Possible multi turret solution

[tehloserer]

Oh, word. It sounded like he was making fun of Terminator. Sorry for the intrusion into this discussion. Next time I will try to bring more than support for two movements to not include.

[stiv]

I think Ouch's analogy deeply interesting, amusing and marked by a genuine wit to boot.

Interesting in the sense of revealing disturbing psychological quirks, maybe. But, being an analogy, it really doesn't add anything to the discussion of whether multi-turret adds something desirable to WZ game play or is merely a complication.

I would tend to agree that it is a pointless complication that adds little to the game and will need quite a bit of work to support properly.

[milo christiansen]

I want heavy arty that can also protect its self from minor threats with a mg like in the trunk build I have (r77... something)

[whippersnapper]

I think Ouch's analogy deeply interesting, amusing and marked by a genuine wit to boot....

Guess I did not explain my interpretation adequately since this was chosen as the start for a position I do not hold and will now subject to a deconstruction.... starting with -

Interesting in the sense of revealing disturbing psychological quirks, maybe.

Rest assured that a qualified professional mental health clinician would never make such a pronouncement based on obvious scant data even in the privacy of their own brain let alone in public. Ergo I take that as ad hominem. gussy-upped with a pseudo referent to.a legit scientific discipline.

Also, in the realm of out-of-the box, creative cogitation that could constitute part of a methodology known collectively as "lateral thinking" as per the field's founder, the internationally highly regarded Edward de Bono.

But, being an analogy, it really doesn't add anything to the discussion of whether multi-turret adds something desirable to WZ game play or is merely a complication.

Here I provide two references to better understand, impartially, what an "analogy" can mean broadly and within the realm of science because that statement is uninformed at best:

What is analogy ?

Special and General Relativity Analogies

....whether multi-turret adds something desirable to WZ game play or is merely a complication.

Anything added to the game since v.1.0 (including all subsequent Pumpkin patches) is by definition an added "complication".

"Desirable".... is in the main a subjective judgment. If you think it would be "desirable" and are willing to do the work necessary to make it viable and fun then there is no issue - that is if you are being strictly objective and not engaged in a "power" or control-over dynamic.

I would tend to agree that it is a pointless complication that adds little to the game and will need quite a bit of work to support properly.

We all are entitled to our opinions which is what the declaration "a pointless complication" amounts to. The key referent "pointless" is not supported by any data or logic that I can see - thus it's merely a declarative statement like: "Grapes are the best fruit on Earth !"

"Adds little to the game" .... based on what data since they have never been properly implemented in WZ ? At best this is a supposition yet subject to an objective metric if they are ever properly implemented.

".....will need quite a bit of work to support properly..." Yes, that I can agree with but if there are folks willing to do just that who am I to say "don't do it !"

As per my earlier post I can see the RL Military value of the modern multi-turrets designed and built by Defense Contractor BAE Systems and called the "Land System Dynamics Multi-Weapon Turret ICV’s/APC’s" - well over, say, the Soviet, 5-turreted, "T-35" design (in service 1935-41) or the British "Vickers A1E1 Independent" design..

As for seeing multi-turrets in WZ ? I can take 'em or leave 'em. But more to the point, I am not willing to invest myself in their implementation over other stuff I'm working on so if there are folks who want to do just that, then on what rational grounds would I get-off telling them not to do what they are willing and able to do for their own satisfaction-fun ? Then again the only power that interests me, that I pro-actively engage, is power over my own wherewithal - and NOT power over others in any way, shape or form...

Regards, whip
.
EDITS: Grammar, syntax, spelling...

[Zarel]

It is also amusing that thems that have never done a lick of any sort of WZ work doth protest the loudest. Or put another way - thems that contribute little beyond PoV statements seem to want most the power to control the game's fate and the work others are willing and able to do. I say that with a simple smile of "oh, well" and not a bone of contention or acrimony or snark. To me it's just a microcosm of the world at large and you just carry-on with what you are willing and able to do to contribute positively to the cause of evolving, edifying, fortifying, development...

Meh, I take issue with this. A lot of people who aren't developers/contributors can have good ideas about the game.

[whippersnapper]

It is also amusing that thems that have never done a lick of any sort of WZ work doth protest the loudest. Or put another way - thems that contribute little beyond PoV statements seem to want most the power to control the game's fate and the work others are willing and able to do. I say that with a simple smile of "oh, well" and not a bone of contention or acrimony or snark. To me it's just a microcosm of the world at large and you just carry-on with what you are willing and able to do to contribute positively to the cause of evolving, edifying, fortifying, development...

Meh, I take issue with this. A lot of people who aren't developers/contributors can have good ideas about the game.

True. But I was not referring to offering ideas in themselves but rather to let's say the "tone" or "disposition" of their presentation (especially within a blatant power framework which always operates independent of any merits statements may have without that power-to-control dynamic in-play by the self-anointed). I was not clear enough in that distinction and i thank you for bringing it to my attention and affording me the opportunity for this more lucid statement. xD

One quite obvious example of this (and of great value) would be cogent ideas-feedback from folks who play MP extensively but may not write code, make mods or maps. etc. On the other hand I've noted folks who are most opinionated about the sanctity of WZ game play generally have nil MP experience and it comes across as anything but useful if they are not clear in their own heads that Campaign Mode and MP Mode are not synonymous or interchangeable.

