WW2: World in Flames [ReDuX]

[karland90]

what i forgot to mention is that i thought of barbed wire having really tiny aura but with great slowing effect. and that they wouldnt have much ground pathing (maybe the posts, but not the wire between posts). unbuildable ofc (blue pathing map witha pink spot?).

 

[Fingolfin]

It's update time!

Behold, the T-34!

Image

Destroyed:

Image

V2 Missile model:

Image

St. Basil's cathedral finaly finished!

Image

A mine field:

Image

 

[foo_sharp]

It's update time!

Behold, the T-34!

Image

Destroyed:

Image

V2 Missile model:

Image

St. Basil's cathedral finaly finished!

Image

A mine field:

Image

These are really, really good. I'm more eager to finally play this by each passing day

 

[warman45]

@T-34: Operation Citadel is a go
@T-34 Destroyed: Shoulda got insurance
@V2: Who said we can't build WMD's?
@St. Basil's Cathedral: *birthday tone* weeeeeeee are richer than yoooouuuuuu areeeee.
@Mine Field: Watch your step

 

[Fingolfin]

lol
Thank you all for sticking with this project, and i have a question for you regarding the V2 rockets.

I have three options as to how rockets will be launched, being:

1: An engineer will construct a static launch base, that builds and launches rockets on demand.

2: An engineer builds a rocket ramp on site, that is capable of firing one single rocket, after which it "expires". This is to add mobility and surprise element to the rocket launches.

3: Same as above, except with two or three rocket ramps in the same building.

Which one should i go for?

EDIT: Speaking of which, where did James go? Is he still reading this thread?
It would be nice to have his opinions on things. He is the creator of this map, after all.

 

[foo_sharp]

I like option 1 the most, it's the most realistic one - and you'll have to think more about where to build it, as it is stational and cannnot move around.

 

[Fingolfin]

Actually, it is not the most realistic. In the war, the germans would transport a rocket somewhere and construct a ramp for it somewhere (could be in the forest or wherever), then they launched it, and left the ramp (or packed it down).

The single rocket ramps would also require to be built, but would take less time to do so than the static alternative. They would not be able to move around, the only difference is that they only contain one rocket, and are lost when you fire it (as well as be cheaper, with less attack range). I think it is a nice idea, because then you could smuggle an engineer behind enemy lines and harass them with a V2 missile, and then bust out.
It would also make the game more dynamic; since you cannot destroy your own bases, it seems lame that you would have to build a new static rocket base everytime the enemy moves.

But on the other hand, with the range of the V2's, a static base would be a nice way of provoking an enemy attack on your territory. It would be more like nuclear bases in other modern warfare maps.

 

[karland90]

i think you can leave choice #1 for V3 (XD)
second is the most realistic ofc.

btw when i showed this thread (most of it, was no time for all) to a militaristic-historican friend of mine, he suggested that there could be some sort of communications (radio?) for controlling the units:
e.g. if a unit walks out of range of the nearest radio tower, it will seize to be controllable and act on on its own. that means that you would have to remove the auto attack and stuff from the units (<- this part of concept i like) and give it back when it goes out of range. the unit would also have to retain its owner, so it would attack the right enemies.

idk about that. but i said it just in case.

 

[Fingolfin]

Well, that is an interresting idea, but how would i make them "control themselves"? Should i make some kind of AI for that, or should they just attack whatever they want? Will i ever regain control of them? (Since i cant tell them to go back!)

Still, i have considered the use of radio. Maybe i should make it like the sensor towers in starcraft, e.g. that red dots will appear in the fog of war wherever an enemy unit moves (within the range of the radar).

Also, was it the second V2 option for you then?

 

[karland90]

yes, second option for V2.
i am not sure about the radio. my friend had other ideas too, but e.g trains wouldnt just fit into that world (scaled, to fit almost a half of the real world into a w3 map). btw i know that at least in estonia our most known real war machines were armoured trains. imo the reason why trains were more popular here, is that it wasnt that expensive (to mod a normal train with cannons and armour plating) and maybe some places werent that passable to be reached by tanks easily, but trains had tracks laid long ago with necessary terrain works.

more on topic: but i think that maybe you should somehow limit the regular ai of w3 (an army rushes to kill one worker, through their own minefield ofc). one option might be issuing a hold position command often (each time a move command is finished?). but that would get in the way of traditional playing style - would have to use attack move-to (a+RMB) command all the time. so maybe just propagate the use of hold position through hints? and you could also propagate players to use (id hate to lose my advantage of knowing this over the average w3 player,but meh) shift ordering. (it allows to issue several orders - when first is completed, second is initiated. really useful for complex checkpoint moving as needed for passing your own minefield safely).
and i still think the mines should be dangerous to all players (infantry can be detector ofc) and "invisible" (inside the ground).

