Spring RTS Engine

Most american planes were armed with 50 cals, I think they were mainly used on planes for air to air combat or as tank mounted support weapon.

I agree that it should be anti infantry/aircraft at least.

FLOZi wrote:Historically flak could be used against ground targets, however, I still think that in game they should be restricted to AA use.

WHOA.

Definitely a bad idea there. AA guns being used against enemy infantry, light vehicles, or even tanks was commonplace. (See also: FlaK 88.) Taking that ability out seems to be a bad idea. (Heck, the Germans even used heavy AA guns as light artillery on occasion, and I'm sure other forces did as well.)

I'd be more happy with increasing the logistics drain of automatic weapons in general and AA guns in particular. One reason why AA guns weren't used in a ground-support role more often was how quickly they expended ammunition when used in both anti-air and ground-support roles... if the logistics guys send you an amount of ammunition consistent with a simple anti-air role, you won't have anywhere near the amount needed to add on ground-support.

yeah felix but you have to remember springs targetting setup..

actual combat personal would know to radjust targets automatically, but spring's unit ai does not, thusly it might be possible for a player to exploit this by charging in infantry to distract the aa, and alow the planes to slip by.. just saying..

Probably the best approach would be to make their ground-targetting on/offable - assume they're anti-air only, but make ground-targetting an enableable option. Either way, they should be an ineffective ground-targetting weapon - possibly just make them much more expensive than their ground-only counterparts? After all, aircraft isn't cheap either.

I believe this was attempted several times in both AATA and 1944.

It effectively means that you have to balance aircraft in the same realm as infantry, which becomes quite a nuisance.

I really bleieve that anti-aircraft units (towed and motorized) should be really vulnerable to damage. AA guns were used to attack ground targets, yes, but the vast majority of AA systems weren't meant for combat. You could sit a 20mm ontop of a hill in Normandy and slaughter infantry, but you'd be sitting essentially out in the open. Anyone could fire on you with a rifle, or a machinegun, and you'd be dead.

That said I think AA guns (and all towed and largely open weapons) should be very susceptible to "pinning" -- ie, if you sit a 20mm AA gun there, you can send his "crew" diving for cover by firing on him, or by having artillery land near him, etc etc. That was, afterall, the main weakness of AA guns -- no protection for the crew = shitty combat potential.

SpikedHelmet wrote:I really bleieve that anti-aircraft units (towed and motorized) should be really vulnerable to damage. AA guns were used to attack ground targets, yes, but the vast majority of AA systems weren't meant for combat. You could sit a 20mm ontop of a hill in Normandy and slaughter infantry, but you'd be sitting essentially out in the open. Anyone could fire on you with a rifle, or a machinegun, and you'd be dead.

That said I think AA guns (and all towed and largely open weapons) should be very susceptible to "pinning" -- ie, if you sit a 20mm AA gun there, you can send his "crew" diving for cover by firing on him, or by having artillery land near him, etc etc. That was, afterall, the main weakness of AA guns -- no protection for the crew = shitty combat potential.

I'm in full agreement.

SpikedHelmet wrote:I really bleieve that anti-aircraft units (towed and motorized) should be really vulnerable to damage. AA guns were used to attack ground targets, yes, but the vast majority of AA systems weren't meant for combat. You could sit a 20mm ontop of a hill in Normandy and slaughter infantry, but you'd be sitting essentially out in the open. Anyone could fire on you with a rifle, or a machinegun, and you'd be dead.

That said I think AA guns (and all towed and largely open weapons) should be very susceptible to "pinning" -- ie, if you sit a 20mm AA gun there, you can send his "crew" diving for cover by firing on him, or by having artillery land near him, etc etc. That was, afterall, the main weakness of AA guns -- no protection for the crew = shitty combat potential.

+1

An AA gun crew didn't have much more protection than regular infantry.

That said, towed weapons are already VASTLY inferior to motorized ones. Every time I've tried to use towed weapons, I've been slaughtered because my enemy gets mobile weapons. Thus, things that make towed weapons even weaker probably aren't the best for game balance.

For example, to compensate, I think that lighter towed guns should get some level of cloaking, just like infantry. One of the main strengths of a towed AT gun versus a vehicle-mounted one was the ability to hide in ambush.

