Warzone 2100 Forums

.

Side-Bar: I don't want to make a big deal about the following but a side benefit to what I'm doing in "War School" is that in MP Players
who are into cheating can be caught red-handed, with their cheating pants down, so to speak. O_O

Regards, whip

NOTE: Don't skip the previous page (6) of this thread as Member i-Nod has shared a screen cap of his current work which is dang sweet.
.

i-NoD wrote:Hi,

Quite a good Project you have here...
Talking about designable Scavs: I've just though that recreation of base vehicles without mounted weapons would be a good staring point for such a task. So, I've spent a whole day slicing and toasting and nearly completed a new Jeep.

Hmm... they may need to look a bit more "beaten up"... remember, post-apocalyptic setting.

.

Post-apocalyptic "atmospherics" can be quite powerful and Pumpkin did something of a fair job with Scavs and the Urban tertiles and Urban feature buildings - but that's it. In no other ways is that goal achieved, truth be told. 'Course going forward that can be addressed in various ways - from GFX to GPMs.

Btw, i-Nod's posted Jeeps are a W.I.P. (aka, work in progress) - and while still not done he chose to share so I would not jump to any conclusions on where he will end up when done. For comparison I am posting i-Nod's WIP Jeeps on this page along-side of Pumpkin's Scav stuff.

Though I share the PoV on the power of GFX atmospherics I still hold that the "story-logic" has so many holes and inconsistencies that considered as a "sacrosanct canon" is, for me at least and what I'm doing, not an option...

One example - Baba are producing 1997 funky Jeeps with WW2 weaps in a slap-dash factory in the year 2100.... huh ? Come again... Yea, as a fair yarn-spinner I can come up with a somewhat believable rationale for that scenario.... but is the scenario itself the most powerful conceivable ? Not by a long shot and most reviewers of WZ when it was released in 1999 tore through the lame cliched-tropes of the back story like Orcas on sea elephant feeding frenzy. But.. that's a whole other deal I'm addressing in my own "War School" back story and "Truce" story proper... as well the Mod itself.

Anyway, here are those screens............







Regards, whip
.

.

A triumphant BP A.I.'s forward basing and final main base. No glitches in unit deployments....trax, hovers, borgs, vtols. Ground, water, combined arms, combat groups attack from multiple vectors as do Vtol sorties. Air Force re-arming pads are built deep within layers of defenses thus protecting vulnerable Vtols from enemy sorties. Still need to tweak the HP defense building but otherwise it's getting there in these areas of SKI mode game play. After that I'll get into the scripting for the 5th player Central Citadel trigger events & conditions.. And more work still ahead with Scavs, mapping, "Truce" e-book and "Lesser Evil" FVM ..... oh well, we'll get to the finish line eventually.





Regards, whip
.

.

Some "Failed" Experiments: Giving the stock Troop Transport stock Plasmite Bombs. For all intents it becomes a super unit. But interesting alongside having just tested it with stock Scourge Missiles and comparing the two. While these experiments won't "fly" in-game, the stock Vtol-MG3 still seems a poor solution to me for the Troop Transport's defense package.... it should be more than the equivalent of a siting duck loaded-up with Borg Fodder. Yea I'm well aware of what was done in v.1.11 Mod but I'm after something different.... Back to the drawing board in any case...

BTW - The Troop Transport does NOT have a Command UI... clear indicator of it's unfinished state, IMO.

Regards, whip
.

.

Generally in a WZ game your Center of Gravity (CoG) will be your start base.

The definition of a CoG is "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act." (Joint Publication 1-02, DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms), (Washington, DC:2008)) Thus, the center of gravity is usually seen as the "source of strength".

The term is derived from Clausewitz's classic "On War" (he in-turn got the phrase from Sir Isaac Newton's physics).

In "War School" the design intent of the Central Citadel (pictured below) is to add a new twist based on current military doctrine which the following article delves into much more detail than I will subject you to here.

Clausewitz's Center of Gravity: Changing Our Warfighting Doctrine--Again!

While we are on Clausewitz - I am also very deliberately playing around with an implementation of "Fog of War" which is dynamically closer to his observation:

........The stress is on how confused warfare can seem while one is immersed within it.

Presently there is more confusion over what to research, what units to design, what static defenses to invest and set-up, just how to counter the unknown enemy, which way to go or stay put - than handling yourself under actual battle conditions... I wanna shift the dynamic more to "handling yourself in battle" and do it in a manner more up front like in RL conflict theaters in the sense that you start with actionable intelligence vis-a-vis your situational awareness..

Making this all work in both Ski and MP modes poses the greatest challenge for me and I'm not a 100% sure I will be able to pull it off yet.

