Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions?

Did you create a mod, map, music, or a tool? Present them here and earn feedback!
Note: addon requests do not belong here.
Note, everything uploaded to this forum, MUST have a license!
User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions?

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 04 Jan 2013, 07:20

Over the course of development for the project tentatively called "Campaign 4", it occurs to me that the idea of "one LONG mission" spanning what would be seven missions in anyone else's hands is a little bit stretched. Okay, it's a long, hard, slog.

I'm considering the idea of splitting it up as follows:

- M1 and M2 is fine being together as-is, but expand the mission(s) to include the (currently) non-mission AA bases on the east and southeast part of that area.

- M3's area should be a separate area to the south, with a mission hub all it's own spanning several missions.

- M4's area will still be a gauntlet, but likewise a separate area. This will also allow for better management

- M5 (building Delta Base) will take place in a "demolished by nukes-and-laser satellite" version of M1's area. (This will allow for better management of the Nexus attack later on).

- M6 will be an off-map mission with it's own zone.

- M7 will still be the Nexus attack mission, taking place on Delta Base's map. The reduced size of the map will make it far easier to manage, code-wise, and much less prone to script assertion failures.

- M8 will now occur at M9's area, and will likewise be split up into five or six missions of it's own. It's too cool of an area to not use the map to its' fullest.

- It's no secret that I'm not all that happy with the "Return to Arizona" mission. I wanted a homage to Pumpkin Studios, and what better way than to use the original Campaign 1 map as they first envisioned it ... but I seem to be suffering from a clear lack of direction with its' implementation, and in doing so I feel it's disrespectful to use that map in such a way. I'm open to any and all good suggestions concerning that map, up to and including not using it at all. If you have a good idea for a mission hub using that map (3-5 missions), please provide a clear and concise description of your idea(s). Even a combination of ideas will be entertained!

I'd also like to consider not calling it "Campaign 4". The reasoning is that a Campaign for Warzone 2100 is at least two or three Chapters, and this is (at the moment) one. Not enough to call it a Campaign, in my view. That could change in the future, of course.

My next order of business is simply to get it working on 3.1+ versions of Warzone. I have two ways to facilitate that -- porting the 2.3.9 data (which is NOT working, sadly) or (the cleaner and faster way) using the proof-of-concept "Goth Base" that I demonstrated several months ago featuring the Alaska tileset (and New Desert as well, on another version!). The "Goth Base", sadly, is not working on RC3 (although it works on beta11), so I'll have to refactor it again to make it work. I'll decide that when I've exhausted porting the 2.3.9 data as a feasible option.

User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1824
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Iluvalar » 04 Jan 2013, 07:36

I believe i should warn you that the master branch (future 3.2) doesn't seem compatible with 3.1 RC3 (future 3.1). And i'd bet there will be less time laps between 3.1 and 3.2 alpha than the one that have been between 3.1 beta and 3.1 .
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 04 Jan 2013, 07:49

Hmm, true.

The changes between 3.1_beta11 and 3.1_rc3 broke things too.

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 06 Jan 2013, 05:05

The process of splitting up the maps is halfway done. The old scripts have been archived for now, I'll reuse code from them as necessary.

I've decided that since 3.1+ branches of Warzone are in continual flux I'll be sticking to the 2.3.9 branch, with some caveats. I'm going to port Mysteryem's features to the dataset (if possible!), and I'd *like* to do the same with Contingency assets as well (permission pending and if the .pie's allow for it).

Originway
Trained
Trained
Posts: 412
Joined: 08 Aug 2012, 06:22

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Originway » 06 Jan 2013, 05:25

2.3.9 is dead so it doesn't make sense to do that

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by NoQ » 06 Jan 2013, 05:37

I can try to do the tileset conversion for 2.3 ;)
2.3.9 is dead so it doesn't make sense to do that
That's exactly why it does make some sense.

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 06 Jan 2013, 05:47

Little update. :)

New features ported and all textures are loading up and looking all spiffy-like.

@NoQ: Yes please! Would/Could it make sense to use my extended tilesets as well? (Road-Corner, Road-4-Way and the like?) If so, I'll gladly make them available (since I made them myself!). There's also some extra ones for Urban which I quite like in the set .. Download them here! if you want. Maybe they can be converted to the 3.1 tiles port too.

@ Originway: Might even warrant a 2.4 release. ;) Yes, 2.3.9 is still widely used, btw.

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by NoQ » 06 Jan 2013, 06:44

Hmm. You really made some mess with arizonaground.txt. Will try to figure out what is this sand-and-brown mix.
As for new tiles, did you intend to have some 3.1-style texture for tiles like #94 (red ground)? Or i just re-use this low-level version as is?
(i'd have to add transparency to extra decal tiles manually).
Attachments
wz2100-20130106_085114-Artifact-1-01-T1.jpg
What we already have

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by NoQ » 06 Jan 2013, 06:53

/me wrote:Hmm. You really made some mess with arizonaground.txt. Will try to figure out what is this sand-and-brown mix.
Whoops, bug on my side. You aren't using the sand dunes texture, right?
Last edited by NoQ on 06 Jan 2013, 07:19, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 06 Jan 2013, 07:17

Looks like I'm gonna have to make sure what's what. I thought the extended tilesets were the 2.3 versions and not the new renderer variety. Is there anything in tertilesc1hw that looks like a road corner and road 4-way?

We don't have to use the 3.1 ones .. those were for something else.

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by NoQ » 06 Jan 2013, 07:21

I need a working 3.1 tileset before i can make a 2.3 tileset. Red on roads and concrete on other decals will be incompatible with the red (which is no longer red) and concrete (which is still concrete but will still look differently; keeping 2.3-style concrete is harder) produced from the 3.1 tileset. I'd use basegame's page-83 for the red on tile-94 etc.
Also, i'd have to remove your tile-13 and tile-15 decals (3.1 tileset needs these tiles for water).

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by NoQ » 06 Jan 2013, 07:26

They will look like this. Good enough?
(the 8-pixel border remains unused by the game anyway, so i paint nothing on it)
Attachments
tile-81.png
tile-81.png (5.7 KiB) Viewed 4592 times
tile-84.png
tile-84.png (7.84 KiB) Viewed 4592 times
tile-91.png
tile-91.png (8.47 KiB) Viewed 4592 times

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 06 Jan 2013, 07:32

Looks great. You can leave out the "Caution Stripe" ones, those were *really* extra and not used at all. All I was concerned about were the extra road ones and maybe the "LZ" tile (small one).

User avatar
Goth Zagog-Thou
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1582
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 08:08
Location: Delta Base
Contact:

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by Goth Zagog-Thou » 06 Jan 2013, 07:35

As a side note, I finally figured out why the Assault Laser and Twin Assault Laser weren't making it into the game. They've been added, both as structures and designable weapons (along with a template that uses them!). Yay!

User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Some changes I'm considering for "Campaign 4" - Opinions

Post by NoQ » 06 Jan 2013, 08:07

Screenshots:
Spoiler:
Note: even though it is possible to use this mod with the base 2.3 game (it replaces arizona), it won't look correctly, because most maps assume that yellow and sand look close enough for a transitionless mix, which is not true for this tileset.
Attachments
cam4-tileset-0-2.wz
v0.2: fixed a typo in radar file
(3.85 MiB) Downloaded 195 times

Post Reply