Another example off the top of my head would be Member Toricat's suggestion to make the Borg Transport. Now that was a good idea and Toricat didn't make maps or mods or code, just enjoyed playing WZ and hoped to see a more expansive game experience (she and her husband were officers in the military and also did some official beta-testing for MS so she did bring a certain maturity to the table of her feedback). BTW - 10 years after it's introduction in a Pumpkin patch the Troop Transport remains unfinished - doesn't even have a Command UI.

Regards, whip
.

[Avestron]

Perhaps I'm being a little too simplistic (which is why I've held back in this discussion) but perhaps the answers to this dilema are as follows:

1.) How to validly introduce multiple turrets to the game:

In my opinion the key to this issue is design of a turret that itself can support multiple weapon systems. A conceptually easy way to go about this is to have the turret itself be a seperate pie design into/ upon which other weapon systems are installed. This would generally require the weapons to strike targets more or less in the same arch (and why not unless you're embedding different systems into different parts of the vehicle body?)

2.) How to balance multi-turrets in the game:

I would say that the way to go about this is both through research and also cost. 5 different turrets as rough examples:

- The fixed emplacement - Effectively requiring a vehicle to orient itself for lateral aim. The turret is fixed and does not move except vertically (higher hp, max load, cheap, medium vertical re-orient, but no turning ability)

- the rotary prime turret - A regular turret - average hp, rotary 360 degrees, medium carry load, medium-fast reorient (leteral and vertical) - single weapon

- the guardian turret - improved rotary turret - improved hp, rotary 360 degrees, medium-heavy carry load - medium-re-orient - left primary weapon and right secondary weapon - expensive

- the assidius turret - improved rotary turret - improved hp, rotary 360 degrees, one primary weapon and two secondary weapons - medium-slow reorient - very expensive

- next gen turret - 1 primary weapon - good hp - 360 degrees, fast reorient and targeting -a little more pricey than rotary prime turret

- - - - -

Researches in miniaturization (thanks to improved vehicle alloys and research advancements) lead to certain more powerful non-bulky weapons like HPV and AA turrets being installable as secondary turrets.

I'd suggest a +50% power cost adjustment and a -15% firepower (or a -50% power cost and firepower (lancer)) adjustment (due to reduced mass of projectiles) to be suitable for this purpose.

Not all weapons would require this cost and power adjustment. A machine gun or a rocket pod would do just fine as a secondary turret.

Not all weapons may be miniaturized to a degree sufficient for a weapon to become a secondary weapon - No plasma cannons or howitzers on the side - however miniaturization would still permit a weapon to be mounted on a lighter body than normally permitted.

3.) Balancing multi turrets and cyborgs.

Cyborgs are an excellent guideline of what can or cannot be mounted as a secondary weapon as it could immediately be argued that cyborgs can only carry up to a single secondary weapon as an armament (eg. machine gun). Only advanced cyborgs may carry a single primary weapon (two handed) or dual secondary weapons (each arm) - and only a walker-class vehicle (incidentally perhaps the vehicle bodies could work for such mech-like designs - opening the way for cyborgs to be designed like vehicles) may carry both a primary weapon and a secondary weapon (or possibly two).

- - - - -

Just a few thoughts. ^_^

[Per]

Non-rotating weapons that require the vehicle to turn to fire have been tested in the past and always found wanting, both because it is somewhat annoying to play with, and because it is very hard to fire at a moving target when you have to turn the vehicle (slow) rather than a turret (fast) to aim.

As regards balancing, the worst is not, IMHO, the additional firepower, but the additional hitpoints. I remember fighting triple cannon turret tanks at some time, and they were almost invincible.

[Avestron]

Non-rotating weapons that require the vehicle to turn to fire have been tested in the past and always found wanting, both because it is somewhat annoying to play with, and because it is very hard to fire at a moving target when you have to turn the vehicle (slow) rather than a turret (fast) to aim.

I am quite sure that it would be an annoyance - hence why fixing the turret would confer certain benefits in durability - ultimately this was just an example turret - which could be the only configuration allowing certain over-bearing configurations (twin plasmas or quad configuration heavy cannons).

As regards balancing, the worst is not, IMHO, the additional firepower, but the additional hitpoints. I remember fighting triple cannon turret tanks at some time, and they were almost invincible.