ALSO: I have yet to finalize the method(s) I will use to balance Flying-Trucks as I am trying to avoid the game play devolving into "Flying-Truck Rush" which is a novelty that wears thin pretty quick, IMHO. It's the only way to go for me and if I don't come-up with a suitable solution I will simply remove them - as much as I like 'em.

Below - the "Central Citadel" as an alternate "Center of Gravity" opportunity...





Regards, whip
.

Ahh military base tactics. i find the idea of a single "centre of gravity" illogical as to lean on one base is to commit tactical suicide, especially when a larger enemy appears. no its far better to have one main base with several well hidden armed to the teeth factory outposts. or two or three main bases in order to allow for the possibility of one of them being eradicated. i found out the hard way what happens when you go up against an enemy who is agressive (francesco) well i lost i attempted to reboot in a hidden locale but my inherent lack of resources was my ultimate undoing as i was unable to build defences so i was a sitting duck for the search parties. ah i regret my short sightedness at that point. reminiscence over sorry about that maybe you and i could have a multiplayer game upon completion of this mod.

new paradigm leader wrote:Ahh military base tactics. i find the idea of a single "centre of gravity" illogical as to lean on one base is to commit tactical suicide, especially when a larger enemy appears. no its far better to have one main base with several well hidden armed to the teeth factory outposts. or two or three main bases in order to allow for the possibility of one of them being eradicated. i found out the hard way what happens when you go up against an enemy who is agressive (francesco) well i lost i attempted to reboot in a hidden locale but my inherent lack of resources was my ultimate undoing as i was unable to build defences so i was a sitting duck for the search parties. ah i regret my short sightedness at that point. reminiscence over sorry about that maybe you and i could have a multiplayer game upon completion of this mod.

I agree with a good deal of that .

In WZ much of the Base as Center of Ops has to with the amount of oil and where it placed relative to Base HQ. On just that factor alone I've lost count of how many variations I've gone through. Currently the immediate start Base Center has 4. At the very outer perimeters there are 4 more but they are divided into 3 different vectors and elevations. Then of course the rest of the map has oil dispersed throughout with a focal concentration in the "Center Citadel".

"Team War" style maps are an obvious approach to making your Main HQ Base an absolute Center of Gravity for everything you do and that is one way to tip the scales of game play to predominantly "twitch" which I personally don't find of enduring interest though I certainly do not begrudge others that form of enjoying the game. Live and let live - it is a game after all and not some life and death struggle in RL..

An aggressive mobility appeals to me but I do not care for it if it devolves into a single monolithic "twitch" movement like Tower Rush or some such. While those tacs are legit merely based on the fact you can execute 'em to win a game it still does not change their boredom factor once the novelty wears-off and their narrow scope of engaging your attention becomes passe in light of much game play that is not possible to experience within such a matrix and thus remains dormant in the game itself as unrealized potential..

So.... for me, at least, I want aggressive mobility to have a variety of effective possible roll-outs (as opposed to 1 over-arching twitch from the get-go) and I include in that (as you mentioned) the ability to simultaneously shift your center of gravity as needed (even Become Prey A.I. can do this in "War School".... that is, BP can shift it's Center of Gravity as needed, at the first indication of "trouble" to it's force concentration.).

At the same time, if you choose to defend a position outside your original Start Base and are smart in your set-up and have courage to do it in the first place it shouldn't be a pure waste of effort such that if you lose it after a struggle... well then it is still worth regaining that lost position.. This last comes down to key oil placements outside your immediate Base Center of Ops.

When all is said, I much prefer an ebb-flow contest where the tipping point to victory is in the balance for a good spell, way over a quick steam-roll even if I am the one doing the quick steam-roll , and also where I have opportunities to employ a variety of offensive tactics while making a host of defensive stands that are of value to the strategic cause even as a tactical "loss". Design that "shoe-horns" me from the out-set to a narrow scope, monolithic response is bland at best to my ways of enjoying the game. That, in a nutshell, amounts to the fundamental guiding principles in the whole of what I'm after in the game play.

Ironically, when I'm done with "WS", whatever the outcome, I will be inclined to step away for a long spell on all WZ fronts of activity. But we'll see when that time comes what path I actually follow.

Regards, whip
.

.

It can be helpful often to frame your questions differently when looking to resolve an issue.

The question I've been asking myself is how to balance "Vtol Trucks". It has taken me even to the point of making it only available to the
5th Player Custom BOSS A.I. on "War School"....

Today I started to ask a different question.

"WHY are Vtol Trucks so appealing that a decade after they were first introduced peeps still ask after and for them in game play ??"

After a spell it hit me. At least it may be a partial answer to this new question.

Since 1 October 1933 Airlift has been key to military ops. A commonplace we take for granted in our very consciousness on matters of Modern Warfare on any scale - from WW 2 to dealing with insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the WZ Campaign you get some of that with the Tank Transport. For reasons I won't get into here that is absent in Ski and MP modes.

