adkon
Vojnik
a gun w/out bullet is useless
Posts: 4
|
Post by adkon on Nov 9, 2015 3:59:37 GMT 1
sir is there a possibility to add the ability to a tank crew to repair their minor damage tank like damage tracks and on heavily damage engr team must be require
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Nov 9, 2015 9:38:28 GMT 1
The LUA Script language will be preserved, but instead of Version 4.0, it will be LUA 5.x. I've been studying some of the existing Functions and keywords used.
One command that can be exploited is the LandReinforcements. Instead of placing these units on the map then turning them off before the Map Completes the Setup and Runs, we would simply tell the Game Engine WHERE to place the Reinforcement Group. The Reinforcement Group would be defined in the Script File, not in the map. The Group would have a Tag that refers to only it.
The way the Command Functions are used could also be improved. These are the cmd() functions. I'll add the ammo count for any unit which has been missing. I'd add a few more options that can be used to check troop quality. It might be useful to have an area where you can return your units to actually see a damage or condition report on the screen. This might be a Repair Depot.
To answer Adkon's question: I have not considered an option for the tank crew to repair its tank. What I have developed is a ARV which can recover the tank and tow it to the Tank Depot. If the tank has minor damage, like tracks that are off... then the ARV can repair the tank in the field without towing it back to the Depot.
The ARV can tow any vehicle, but I have expanded this somewhat. Some ARVs might be a Truck Based Wrecker... which is more suitable to tow trucks and small armored vehicles. The ARV which is based on a tank chassis, would be used to tow tanks and heavy Armor units. The weight is the key definition of what can be towed. I have considered developing a way the two ARVs might recover a heavy tank, like the Tiger... most ARVs of the day could not tow it alone. I have already created many ARVs for the game which can be used right now. The Truck-based Scammell is on British Example. The British also have the Bedford QLW and the AEC Matador 853m BD.
The US will soon have the Diamond T970 Recovery Truck. These were plentiful in Normandy and did their fair share of the recovery work. The Mack BD Recovery Truck will also be released soon. Also the GMC Deuce and a half (JIMMY) CCKW-353 Recovery Truck will be released. These will add to the Sherman and Lee ARVs already released. International Harvester will soon get the M-5H-6 Recovery Truck for the US Marines. Studebaker will add to the fleet the US6-U5 Recovery Truck for the Russians and the UK Commonwealth, mostly the Australian Forces used the Studer.
The Germans have the SdKfz9 FAMO Recovery Vehicle. This is a Heavy Halftrack vehicle with a large boom that can recover anything up to the early Pz IVs. They soon will have the Opel 'Mule' SdKfz3 'Maultier' Halftrack Recovery Vehicle. Also Germany will receive the BergePanzer III and IV along with the Bergepanther and Bergetiger, each built on the same Tank Chassis it was designed to recover.
Japan will get the Se-Ri TRV. France will get the M32B3 ARV based on the Sherman M4A3. Canada will get the Ram TRV. So there is much left to do in this area.
In my updated system, Massive Repairs would have to be conducted by a Field Depot rather than Engineers in the field. Engineers in themselves would also be divided by their specific Job. I would keep the all-in-one Engineer for those that do not want the extra work.... but in my mind, a Mechanical Engineer is not the same as a Construction Engineer. These are two distinct jobs. A Bridge Builder might be a Construction Engineer, but the equipment used is different from building a structure. The Miner Engineer deals only with Explosives... so this in reality is a Sapper. A Combat Engineer squad is embedded within Combat Infantry or units. Their role is to remove obstacles and destroy bunkers... They also will fight like regular infantry. Engineers are part of the Resource or Supply Section, which also delivers supplies (Ammo) to the troops on the front lines by way of Cargo Trucks or other similar vehicles. Usually units on the front have their own Ammo Dump they pull from rather than directly from a truck. But the current system works as it is, so there is no need to add another layer of Ammo Supply.
Whether or not the other Supplies are added, is a discussion within the membership. Long Missions in my mind must have ammo more frequently than other supplies. But Fuel is also a resource that could be required if tanks are moving over a vast area.
Sine the new map System will support maps up to 64 x 64... the battlefield can be twice the size of what we have now. Does this increase constitue enough reason to add fuel? That should be considered. Weapon ranges and sight will certainly need be changed or adjusted. There is not a way to perform these changes on a single resource value, so each will need attention by hand.
In many ways... Generation II is a MegaSize Blitzkrieg. The main purpose was to add some of the missing functions we all wanted. As I began to explore the Game Code, I found many opportunities for changes. Where we go is subjective at the moment.. until the Community sounds off. If there is not a lot of interest, then a watered down version might be all that is released. In many ways, the game will be a new game... perhaps what BKII should have been.
Going back to ariete's statement about the Imperium Series.... I have only played Imperium Romanum but did not like the game mechanics. I prefered more battle situations than what it had to offer. It is mild compared to Blitzkrieg and only differs in Resource Management which is a big part of the game. Other games also depend more on Resource Management than doing battle, which also do not get my attention. The combination of Resource Management with Blitzkrieg-type Battles is what I prefer. So I am a Logistics player who like the challenge of maintaining your army's needs.
In reality, only a few games have reached this level of play. Sid Meier released Gettysburg back in the days of Windows 95/98... and we really have not seen the same level it reached 20 years ago in modern games. What Sid did for his first commercial success was amazing. If you have not played it, you missed a great game. So far, it has not been updated for Windows XP or Windows 7. The counterpart game he released, Antietam, has been updated for Windows 7. It uses the very same game engine and graphical options. Like Gettysburg, the battlefield never changes, but every game is different. For a game of that age, it was easy to MOD, which was not often seen in those days.
Sid, bring it back man... you are missing the big bucks... lol.
|
|
atlas555
General
I know not what course others may take. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by atlas555 on Nov 9, 2015 15:30:42 GMT 1
Making the AI more intuitive is an outstanding idea, yes, I do trick the enemy AI into attacking my kill zone if possible. For example laying a minefield and using a kubelwagon, whatever to lure them into it, then just picking them off.
Ammo is important and with larger maps, perhaps fuel. How would I know I need fuel? I always restock ammo after every encounter now. That would not change for me.
Food and water are not important at all. Large units could take forever to resupply with food and water in my opinion, going from man to man.
DO NOT want 20 min. days and nights as VO described-do not really want night at all.
Recovery vehicles would be cool-with minor repairs performed in the field. Do not want to be hauling in tanks to have barrels changed-usually have enough to worry about as it is.
As I stated before morale is up to me not for the game.
Linking maps together would be a big plus and move closer to a dynamic campaign\chapter. Our current map makers are the best this game has produced yet, I don't want the system so complicated that we get only one or two maps a year-I am only going to live so long.
I hate the term "watered down", this is not the case as I see it-lets enhance the positive aspects and work on taking out the stupid stuff like truck going to enemy supply dumps and tanks unable to push any wrecks ect.
I have enough to think of now on maps-remembering I am the battalion CO, the junior officers, and the squad leader all in one person. I play to fight and win the map-not spend my time as a supply NCO.
Enhance it, correct the obvious problems, make the AI more intuitive, and lets roll!
|
|
atlas555
General
I know not what course others may take. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by atlas555 on Nov 9, 2015 15:53:01 GMT 1
I have probably missed this in your explanations Major-with larger maps are we going with MK ranges on weapons or some modified between vanilla and MK? My preference is MK ranges. I like to reach out and touch someone.
|
|
|
Post by ogmodon on Nov 9, 2015 15:53:08 GMT 1
Now that's what I call people like talking. Any news about Jimmies, oh, Major World Famous Pain, great sir of Maya kingdom?)))
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Nov 9, 2015 17:50:30 GMT 1
lol... great posts Atlass... Yes the Jimmies are mostly complete and now in BETA. The delay was caused by change in the model Parent-Child Relationship. What always seem to work in the Tanks Viewer does not necessarily mean it works in the game. There is a common arbitrary part that was common and vital for the Series... Glass, like the side windows and front windscreen (windshield). All of the 18 trucks are basically the CCKW 353 with the cargo bed, but each is different. Each truck has GLASS which made the transparency issue a real big issue. What I found within my own xml Builder as well as the Resource Editor, the Glass had to exist as a 4th Level Child in order work properly. Originally I had calculated GLASS only had to be a 2nd Level Child which was far easier to achieve. But this did not work in the game as to the transparency or how the model was displayed. The GLASS ensemble actually caused the model to break apart in the game, not as it was used, but the way it appeared. So this had to be changed. It was not until I had rebuilt the first one when I noticed the glass was not working correctly. As a 2nd Level Child, it hid the Driver and Gunner through the glass. This also had to be changed. All changes have been made with only some minor cleanup remaining. There is also another aspect to these trucks. In 1943, GMC made a drastic change to the CCKWs as well as the Chevy 504 Series. The original cab had been the commercial cab from the 1940 GMC and Chevy trucks... these required a lot of metal. So by order of the Government, the cabs were changed to an Open Cab design. Studebaker, REO, Diamond, Mack, and International did the same, using the GMC design as their own basis for prototypes. At the same time, the all-steel beds were changed to mostly wood on steel stringers and mounts. This saved a lot of metal and lightened the vehicles by several thousands of pounds. The changes were also cost effective for the factories. One interesting note was on the Studebakers. Since most of these were sent to Russia by way of the Lend Lease, the STUDER soon became the favorite truck of the army drivers. But because Russian Winters were so cold, the Open Cab Design even with the canvas doors and cab canvas roofs... were not enough to withstand the frigid temperatures. So the Russians requested that all Studebakers have the Commercial Cab installed, and the US made the exception. All other users were provided the Open Cab design, like the UK and Commonwealth. The US soldiers also experienced the cold extremes with the newer cabs, but found ways to beef up the heaters to overcome the deficiencies. So within this Series, just like in Series I, we find both Cab Designs, each with their own details. One major difference in these Trucks are what the mission they perform is based on. They are either a Cargo Truck or Troop Carrier, but never both. This can easily be changed within the 1.xml for those that do not like this adaptation. Perhaps the most Important aspect of these trucks is each is armed with the Browning .50 cal MG. There are three typical mountings that I employed: Dash Mounted which meant the window had to be folder out of the way. These models are designated by the d at the end of their name. All d models are Cargo Trucks, which means they only resupply ammo... (this is based on GEN II purposes). The Gunner sits in the front right passenger seat. Ring Mounted: This was perhaps the most common Mounting of the Browning. These trucks required the Ring Mounting Structure which had two primary designs. I used the original design from 1942, and not the 1944 design which used less material. Since these were used on both the Commercial Cab and the Open Cab, only the cabs were different with all other aspects remaining the same. The Commerical cab had a Hole cut into the cab roof for access to the gun. When not in use, the hole Ring was covered by a small tarp. These trucks are always Troop Carriers. Bed Mounted: These were the 2nd most used mountings. The gun could be easily removed to a tripod stand nearby to protect the Truck and crew when it was idle or loading. These models are also Troop Carriers only. Unlike other bed mounted guns, the guns were actually mounted to the front Stakes top Boards, which were reinforced to put up with the gun torque. Some trucks did use the Pedestal Mount but it took up more space on the troop carriers and was more of a hassle on the cargo carriers. There is a Quad 4 Model which uses the same Weapon as the M3 Halftrack GMC M16. This weapon was completely overhauled for the Dodge WC Series, and may be used in a M3 Update since some of the AA Guns did not perform well. Testing reveals it works much better than before. The Infantry Riders have been built for up to 13 members... (US Marines). The US Army Squad was 12 men. Early squads had only 10. The trick here is to store more units in each of the 6 profiles. So I reduced each profile by 3 or 4 soldiers until I get to 2 on the 2p.mod. It very much appears like a hoard of guys jumping on the truck in a few seconds. That is exactly what I wanted it to look like. Unloading takes just about 2 seconds longer... "guys just will not get out of the way when I want to jump off." These are based on the new Lighter Soldier Design, lighter meaning file size of the each soldier is reduced to about 90kb rather than 130kb. Each soldier has a prescribed Weapon, the M1 Garand, the BAR or the Thompson MG. Each pose is different... actually 5 poses within the group. These were shown on the previous page under "meet the guys". At the BK scale, this is not truly appreciated... but I wanted to spice it up anyway. So this Series is a break-away in some ways... which is a different way of modeling for me. This Series has been redesigned as Series II Models, but they will actually compliment the Series I trucks. The size and appearance is much the same. Only the cabs got the total facelift with the Transparent GLASS. The beds were changed slightly to allow for both the Steel and Wood versions. The only difference in the Bed parts is the Top Plate found on the Steel beds. The wood beds did not have this. So if you wish to include all of the Wood bed models, the Series would jump to 32 models. I'll let the community decide where this goes. The Steel Bed can double as wood if someone wishes to do that. There are as many versions of the bed as one's imagination wishes to pursue, but I only use 6 within the Series. 1. Cargo Bed - Fully Enclosed with canvas // Both the Winch (B) and non-winch models (A) created 2. Troop Bed - Canvas Top and Front, no canvas in rear. //Both the Winch (B) and non-winch (A) models created 3. Cargo Bed - Open showing cargo in bed // Both Winch (W) and non-winch (C) models created. 4. Troop bed- Open showing benches and riders. // Both Winch (W) and non-winch (C) models created. 5. Cargo Bed - No Stakes sides... Open bed, shows cargo with tarp covering. 6. Gun Bed - The Quad 4 Weapon uses this Bed... no stake sides, (except front), or canvas. Other Trucks that can be built in this Series: CCKW-D = Fuel Tanker - Two 600 gallon Fuel Tanks mounted on a Flat Work Bed. CCKW-E = Airfield Tanker - A single 750 Fuel Tank for Airfields and runways. CCKW-F = The Shop Bed. There were at least five versions of the Shop Bed on each Cab version. Engineer and Medical Trucks derive from these models. CCKW-G = Water Tanker. A Single 800 gallon Water Tank mounted on a customized work bed. CCKW-J = Wrecker Bed. A Wrecker Bed that can Tow vehicles of similar weight. There were far more versions of the CCKW than listed here. Many were field adapted for specific roles. Many had extra Guns mounted. The Red Ball Express used more of the Jimmys than any other truck model as it raced across Normandy to provide supplies to Patton. At the peak, the Red Ball Express operated just short of 6000 trucks and moved 12,500 tons of supplies each day for about 90 days. No one has tried to replicate this endeavor... it should be built... More later...
|
|
|
Post by ogmodon on Nov 9, 2015 18:51:07 GMT 1
Gee, thanks MP. Those sure look more than great!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 13:54:13 GMT 1
In what way infantry AI can be changed? Behavior, tactical etc? I still have no clear view in what is possible. Furthermore, what can be done with the vehicles? Can crew mount/leave a tank, hatch open/closed, visible damage after hit, but still capable of moving the unit..or when tracks are damaged, rolling of the wheel.. And is it possible to implement cuppola sound? Infantry on guns, make all the same movement; is it possible to man these guns with more variety? Infantry dig in...possible? Dynamic ground texture; now hills have not a real function, as the enemy can spot units behind a hill; can this be changed. Objects: When infantry hides behind objects, it gives no cover; can this be changed as well?
|
|
|
Post by gagarin on Nov 11, 2015 15:39:17 GMT 1
In what way infantry AI can be changed? Behavior, tactical etc? I still have no clear view in what is possible. Furthermore, what can be done with the vehicles? Can crew mount/leave a tank, hatch open/closed, visible damage after hit, but still capable of moving the unit..or when tracks are damaged, rolling of the wheel.. And is it possible to implement cuppola sound? Infantry on guns, make all the same movement; is it possible to man these guns with more variety? Infantry dig in...possible? Dynamic ground texture; now hills have not a real function, as the enemy can spot units behind a hill; can this be changed. Objects: When infantry hides behind objects, it gives no cover; can this be changed as well? I would be interested to hear answers to these questions. Although a few I know the answer, and without Major.
|
|
|
Post by Scyooff on Nov 11, 2015 20:45:47 GMT 1
the enemy can spot units behind a hill; can this be changed. Objects: When infantry hides behind objects, it gives no cover; can this be changed as well? Yes gagarin these things can be corrected by the stalingrad ailogic.dll
|
|
|
Post by gagarin on Nov 11, 2015 22:12:19 GMT 1
the enemy can spot units behind a hill; can this be changed. Objects: When infantry hides behind objects, it gives no cover; can this be changed as well? Yes gagarin these things can be corrected by the stalingrad ailogic.dll If the "bind" the file (ailogic.dll) "Stalingrad" and "Caribbean crisis" - can obtain interesting results. I already asked a question about Major independent infantry entrenchment (both in the the Cuban missile crisis), but did not get a direct answer. Excuse me for saying. I know a bit about the game settings, and reading the text, I see some goofs (such as in tow a damaged vehicle). My attitude to Generation II is very skeptical. Anyway, to the first independent test (which is also silent). Without extensive, permanent test - it is useless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 23:28:45 GMT 1
the enemy can spot units behind a hill; can this be changed. Objects: When infantry hides behind objects, it gives no cover; can this be changed as well? Yes gagarin these things can be corrected by the stalingrad ailogic.dll You're sure? :/ I have this ailogic.dll but I had the idea infantry was still spotted.. But maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 23:37:04 GMT 1
Yes gagarin these things can be corrected by the stalingrad ailogic.dll If the "bind" the file (ailogic.dll) "Stalingrad" and "Caribbean crisis" - can obtain interesting results. I already asked a question about Major independent infantry entrenchment (both in the the Cuban missile crisis), but did not get a direct answer. Excuse me for saying. I know a bit about the game settings, and reading the text, I see some goofs (such as in tow a damaged vehicle). My attitude to Generation II is very skeptical. Anyway, to the first independent test (which is also silent). Without extensive, permanent test - it is useless. I can imagine the skeptical thoughts. Over time there have been launched many ideas/possibilities, but therefore I lost track. Maybe we cannot see the wood through the trees anymore...Dutch saying, maybe it is an idea to start with a very 'simple' GenII. If a few of the mentioned ideas can proved to work, it would already be a huge leap forward in gameplay. Say: a towing possibility, infantry entrenchment and units capable of mounting abandoned vehicles. I think this would be enough to get the crowd go wild. Then undoubtly there is a boost to work further on the Gen II...
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Nov 12, 2015 2:43:54 GMT 1
I let you guys toss some things around to see what you all came up with.
The discussion seems to have stimulated some deep thought, that I really wanted to see.
The Stallingrad files will not resolve heights or behind hills issues. The game engine just barely reads height differences now. The main focus of that file is checking objects which have mass.
Hills certainly have mass, but not in enigma. The terrain is not read that way, and uses another method based on the tiles. So it is the tiles that we would have to provide mass to. This is something that I have not yet explored.
Towing vehicles, is not a big issue. In the original game, we can tow guns, but the tricks is not the type of unit it is, but the binary which uses a unique undocumented code.
This is easy to spot in their xml file under Commands (146). The only thing left to do is open a path for other unit types to be towed through the code, which has been done and working.
The other trick is to not let HP ever get to "0". As long as HP is at least 1 or higher, the model can be towed. Under the new crew system, the crew does not have to be present to tow any unit. Or if we replicate guns, we can assign the crew before we tow. That really does not matter.
Preventing HP from becoming 0 is simply a check that looks at it, and if a hit will force the HP to 0 or less, it catches it and forces the value to 1. The code is already there and the default is 0. So this was a minor change.
The next issue is setting the ranges of damage where specific thing occur.
85-100 max attack capable
70-84 tracks off/or tires flat- turret and guns still function.
55-69 damage includes crewman-weapons now limited.
40-54 crew begins to dismount-weapons fail
1-39 just more damage
At some predefined point, the unit will become neutral.. most likely when the crew is out of and away from the unit... or dead.
Remember, neutral objects can be, captured unless crew is present or units within a preset range of distance from the unit. So as long as the player or AI can keep units within a distance, they can recover the unit with a wrecker or ARV.
Again, this code exists, same as artillery. We just have to expand the purpose of the code. Plus, crews benefit from armor while inside. Crews do not benefit on soft targets like trucks. This data is the same as the armor values in the object xml.
Armor on infantry works differently with only a single value. So we take the overall total of the max armor and divide by 4. We don't use top or bottom.
A round that penetrates the armor would likely kill crew menbers. That round might also inflict more than a loss of 50 HPs to the tank for example. The tank is basically disabled so the remaining crew is going to dismount.
These are the types of functions that are fairly easy to change.
The chain of command system is a huge leap forward, but felt it had to be explored.
This is where functions like moral show up. The original command structure in BK was watered down to 2 officers. The Squad and one step up.
They dropped it mostly because several issues had not been solved. And time I'm sure also was part of the reason.
Most of what I'm seeing is a preference for expanding command functions, but no Command Chain. So that is where I will focus.
First Alpha might be around mid December if I can get it put together.
|
|
atlas555
General
I know not what course others may take. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.
Posts: 1,069
|
Post by atlas555 on Nov 12, 2015 15:52:35 GMT 1
Major, I do agree with VO on releasing a Gen II "lite" and then build up from there.
|
|