TA:WD
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 09 Aug 2005, 15:41
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 29 Jun 2006, 05:51
Someone really needs to take over development of this mod. The balance issues with infantry getting WTF PWND loom large. The glaring bugs involving certain units not firing when they should and involving random crash bugs must be fixed by somebody. Groundzero is saddled by RL I'm sure, and there are still plenty of fellas pining for a modern warfare mod. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if someone took over.
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 29 Jun 2006, 05:51
I believe the LOSAT tanks don't fire at all, although I could be wrong. There is the whole issue with having to change an entry in unitdef.tdf or something in order to get WD to even work in the 1st place.
As far as balance goes, infantry still get morbidly owned by large caliber weaponry. There are no armor types defined in armor.txt. Armor types are critical for maintaining the RPS that modern warfare mods need. With infantry not being able to dig in or go prone, their small profiles need to be abstracted by letting Antitank weapons and missiles do little to no damage aginst them. That includes many tank units that are armed with sabot or AP rounds by default. Currently, armor types are a mess, with every custom dmg type defined in the unit text files themselves, OTA stylee.
But you would be a gentleman and a scholar in attempting to fix and enhance WD!
As far as balance goes, infantry still get morbidly owned by large caliber weaponry. There are no armor types defined in armor.txt. Armor types are critical for maintaining the RPS that modern warfare mods need. With infantry not being able to dig in or go prone, their small profiles need to be abstracted by letting Antitank weapons and missiles do little to no damage aginst them. That includes many tank units that are armed with sabot or AP rounds by default. Currently, armor types are a mess, with every custom dmg type defined in the unit text files themselves, OTA stylee.
But you would be a gentleman and a scholar in attempting to fix and enhance WD!
- Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
Those are the sides, yeah <_< >_>. gogo creative license.
If we could make a short list of the most pressing balance issues (say, "the apache helicopter owns everything, even planes, wtf?!") I'll do what I can to address them.
I've got a few ideas on how to make infantry more useful/survivable. Most of them are borrowed from 1944, but hey, what can you do.
For example, how would you all feel about making an APC built in the barracks, so you can shuttle infantry around in reletive saftey right from the start (mechanization!)?
If you have ideas on how to fix the things on your list of issues, that would be helpful too.
If we could make a short list of the most pressing balance issues (say, "the apache helicopter owns everything, even planes, wtf?!") I'll do what I can to address them.
I've got a few ideas on how to make infantry more useful/survivable. Most of them are borrowed from 1944, but hey, what can you do.
For example, how would you all feel about making an APC built in the barracks, so you can shuttle infantry around in reletive saftey right from the start (mechanization!)?
If you have ideas on how to fix the things on your list of issues, that would be helpful too.
WTF says who you unethical bastard!jerebaldo1 wrote:Someone really needs to take over development of this mod. The balance issues with infantry getting WTF PWND loom large. The glaring bugs involving certain units not firing when they should and involving random crash bugs must be fixed by somebody. Groundzero is saddled by RL I'm sure, and there are still plenty of fellas pining for a modern warfare mod. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if someone took over.
You dont even tried to asked and such wont happened!!
SHUT UR FUCKING MOUTH!!
-
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 09 Aug 2005, 15:41
that would indeed be ultimate a true modern warfare mod. however lol its not gonna happen is it lol. I've been playing a version with a restricted units lsit for a while now which we nicknamed bushwars but its basicly takign the high tech units hout and it being alot more basic. Quite fun to play actually.FLOZi wrote:I think seperating the sides into US/Germany/Britain/France/Russia/China/Sweden/Other would be very cool.
- Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
- Mars Keeper
- Posts: 240
- Joined: 25 Jan 2005, 21:00
Charlemagne wrote:Or we could stick to the nations in this world who actually have anything resembling a military, such as India and Israel, as well as most of the nations you mentioned above.US/Germany/Britain/France/Russia/China/Sweden/Other
Sweden actually has some of the most advanced army on earth, but not much of it.
- Charlemagne
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 18 Apr 2005, 17:59
I live in Sweden, and I can guarantee you our military is absolutely worthless. Sure, high tech weapons are nice, but you actually need people and money to use it, and we have neither. Aslo, as one of the few actually in my opinion smart things our goverment has decided upon is to cut military founding, and eventually simply disband the whole military, saving several millions. We haven't been in a war since the 18th century anyway, and if someone invades us today, our army has no chance as it is, so why even bother? Either buff it, or disband it, and as a pacifist, I think the latter is the best idea.Sweden has one of the most cutting edge militaries in the world, Charlemagne, and has for a long time. Wink
I'm sorry, but Sweden has no place in any military game depicting large scale warfare after 1700, at least not anyone aiming for realism.