I'll have to look into the pzriii and T-34/76. It's even possible some small engine change has borked them all without me noticing (and the script was never 100% in the first place)
RE: the Marder. Pak40 was a very good gun, nothing much we can do about that. Marder ought to be very vulnerable to troops and arty though. Its probably too nimble currently though.
Spring:1944 dev and testing
Moderator: Moderators
I had it insured for about $600, and it looks like they're going to pay.
Hopefully some of the parts will be salvageable, so when I get time I can build something better. That said, I don't have that time (or the money) quite yet, so it likely won't happen until after thanksgiving.
On a more mod-relevant note: needs more test games! and when you've played more test games, get more people and play yet more test games!!
I swear we'll release eventually. Maybe. We just need a load more testing.
Hopefully some of the parts will be salvageable, so when I get time I can build something better. That said, I don't have that time (or the money) quite yet, so it likely won't happen until after thanksgiving.
On a more mod-relevant note: needs more test games! and when you've played more test games, get more people and play yet more test games!!
I swear we'll release eventually. Maybe. We just need a load more testing.
how i become tester ;_;Nemo wrote:On a more mod-relevant note: needs more test games! and when you've played more test games, get more people and play yet more test games!!
I swear we'll release eventually. Maybe. We just need a load more testing.
i'm in #s44 all the time
Last edited by tombom on 18 Sep 2007, 22:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
*cough* slackers 
Anyways, to my great surprise my laptop can actually run spring (this is a surprise because it's a dell inspiron 2650, which = crappy integrated graphics, 384mb of crappy ram, and a 1.5ghz celeron processor). So while I won't be playing any 4 way FFAs, I can fix bugs and do some scripting. As time allows, of course.
Anyways, to my great surprise my laptop can actually run spring (this is a surprise because it's a dell inspiron 2650, which = crappy integrated graphics, 384mb of crappy ram, and a 1.5ghz celeron processor). So while I won't be playing any 4 way FFAs, I can fix bugs and do some scripting. As time allows, of course.
Some trucks/transports are unbuildable because they haven't had the neccessary amount of 0s added on, meaning you need insane amounts of resources to build them. The Bedford Lorry/M8 Halftrack for the British and the Soviet transport truck have this problem (I'm a bit hazy on the names). The Soviet anti-tank artillery seems to keep moving towards the enemy even while in-range and with hold-pos on.
Script errors:
CobError: Invalid piecenumber for show(flare) (in scripts/gbrobserv.cob:FireWeapon1 at d4c)
CobError: Invalid piecenumber for emit-sfx (in scripts/rusba64.cob:SmokeUnit_GPL at 79)
Script errors:
CobError: Invalid piecenumber for show(flare) (in scripts/gbrobserv.cob:FireWeapon1 at d4c)
CobError: Invalid piecenumber for emit-sfx (in scripts/rusba64.cob:SmokeUnit_GPL at 79)
-
Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
imo the static mgs could do with having a wider fire arc. its a bit too easy to blindside them because of the fact that can only be faced in the cardinal directions (NSEW)
the russian partisans need a bit of balancing, i feel that they can be spammed a bit too easily. granted, they are pretty crap, but sheer volume of fire can overcome a lot.
the russian partisans need a bit of balancing, i feel that they can be spammed a bit too easily. granted, they are pretty crap, but sheer volume of fire can overcome a lot.
thanks much for the reports, keep 'em coming.
I'm thinking that partisans might benefit from a hard unit limit (like 30 or so). That way they're more of a special use sneaky force (since they can cloak) rather than a main-line supplement to your regulars.
Will play with MGs if I have time this afternoon.
Transport script bugs are on my list as well.
I'm thinking that partisans might benefit from a hard unit limit (like 30 or so). That way they're more of a special use sneaky force (since they can cloak) rather than a main-line supplement to your regulars.
Will play with MGs if I have time this afternoon.
Transport script bugs are on my list as well.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
i like the partisans as they are, a limit wouldnt be cool imo. just limit to one partisan hut and increase the buildtime slightly so its less of an epic tide spamming out the door. classing the fixed MGs as guns sounds like the way to go, maybe increase their firearc to 45 degree in either direction, it seems like less atm
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I was never a particularly big fan of hard unit limits. They just seemed so artificial and not the TA way at all. I understand the reasoning here, but there must be some way to balance around it that doesn't involve hard limits, which IMO, break immersion and create 'glass ceiling' gameplay.
ie "wtf, why can't I build any more partisans?"
I don't know if this is possible, but perhaps you could use the mobile mexx code to ensure that partisans can only build other partisans in range of a control point (metal patch). That way a defending opponent has a number of clear points where he can mount his defences in order to fend off partisan attacks. They could still theoretically come from almost anywhere (depending on the map), but atleast a defending player has some clear hardpoints to defend in order to clear out partisan assaults.
