|
Post by schrad on Mar 11, 2015 14:41:15 GMT 1
Sorry, it was only a idea... I have no clue about mapping and scripts and what would be possible. If you change anyone, you get a string of consequences and the game will become to easy. This was not my intention.
|
|
|
Post by Quintaxel on Mar 11, 2015 14:53:21 GMT 1
Here are my thoughts; Neutral mines should make the gameplay more interesting but then the rules for the AI and player must be the same. The AI should could avoid running into its own minefields by defining script areas with AI mines on the map. The AI should also be smart enough to avoid a minefields once these minefields have been detected. Then there is the problem of clearing a minefield. In itself not such big deal to script a function to do this as long as the minefield is not within the range of enemy fire. (so within the range of the player's units) If the minefield is still within the range of the players firing range then the AI should not send engineers but it could send a minesweeping unit. This is an option that a player would also consider. What would be helpful is a special Engineers that are hard to detect and are capable of clearing a minefield. Such units would not need an engineering truck and therefore be less vulnerable. No fun for the mapper? I agree it will not make things easier unless the way the AI handles mines are put into a couple of new functions. Creating such functions could be for a scipter
|
|
|
Post by Quintaxel on Mar 11, 2015 14:57:59 GMT 1
Sorry, it was only a idea... I have no clue about mapping and scripts and what would be possible. If you change anyone, you get a string of consequences and the game will become to easy. This was not my intention. Hi schrad, you do not have to apologize for having an opinion or an idea. This is what this forum is about. We look at things from a different angle and this is what makes these discussions interesting.
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Mar 11, 2015 15:55:43 GMT 1
Here are my thoughts; Neutral mines should make the gameplay more interesting but then the rules for the AI and player must be the same. The AI should could avoid running into its own minefields by defining script areas with AI mines on the map. The AI should also be smart enough to avoid a minefields once these minefields have been detected. Then there is the problem of clearing a minefield. In itself not such big deal to script a function to do this as long as the minefield is not within the range of enemy fire. (so within the range of the player's units) If the minefield is still within the range of the players firing range then the AI should not send engineers but it could send a minesweeping unit. This is an option that a player would also consider. What would be helpful is a special Engineers that are hard to detect and are capable of clearing a minefield. Such units would not need an engineering truck and therefore be less vulnerable.No fun for the mapper? I agree it will not make things easier unless the way the AI handles mines are put into a couple of new functions. Creating such functions could be for a scipter Actually I like the first bold and italic part. So I agree with this. BUT if they are made harder to detect and still have the same capabilities then they can rightfully be called overpowered. So they should be harder to detect but they should then remove mines more slowly. This will inevitably lead to "problems" (in my eyes they are problems). Problems being it would take ages to clear a minefield. So unless we are aiming to Mission Kursk way of mines this part would need large balancing. With the rest of the text here's some thoughts: 1. New functions for AI clearing the minefield - agreed they are not that complicated, but your second idea of Minesweepers is better. However these weren't always available (again if we are aiming for realism). 2. No matter how smart you make the AI, point is it will have to leave this minefield via certain exits. Simple action by the player would lead to minimal difficulty of the mission. AI is already limited as is, why do we need to place more burden on it? 3. Firing points covering the minefield - I believe that there isn't an army that won't place some firing point near the minefields. What's the purpose of minefield not covered by firing points and sentries? We have seen in Africa, that such practices led to disasters. We have also seen there (and at Kursk) the effects of well covered minefields. I'm sure that there are members here who are more familiar with topic than I am, but at El Alamein the only reason British minesweepers and infantry managed to penetrate the front was supperiority of allied arty and lack of Axis firing points. I can guarantee that if those minefields were protected sufficiently those minesweepers wouldn't advance very far. I won't even mention what would happen to infantry. Imagine this in BK. Is it fun? IMHO no, realistic yes. 4. I'm a player first, mapper second, then there are 100 places and only then i'm a scripter. So i'm reliant on guys like you to create new scripts so that I can use them later (no offense meant here, huge respect towards scripters). To clarify what I meant as "not fun" - it takes a lot of time to create enough gaps in the neutral minefieds and to balance those gaps for the AI to use them in a most effective way, while at the same time they should provide proper challenge for the player. While all that time could have been used more effectively. 5. Finally I mentioned that there are certain scenarios where those mines would be useful. Example North Arfica. Imagine mission set during Operation Crusader, where you have a rag-tag collection of units. You have to organize them and lead them into an attack or defend something. Thing is the area is full of mines. Since this would be a mobile map, with neutral mines it would be interesting for the player (add to that lack of minesweepers or engineers). However AI without a fairly large script would be severely handicaped. After the script is implemented we have a very good or even excellent map IMHO. Thing is all of this could be achieved without neutral mines and without the need for added complexities. Map itself wouldn't suffer as much. Would the player be equal with the AI in both cases? No it wouldn't, but neither of these 2 choices would make it any more stronger than it already is. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the end I think that unless something is broken, there is no need for fixing. Btw Quintaxel, Keep, MP and others, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to offend or argue with you. Quite the opposite (after all you all have my huge respect), however i'm voicing my concerns, since this idea can cause more trouble than it's worth. I really wish you success with this and if you want any help, let me know. I can help within the limits of my knowledge (which is not great, honestly). schrad no need to apologize. Like Quint said - what's the point of having an idea if you don't try to put it in practice. Also unless i'm mistaken neutral mines won't be retroactive so they won't affect old maps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 15:58:13 GMT 1
Sorry, it was only a idea... I have no clue about mapping and scripts and what would be possible. If you change anyone, you get a string of consequences and the game will become to easy. This was not my intention. You can rest easy for me. To me if I like your post. Greetings friend.
