WD infantry overhaul

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

At some point I had SPG-9 equipted guardtowers for Mospact, they sucked! they would be nice on techicals for the milita groups though.

Perhaps the barracks should be big Barracks trucks, you know, the ones that carry infantry, I would also love to see AK equipted units, not AK-74's but vintage AK-47's.

Here is a possible lineup:

Infantry:
Milita infantry are fast and stealthy, their weaponry is sub-par though.
Riflemen: AK-47, does more damage, but trades accuracy.
Riflemen2: SKS equipted, fires semi-auto but with more accuracy and range.
ATGM: RPG-7 equipted, weak, but cheap to build and faster moving than their modern counterparts
SAM: SA-7, cheap-o Air Defense.
Recon: equipted with Skorpion SMG in 7.62x17, faster than NATO/Mospact counterparts
Guard: equipted with doublebarrel 12ga, more spread and damage but slow reload.
Sniper: Mosin-Nagant bolt-action sniper rifle equipted, slightly more damage but trades accuracy somewhat.
UAV: none that I can think of.

Their advanced infantry would be NATO and Mospact L1 weapons, battlefield pick-up style, but since the milita infantry are stealthier and faster, they would have a more distinct advantage over them.

Vehicles:
All will be obsolete russian armor and vehicles, some would be improvements of other vehicles and civilian vehicles.

-Technicals equipted with DShK or SPG-9
-T-55 Main Battle Tank equipted with crude 125mm gun and DShK
-T-63 MBT, similar role but slightly different stats
-BM-12 Katysha?
-2S3 M-1973 Artillery
-BRDM-1/2 with AT-2 Sagger
-Zsu-57-2 Anti-Air Artillery

Aircraft:
Mostly outdated Russian fighters and light attack aircraft, aircraft will not be their strength by far.
-MiG-17 Fighter
-MiG-19 Interceptor
-MiG-21 Interceptor
-Albatross Light Strike
-Su-7 Strike

L2 Vehicles:
Upgraded but still fairly obsolete vehicles (some exceptions)
-T-72B with ERA package
-T-90 with ERA and Gun Missile system
-FROG-7, Red Alert style free rocket over ground rocket launcher

L2 Aircraft:
Export versions of aircraft, Lesser quality than NATO/Mospact
-MiG-29K Fighter
-MiG-21BIS Fighter/Bomber
-F-16A Fighter/Bomber
-TU-16 Badger Bomber

These are just a few examples, all their vehicles will look dirty and crummy, their infantry will be wearing outdated Olive Drab uniforms, no helmets, Their aircraft will not be very numerous, their aircraft factories will be very old and worn looking.

[Triaxx2]

UAV's for the militia? Hmm... How about a RC airplane? I'm talking taking the NATO Bronco, or the MOSPACT equivalent, and shrinking it. Maybe make it the size of an infantry soldier.

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Heh, that would be fun to have something cheap like a RC plane, i'd take an existing RC-Plane though, maybe a replica of some famous jet or WW2 plane?

[raikitsune]

I very much doubt SPG-9 has a sabot round

good lord i meant heat! sorry sabot on my mind was just playing OFP and my commander kept loading heat rounds instead of sabot and i was getting rather peeved.


In terms of the list of those units GZ thats a beautiful list. im a fan of oleschool quipment T55's are legends of tanks and i'd love to be able to use them in a WD game.

[Min3mat]

so the russians are very much going to be cheap and non-cheerful...W00T!

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Russians are already in here as Mospact (Moskva or Moscow Pact), China, India(?) and Brazil is included in it too, so are some others.

Thank you Rai, I am quite a fan of old-school Coldwar Era stuff too, maybe Flozi can help me out a little here

[FLOZi]

I have a T-55 model if you need it, I guess

edit: Though I would say, seen as Spring has essentuially unlimited sides, you should be more specific than just a wooley 'some middle eastern insurgent type guys'. But that's just me, I've been obsessing over the Bundeswehr unitlist circa 56-60 for the past month.

[raikitsune]

I have a T-55 model if you need it, I guess

edit: Though I would say, seen as Spring has essentuially unlimited sides, you should be more specific than just a wooley 'some middle eastern insurgent type guys'. But that's just me, I've been obsessing over the Bundeswehr unitlist circa 56-60 for the past month.

why would they be middle eastern could be radical south american insurgents!!!