 

[Fingolfin]

Mines are invisible. They turn invisible after 2 seconds, and activates after 10 seconds. Even in real life, tank mines were not dangerous to infantry, since they were large and needed more weight than that of a human to detonate. On the other hand, i could make it so that the detonation of a mine would damage infantry units, or even units owned by the owner of the mine.
I am not sure wether tank mines would do any serious damage to infantry IRL, since they do not splinter, and are made specially to break tank tracks, but it would propably look better ingame.

And yes, i truly wish that i could include trains, it would open up such great opportunities for logistics (and sabotage), aswell as armoured train warfare. Those trains looked damn good.
I am starting to realize that the map size is a bit uncomfortable, since making a battle scene that looks appealing is bound to stretch over thousands of miles on the actual map. It would be much better to have something like this (I hate him for not sharing that), but i will keep on making this until it's finished, and then we'll see if i make another, smaller, one. (the big work of modeling will already have been done then).

 

[foo_sharp]

I realise that I have misexpressed myself.
I am of the opinion that stationary sites would be best, because mobile launch sites would be too strong (move two or three to the front and you won the battle).
You would be forced to think more about where to set up your launch sites, as you cannot move them anymore (good defensive position is required, but as close as possible to strategical targets)-> more brain involved.

 

[Fingolfin]

And i believe you misunderstood me - no rocket sites will be mobile. That is for sure.
Let me clearify my suggestion:

Option A:
An engineer constructs a launch base. That base will then be able to construct missiles to fill it's silo. Once a missile is built, it can be launched at a specified target.
The launch base takes relatively long time to construct, and is decently expensive, but you only have to build it once. It will have a long launch range.

Option B:
An engineer builds a launch ramp, with a missile on it. The launch ramp cannot move, but is cheaper and takes less time to build than the proposed launch base.
Once the launch ramp fires it's missile, it "dies", or more specifically, it deconstructs, or sinks into the ground. This ramp has relatively short range.


Still, i agree with you on the strategical aspects; both options have pros and cons, i can list them here below:

Option A

Pros:
*Will have to be defended, in a safe position, yet near the enemy
*May provoke attacks from it's targets, thus make the game more exciting
Cons:
*When the enemy target is conquered, your missile base will be useless.
*You might end up having a lot of missile bases on the map, since you can't destroy your own buildings, yet constantly have to progress.


Option B

Pros:
*Since it has shorter range, you will have to get quite close to the enemy in order to launch. This makes the operation more risky, and requires more alertness from your enemies.
*You will have to defend your missile ramp while it is being constructed; if the enemy realizes that you are building missiles near their base, they will surely engage.
*This option keeps the map clean, since all ramps are either killed, or dissapeared through launch.
*This also makes missile launches require more micromanagement, since you have to pick a spot, defend it, and launch as planned, preferably without being detected (so that your enemy does not move his forces!), instead of just selecting a base and "build bombs/press fire".
Cons:
*The enemy target will be less specific; instead of setting your goal for a single base, you will have to keep a lookout for smaller launch sites. This makes large scale operations against missile bases less neccesary.

 

[karland90]

my suggestion is that V2 is option B, and V3 is option A. speculating that robert oppenheimer never left germany and developed nuclear weaponry there xD

ofc this would be part of the "fun mode", when you dont want to play the real storyline and choose to develop the war past 1945.

 

[Fingolfin]

Well, there will be no "fun mode", since we have no idea what would happen if ww3 continued, which it could, in this game. How could there be a cold war if germany still were a superpower? Or if Soviet was defeated before the red army managed to mobilise?

I'm going to go pretty loose on this, and make it more like something that would have been drawn by Keith Thompson.

 

[karland90]

btw will you do that too?

 

[Fingolfin]

Propably not, but it's a nice idea.
I'm starting to worry about map space a bit, i am going to run all my models through MDXSquish, but total map size may still be about 4mb.

I have some tank models to make for each faction first, +the rocket ramp, +some new airplane models (will make little difference though, since they only replace the old imports), +new infantry models, +steel mill model, +trucks.

 

[foo_sharp]

Now I get it
Option A is the one I prefer.

 

[Gallin]

Propably not, but it's a nice idea.
I'm starting to worry about map space a bit, i am going to run all my models through MDXSquish, but total map size may still be about 4mb.

I have some tank models to make for each faction first, +the rocket ramp, +some new airplane models (will make little difference though, since they only replace the old imports), +new infantry models, +steel mill model, +trucks.

Isnt the limit 8 mbs now?

 

[Fingolfin]

Yes, but you still don't want to have it load forever.

EDIT:

MORE UPDATES!!

*New flak gun model!

Image

*Bridges introduced!
Here's a shot of a bridge on the german/french border, fortified from both ends. Note that it is possible to plant mines on the bridge itself aswell!