I see - well this could be overcome through calculating hp as being a function of the turret. For instance:

Fixed turret = 1.5 x primary turret hp

Prime Turret = 1 x primary turret hp

Guardian Turret = 0.8 x primary turret hp + 0.4 x secondary turret hp

Assidius Turret = 0.7 x primary turret hp + 0.4 x secondary turret hp + 0.4 x secondary turret hp

Twin prime turret = 0.75 x primary turret + 0.75 x primary turret

- - - - -

Or alternatively:

Turret = turret adjusted multiple of 100 hp
Primary weapon = +1x weapon hp
Secondary weapon = 0.5 x weapon hp

So a Prime turret = 100hp x 0.75 turret adjustment = +75hp, add a twin assault cannon and its +475hp = +550hp
A Fixed turret = 100hp x 3.00 turret adjustment = +300hp, add a twin assault cannon and its +475hp = +775hp
So an Assidius turret = 100hp x 0.75 turret adjustment = +75hp, add a twin assault cannon and its +475hp, add two miniaturized HPV secondary cannons and its 2 x ((300 x 0.8 miniaturization) x 0.5) = +240hp = +790hp

... would turret templates solve this? Turret selection would come after body selection (itself after propulsion selection)

[Zarel]

Non-rotating weapons that require the vehicle to turn to fire have been tested in the past and always found wanting, both because it is somewhat annoying to play with, and because it is very hard to fire at a moving target when you have to turn the vehicle (slow) rather than a turret (fast) to aim.

As regards balancing, the worst is not, IMHO, the additional firepower, but the additional hitpoints. I remember fighting triple cannon turret tanks at some time, and they were almost invincible.

Ah, man, good thing they weren't multi Gauss Cannon tanks. They actually have more HP than a MkIV commander.

And there's the other problem, that rockets/missiles have been balanced by having significantly less HP than machinegun. Which means that putting both turrets on the same tank gets rid of the rocket's primary weakness, even if the MG is never used.

Not to mention how annoying it would be to play. How do you order only the rocket turrets to shoot one tank, but the MG turrets to shoot a cyborg?

[Deus Siddis]

So building on what whipper brought up, what if instead of multiple turrets like the first tanks, you could put more than one different weapon on a single turret like they do with modern AFVs?

[Thyranim]

attached a created 8-direction animation of the heavy twin-tank from Earth2150

it has 2 weaponslots for heavy-weapons (only heavy weapons).
but depending of the heavy-weapon it is possible, to place a light-weapon on top of the heavy-weapon, as to be seen in the animation
2 heavy twin-cannons, one with a twin-MG and one with a rocket-launcher

the turrets can be rotated only a small angel (20° in each direction? or something like that)
so driving in one direction and shooting to the rear is not possible for this tank (or better to say, for the heavy-weapons on this tank, the small weapons can rotate 360° each)
additionally the MG and rocket-launcher are able to shoot flying vehicles, while the heavy-cannons are not. so aiming a VTOL or helicopter will result in firing mg-bullets and rockets to the flying target, and firing heavy-cannon-shells at ground-targets at same time automatically
when manually aiming a ground target, all 4 weapons are firing the ground-target

for the thing of mixing heavy and light weapons: some heavy-weapons have the cappability to carry light-weapons on top, as here the heavy-twin-cannon
the heavy-rocket-launcher for example does not have this possibility becaus of it's beveled top
same for the earthquake-generator, it is to bulky to carry any more

more screenshots (heavy-tank with single weapon-slot or anything else) can be provied if wanted

PS: as i can see you have to click the attachment to see the tank in all directions

[eyestrain92]

Siding with Zarel, health associated with turrets makes anything more than two turrets over kill. I highly oppose the idea of anything short of say, being able to put an assault gun on a largely sized heavy cannon, gause cannon or other large turret, and I think before you think of "ZOMG weaps weaps weaps" let's think about just taking this step-by-step with a dose of reality to help our judgement?

Your generic main battle tank, nothing more than a large cannon with an anti-personnel gun with tracks. This is a good idea.

The above tank is... Let's just discard the idea of rolling fortresses, please.

Getting back to contributions, if it is possible in code, there could be a modifier to the weapons availible as secondary turrets, meaning that obese health advantage would be reduced or simply done away with. In regards to aiming, how do the defensive turrets in the game function? If we can make the turret on a seperate, static-yet-attached-to-the-tank-point, well, it may function similarly. Maybe we can look at the in-game transport for this?

Using only smaller weapons as secondary turrets to reduce but not eliminate weaknesses is something I'd like to see. Twin-heavy cannons, or Scourge... Seems a bit overkill to put two high-powered weapons on a mobile unit.

[Thyranim]

Don't know if you are relating to my post as "the" solution for multi-turret-tanks: i don't see it as this
yet because of the fact, that the "ural-tank" (picture above) in this configuration is a 4-turret-tank.
but i tried to show, how other games are solving the "multi turret"-problem for the clipping of one weapon inside another because of rotating turrets.
i don't want to see THIS tank in warzone that would be overwhelming xD


but i hope that i've understood you right of the "heavy+light"-weapon thingy you mentioned.
attached a new picutre from the same game with a normal (not dual) heavy tank.
Kaukasus Heavy Tank withTwin-Heavy-Cannon including Twin-Machinegun

transmitted into warzone-engine this would be a Python-Tracks with HeavyCannon and TwinMachinegun

[eyestrain92]

Sorry, the tone I took was a bit jumpy.

Regardless, yeah, that Python-Tracks-Twin-MG is pretty much what I was going for.