Warzone 2100 Forums

.................................


"War Games - Trinity 2: High Command" aka "Turtle-Rush" Map... (There is also a "Trinity 1: Training Grounds" Map that grew out this threads discussion...)

* Yeah, I changed the name. "Turtle-Rush" was just a working title... (AND, again, we are talking 2 Maps now instead of just one ......plus we are also doing Mission Briefing Sequences for each map as .avis). "War Games - Trinity 2: High Command" is much more representative of my intentions and therefore that is what it will be called henceforth.

* It does have a Campaign-like feel to it (those are the type of maps I enjoy making the most after all). And when I say "Campaign-like feel" I mean that I have very deliberately made it multiple-goal driven vs. tunnel-vision or mono-tactic enabled. I've also utilized some choice "triggers" - very minimalist to be sure but with some rippling consequences... like a pebble tossed in a pond of still water.

* EDITED 1/9/07: New 32EW Screen of "WGs: Trinity 1 - High Commands" Terrain Type Map and Routing/Gateway Zones Map..... 'bout 90% done.





* My design goals were thus:

* Many ways to win..... not just one or 2... aka possesing re-play value - even AFTER you know the lay of the land intimately.

* Accommodate all styles of GP: Turtle, Rush, Octopus, Eagle, Orca....etc or any combo thereof.

* Accommodate all 3 Tech Levels.

* Can be fun & challenging to play in ALL Modes (& for all player skill-levels): Single Player Skirmish, Everyman for Himself MP and Team Co-op MP.

* Somewhat uber-like aspirations, I confess.... yet so far so good - but we will see when completed and totally stress-tested.

* I started to use the "Arizona" Tile Set (which I like a lot, Grim did a beautiful job of it) but then switched to the "Rocky Mountain" Tile Set, which I'm not nearly as fond of for a number reasons I'm not gonna get into here, but it did serve to doubly reinforce my focus on HOW all Modal GPMs would play out (including a deep scrutiny of the GPL WZ Ski A.I. modus, strengths & weakness, as well as any "bugs" in GFX, Pathing or GUI manipulations, etc.... in other words while I'm beta-testing my map I'm also doing likewise to the GPL WZ... the 32EW too).

* By & by I will do a "War Games 2" with at least a different tile set & aesthetic look... as well as incorporating any nuanced design-GPM changes that come to light in the interim and any blemishes attributable to my original implementation.

* Anyway this thread will be for thoughts & exchanges on any of the above.... from this stage right through public beta to final WG1.wz release.?

* Oh yeah.... I know that showing this screen kind-of lessens the whole "Fog-of-War" GPM conceptual imperative or conventional wisdom... however, I do believe it won't make a bit of difference....

* It really won't give you any kind of decisive advantage - not even looking at the map in Debug Mode (placing the SAT Uplink) BEFORE playing it vs A.I. Or humans, won't help you perform as an elite Commander.

* And lastly - I'll be posting? "Vtol Engagement" captures in this thread cause I'm gonna do them on "War Games 1: Trinity". * WHY ? A few reasons, its more fun and I also like how Vtols are impacted by the "extreme verticality effect" esp. for those who favor the "Eagle" strategy - that is just focusing exclusively on air power to end-game swarm.


Cheers, rv

looks intresting.

i still cant figure out this mapper.

really confusing.

LostSoulJa wrote: looks intresting.

i still cant figure out this mapper.

really confusing.

* "Interesting" is the key word.

* As a mapper you 1st have an idea that you can't let go of - it's SO interesting you'll do whatever it takes to implement.

* As a mapper-player you want to make a working map that is SO interesting to play that you get lost in trying to defeat your MP buds or the Skirmish A.I. And I mean so interested that you take meal & bathroom breaks with some reluctance to leave the game world and the "Heat of Battle".

* Yes, the 32 EW can be confusing & even more frustrating 'cause it's slightly buggy.

* Even though I started useing the 16 bit ver of EW in '99 (and literally logged hundreds of hours on it) the 32 bit EW threw me for a loop with it's fundamental bugs for a few days 'till I figured out all the work-arounds and now it's a piece of cake - 'cept that even under the best of circumstances (32 EW is stable, you know how to use it well and your clear on your obsessive map idea) making a descent WZ Map takes ALOT of work-time-patience-determination, etc... "immediate gratification" is just NOT part of the equation.

* I've been making maps since way back - when Blizzard's "Warcraft/Starcraft" & Bungie's "Marathon/Myth" were state of the art (Starcraft's Map/Campaign Editor was/is one of the most user-friendly editors ever released). And now I'm working with "Company of Heroes" World Builder (a monster of an editor, makes 32EW look like a romper-room toy). It's all relative to the intensity of your desire & the time your willing to put into it.