Back in Pumpkin's Official Dev bbs we asked for and got the "Troop Transport" (circa patch 1.05-1.06, I forget now).

Essentially the "Troop Transport" constitutes "AirLift" .. 'cept it is somewhat unfinished and NOT quite viable in aggressive game play - as it is now, that is.

So, I am now focused away from this "Vtol Truck" issue as originally framed and instead am looking at ways to make what is called "Tactical AirLift" viable (there is also "Strategic AirLift" but in WZ they would roll into each other through one mechanic, I'm thinking). As I understand it at the moment the desire for what a "Vtol Truck" represents can be satisfied in this direction making Vtol Trucks themselves (and their balancing) a cul de sac on the road to something more viable and more interesting. Anyway, that's where I've come to on this matter.

Regards, whip
.

Well, I don't really have anything to say on your mod other than that it looks awesome.
And here's an incoherent off topic rant:
On VTOL Trucks though, don't you think the similarities between Warzone 2100 and Total Annihilation could have something to do with it.
I might just utilize confirmation bias, but I do think it looks like the WZ developers were inspired by Total Annihilation a lot in the style of resource managment and focus on artillery (while I do think WZ 2100 does it more interesting, with the various types of sensors etc.). Back to my point - I think many see the similarities between WZ2100 and TA, and since TA had engineer units in all it's unit categories (k-bots, tanks/"vehicles", hovercraft, naval units and VTOL's), people kind of expect the same in WZ2100, especially since you can combine the truck "turret" on any kind of propulsion and body except the VTOL, it gives the impression of being an artificial limit created later in the game development, rather than a feature they just couldn't or didn't add.
I'm sure you are right on the balancing issues, and I am probably wrong on this, but I just think the similarities between TA and the fact that TA kind of was the RTS game all other games in the genre were compared to for a brief period in the late 90's, give people who are used to TA expect the WZ to have it too.

fisk0 wrote:Well, I don't really have anything to say on your mod other than that it looks awesome.
And here's an incoherent off topic rant:
On VTOL Trucks though, don't you think the similarities between Warzone 2100 and Total Annihilation could have something to do with it.
I might just utilize confirmation bias, but I do think it looks like the WZ developers were inspired by Total Annihilation a lot in the style of resource managment and focus on artillery (while I do think WZ 2100 does it more interesting, with the various types of sensors etc.). Back to my point - I think many see the similarities between WZ2100 and TA, and since TA had engineer units in all it's unit categories (k-bots, tanks/"vehicles", hovercraft, naval units and VTOL's), people kind of expect the same in WZ2100, especially since you can combine the truck "turret" on any kind of propulsion and body except the VTOL, it gives the impression of being an artificial limit created later in the game development, rather than a feature they just couldn't or didn't add.
I'm sure you are right on the balancing issues, and I am probably wrong on this, but I just think the similarities between TA and the fact that TA kind of was the RTS game all other games in the genre were compared to for a brief period in the late 90's, give people who are used to TA expect the WZ to have it too.

I do agree with all that and was thinking today about Vtol Trucks in relation to TA flying builders. Looks like we were on a similar brain-wave.

I don't remember them being such an issue in TA as they became when we first put 'em into WZ and hell broke loose in MP. Then again TA underwent major re-balancing by the community and I do not recall how that played-out with flying builders

Honestly, I have only come up with ways of dealing with their balance that seem like rinky-dink restraints and not much of an advance over not having them in-game at all..

Making a simple "Flying truck" mod is very easy and I may do that just to get more feedback from folks using 'em in MP. But I suspect the same issues will arise today as did way back when - that is the game will devolve into a race to get em and use em asap.

Of course, I may just have a mental block about them I can't see my way through in any way that is acceptable to those who play MP as it is without 'em (including myself).. ..

BTW - I have yet to see any all time best comp strategy game list that TA is not close to the very top of, if not # 1 itself. By the same token I've yet to see WZ on any of those same lists at all. Not that this makes any difference to me and my passion for WZ but still an interesting fact that may coincide with points you made.

Regards, whip
.

its a shame you are inclined to step away hopefully you'll be around to talk to on the forums and maybe we can enjoy playing this mod multiplayer as im inclined to believe i may lose quite quickly which is as much fun if not more than a long drawn out epic struggle either way is fine by me. methinks this mod has enormous multiplayer potential as this is the most indepth anyone has gone in regards to realistic military tactics that i know of so far. i think it may also be prudent to set up a thread/major sticky topic for multiplayer games arranging. but then thats off topic by a few hundred Imperial miles. anywho as far as i can tell this mod will be massive as this is the first time scavs are viable throughout the game without some serious cheating :rolleyes: (guilty of this as i am) so i look forward to it still

yours starting to sound repetitive

NPL

I still hold that the "story-logic" has so many holes and inconsistencies that considered as a "sacrosanct canon" is, for me at least and what I'm doing, not an option...

