Spring: 1944 v0.01 Alpha
Moderator: Moderators
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Zsinj, you've done nothing but raise points that are utterly irrelevant to this mod. Small arms should not, and will never, hurt tanks. This mod is based, atleast majoritively, in realism, not your magical knowledge of how gameplay should be.
ivory> Each side having 50 or so offensive units, the machineguns will only be effective against less than 10 of them. That leads over 40 units with which to deal with the machinegun.
ivory> Each side having 50 or so offensive units, the machineguns will only be effective against less than 10 of them. That leads over 40 units with which to deal with the machinegun.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
The US barracks at first, refused to pump out cannon fodder. Second barracks seemed to do it without trouble. This was on a completely flat map. Also some of the soldiers who've got grenades had troubles aiming and glitches occured occasionally.<Nemo2> what doesn't work?
<Nemo2> I know things are small, that's why the icons are there and set to a small distance
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
510 Soviet Infantry vs. 280 German Infantry
Both sides armed with their entire compliment of weapons; rifles, submachineguns, medium and light machineguns, sniper rifles, mortars, anti-tank weapons...
Who wins?
The German Force
The Soviet Force
The Soviets quickly begin taking casualties.
German casualties seem relatively light
Soon the Soviet line is nothing but twisted, broken bodies -- but still they come.
Was a rather linear engagement. Can anyone guess who wins?
Both sides armed with their entire compliment of weapons; rifles, submachineguns, medium and light machineguns, sniper rifles, mortars, anti-tank weapons...
Who wins?
The German Force
The Soviet Force
The Soviets quickly begin taking casualties.
German casualties seem relatively light
Soon the Soviet line is nothing but twisted, broken bodies -- but still they come.
Was a rather linear engagement. Can anyone guess who wins?
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Nemo! You heard the man!
EDIT: http://taspring.clan-sy.com/wiki/Spring1944
Stupid image being too big. I'm too lazy to make it smaller to make the page look not crap. Someone else do it!
EDIT: http://taspring.clan-sy.com/wiki/Spring1944
Stupid image being too big. I'm too lazy to make it smaller to make the page look not crap. Someone else do it!
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
-
Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I think you ought to test those radar dots out; In SWS I've found that the more detailed they are, the worse they appear in Spring. Furthermore, once a large amount of unit's stack, complicated dots become indecipherable.
You may be better off using simpler geometric shapes, which I believe were what were used as standards in the military anyway.
With regards to the balancing comments, I was referring to the way certain units act as definitive counters for other units, who are otherwise impossibly overpowered. For example, an MG. MG's should certainly be a real threat to infantry, but if deployed right, can mow down infantry in their droves. If the only counter to an MG is a sniper (remember that the buggers can turn around in a moment, so there are no fire arcs to worry about, like in COH), then I think the design is not quite correct. The MG problem has been somewhat fixed since the last time I tested, but I think the unintuitiveness of the design is still somewhat present, where the player is asked to think in big terms with the overall game, but still has to fight in little squad-based terms, lest he lose heaps of troops as they charge moronically into an MG. In a sense, the game is not at all forgiving, and mistakes which can be incredibly costly are really very easy to make.
Instead of having MG's obliterate infantry that are assaulting, why not have them simply "pin" the enemy units (possible, now that you can detect what weapon is hitting you). Pinned units cannot move (or perhaps, move very slowly), get an armour bonus (because they've hit the deck and are taking cover), and either cannot fire, cannot aim well, or take a damage penalty. So, if your troops run into an MG position, they will take casualties, as the pinned value won't kick in immediately (perhaps only units under half health can be pinned, or something similar). Thus, the pinned squad will stay pinned for a reasonable amount of time, before being annihilated by the MG. This is a better solution, because it still makes the MG a dangerous weapon, particularly vs. infantry, but it doesn't mean that the player falling victim to an MG has a regiment disappear while he isn't watching, because his units don't realise that they have run into a unit designed specifically for wiping them out, and will just keep on running into the firing line and getting obliterated.