* Now 32 EW comes with a very good Help-Tutorial .chm file. Pay special attention to RBL-4NiK8r's section on newb mistakes.

* But BEFORE you even begin to build a map (in 32EW or ANY editor) you should first work out your idea on "paper" or, if you prefer, a paint-drawing prog (as basic as "MS Paint" or as robust as "GIMP", "Adobe PhotoShop", Corel "Paint Shop Pro"...... actually, for this, you don't need anything more complicated than "MS Paint" or pencil/paper if your 'ol school.

* I cannot stress enough how important this prelim stage..... before you even mess with 32 EW.

* Trying to work it all out from scratch in any map editor is a recipe for extreme frustration and 99 times out of 100...never bringing the project to completion (meaning you'll abandon it out of sheer frustration... something you can easily avoid by doing your "homework' before hand).

* Now the first specific thing you bring to 32 EW to start a project you've already worked-out on "paper", is a gray-scale height map that is pixel sized to how big you want to make the map... for example, 150 x 150 tile map requires a HM of 150 x 150 pixels.

* The amount of time you put into this "paper stage" (and it's most comprehensive translation into a gray-scale height map to import into 32 EW to begin your actual map project)..... will increase your chances of ultimately making a good map AND enjoying the process of making it. (Some folks make their Height Map gray-scales from sat-images or photos shot from a high altitude plane or drone.... though I have done that for Campaign maps now & then... I prefer to make my HMs from scratch for MP / Ski maps).

* If you get to the stage of succefully generating your first .LND file, but it won't compile into a .wz or the .wz won't run in-game, gimme a holler and I'd be willing to look it over and make suggestions, fix any glaring dependency ommissions, etc...

Happy Map-Making ! rv

Good suggestions.

I've worked with mappers before as well, though non of them were one that you've stated above, and have found messing with them for a little bit, seeing what a majority of the things do without "tweeking" them a little bit, works as well, and then make a map with random things to see what everything does.

LostSoulJa wrote: Good suggestions.

I've worked with mappers before as well, though non of them were one that you've stated above, and have found messing with them for a little bit, seeing what a majority of the things do without "tweeking" them a little bit, works as well, and then make a map with random things to see what everything does.

* That is exactly HOW I learn most other software ! - it surely works.

* For some reason with mappers I have to start with a burning idea that  might hit me on the go and I'll just grab anything - pda if I have it, napkin, paper bag, whatever - & draw it out with notes.

* If you enjoy your learning process, whatever it is, you'll "get it" & that's the all of it, really.

Cheers, rv

hello.

also remember that height maps can be ANYTHING. 

and as Rman Virgil pointed out- any questions - let me know - i can be available on any im your using... ;D

............


* 95% done. At this stage of testing it looks like I've been able to fulfill all my GPM goals - the implementation is very satisfying in that respect.

* I have scheduled extreme MP play-testing with LAN club buds in Colorado (I'm in Arizona right now, soon to be re-deployed again by my company - looks like Utah) for next-weekend. That should provide me with enough imput for a more impartial assessment & opportunity to make fundamental adjustments..

* In the meanwhile i'll tweak cosmetics & continue play-testing the all important Oil-Resource balance. Up to this point it looks like I might have nailed that balance already but..... I still want that MP stress-testing evaluation in addition to  my own continued play-testing.

* After work today I'll post snaps of the 32 EW "Elavation & Routing / Gateway" maps as well as some "Vtol Dogfight" captures.

* I only really have one miss-giving at this point and that is the aesthetics of the stock "Rocky Mountain" tile set I used - I think it needs more work in the existing tiles PLUS some additional ones. I'm not sure I can address those issues right now - in a few weeks, probably, but not now. So... I'm in a bit of a quandry - do I release it after next-weeks MP stress testing or do I wait till I have a chance to address the aesthetic shortfall of the "Rocky Mountain" tile set ?

* It's a toughy 'cause the fun GPM goals are realized but will the mediocrity of the tile textures detract ? As of this moment, I honestly donot know the answer to that question...

* Oh well, such is life....


Cheers, rv

How easy is it to change the tileset at this stage? I tried playing on Little Egypt a few days ago and the water texture worked fine, but apparently this is not the case when you play. Perhaps it is due to a bug specific to your version or environment? If a version with the Arizona tileset was provided, then the persistancy of the water texture issue could be tested.

---------------

* Hey Karma...

* The thing about "Little Egypt" is that Coyote had the same problem on his rig - so I assumed it was more than just a local issue on mine. Also -  I don't know if he figured it out and I just got tired of trouble-shooting ( I spent days dealing with 32 EW bugs - then finally getting to it work properly so I could even start the  map project) & was eager to get going with the Map implementation. I went with the "Rocky Mountain" set because it had the water texture I wanted & it worked for me in-game from .wz I compiled out of 32 EW.

* But... in answer to your question -

* At this point if I was to switch tile-sets I'd only be able to salvage an exported  "Height Map" from the WG1 project - everything else i'd have to redo: tileing, gateing, baseing, resourceing.

* While that sounds like a lot of re-do it would actually be easier with the exported HM because it would have all the ramping I did by hand the first time... & that's really time-consuming. I didnot inc ramping in the orginal HM because I wanted to study the AI pathing & "attractors" (these I use to sim CAM-like events in SP SKI that also add experential layering or added dimension to MP GPMs)... & then build the ramping by hand around those "patterns" as well as the final gateing of course.

* Anyway, all that ramping I wouldn't have to re-do, making  it much less a chore changing tile sets to use the "Arizona" in a new map project instead of the "Rocky Mountain" in the current one.

* So... that is a legit alternative to settling for the current look of the "RM" set or trying refurbish it & add new custom textures.

* But we still have to trouble-shoot WHY both me & Coyote donot have water texture in "Little Egypt".. I don't want to switch & redo the map with the "Arizona" set until that is sorted out.

* I did fix the "Arizona" tile set that came with the 32 EW (didnot have water texture so I put it in) & I can see water working with it in the Editor. It's just figuring out the in-game issue.

Back l8r with some screens, rv

i also put the water back in to the arizona set... and it looks awesome in the editor.... but still the same damn missing texture once its in game... ;D


ok - i guess its time to contact the ONE!!  see if he has a solution to the problem. ;D

Rman Virgil wrote: * At this point if I was to switch tile-sets I'd only be able to salvage an exported  "Height Map" from the WG1 project - everything else i'd have to redo: tileing, gateing, baseing, resourceing.

That sucks. In a perfect world, changing the texture would be as easy as using an 'open file' dialogue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


* I updated the screen in the 1st post of this thread from the 50% one to the 90% present state in my 32 EW project: the Terrain and Gateway Zone maps present an interesting geometry built on the principles of "Trinity" & "Triads".. the GPMs as well are so constituted..... (Too much info ? Or not enough ?)

* Here are some Vtol captures on "WG1: Trinity" (there is still one last action image I  have to get that's been eluding me.... but i'll get it soon or l8r):

--------------

* I see I have yet to provide some basic info.

* The Map Specs of "WG 1 - Trinity"  are:

* 150 x 150 Tiles

* Elevation 3 (inducing extreme verticality effect on Vtols)

* 4 Players

* A 100% of the GPM components are in-place - Resourcing & Routing Gateways appear optimal at this juncture. In any case, till I get MP stress test input next weekend I'm just contending with the "RM" tile set aesthetics and cosmetic touch-ups over the rest of the week.

* A few more thoughts on the design rationale:

* Following the line of reasoning that eliminating "Fog of War" will give you NO decisive advantage let me give you the KEY to Victory on "WG 1 - Trinity"...

* "Holding the Center".... if you can, you'll WIN.

* In the same breath let me be clear - there is NO single way to do it and as such the HOW of it cannot be pinned-down to any single dominate tac / strat.

* The Player will have to deal with multiple fronts defensively & offensively. The use of mixed (land, air, water)  combined arms deployment will be advantageous. As such, Command Groupings must be invoked.

* The above GPM set of possiblities is more akin to RL martial engagements, IMHO, and bears striking parallels to what makes Chess and Go-Mo-Ku compellingly  replayable.

* On a closeing note...

* If you have a tendency to get rattled under the gauntlet or are the nervous type when confronted with the uncertainies of many possibilities ahead - this Maps GPMs are NOT for you.

* But if, on the other hand, you can maintain your cool composure under preasure, continue to multi-task in your Command decisions.... well then, you'll enjoy the crucible challenges presented by "WG 1 - Trinity".

* I'll post another screen or 2 of Vtol engagements and discuss any of the forgoeing statements if anyone is so inclined....

Cheers, rv

-----------------------------------------------------------


Vtol Engagements & PoV Curiosities
























*** And lastly - invokeing that old saw about "necessity being the mother of invention", I've come to acceptable working terms with the "RM" Tile Set....so after LAN MP testing this weekend (& following thru on any recommended adjustments on "Resourcing Allocations") this project will be complete by next Monday. It's been very rewarding & I want to thank all who have here and in the 32EW trouble-shooting thread shared their input from which I've benefited in more ways than one: Coyote, Dev, Watermelon, Lost SoulJa, Karma - thanks again fellas.


Cheerio gents, rv

You're trying to win the "Warzone Photographer of the Month" award? The shots are intriguing. 
Is the map that flat? I like it when the maps resemble real terrain in all it's hillyness (in the rare event that "hillyness" is even a word).  ::)