But that's still a sort of an easy way out. The hard way would be to really let the USSR be a zhon-style side, and then attempt to balance the assymetrical sides so that they play completely differently, but work well together. That would mean, no limits on partisan construction, other then gameplay influenced ones ('Germans have spread out scout patrols to fend off my partisan assaults, perhaps I should fall back on general warfare tactics'. Much harder to balance, but a fascinating and really challenging outcome if you can pull it off (which you're capable of).
ie "wtf, why can't I build any more partisans?"
I don't know if this is possible, but perhaps you could use the mobile mexx code to ensure that partisans can only build other partisans in range of a control point (metal patch). That way a defending opponent has a number of clear points where he can mount his defences in order to fend off partisan attacks. They could still theoretically come from almost anywhere (depending on the map), but atleast a defending player has some clear hardpoints to defend in order to clear out partisan assaults.
But that's still a sort of an easy way out. The hard way would be to really let the USSR be a zhon-style side, and then attempt to balance the assymetrical sides so that they play completely differently, but work well together. That would mean, no limits on partisan construction, other then gameplay influenced ones ('Germans have spread out scout patrols to fend off my partisan assaults, perhaps I should fall back on general warfare tactics'. Much harder to balance, but a fascinating and really challenging outcome if you can pull it off (which you're capable of).
I'm not a fan of hard limits either, but to simply tweak them economically makes them more or less crappy copies of the main line troops. Which essentially removes their role.
As per the 'easy' way out - I'm not sure how technically feasible this is, but it would be interesting indeed if partisan shacks could only be built around mex spots, and some way of limiting how many could be built in a single area.
While I feel like true zhon gameplay would be just too odd (wtf, that guy is creating a rifleman? o_O), we have a similar mechanic in place in that the soviets are theoretically capable of exponential growth - that is, the commander can build commissars, who can build more commissars. commissars build flags, shacks, barracks, gunyards, logistics supplies, ect. and they have the commander=1 tag, so in a comm=ends game, the soviets have the potential to be very difficult to root out, with little outposts all over the map.
As per the 'easy' way out - I'm not sure how technically feasible this is, but it would be interesting indeed if partisan shacks could only be built around mex spots, and some way of limiting how many could be built in a single area.
While I feel like true zhon gameplay would be just too odd (wtf, that guy is creating a rifleman? o_O), we have a similar mechanic in place in that the soviets are theoretically capable of exponential growth - that is, the commander can build commissars, who can build more commissars. commissars build flags, shacks, barracks, gunyards, logistics supplies, ect. and they have the commander=1 tag, so in a comm=ends game, the soviets have the potential to be very difficult to root out, with little outposts all over the map.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
keep partisans as they are but with a one hut limit.. they are suitably weak now that they are not really overpowered as long as they cant spam out in expodential quantities.
I would be all for keeping the sides as diffrent as possible.
russiams have mad quantities but im pretty sure in a real game situation, once the scale gets bigger, like max barracks on each side, russia will be at a disadvantage. once there are MGs in place, russian hordes with low HP will completely get blown away, and it will never be possible to get enough HP of russian in one place to make use of numbers. against a few prone british rifles, a browning MG and a british sniper or two i reckon a huge number of russian soldiers would be needed to break through. russian soldiers also benefit less from experience as britan do; vetren birish soldiers have almost 180HP, and this means they survive longer, and survive longer with greater accuracy. vet british soldiers are geniunely useful. all russians vet or not die like wheat in any battle
I would be all for keeping the sides as diffrent as possible.
russiams have mad quantities but im pretty sure in a real game situation, once the scale gets bigger, like max barracks on each side, russia will be at a disadvantage. once there are MGs in place, russian hordes with low HP will completely get blown away, and it will never be possible to get enough HP of russian in one place to make use of numbers. against a few prone british rifles, a browning MG and a british sniper or two i reckon a huge number of russian soldiers would be needed to break through. russian soldiers also benefit less from experience as britan do; vetren birish soldiers have almost 180HP, and this means they survive longer, and survive longer with greater accuracy. vet british soldiers are geniunely useful. all russians vet or not die like wheat in any battle
The other aspect to consider is that while their infantry have less staying power, their damage output is just as good as any other side - they just have lots more. So ideally if the soviets can concentrate their firepower, they'll be just as potent, if not more so, than other infantry groups. Granted, some things vary - like the DP being a crappy crappy MG, or the PPsh being an absurdly good SMG, but generally the soviets make up for weak individual troops by having loads of potential damage output. The trick is to make use of large groups at once, rather than sending small groups to get destroyed piecemeal.