One example - Baba are producing 1997 funky Jeeps with WW2 weaps in a slap-dash factory in the year 2100.... huh ? Come again... Yea, as a fair yarn-spinner I can come up with a somewhat believable rationale for that scenario.... but is the scenario itself the most powerful conceivable ? Not by a long shot and most reviewers of WZ when it was released in 1999 tore through the lame cliched-tropes of the back story like Orcas on sea elephant feeding frenzy. But.. that's a whole other deal I'm addressing in my own "War School" back story and "Truce" story proper... as well the Mod itself.

finally something i have thought forever. as if they are scavengers then WHY OH WHY didn't they scavenge army bases esp as there is definitely a LOT of juicy military technology out in Arizona and other US deserts. yet the age old "scavs good only for exp" remains. although in the actual sense of it everyone is a scavenger but Nexus and even Nexus is to a degree. the other thing is due to the inherent lack of advanced computing control systems used by scavengers would it not stand to reason that they are relatively immune to nexus? i mean give them decent armoured vehicles and a lot better weapons and just watch nexus disappear. the human touch saving the world from a megalomaniac scientist/hacker 1 step at a time. myself i liked the vehicles they used for the date the game was made those were awesome but lets face it it was ten years ago we need an update and I-od's frankly Tasty designs along with all the other great graphics artists here are the way forwards. i will have to learn a way in which to help ably and well and until then I'm sorry to be the annoying ideas catalogue that i am.

yours

NPL

new paradigm leader wrote:its a shame you are inclined to step away hopefully you'll be around to talk to on the forums and maybe we can enjoy playing this mod multiplayer as im inclined to believe i may lose quite quickly which is as much fun if not more than a long drawn out epic struggle either way is fine by me. methinks this mod has enormous multiplayer potential as this is the most indepth anyone has gone in regards to realistic military tactics that i know of so far. i think it may also be prudent to set up a thread/major sticky topic for multiplayer games arranging. but then thats off topic by a few hundred Imperial miles. anywho as far as i can tell this mod will be massive as this is the first time scavs are viable throughout the game without some serious cheating :rolleyes: (guilty of this as i am) so i look forward to it still

yours starting to sound repetitive

NPL

I tell ya NPL one of the main things that has kept my interest in WZ for so long has been to try and figure out ways to make more RL Military tac and strats viable in MP battle game play - especially asymmetric tacs like gambits and false flag variants . Stuff like that I find immensely captivating and immersive.

Same with Scavs.... I really think their full potential in combat has yet to be realized

I look forward to playing with you down the road. Sometimes all the testing involved in making changes mindfully saps me to where I tell myself "when you get to the finish line you can step away from all that.."

new paradigm leader wrote:
finally something i have thought forever. as if they are scavengers then WHY OH WHY didn't they scavenge army bases esp as there is definitely a LOT of juicy military technology out in Arizona and other US deserts. yet the age old "scavs good only for exp" remains. although in the actual sense of it everyone is a scavenger but Nexus and even Nexus is to a degree. the other thing is due to the inherent lack of advanced computing control systems used by scavengers would it not stand to reason that they are relatively immune to nexus? i mean give them decent armoured vehicles and a lot better weapons and just watch nexus disappear. the human touch saving the world from a megalomaniac scientist/hacker 1 step at a time. myself i liked the vehicles they used for the date the game was made those were awesome but lets face it it was ten years ago we need an update and I-od's frankly Tasty designs along with all the other great graphics artists here are the way forwards. i will have to learn a way in which to help ably and well and until then I'm sorry to be the annoying ideas catalogue that i am.

yours

NPL

We are on the same wave-length there NPL. The story-logic of Scavs can be so much richer, no doubt, and it is a main focus of mine to realize that. I also look forward to the work i-Nod and Black Project and astorian are doing in particular - all 3 inspire me to keep going and I also hope to include what they are creating in this project...

Regards, whip
.

.

.

I've begun my commitment to enhancing Troop Transport Mechanics being much inspired by the history and current-future developments in RL Military Tactical and Strategic Airlift Ops and technology. It is the usual process of making modifications, testing, back-to-the-drawing board, testing, and so on..

Though I will be focused on game play mechanic modifications I have looked at the Troop Transport .PIE (called internally drcytran.pie) and said to myself - "surely this art can be improved somehow......"

Here is what it is now just as a quick ref:

In-Game:



In PIESlicer:



Texture Page 15 at normal:



Texture page 15 @ x 2:




Any thoughts on improving the Troop Transport art ?


And last - just 'cause I like Bocage & Cliff Perspectives xD





Regards, whip

.