These soldiers we play with in this game are not popped out of a cloning machine. We could make them all the same, drearily and boringly, but thankfully Spring has given us the oppurtunity to take things to higher levels, to add more detail and depth-of-character to the game. Now it can be exciting, and players can learn to utilize their experienced units, develop new tactics that would otherwise not be possible (imagine, over the course of the game you carefully foster a crack unit of German Tigers by selectively "babysitting" them, sending them in to battle, withdrawing them to safety, and so forth. During future battles you can come to rely upon this unit of veteran Tigers, sending them to destroy targets that would be impossible for "newb" tanks. They can protect your flanks, form wings of your attack force, add a new element of strategy to your games. The same goes for aircraft. Over the course of a game, you could form up a veteran wing of fighters and put them in charge of your most important air jobs, such as defending your base or launching attacks against the enemy's base.)

That is the kind of added "depth" I'm talking about.

scottdog · Post by **scottdog** » 12 Oct 2006, 10:54

I would agree more Zsinj on veterancy.

What i would like to see, is when you make ordinary riflemen at the barracks mabye there a 1 in X chance that a rifleman would be pumped out with a SVT-40 insted of a bolt action rifle.

I would much rather see this istead of veterancy weapons. If you absolutly slaughter the enemy your whole army could have uber weapons(or mabye none at all), it just wouldn't work. If you want to see semi-auto rifles, you should go with the random auto rifleman.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 12 Oct 2006, 16:48

Randomizing it when they're built was my original idea, then Flozi turned me to having it as an experience thing.

scottdog · Post by **scottdog** » 13 Oct 2006, 01:14

Oh and what distance will infantry engage at? aroung 1000 mabye?

Long distance battles with not too good LOS would be good, mabye only seeing dots untill up close. I prefere shooting to last longer then to be fast paced.

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 13 Oct 2006, 01:30

~100, bar Snipers and such other specialised units.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 13 Oct 2006, 12:32

Eh, I see it doesn't matter what I say it won't change anything.

Let me just register my disapproval of it, and hope Nemo can clear up the balancing mess it will leave him in

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 13 Oct 2006, 13:09

FLOZi wrote:~100, bar Snipers and such other specialised units.

Thats kinda short..

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 13 Oct 2006, 17:27

It needs to be. I remember when ranges in AATA (pre-1944) were all realistically scaled; it was an absolute nightmare to play.

Even with the current ability to zoom out to see more of the map (which facilities larger ranges), it becomes difficult to follow the battle, even with the new zoom dots, beyond a certain level of zoom. I think it's important to keep ranges as low as possible without them looking silly.

It also makes things heaps easier to balance.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 13 Oct 2006, 17:42

Yes, slightly shorter ranges is easier but this is mainly due to infantry's "hide" ability. They simply get closer to each other before shooting begins...

But tanks and artillery will probably be very similar ranges. And I believe that using custom icons to differentiate infantry from tanks from artillery from etc will also help.. that way you WILL be able to zoom out and manauver your forces efficiently.That is what is hoped, but obviously we'll never be able to tell until we get there.. in which case, the wonderful Nemo will be there to fix it!

Also, I just noticed in the last game (of the new alpha) I played that building dots were far larger than infantry dots... AFAIK I didn't change anything, though. Strange...

Anyway, ANNOUNCEMENT!

We will soon be ready to release a public Alpha containing all infantry from both sides, so we're going to need some feedback. I expect it'll happen within the next couple of weeks.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 13 Oct 2006, 19:49

why not do both? have 2-3 types of infrantry weapon, and have with built infantry, a chance that they will carry one of the other types of weapon (not any better than their original weapon, but diffrent), and troops that gain veterence gain Better weapons, like from a one shot bolt rifle to a semi auto etc. if you watched exp, after the aevrage conflict only 5-6 units surivive and have big expeirence gains. just make these the units that gain acsess to semi-fixed Mg's, grenaids etc. that way there is a variance and an element of progression. i love the idea of veterens getting better weapons, but think the idea of having the riflemen equiped with various weapons good too.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 14 Oct 2006, 02:13

Only if those various random starting weapons were exactly the same. When you are playing a game, you need a certain amount of predictability.

The game throws up so many things at you (not just 1944, any game v. another human), that you need constants that you can rely on. The enemy player is your variable; you don't need the game throwing other variables at you. When you click that riflemen button, you need to know exactly what you are going to get; you don't need the chance it might come out with one weapon or another, because that makes it even harder to plan the demise of your opponent.

Snipawolf · Post by **Snipawolf** » 14 Oct 2006, 04:02

Warlord Zsinj wrote:It needs to be. I remember when ranges in AATA (pre-1944) were all realistically scaled; it was an absolute nightmare to play.

Even with the current ability to zoom out to see more of the map (which facilities larger ranges), it becomes difficult to follow the battle, even with the new zoom dots, beyond a certain level of zoom. I think it's important to keep ranges as low as possible without them looking silly.

It also makes things heaps easier to balance.

Realistic? I think 500 would be fine, with proper innacuracy and all, it could be pretty well.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 14 Oct 2006, 13:42

Realistic, as in, infantry used to be able to shoot several screens, and most tanks could shoot the distance of most small maps.

... It was an absolute nightmare to play...

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 14 Oct 2006, 14:48

Dare I ask how far artillery could shoot?

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 14 Oct 2006, 18:44

Jeez, maybe on the smallest resolution.

Spring RTS Engine

Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha