Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

The projects speaking tube.
Add your two cents if you want to.
Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 17 May 2018, 21:40

Ok so just had a go at that and with specific regards to flamers, I'm finding it difficult to sustain an attack, because they are simply going down to fast, firepower wise there not to bad, they are also reasonable on the defensive if you tell then to hold position and support them with mobile repair units but on the attack they're just not durability enough and if you meet even moderate resistance like you do upon engaging with there first base you will only get about 5 to 10 seconds before your flamers start hitting the 50% damage mark and you have to fall back for repair to avoid having units killed, now maybe this will be less of an issue later on once you have heaver bodies and better propulsion but for the time being flamers on viper bodies and wheels are simply to easy to kill and this is when I am supporting them with 4 mobile repair units, so I'd recommend maybe making them a bit tougher.

With regards to the spawn rate of the scav factories, while the initial engagement with there garrison units can be a bit of a swine because you get hit by quiet a lot of units in a relatively short space of time, once you clear there garrison units, it's not so bad as long as you remember to leave a squad of units at the entrance to your base supported by a couple of mobile repair units or a few guard towers supported by trucks because they will send groups up to your base fairly frequently so I think it would probably be ok to turn up the scav's production slightly, at least on the higher difficult settings.

with regards to scav research what did you have in mind ??

also talking of research might be an idea to unlock flamer turrets for the player a bit sooner because by the time you get them they largely useless since the range on them is to short and the enemy units are simply to strong but they might be of benefit to the player if you got flamer turrets a bit sooner on say alpha 1/2 maybe, and then increased there default range so that the computer can't out range them, because I think that's why MG towers had there range increased to stop scav's out ranging them.

I haven't actually tested guard towers yet because normally i just defend my base with a second squad of units because historically turrets where always useless due to the fact that they could be out ranged by most weapons which i think is something that is going to need to be fixed for all turrets only artillery should be able to out range turrets otherwise they become largely useless but i figure this is something that can be dealt with level by level.

Talking of turrets another though occurs if you still feel like scav's are a bit easy did you ever consider making there bases more heavily fortified by increasing the number of turrets that each base has on harder difficulty settings so if on easy an average base has say 3 turrets on say insane you could increase that to say 6 that would certainly make enemy bases harder to assault, particularly if turrets are fixed so you can't out range them with anything other than artillery.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 18 May 2018, 00:15

Bethrezen wrote:Ok so just had a go at that and with specific regards to flamers, I'm finding it difficult to sustain an attack, because they are simply going down to fast, firepower wise there not to bad, they are also reasonable on the defensive if you tell then to hold position and support them with mobile repair units but on the attack they're just not durability enough and if you meet even moderate resistance like you do upon engaging with there first base you will only get about 5 to 10 seconds before your flamers start hitting the 50% damage mark and you have to fall back for repair to avoid having units killed
Increased flamer health so a viper wheels flamer is at 220 HP which is 15 points more than a viper wheels MG.
Bethrezen wrote: With regards to the spawn rate of the scav factories, while the initial engagement with there garrison units can be a bit of a swine because you get hit by quiet a lot of units in a relatively short space of time, once you clear there garrison units, it's not so bad as long as you remember to leave a squad of units at the entrance to your base supported by a couple of mobile repair units or a few guard towers supported by trucks because they will send groups up to your base fairly frequently so I think it would probably be ok to turn up the scav's production slightly, at least on the higher difficult settings.
A lot of times I rarely saw any units even on insane. Modified Alpha 2 factories to produce slightly faster.
Bethrezen wrote: with regards to scav research what did you have in mind ??
I was thinking range upgrades. Instead, I settled on a sole upgrade for flamer damage. I tried both MG and flamer damage, however, it was seriously hardcore unless you can handle unit movements and repair well.
Bethrezen wrote: also talking of research might be an idea to unlock flamer turrets for the player a bit sooner because by the time you get them they largely useless since the range on them is to short and the enemy units are simply to strong but they might be of benefit to the player if you got flamer turrets a bit sooner on say alpha 1/2 maybe, and then increased there default range so that the computer can't out range them, because I think that's why MG towers had there range increased to stop scav's out ranging them.
You mean a flamer tower? I added a research for one after engineering and flamer. It has longer range, slower ROF, and does more damage than the vehicle variant.
camBalance.wz
(67.25 KiB) Downloaded 10 times

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 18 May 2018, 14:08

You mean a flamer tower? I added a research for one after engineering and flamer. It has longer range, slower ROF, and does more damage than the vehicle variant.
I was actually thinking of the flame bunker that you get on alpha 05, although since they require hardcrete to build that's impractical since you don't get hardcrete till later, so it would have to be the scav flame towers instead.

The point i was making about flame bunkers being largely useless can be seen quite nicely on beta 1 in all the times i have played beat 01 i have never seen those flame bunkers fire a single shot, and even if they weren't getting bombed by the collective mortars, they would still be useless and would still never file a single shot since even the lowly machine-gun out ranges them and even if range wasn't an issue and even if they weren't getting bombed by the collective mortars they would still be useless just like the flame turrets for your tanks where becaue they are simply to weak.

now that's less of an issue against scav's but for flame bunkers to be remotely useful against new paradigm units they need to be significantly stronger, and have there range increased so they can't be out ranged although I'm getting a head of my self a bit there, having said that if the player is getting flame towers then again they will need to have the same range as the MG towers or the scav's will just out range them so they will never fire a single shot just like the flame bunkers on beta 01

Although having the flame towers range increased to the same as MG towers plus a damage upgrade will help to make flame towers more threatening to both the player and the computer.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 18 May 2018, 17:12

So just given the latest adjustments a go, and the increase of health for flamers seems to of done the trick I didn't have any issues sustaining an attack with them now when supported with mobile repair units.

Tried out the flamer towers but I think they need the range increasing slightly more because the scav buggies are still able to out range them just barely.

with regards to the spawn rate on the scav factories i think that can probably be turned up a little more, because once you clear out there garrison units and you knock out the first 2 bases the one at the entrance of the canyon and the one on the ridge overlooking your base, you hardly see any units, I'd also perhaps experiment with adding a few more turrets at the scav bases to make them a little more challenging to take down at least on the harder difficulties any way because 18 flamers make pretty short work of the scav bases and if i was to attack with both of my flamer squad and machine-gun squad at the same time they would be toast, but of course that's a bit over kill you don't need 36 units to win the level 18 is more than enough.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 18 May 2018, 18:04

Bethrezen wrote:Tried out the flamer towers but I think they need the range increasing slightly more because the scav buggies are still able to out range them just barely.
Done.
Bethrezen wrote: with regards to the spawn rate on the scav factories i think that can probably be turned up a little more, because once you clear out there garrison units and you knock out the first 2 bases the one at the entrance of the canyon and the one on the ridge overlooking your base, you hardly see any units, I'd also perhaps experiment with adding a few more turrets at the scav bases to make them a little more challenging to take down at least on the harder difficulties any way because 18 flamers make pretty short work of the scav bases and if i was to attack with both of my flamer squad and machine-gun squad at the same time they would be toast, but of course that's a bit over kill you don't need 36 units to win the level 18 is more than enough.
Faster factory production. As for adding defenses to bases, I could try populating defenses around the cleanup areas on harder difficulties.

Also, there is a new libcampaign cheat you can use for powering though missions. Type "research available" while in cheat mode and it researches all the research that you have available at the time of calling it.
camBalance.wz
(67.25 KiB) Downloaded 11 times

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 18 May 2018, 20:17

Also, there is a new libcampaign cheat you can use for powering though missions. Type "research available" while in cheat mode and it researches all the research that you have available at the time of calling it.
interesting quick question how is that different from the work harder cheat which will instantly finish any active research.

[edit]
err ok I can't seem to get that cheat to do anything, so it might be an idea to change the trigger word "research available" to something easier to spell because I can't spell to save my life and every time i try i keep getting the spelling wrong, and unfortunate unlike my browser the wz console doesn't have a spell checker. :annoyed:

maybe try changing research "research available" to "research all" or just modify the work harder cheat so that it will instantly research all your current research projects instead of it just instantly finishing your currently active research, which then results in you having to type work harder multiple times.

pastdue
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 118
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 17:44

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by pastdue » 18 May 2018, 23:09

Bethrezen wrote: Ok so think i may have just hit up on a solution to the computability issue, I just download the latest master and as expected it wouldn't load, but i then deleted the warzone2100_portable.exe from that master and replaced it with the older one from warzone2100-master-20180204-051309-ab17b9b.exe and surprise surprise the game actually loaded so it seems that what ever it is that's preventing the latest masters loading for me is within the games main exe

now obviously because there have been significant changes since warzone2100-master-20180204-051309-ab17b9b.exe simply switching out the new warzone2100_portable.exe with the old warzone2100_portable.exe isn't an option as that causes assorts of other issues.

However that got me wondering what if only the games main exe needs to be compiled for XP ?
That is indeed the core of the issue we've been working on. 8)

We're getting closer and closer to building for Windows on Windows (with MSVC), which enables us to also easily use Qt 5.6 (which still supports Windows XP). The main remaining blocker is this vcpkg issue: https://github.com/Microsoft/vcpkg/pull/1732 , as vcpkg is required for our dependency build toolchain on Windows, but it looks like it's nearing completion.

Concurrently, I've been working to reduce the Qt dependency, so we can one day be rid of it entirely (which will eliminate a multi-GB dependency for development / building). It's not great to be stuck on Qt 5.6 just for Windows XP, as newer Qt versions have various bug fixes / improvements we can't take advantage of.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 19 May 2018, 00:16

That is indeed the core of the issue we've been working on. 8)

We're getting closer and closer to building for Windows on Windows (with MSVC), which enables us to also easily use Qt 5.6 (which still supports Windows XP). The main remaining blocker is this vcpkg issue: https://github.com/Microsoft/vcpkg/pull/1732 , as vcpkg is required for our dependency build toolchain on Windows, but it looks like it's nearing completion.
Good to know ya making progress.
Concurrently, I've been working to reduce the Qt dependency, so we can one day be rid of it entirely (which will eliminate a multi-GB dependency for development / building). It's not great to be stuck on Qt 5.6 just for Windows XP, as newer Qt versions have various bug fixes / improvements we can't take advantage of.
I know this might sound like a bit of a stupid question but does that really matter if the code base isn't actually using any of the new APIs? i mean i know from a support stand point that XP is considered to be an obsolete system now and maybe this is just the pragmatist in me talking but if what you have is adequate for the task then is there really any need to upgrade ??

I mean why get a £100,000 Porch when a £20,000 Ford Focus will do the job just as well. i mean i know that a Porch is way cooler and faster and has a whole bunch of bells and whistles that the focus doesn't but is that really reason enough to dump you reliable old focus ?

I mean ok look I'll grant you that cars are not quite the same thing but you get the point, newer isn't necessarily better.

pastdue
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 118
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 17:44

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by pastdue » 19 May 2018, 03:07

Bethrezen wrote:
Concurrently, I've been working to reduce the Qt dependency, so we can one day be rid of it entirely (which will eliminate a multi-GB dependency for development / building). It's not great to be stuck on Qt 5.6 just for Windows XP, as newer Qt versions have various bug fixes / improvements we can't take advantage of.
I know this might sound like a bit of a stupid question but does that really matter if the code base isn't actually using any of the new APIs? i mean i know from a support stand point that XP is considered to be an obsolete system now and maybe this is just the pragmatist in me talking but if what you have is adequate for the task then is there really any need to upgrade ??

I mean why get a £100,000 Porch when a £20,000 Ford Focus will do the job just as well. i mean i know that a Porch is way cooler and faster and has a whole bunch of bells and whistles that the focus doesn't but is that really reason enough to dump you reliable old focus ?

I mean ok look I'll grant you that cars are not quite the same thing but you get the point, newer isn't necessarily better.
It matters quite a bit.

First, let's dive into some technical details about the Qt issue:

There are several problems with sticking with Qt 5.6 indefinitely:
  • Bugs in Qt components we currently use will no longer be fixed
  • Security issues in Qt components we currently use will no longer be fixed
  • Features in newer versions we may want / need (but will never get on Qt 5.6)
  • Support for newer OS versions / newer hardware / etc
Qt 5.6 only receives bug and security fixes until 16.03.2019. After that point, no further bugs in Qt 5.6 will be fixed, nor any security issues (unless paying for extended support). We simply can't stick with this version safely after it is no longer receiving security patches (especially given which components WZ uses, and the fact that WZ can load mods, has network play, etc).

Qt 5.6 also isn't going to receive enhancements to support newer OS versions, including newer versions of Windows. This may result in compatibility issues that we can't fix while also staying on Qt 5.6. (Often, new API usage is required to properly support new OS versions - and in this case, I mean by Qt itself.) I am already aware of several problems that we simply can't fix in WZ until we either upgrade or replace Qt 5.6.

If we're stranded on the island that is Qt 5.6 indefinitely, we're stuck with more and more issues and problems that we can't fix... because the fix is to use a newer Qt version that fixes them by doing things better.

---

More generally, this is similar to the discussion about staying on Windows XP.

At this point, it is trivial for someone to exploit a Windows XP system and steal all of your data / passwords / private info. Or to compromise it and use it to attack other devices on your local network or on the Internet. And it only gets easier, day by day.

A lot of that is because it simply lacks the underlying features that modern OSes use to provide much stronger security (and, as a result, privacy) guarantees - some of those are specific features, and others are a result of accumulated better knowledge about how to make secure code and system design. The bad guys have gotten smarter, the tools they use have gotten more powerful, and Windows XP isn't getting any additional improvements. Ever.

So the disparity between the increasing power of bad actors and the power you have to protect yourself while running Windows XP is only getting worse and worse. You don't have to change a thing, and you're still at greater risk every day because Windows XP isn't keeping up with everything else.

Or, to respond directly to a choice quote:
if what you have is adequate for the task then is there really any need to upgrade ??
If the task never changes, maybe not.

But the task changes. Sometimes because a new requirement is added (like "works properly with <new Windows version / feature / hardware>", sometimes because a new discovery necessitates change (like "isn't vulnerable to a new class of attacks").

And so what once was adequate, soon won't be (if it already isn't).

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 19 May 2018, 13:27

You make a fair point and I guess I hadn’t really considered that someone might be able to exploit multiplayer or mods to infect some ones system, I guess in my case that’s not rely a big issue since I don’t play multiplayer and don’t generally run mods either.

I only really use this computer for gaming, surfing the web or doing work for college which doesn't really require an extreme level of security, just a basic firewall and malware scanner is sufficient, and if my computer starts acting strangely and I suspect that it might be infected then I'll simply wipe the whole system and do a full reset with true image as that’s the only way to be sure your system is clean.

Now obviously if I was doing something that required a high level of security like banking for example then obviously doing that on XP is a really bad idea for all the reasons you already stated, but if you are just gaming and surfing the web and doing work for college like me then you are probably ok as long as you take some precautions which you should be taking anyway no matter what system you are running.

I mean I ran win 98se for years after support ended and never had a problem, hell I'd probably still be running that if this computer didn’t come with a copy of xp because I just can't afford to upgrade and I don’t like Linux, not to mention getting drivers and the like can be a pain, and when all your software is written for xp or older then getting it to work can be a real hassle as well.

I looked in to windows 10 but the performance was just awful, its was slow as molasses, and trying to get stuff like my graphics card working was just not happening because I can't find drivers, and I can't afford to get a new graphics card at the moment because i would also have to buy a new monitor as modern graphics cards no longer have VGA ports and of course this monitor being an older CRT type connects via VGA unfortunately my other monitor broke and had to be thrown away because it couldn't be fixed and of course I couldn't afford to replace it just as I can't afford to buy a copy of win 7 or 8 or buy a new graphics card, all of these things are on the to do list but that will depend on if and/or when I can actually find a job.

So at the mo I don’t really have a better option, it does mean that I have to be more vigilant about scanning my computer on a regular basis, scanning any downloads, running with stuff like no script which helps to shut down a lot of the ways someone might try to compromise my computer, but to be fair this is stuff you should be doing anyway if your going to have a computer connected to the internet.

I guess it all comes down to risk management, I mean even just leaving the house can be risky and dangerous you might get mugged, or run over or hit by lightening, or have any one of a 1000 other bad things happen to you but as long as you are aware of the risks and take appropriate precautions then chances are you'll never have a problem, and I look at running xp the same way I'm aware of the fact that its an outdated system and that connecting an xp computer to the net can be dangerous, but as long as you understand the risks and take appropriate precautions (like not doing anything like online banking that require high level security), then you'll probably be ok.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 19 May 2018, 20:38

ok so just given that latest round of changes a go, and actually it's not bad for difficulty now, you really notice the quicker spawns at the start of the level when all 3 factories are operating and you have to be careful because that massed MG file will chew your units up pretty quick, but once you level the first 2 bases it's not so bad.

my main gripes now are issues caused by the alterations to the hold state which make controlling my units far more difficult then it should be and results in a butt ton more unnecessary micro management which is incredibly frustrating.

My other gripe is an issue caused by pathing which results in loosing units because the range on mobile repair units is a bit to short and often times your mobile repair units can't actually get past which results in you loosing units even when you have several mobile repair units with you.

Talking of which did you ever discover a way to make the range on your mobile repair units and builders a bit longer to compensate for pathing issues ? if not then what do you think to the idea of just scraping mobile repair units and simply replacing them with auto repair from the multi player tech tree so that units can just fix them selves ?

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 19 May 2018, 23:11

Bethrezen wrote:Talking of which did you ever discover a way to make the range on your mobile repair units and builders a bit longer to compensate for pathing issues ? if not then what do you think to the idea of just scraping mobile repair units and simply replacing them with auto repair from the multi player tech tree so that units can just fix them selves ?
Unfortunately, I didn't find any way to mod it. Giving auto-repair just seems too big of a change and breaks the story because that would be far too advanced for the Project to even conceive of in Alpha/Beta. Such technology would have to be salvaged from Nexus.

I'll go on to Alpha 3. Will experiment with a MG damage and ROF upgrade for the scavengers. Not much else to say about that mission.

Then it's Alpha 4 which has the mortar and half-tracks. My plan is to give the last Alpha MG damage upgrade and the second flamer damage in this mission. And it leaves us to figure out potentially balancing artillery which could be tricky.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 20 May 2018, 14:34

Unfortunately, I didn't find any way to mod it. Giving auto-repair just seems too big of a change and breaks the story because that would be far too advanced for the Project to even conceive of in Alpha/Beta. Such technology would have to be salvaged from Nexus.
fair enough maybe that's something we can look at adding on gamma campaign then.
I'll go on to Alpha 3. Will experiment with a MG damage and ROF upgrade for the scavengers. Not much else to say about that mission.
with regards to alpha 03 I was having a think about that the other day and i have a couple of ideas why not give the scav's armoured trucks ? we know that scav units are basically repurposed civilian vehicles so its conceivable that they could of found and repurposed a few armoured trucks the sort of thing you see being used to bring money to banks, and these could serve as some slightly tougher enemy units, failing that you could always experiment with giving the scav's an armour upgrade to make them a little tougher since they don't have a factory on alpha 03.

you could also experiment with adding in a few turrets because they only have 1 if i recall rightly and you would think that they would at least set up a basic perimeter the same way we set up a few turrets around are LZ on away missions.

also taking of turrets might also be an idea to unlock heavy machine-gun bunkers for the player on alpha 03 which can them be replaced by the hardcrete versions on alpha 05, and do the same with the flamer towers and MG towers replace them with the hardcrete versions, when you research hardcrete and maybe just make that an automatic upgrade for mg towers, flame towers and heavy mg bunkers to save players a bit of time on the research since you already have enough research to do on alpha 05 as is.
Then it's Alpha 4 which has the mortar and half-tracks. My plan is to give the last Alpha MG damage upgrade and the second flamer damage in this mission. And it leaves us to figure out potentially balancing artillery which could be tricky.
Mortars always seemed ok to me balance wise because on alpha 05 you face off with the new paradigm for the first time and while it is only a lightly defended outpost taking that place head on with only light units can be some what tricky, especially since machine-guns have been nurfed against structures, having said that if you still think mortars are still to strong against structures then what you could do is adjust the modifiers a bit maybe make mortars slightly weaker against buildings like you did for machine-guns but slightly stronger against bunkers, because while 18 mortars will take out there hard points and other structure in relatively short order, mortars have almost no effect on bunkers and getting rid of them can be a real swine, of course now that flamers are working a bit better then maybe those MG bunkers wont be such a problem but guess we'll have to wait and see.

to be honest I'm of the opinion that the only reason mortars seem more powerful on master than they are on v1.10 is because on v1.10 mortars accuracy is absolutely horrendous and they cant hit the broad side of a barn and I'm so glad that's something that got fixed, although that does mean that there damage probably needs to be turned down slightly to compensate for the higher accuracy not sure if the damage was ever adjusted to account for the higher accuracy or not.

also what to you think to the idea of maybe adding another scav outpost on the ridge to the south of the new paradigm base on alpha 05?

Image

Doing that would also give you something to do while you are waiting for everything to research because you have like 20 minutes of research to do once you take down the new paradigm base, and siting there for like 20 minutes just doing research can be kind of boring.