|
|
|
Post by Stanenberg on Mar 11, 2015 18:27:14 GMT 1
Very good posting tedi88!
I basically agree with you. The idea is nice but it requires a lot of script work and its not worth the small amount of realism that is added to the game.
The idea of engineer-teams so no truck is needed is however a very nice idea.
greetings, Stanenberg
|
|
|
Post by ariete on Mar 11, 2015 20:23:08 GMT 1
My answer is not intended to go against anyone I understood your post not of that kind?! no no wittman i want your excuses immediatly ... didn't sound like what i posted because there's always that kind of shrewdness in too people here, in explain own thinkings or point of view but in the meanwhile ascertain to don't offense anyone ... if it was a your thinking or point of view, about other kind of things, maybe on how the things go or something else about politic, culture, i could understand .. who could you offense explaining your point of view about if the mines must be player1 or neutral, in the best game ever done?? ahahha great wittmann anyway if it was in the terms of another kind of discussion, where you post your point of view, it's irrilevant the effects of that could have on the others, because, surely, differently by me , you will be much more prudent on what you go to post, i'm meaning about the respect of the write form, so surely, also there, you'll not go to offense anyone. i always say, i musten't like to everybody, instead, often how much don't like you is becuse you're gone in the right way. @stanenberg initially i was going to post that pic on your thread - kursk maps, because there was a reference about the power of the panzergrenadier in your last post where you presented the new map ......... ahahahah then i said mmmm maybe i could offense him if i go to post that in a thred where it's talking about other maps (yours) for another mod, so at the end i chosed here using that as intervallo's pic, following the tough ahaha censorship here if a day someone will open an - hall of fame - thread, about the best units you plaied, everybody must know, and sorry if i'm again raw but it's the coolest way to say this, - that moth**** killed 5 tanks alone - about the thread, if the developers chosed that way there's a reason, and in fact, as just said but someone, risks to became a much more complicated thing, much more work to do, and basically to avoid a question which is already circumvent by the fact for which the owner of the mines should be the AI. viceversa it could be a limit for the player, so neutral mines those put down by the player
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Mar 11, 2015 20:55:48 GMT 1
Actually I have explored a couple of things some of you have brought up in this thread.
Engineers unfortunately are tied to some kind of truck, for the moment. While you can create a two man Engineer Team, they will not work independent of the vehicle. For GEN II I'm thinking that Engineers need a little more capability and not necessarily tied to a vehicle. So this kind of goes along with the Medic Teams that I have been working with.
In my project, Medics come in two designs. A two man Team that can be assigned to Infantry out in the field. The other Team is the Ambulance Team... The heal rate by Ambulance is twice as fast as the Field Medic. But a new Building that heals infantry heals twice a fast as the ambulance. So the idea is providing options to heal your troops that are more realistic. You don't need the ambulance to transport wounded to the Field Hospital... and they would still be healed faster than the other two options. Of course, you need transports.
Part of the Wounded Soldier issue is reworking how they function. Would it serve a purpose that they must be carried by stretch if their HP is 33% or less? Higher than 33% and they can walk out or to the truck. Or the field medic could treat them until the HP increases enough so they can walk. Or is this level of detail too much micromanagement? Some days I begin to think that some of this is wasted because of the level of detail. But my intent is to open the game functions up where more options can be utilized.