I think 1944 is, to an extent, suffering from bi-polar disorder, where it thinks it is both a large-scale strategic game, and a small-scale squad-based game. I think while elements of these two games can certainly co-exist, some, particularly where the player's attention is concerned, are in direct conflict.
You may be better off using simpler geometric shapes, which I believe were what were used as standards in the military anyway.
With regards to the balancing comments, I was referring to the way certain units act as definitive counters for other units, who are otherwise impossibly overpowered. For example, an MG. MG's should certainly be a real threat to infantry, but if deployed right, can mow down infantry in their droves. If the only counter to an MG is a sniper (remember that the buggers can turn around in a moment, so there are no fire arcs to worry about, like in COH), then I think the design is not quite correct. The MG problem has been somewhat fixed since the last time I tested, but I think the unintuitiveness of the design is still somewhat present, where the player is asked to think in big terms with the overall game, but still has to fight in little squad-based terms, lest he lose heaps of troops as they charge moronically into an MG. In a sense, the game is not at all forgiving, and mistakes which can be incredibly costly are really very easy to make.
Instead of having MG's obliterate infantry that are assaulting, why not have them simply "pin" the enemy units (possible, now that you can detect what weapon is hitting you). Pinned units cannot move (or perhaps, move very slowly), get an armour bonus (because they've hit the deck and are taking cover), and either cannot fire, cannot aim well, or take a damage penalty. So, if your troops run into an MG position, they will take casualties, as the pinned value won't kick in immediately (perhaps only units under half health can be pinned, or something similar). Thus, the pinned squad will stay pinned for a reasonable amount of time, before being annihilated by the MG. This is a better solution, because it still makes the MG a dangerous weapon, particularly vs. infantry, but it doesn't mean that the player falling victim to an MG has a regiment disappear while he isn't watching, because his units don't realise that they have run into a unit designed specifically for wiping them out, and will just keep on running into the firing line and getting obliterated.
I think 1944 is, to an extent, suffering from bi-polar disorder, where it thinks it is both a large-scale strategic game, and a small-scale squad-based game. I think while elements of these two games can certainly co-exist, some, particularly where the player's attention is concerned, are in direct conflict.
Yes, the military does use geometric shapes. For example, USA and NATO tactical marks (scroll a bit down the page to see them), some USSR tactical marks (comments on both pages are in Russian). Most of that won't work very well in Spring because the differences between some signs are quite small.Warlord Zsinj wrote:... simpler geometric shapes, which I believe were what were used as standards in the military anyway.
Edit: some Wermacht symbols (also with Russian comments).
Last edited by yuritch on 06 Oct 2006, 15:48, edited 1 time in total.
lots of good stuff in there.Warlord Zsinj wrote:I think you ought to test those radar dots out; In SWS I've found that the more detailed they are, the worse they appear in Spring. Furthermore, once a large amount of unit's stack, complicated dots become indecipherable.
You may be better off using simpler geometric shapes, which I believe were what were used as standards in the military anyway.
With regards to the balancing comments, I was referring to the way certain units act as definitive counters for other units, who are otherwise impossibly overpowered. For example, an MG. MG's should certainly be a real threat to infantry, but if deployed right, can mow down infantry in their droves. If the only counter to an MG is a sniper (remember that the buggers can turn around in a moment, so there are no fire arcs to worry about, like in COH), then I think the design is not quite correct. The MG problem has been somewhat fixed since the last time I tested, but I think the unintuitiveness of the design is still somewhat present, where the player is asked to think in big terms with the overall game, but still has to fight in little squad-based terms, lest he lose heaps of troops as they charge moronically into an MG. In a sense, the game is not at all forgiving, and mistakes which can be incredibly costly are really very easy to make.