Image

The same bridge in Vietnam. Those bridges are classified as small, and should infact not be able to handle the weight of a Heavy tank, or possibly even a medium tank, but in warcraft, everything is possible!
This specific model is made of wood to fit the vietnamese/indocineese theme.

Image

 

[warman45]

i think you'll need new ship models. all the ships i have seen look.... not as good as i would have hoped (except the U-boat model, that was cool)

 

[Gallin]

Is their perhaps a way to strengthen bridges so heavier tanks can go on them?

 

[Fingolfin]

I think you misunderstood again, lol.
I said that technically, since they are made of wood, they would not be able to hold for 100 tons in real life. But in my map, they do.

The only thing that would prevent units from crossing is if they would be too big, ie., not fit in the pathing.

@Warman, yes, i could do new ship models. It would only take one texture for all of them, since ships have pretty much the same components, and that is good.
I watched the pearl harbour movie last week (lol @ propaganda bullshit), and those ships looked too awesome to not be in my map.

 

[warman45]

you may wish to give each nation there own texture to compensate for the different camo schemes.
heres some ships

Japan:
Battleship: Yamato
Battlecruiser: Kongo
Cruiser: Tone
Destroyer: Fubuki
Submarine: I 400
Carrier: Akagi
Germany:
Battleship: Bismark
Battlecruiser: Scharnhorst
Cruiser: Admiral Graf Spee
Destroyer: Zerstoyer
Submarine: VII C
Carrier: Graf Zepplin
Britain:
Battleship: King George V
Battlecruiser: Hood
Cruiser: Essex
Destroyer: Tribal
Submarine: S class
Carrier: Ark Royal
USA:
Battleship: Iowa
Battlecruiser: Alaska
Cruiser: Huston
Destroyer: Fletcher
Sumbarine: Gato
Carrier: Essex

 

[Fingolfin]

Thanks for the list! That is very useful
We'll see about the textures - right now i am happy if i can get models of each class for each nation. If you look at that list you posted, it is pretty much more models than the amount of units model i have done for this game in total! And that is way too much space.

Next tanks up are:
Italian Carro Armato

Japaneese Chi-Ha

Those will be the only unique tank models for those nations.

 

[foo_sharp]

you may wish to give each nation there own texture to compensate for the different camo schemes.
heres some ships

Destroyer: Zerstoyer
Carrier: Graf Zepplin

-> It's "Zerstörer" unless "Zerstoyer" is some kind of very weird unique name for that class of ships (in that case, my bad).
-> It's Graf Zeppelin, you missed an "e"

 

[warman45]

you are right foo.

in that case:
for just plain everyone has same:
Battleship: based off Yamato (largest battleship ever built)
Carrier: Essex (american supercarrier, mass-produced)
Cruiser: Admiral Graf Spee (german Cruiser)
Destroyer: Tribal
Submarine: VII-C (German U-boat the scurge of the atlantic)
Transport: Liberty Ship (cheap easy to build most common transport ever.)
If seperate models for axis and allies than
Axis:
Battleship: Yamato
Carrier: Akagi
Cruiser: Tone
Destroyer: Fubuki
Submarine VII-C
Note: the reason this is so heavy on japanese ships are for 2 reasons. japan started with the largest navy and hitler scraped his surface fleet (no navy))
Allies:
Battleship: Iowa
Carrier: Essex
UNIQUE UNIT MUST HAVE!!!
Escort Carrier: HMS Audacity
.............................................
Cruiser: Huston
Destroyer: Tribal
Submarine Gato
Note all transports should be liberty ships

i think the latter might actually be a better choice. I also have thought of a cool way to make it balanced A symetrically. the allies get the escort carrier but the axis have better submarines and cruisers (the allies didn't build torpedoes into their cruisers while the japanese did and the germans had the most effective submarine fleet in the world.) plz consider this i really like this idea!

 

[Fingolfin]

That last list seems a lot better, separate ships for allies and axis is a good suloution.

I have one question though, you don't happen to know the name of the American transports that brought the amphibical vessels to the beaches on D-Day?
You must know which ones i mean.

 

[warman45]

i am not exactly sure, but allied shipping was handled almost exclusively by liberty ships, there were manny D-Day landing craft but the one i can remember is called the higgens boat (i wouldn't include it however as it could not travel outside of the coast.

 

[Fingolfin]

Seems very correct.
And no, i will propably not make either of them, just thought it was interresting trivia.

 

[warman45]

i seriously suggest making a liberty ship and using it to represent everyones naval transport (it is a very generic shape and is pretty much the only "class" of transport vessel built for ww2) plz don't use fleet oilers as transports they look inapropriate.

 

[Fingolfin]

I will consider it.

 

[pomelito123]

Great!! It's good to see that this map is still developed... I miss too many things here, so what's happening now here? I just get back from a 3 month vacation.... I'm still here waiting to test this map...