What if the Engineers were actually Assigned to a new Unit Type - Combat Engineer. These guys would have some new capabilities... lay mines, remove mines, plant explosives - Demolition, and Building defensive positions and bunkers. All without a truck. They also have combat abilities like a Rifle Squad... and carry some mean weapons. Read about Combat Engineers for stimulation.
So back to the issue about Neutral Mines. Someone (wittman I think) said Mines have no friends. There is no such thing as mines that do not explode when someone steps on it, the so called friendly mines we have in BK. But I'm reading what you guys have said... and I'm thinking more and more like tedi. Is the extra mapping and scripting worth the outcome? I just don't know on that yet.... yes, you could give the AI the minefield data so it could be avoided or demined... but is that too much code to make that happen?
In that respect, the code could be fairly simple using some creative functions and triggers. It is actually a lot simpler to give the AI a Map Location to avoid... so anything inside that area is verboten. You can handle the mine removal several ways, or just not let the AI concern itself. There are other ways the AI can open lanes without removing mines. They can use artillery to open lanes through tough terrain and blowing the hell out of scripted path blocks. I've used this before and it is logical.
Path Blocks work both ways. You can script to remove blocks based on a condition... the If-Then condition. Or you can use triggers to remove mines. I created a map several years ago that had a massive minefield. This was a Kursk Map... Battle of Ozerki. Some of you may be familiar with the minefield in that area. The Germans used the PzIV-B Radio Controlled Mine Tank to open lanes. The tank would creep close to the minefield and lay down a container filled with explosives. You may remember I built that tank. So once the tank backed up, the container would explode and open a huge path by destroying many of the mines in a flared out direction into the minefield.
We can certainly get creative with units designed to remove mines like the one mentioned. We might get Flail tanks to actually work in the game... they have failed because of the track issue and designing a HP or Armor System which works on only a section of a model... My idea is actually combining two models. The tank pushes the Flail Unit or roller... This is opposite of towing, but based on the Railroad Code. Locomotives can pull or push.
So there are some things we could do in respect to minefields. It comes with a cost... a lot of testing to get some of these ideas worked out so they can be useful... or proven they cannot work in 1.2. This discussion has caused me to analyze the Game Code to perhaps add another Model Type in GEN II - Mine Remover, or perhaps De-Miner. I think this follows along with Medics and Engineers in many ways. There is room for the Type and about 3 Dedicated Commands without running into current code or code I have added. These commands would need to be discussed to see where the importance to function is. And this would again be another Engineer Unit... adding it to the TRV/ARV Type and the Combat Engineers.
By the way I'm working on a Signal/Radio type unit at the moment. I don't have this completely worked out or what the exact function is. I'm also looking at a Forward Observers closely and how they can be utilized... but I have found that this actually works in BK 1.2.... I will be releasing some models and soldiers designed for the purpose.
Another Idea I'm thinking about is using Artillery to take out Minefields. Some parameters need to be adjusted but it looks possible. This would change the game in several ways and actually equalize the AI to the Player. Feeding the mine data to the AI can be done after the first unit either detects a mine or is destroyed by a mine... Then the FireOnMineField Function can be used. Several minutes of sending 88 mm Rounds into a minefield would make a huge difference.
Please keep an open mind on this and keep your creative ideas working... We are only limited by our Imaginations and the game code. This is how we have discovered new ways of doing things for over 10 years...
Comment on Side-Bar Discussion: Tedi you can represent the Prosecution if you wish... the so-called State of Blitzkrieg.
There was a comment directed toward a member that contained some banned language. The Rules actually prohibit using spaced or implied spelling to appear like certain banned words in the Forum. I have been pretty lenient in the past. But this particular situation did force me to react and delete the posts, both the original post and the reply.
Both parties have assured me it was not an attack and was of a joking manner. I have accepted this as factual. I found no instance from the past that would lead to a sudden change in behavior in either party. I am of the opinion that people don't wake up one day and decide to go out and do things that run against their past behavior... unless they went nuts. I found no evidence of a crazy running amuck or any reason for what i perceived as an attack... just by the use of the word in a phrase.
In day to day real life, we all have likely used the same phrase toward our close friends... or worst enemies. Utility Companies come to mind... Taken one way it is a form of friendly jest. Taken to the other extreme, the meaning is something much different, and basically tells someone they are less than belly button lint.
Part of my job is to handle issues when they come up... many issues are handled behind the scenes and you guys never know anything about them. Some days I feel like a referee, other days it is so calm and peaceful... that I get complacent.