56-60 can you answer me a breif question did they have the Jagdpanzer Kanone at that point?
Thanks.

[FLOZi]

No, JPz Kanone (JPz 4-5 iirc) came along in about '66, with the French SS.11 ATGM-armed JPz Rakete 2 coming about the same time. The same chassis was used for the Marder IFV (first true IFV in the west) which entered service around '70+.

Of course, the current TACW is actually focussed on the '66 to '70 timeframe.

[raikitsune]

No, JPz Kanone (JPz 4-5 iirc) came along in about '66, with the French SS.11 ATGM-armed JPz Rakete 2 coming about the same time. The same chassis was used for the Marder IFV (first true IFV in the west) which entered service around '70+.

Of course, the current TACW is actually focussed on the '66 to '70 timeframe.

ahhh thanks a bunch i had a load of random places telling me all different dates. i figured you'd be best to tell me what was right!

[Gillmor_TA]

It looks to me like you plan on taking the militia side down similar routs as mospac with the AKs and RPGs, perhaps if you made them with something more uneque it would help distance them from "terrorists" and sutch, i would love to dscuss this some time on msn if you have time

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Mospact uses AK-74U's which are updated versions of the AK-74, the AK-74 is a modern assault rifle based on the AK-47, AK-47's are your terrorist weapons, Mospact uses more modern stuff so they would be quite desimilar.

[Zoombie]

Mabey the third team could be a totaly unexpected third party striking from out of the blue....

ANGRY LAWYERS!!

(Seriously, when is this overhall comming out? Its sounding better and better every day)

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

I still need Maestro to agree with this since he will do alot too.

The thing I dread most is remodeling units, esspecially infantry.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Like I said, I could (try to) do that, but only if you aren't concerned about polycount much...

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Polycount is no concern with my since most cards don't care about high-poly, I am currently making infantry that are fairly crude, but less crude than the current ones.

I'll show you pics when it's at a reasonable stage.

[SwiftSpear]

Poly count is relevent for units that you are likely to have lots of on screen at the same time. However, pretty much anything under 200 should be considered quite low poly, so it isn't like you don't have alot of room to work with. It's when you get single non-krogoth units over 800 poly that you really have to be concerned.

[maestro]

very true...
on TA engine I got game slowdown when play armored typhoon and I move 40 tank and 60 infantry again computer (which use even more number) but that is 2 years ago when im still use AMD650 + 64 RAM
today I got AMD2200+256mb ram and i never have problem... Problem is how low we should go ? some ppl goes to far with old days standard and says that anything more than 100poly for lv1 unit is evil .... which is stupid (or probably they play games on old P166 )

OTOH in TAspring actually with UV mapping actually doesnt mean you need more poly... on some model it even need less polygon because we no longer need to cut various part of geometry to make good texture combination :)

Personally I will go low.... since TA SPring is RTS imo we must concentrate on overhead view and totally ignore the FPS view, otherwise we must make every single bolt of T-80 and game will be doomed in online game

moral of the story : UV could mean need less polygon.... (cept you are a horrible texturer)
most Blitzkrieg model only have 300 triangle each on average but it looks as impressive as highres model

[SwiftSpear]

Yes and no maestro: True spring is an RTS, but it has the capability to render in full 3D, therefore I think we should at least try to accomidate with units that look ok from all angles. I knowticed alot of OTA models and what not cut corners by removing all the underside faces of thier models and not modeling things like waist regions because the upper torso was blocking it from view anyways. I think that is the one habit from OTA modeling we need to drop for spring. Spring models should have underside faces and look like properly connected units, because even though a peewee with no knees is tolerable, it just doesn't have the same professional touch that a proper 3D RTS would have. Yes sure, the top priority is that units look good from the top, and a fairly substantial distance between them and the camera is supposed to be assumed at most times, we don't need 600 poly L1 units. But at the same time lets not cut all the corners that we shouldn't really be cutting just because it was ok to do it in the old non 3D version.

[maestro]

I aware about lower poly ;:-)

I still not sure bout ships though ? should I add lower part of the ship ?
the only use if some player nitpicky enough to check if my warship have real screw, real anchor etc