 

[Fingolfin]

Just read through from the link in my sig to this page, it's pretty much everything that has happened (and it is not so little!)
If you want, you can join in on beta tests later on, i will announce when they'll start occuring.

 

[pomelito123]

Great! Count me on one of the Beta Testers! ^_^

 

[Fingolfin]

I have some terrible news.

Some corrupt files in the system registry causing random boot errors have made me have to reformat my computer.
Fortunately, i hade done a backup of all my imported files, including this map and it's models, but all the newer updates are gone.
This includes the AT-mine model, the awesome T-34, the V2-rocket, bridge models, and everything else that was created after those.

This is a great setback, but i will do my best to redo all of the models and get the map back to where i was.
It is very frustrating to have over 50 hours of work erased just because of windows retardedness.

 

[Mechanical Man]

uhm, you couldn't access the disk somehow?

 

[Fingolfin]

Not without removing the harddrive and place it in another computer.
Also, i wasn't the one to decide to reformat, it was a friend of mine who works at linux support who was helping me, and reformated the disc due to failing communication.
He thought that i had synchronized the data on my computer with that of my backup disc, something i had not done for a couple of weeks.
Very sad accident.


EDIT: Worst part is, that last weekend, i was really planning on publishing my T-34 aswell as the flak gun to the models section, to promote this project. That way they would have been saved.

 

[warman45]

better than apples retardedness that won't allow you to change even the most minor of prefrences (such as desktop icon orientation)

 

[Fingolfin]

I use Linux Ubuntu now, it's awesome

 

[karland90]

i have used linux too, but at that time i wanted to play some pc games, so i wanted a windows back.

 

[James7]

Hey sorry I moved from Oregon to Tennessee. Any sort of updates? I don't have internet access but stop by the library on the way back from work a few times a week.

 

[Fingolfin]

Well, you can read through the thread if you want to see the most recent updates.
I haven't been working on this for the last two weeks though, final grades are set the 22nd of may, and i have lots of studying to do.

 

[Fingolfin]

Attention fans of naval combat!

I just kickstarted my 3ds max here in the appartment, and took the liberty of instantly producing two new cruiser models!
Both models are axis versions, since i thought it would be impossible to compromise between the two.

The Admiral Graf Spee:

Image

The IJN Tone Heavy Cruiser: (japanese ships look so badass!)

Image

Closeup of the side mounted gun emplacements:

Image

Closeup of the main guns:

Image

Enjoy!

 

[ikillforeyou]

My offer's still valid, i could help you rebuild them, i have not much to do until somone makes a sc2 export script. lol.

 

[Fingolfin]

You mean remake the modes?
Sorry in that case, i'm a perfectionist, and i never let other people do things for me.
Unless it is something i suck at, lol.

Besides, i think modeling is fun anyways.

 

[ikillforeyou]

K, sure, i understand..

But maybe, make the I-400 and give it a locust swarm ability that launches 4 planes? that would be cool.

I'll be editing this post with a list of super heavies, =) the monster was too big, so maybe for germany/axis try this?

Panzer VIII Maus
Japaniese:
I-400 Submarine aircraft carrier (Give locust swarm)
French:
French FCM F1
British:
British Flying Elephant APC
American:
American T-28 Self propelled gun

 

[Fingolfin]

Actually, i think it was the size that was the charm of the monster.
I actually scaled up my model of the T-28 to be of somewhat similar size, i was thinking of making it a little smaller and a little weaker to better balance. I added things like fences on the track covers and the top, aswell as a commander walking around on it and cranes loading ammunition.

The reason i was planning to include them is that they can be given a clear role: Super siege units. Also, that large units would require large bridges to manouver, and just that it would feel like technology had really gone forward in an interresting way.

Tanks like the Maus are basically just overdimensioned tanks with lots of armor, and i don't see how replacing a tank with a slightly bigger tank would justify the addition to map size.

 

[karland90]

so you're going to redo the 1500 monster? btw before the harddrive format, it seemed on the wip picture a bit smaller than on the wikipedia picture.

 

[Fingolfin]

Yes, i shortened it quite a bit. Also, i didn't include the two PaK-Guns on the sides.
this was for the purpouse of making it more compact and implementable. One of the large issues with the monster, that would make it practically immovable in real life, is the fact that the tracks were so long.

There is a rule in tank engineering, that for a tank to be able to turn, the ratio between the width between the centre of the tracks and their length should be about 2:1 (that is twice as long as wide) at maximum. On the blueprints of the P1500, this ratio was over 7:1, hence, it would not be able to turn.

To make it short, i was reducing the size of the monster, and increasing the size of the T-28. The monster also had an added munitions storage at the back. I am confident that they will be a nice addition to the map.

New model: The IJN Akagi

Image

Image

Image