Which do you think I prefer?
So I need your help to keep it calm and peaceful. Please watch the language and the use of words. Also be mindful that not everyone can use the English language as easy as others. Translations can produce some screwy results... like one of my recent regrets when I called someone's mother a toad. That was good for a rapid email exchange for several hours... It was finally put to bed after I suggested that they enter the same English Phrase into Google Translate. Well again, mom is a toad. So things sometimes get weird without any intention to cause an issue. So keep this in mind... some translations are just plain bad.
Also understand that some words have the same meaning in several languages. A couple come to mind that I found common in Vietnam and Japan in the 1970s. I am not referring to Bravo... but a couple of others that I'm sure were picked up because they were very English... American Specifically.
You all are doing a great job in this discussion... Please carry on...
Sorry, this is my long post for the month...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 23:07:26 GMT 1
I understood your post not of that kind?! no no wittman i want your excuses immediatly ... didn't sound like what i posted because there's always that kind of shrewdness in too people here, in explain own thinkings or point of view but in the meanwhile ascertain to don't offense anyone ... if it was a your thinking or point of view, about other kind of things, maybe on how the things go or something else about politic, culture, i could understand .. who could you offense explaining your point of view about if the mines must be player1 or neutral, in the best game ever done?? ahahha great wittmann ARIETE!!
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Mar 11, 2015 23:11:51 GMT 1
Ah... how cute... Damn it.... Wittman? Monkeys? Am I having a bad nightmare?
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Mar 12, 2015 0:21:39 GMT 1
Off topic: Major Pain which one would be the correct term in English, " State Prosecutor of State of Blitzkrieg" or "State Prosecutor for State of Blitzkrieg"? I know that there are other terms for prosecutors, but I prefer "prosecutor". I plan to add this to my status, so please help me solve a language dilemma. On topic: you have some fine ideas for minefields and in general (medics, arty). Also i'm curious is map battle of Ozerki available for download somewhere? I'm interested in trying it out. Prosecution rests,
|
|
|
Post by keepitsimple on Mar 13, 2015 22:29:14 GMT 1
With regard to neutral mines I simply see as possibility to make live for the player slightly harder as Major Pain pointed out. But as tedi88 rightly points out that to realize this shouldn't make live much more difficult for the map maker. Putting down neutral mines at the beginning of a map is simple. Take a Tobruk mission with player first in the defense. The mapper puts down a minefield before the player starting position. This mines can easily be neutral. The player can even be given the place of this minefields. Making the AI trying to get through this minefield(s) at the start of map has been done before. In an offensive mission (the AI in defense) there is no place for neutral mines other then for the ones the player himself puts down. And this is of course the million dollar question : how easy is to make mines that the player lays down himself neutral. Simple. Then I would say there is nothing against sometimes implementing it. Whether to implement it or not is up to the mapper and it is up to player of his maps to like or dislike this. If this is not simple (to near impossible). Then the use of neutral mines would be limited to above example. Keep it Simple
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Mar 14, 2015 2:31:31 GMT 1
Off topic: Major Pain which one would be the correct term in English, " State Prosecutor of State of Blitzkrieg" or "State Prosecutor for State of Blitzkrieg"? I know that there are other terms for prosecutors, but I prefer "prosecutor". I plan to add this to my status, so please help me solve a language dilemma. On topic: you have some fine ideas for minefields and in general (medics, arty). Also i'm curious is map battle of Ozerki available for download somewhere? I'm interested in trying it out. Prosecution rests, Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Ozerki has been an ongoing project that uses some new LUA Code. It expands the Function Abilities and adds Natural Triggers. Some of this experimental code will likely be used in the North Africa Project. I devised a way to utilize Arrays and tables where you can actually see the Units names in the Messages. Each unit has it's own identity. At some point I will release the BETA Ozerki. But it is a project that continues to develop... sort of my sandbox. I have referred to it several times, and only a couple of guys have seen it... that led to a wide-scale change in how the code works. While I could write it and read it, it required some comments and refinement. My goal was to educate but it caused confusion in its released state. Because some functions are not confined within the known structure, I had to go back and rethink how to plug these in so they follow as much as possible the existing structure. LUA is powerful and can take advantage of C Code Chunks easily. And that is where the confusion began. Writing in C is not too different that writing in Lua, but the Structure is different. So when I was plugging in C Code, I needed a way to identify it more clearly. At that time the C Chunk