I experimented with leaving the scav base that's already there intact but it's in to awkward a position and usually ends up getting destroyed while I'm trying to take down the new paradigm base.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 20 May 2018, 22:56

Bethrezen wrote:with regards to alpha 03 I was having a think about that the other day and i have a couple of ideas why not give the scav's armoured trucks ? we know that scav units are basically repurposed civilian vehicles so its conceivable that they could of found and repurposed a few armoured trucks the sort of thing you see being used to bring money to banks, and these could serve as some slightly tougher enemy units, failing that you could always experiment with giving the scav's an armour upgrade to make them a little tougher since they don't have a factory on alpha 03.

you could also experiment with adding in a few turrets because they only have 1 if i recall rightly and you would think that they would at least set up a basic perimeter the same way we set up a few turrets around are LZ on away missions.
I think the buses and firetrucks fit that role good enough. As you requested, I added a few defenses. We can always remove them later on in the mod if no one likes it.
Bethrezen wrote: also taking of turrets might also be an idea to unlock heavy machine-gun bunkers for the player on alpha 03 which can them be replaced by the hardcrete versions on alpha 05, and do the same with the flamer towers and MG towers replace them with the hardcrete versions, when you research hardcrete and maybe just make that an automatic upgrade for mg towers, flame towers and heavy mg bunkers to save players a bit of time on the research since you already have enough research to do on alpha 05 as is.
As a compromise I'll auto-replace the towers with hardcrete ones once the player researches hardcrete. Steel towers only get obsolete starting with Alpha 5, in my opinion.

For mortars I think we have to get farther into Alpha to decide on any balance. So far I have the modifiers against units as:

Code: Select all

"ARTILLERY ROUND": {
 "Half-Tracked": 100,
 "Hover": 120,     (150)
 "Legged": 150,   (200)
 "Lift": 100,
 "Tracked": 80, (100)
 "Wheeled": 130 (100)
},
With the numbers in parentheses being master if I changed anything.
Bethrezen wrote: also what to you think to the idea of maybe adding another scav outpost on the ridge to the south of the new paradigm base on alpha 05?
I'll try when I get to that mission. This missions going to be a big one cause we will have alfred007's cannon stat changes which should finally make light cannon useful.

This mod can go up to Alpha 4, if you wish, but I only just beat Alpha 3 and check its research.
camBalance.wz
(81.25 KiB) Downloaded 9 times

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 21 May 2018, 14:34

Ok so just given alpha 03 a go and have to say having them turrets scattered about certainly makes life a more challenging, although if you are attempting a full clear of the map you no longer have time to do so, and when I tried I came up about 5 to 6 minutes short.

Although I was using twin machine guns which are slower at removing turrets, so it might be possible to do a full clear a bit quicker if you used flamers, although flamers are weaker against units and tend to take damage more quickly, which results in more time being spent repairing so it may well average out to be about the same no matter what you use, I'm going to take another shot at it using flamers and see how things turn out.

I did notice one minor thing though my twin machine-gun units where able to out range the scav flamer towers, on both alpha 2 and 3 so they probably need to have there range extended slightly.

[edit]
Ok just had another go at alpha 03 using flamers this time and it seems I was right time wise I still came up short by around 5 to 6 minutes just the same as i did with twin machine-guns so it seems what you gain against buildings you loose in time spent getting repaired because flamers are more lightly armoured and take damage faster.

For my next test I'm going to try a half and half approach using 4 flamers and 4 twin machine-guns see how that turns out.

[edit]
so just finished the half and half run and again time wise it came out about the same short by about 5 to 6 minutes.

difficulty wise I'd say it wasn't to bad, using just flamers was probably the most difficult just because they are more lightly armoured so you have to take more care to avoid loosing units, using either twin machine-guns and the half and half approach where probably about the same for difficulty.

so overall I think you probably just need to adjust the range on the scav's flame towers, adjust the timer a bit and that should probably be fine.

I have to say them flame towers are kind of nasty.

[edit]
Just noticed another minor glitch the range on the heavy machine gun has been increased from 7.5 to 9.4 probably a side effect of adding the range upgrade for the machine gun and twin machine gun, so looks like you'll need to adjust the range on the heavy machine gun back down to 7.5, the rate of fire has also been increased from 85 to 107 although the damage is only 25 instead of 36 so think it might be ok to leave the rate of fire as is since even with the third damage upgrade its still probably going to end up weaker then it was previously.
As a compromise I'll auto-replace the towers with hardcrete ones once the player researches hardcrete. Steel towers only get obsolete starting with Alpha 5, in my opinion.
i see you decided to unlock heavy mg towers instead of heavy mg bunkers, a guess its neither here nor there, but I would have though it would make sense to unlock the heavy mg bunkers instead of the towers since the scav's don't use heavy mg towers, or not that I recall any way.

Post Reply