Instead of having MG's obliterate infantry that are assaulting, why not have them simply "pin" the enemy units (possible, now that you can detect what weapon is hitting you). Pinned units cannot move (or perhaps, move very slowly), get an armour bonus (because they've hit the deck and are taking cover), and either cannot fire, cannot aim well, or take a damage penalty. So, if your troops run into an MG position, they will take casualties, as the pinned value won't kick in immediately (perhaps only units under half health can be pinned, or something similar). Thus, the pinned squad will stay pinned for a reasonable amount of time, before being annihilated by the MG. This is a better solution, because it still makes the MG a dangerous weapon, particularly vs. infantry, but it doesn't mean that the player falling victim to an MG has a regiment disappear while he isn't watching, because his units don't realise that they have run into a unit designed specifically for wiping them out, and will just keep on running into the firing line and getting obliterated.
I think 1944 is, to an extent, suffering from bi-polar disorder, where it thinks it is both a large-scale strategic game, and a small-scale squad-based game. I think while elements of these two games can certainly co-exist, some, particularly where the player's attention is concerned, are in direct conflict.
As far as fire arcs go, isn't it possible to give machinegunners a reduced arc (90 deg to the front or so) and then add a turn speed reduction (a pretty hefty one) into their 'going prone' script? That would make them much less flexible than regular infantry.
I like the pinning idea, that sounds pretty cool if you can script it. Would go well with the previous suggestion too, as a way to balance out the firearc nerf...it might need some kind of script that would make him change targets every so often though so that a MG can properly pin a decent number of people at a time. Perhaps you can add a 'unit cost reduction' multiplier into the pinned unit script (eg a unit appears 1/10 the value while pinned), and then make the MG reevaluate its target priorities every few seconds or so
Yeah but we could keep it really simple with just something like squares for buildings, circles for infantry, triangles for tanks, crosses for aircraft and bars for ships.yuritch wrote:Yes, the military does use geometric shapes. For example, USA and NATO tactical marks (scroll a bit down the page to see them), some USSR tactical marks (comments on both pages are in Russian). Most of that won't work very well in Spring because the differences between some signs are quite small.Warlord Zsinj wrote:... simpler geometric shapes, which I believe were what were used as standards in the military anyway.
Also, making use of the size multipliers would also help - ie tank icons always appearing bigger than infantry
can you send me the cfg?submarine wrote:just tested with aai, seems to work fine except aai tends to lay mines all over its base (for some reason)
Zsinj, pinning is a nice idea, but Soulless raises a very important point - forcing the MG to fire suppresively on a group, rather than concentrating on one unit it no longer has a good chance of directly killing.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
If you give it enough spread, it should be able to keep a reasonable amount of infantry pinned.
Obviously the pinned penalty would expire after a certain amount of time, so if the MG was to move on to fire at other units, he could find the units who he has just pinned are up and firing again. Only being able to pin a certain amount of units would mean an MG post is easier to overwhelm - and makes it important for MG positions to be backed up by regular infantry, so that players can't just dump MG's all over the map.
It would, of course, be nice to have units that cycle through targets rather then fire until destroyed (perhaps with a tag indicating how long to spend on each target before searching for a new one), for certain weaponry that excel in putting down large-area suppression fire. It would be good for mortars, and artillery, and useful for units in SWS too.
Of course, a direct fire order from the player would over-rule the target cycling. But, unlike the pinning stuff, which can probably be done, target cycling probably requires a new FBI tag, or some zwzsg-style scripting (he can make units forget their orders, but again, I'm not sure if that's what you want).
Obviously the pinned penalty would expire after a certain amount of time, so if the MG was to move on to fire at other units, he could find the units who he has just pinned are up and firing again. Only being able to pin a certain amount of units would mean an MG post is easier to overwhelm - and makes it important for MG positions to be backed up by regular infantry, so that players can't just dump MG's all over the map.
It would, of course, be nice to have units that cycle through targets rather then fire until destroyed (perhaps with a tag indicating how long to spend on each target before searching for a new one), for certain weaponry that excel in putting down large-area suppression fire. It would be good for mortars, and artillery, and useful for units in SWS too.
Of course, a direct fire order from the player would over-rule the target cycling. But, unlike the pinning stuff, which can probably be done, target cycling probably requires a new FBI tag, or some zwzsg-style scripting (he can make units forget their orders, but again, I'm not sure if that's what you want).
K... added a link to your new wiki page at the AA site, hth: http://aaspring.tk