Functions were called by #C#_Insert. Now I'm using a Comment before the Code and calling with #C-Insert Chunk#. It is still a project in he works... and while the mission works perfectly... the map is not completely detailed. I was more concerned about Script than the trees and landscape. Only the necessary bridges, water, terrain and terrain and blocks are installed. There may be around 300 trees on the entire 32 x32 map. They just represent what will be there in the final version; placeholders. When finally released, I hope it will push mappers and Scripters to adopt the method and codes. The Script itself is not that large. The Array and Table data are included at the moment on the front end, but I think I can make the Script read that file data from another file. The Script already has the capability to read and transfer Global Data from other sources... like 1.xml data and text files. This would only expand the power of the script because you can insert all of the Global Data from one source rather than from within the Script. The Array and Data Tables also provide the ability to expand Universal Code Functions. Rather than writing a code for one unit, you identify the Script ID from the Table Assignments, and collect the unit name and other data. You read the Script ID from the Table Data rather than within the Script Code. So any move, stop, attack, swarm or any other Command Function is a universal code rather than a dedicated code. Script Areas are also stored in the table and also have their own ID. So in the script you read the ID from the Table rather than dedicate that ID or Area Name into the Script Function. As long as you maintain notes or a lookup chart on the Table Data, you can structure your mission script exactly to what you want to do. The Project will come with the Specific Functions that can be Inserted into any Script. All you have to do is make sure the KeyCode identifiers (Local Data) matches the rest of your script. Any letter or alpha-numeric combination can be used for a KeyCode Identifier, a fancy term for the numeric value or string assigned to a variable. An example of a KeyCode Identifier is ArmNum for Army Number, or Player Number. This allows the same function to be used for any army or player. I'm currently trying to change Land Reinforcements by Script ID and Coordinates. At the moment you have to place them on the map in a predefined location... I think we can do better on this and add Reinforcements the same way Maps load Containers. For those of you that are not familiar with Containers, these are pre-built map sections that are used to populate a map in the random map script. So the Land Reinforcement Script would look kind of like this: LandReinfrocements(iScriptID, X, Y, Face)The ScriptID is the Group Script ID. The x, y are the Center Coordinates on the map where this Group will land. Face is the Direction the group will face - 0 to 360 when landing. The Script VIS direction values are between 0 and 65535 that corresponds from 0 to 360 degree. The Multiplier is 182.449 * Angle = Int(VIS Direction). Calvin proposes the Formula: angle = GetFrontDir(iScriptID)/65536 * 360; but this returns a number that does not exist on the map. More to come...
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Mar 14, 2015 18:46:16 GMT 1
Major Pain first thanks for correcting me. Second sounds interesting. Any estimates on release?
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Mar 15, 2015 3:56:20 GMT 1
I don't really have a date in mind... it's one of those things that I keep going back to when I have time and pick up from where I left off. But like I said, it is the test bed for so many things that I need to clean it up. I was working on it a little today checking a nested if-then function. Not everything works of course without trial and error and testing. I printed the Script out a while back and it was 4 pages in Word at 5x5x5x5 margins with Courier size 10... that did not surprise me or concern me. That's 58 lines of code per page. The first part of the code was all data and read only once... so it is dumped after the first run. The data is used to build the script tables, each entry has 4 elements that are loaded and used in the script. ScriptID, UnitName, Commander, CommandUnit. Example: "4000", "1/I/10th Pz Reg/10th PzG Div", "Oberfeldwebel Higle", "PzIV-D" -- (4x) Pz IVIn the game, the Script ID is used on Cmd Functions, Get and Set functions, etc... The cross index can collect the Units name or the Commander name for use in the Display on the screen. Once a Cmd is given... the Group performs the Command. Additional Groups can be given the same Cmd and subsequent Qmd Commands easily. Get functions can determine if Groups have arrived in a area or are performing a task. Set Functions can change values or conditions for a Group. Each of the Global variables are changed as needed with get or Set functions. Local variables are used in counters and triggers, or placeholders that contain the ScriptIDs as they might change with conditions. If you click on one of the components (tanks), along with hearing their Ack, you will see: Oberfeldwebel Higle Reporting - on the monitor. Note: Oberfeldwebel Higle is the Armor Platoon (Schutzenzug) Commander for the 4 tanks . His command tank is a PzIV-D. If I can move the data to a text or 1.xml file and then read it into the local table, that eliminates a little over a page. The fact that it is heavy with Remarks for Identification or Explanation likely accounts for around another 15%. So it might be 2 to 2.5 pages in the end.
|
|