Another strength which isn't modeled is that towed guns generally survived combat at a higher rate than vehicle-mounted ones, simply because knocking out a towed gun means killing its crew, while knocking out a vehicle-mounted one involves actually destroying or disabling the vehicle. Thus, perhaps towed guns should be extremely fast to ressurect once destroyed, and perhaps should be rezzable by infantry "gun mechanics" buildable in the infantry barracks. (This is both a blessing and a curse to the one who built the towed gun, of course. On the plus side, if it is hit by an artillery shell and the crew is killed, the gun can be easily reactivated right where it is instead of having to be rebuilt and retransported to the front line. On the minus side, if the enemy advances past the gun, the enemy can capture it and use it against you.)

CoH had the same idea, the Anti tank gun's crew could be killed off, but usually the gun would survive, allowing you to capture it/ recrew it.

worked well..

I had this idea for the HQ. Since we're doing buildings I figured we might as well style them after actual Battalion HQ's, since Battalion is about the size we're at.

Battalion HQ's were basically a staff with some communications equipment that would base itself periodically from one location to the next as the battalion advanced (or retreated). They'd set up in barns, houses, hotels -- wherever. On D-Day, beach head HQ's were set up on the beaches themselves...

Anyway going on this, HQ's were like "rally points" for battalions. Re-enforcements coming in would report to the HQ before being assigned. That includes not only troops but vehicles as well so I figured, rather than a "Barracks" HQ which builds a small selection of infantry, how about a larger field HQ which also deploys Jeeps, trucks, etc.

I figure such an HQ would build the following:

Engineer (durr)
Rifleman
SMG
LMG (optional)
Mortar (optional)
MG (optional)
Trucks
Jeeps
Halftrack (optional)
Light Infantry Gun (optional)

Historically, Battalion HQ's had attached to them mortar and machinegun sections -- hence including them. But these are rather 'advanced' for a structure meant solely to provide the bare necessities. The Light Infantry Gun is included because otherwise there's no possible anti-tank capability. It's an "emergency" measure. Halftracks are also optional. Anyway the basics are the Engineers, Rifleman, SMG, Jeeps, and Trucks. This is what this HQ would build. The Engineer would obviously then go on to build Barracks, Vehicle Yards, etc, whatever.

Also, the HQ should provide a large storage for Logistics and CPs (infact I'd suggest it be the only source of storage, besides other HQ variations like a German HQ Bunker). I'd also suggest maybe having this HQ be the ONLY place to build engineers. It would, naturally, have all Engineers available to it. This may seem odd but I'm thinking of a sort of unconventional way to balance Level 1 and Level 2. Say "Level 1" (Infantry) and "Level 2" (Vehicle) engineers are buildable from the same place. Logically that means you could go right to building a tank yard. But we could balance it by making the tank yard incredibly hard to build by mere engineers. You'd need either a shitload of them, or an engineering vehicle, which would be build in the light vehicle yard (built by Infantry Engineer). That way, unless you want to waste time, you'd build the light vehicle yard first to get the power of the construction vehicle. The vehicle itself wouldn't be able to build anything; only assist projects started by actual engineers (which I'd like to be the norm for ALL engineering vehicles).

What do you think?

Here's a picture of the HQ I just modelled/textured.

It is extremely ugly.

It looks rather relevant to me, Anbeetable.

I would toss a few more structures into the model and perhaps have variants that are randomly built by script as Smoth does with Machine Shops in Gundam. Otherwise, I think you're going in the right direction.

neddiedrow wrote:It looks rather relevant to me, Anbeetable.

I would toss a few more structures into the model and perhaps have variants that are randomly built by script as Smoth does with Machine Shops in Gundam. Otherwise, I think you're going in the right direction.

Gundam has randomly-laid-out machine shops? I never noticed that.

Just build a bunch of them and have a closer look. Was one of the first things I've noticed.

I think a small shack and a few tents would fill out the model appreciably.

There will be other similar structures containing tents, shacks, etc, for logistics storage and such. There's no need for this model to contain every cliche military structure.

Ah, but these can have the obligatory command stuff. Tires, fences, latrines.

latrines

I want an animated soldier with a toothbrush cleaning them! :P

Since battalion HQ's contained, as you say "staff and communications equiptment" wouldn't it at least make sense to have a tent with some radio equiptment? And a guy telling people where to go when they report to HQ would be pretty common as well, I would think. Maybe another tent for him?

SpikedHelmet wrote:

IS DAT SUM CP!