WW2: World in Flames [REVISED]

[Fingolfin]

Actually, the whole experience system does basically not be so much of a problem, you'd just use the custom value as killcount, and then every time a unit dies, you check if the killcoun is sufficient for "a promotion", and apply it.

 

[baassee]

And Custom Value is used by every major indexing system

 

[Fingolfin]

Then i can store it in a hash table. Who cares.

 

[RiotZ]

Yeah it is an easy system. And you only need one to two groups with an array. You can also use Point-Values too.

<3 Custom-Values.

 

[Fingolfin]

Why would you need a group and an array?
Point values are static, by the way.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

Maybe having soldier ranks? Increased bounty for killing a major instead of a private as an example. Maybe gaining aura, buffs, damage etc. Although this would be kinda hardcoded, for each rank and each unit type but you'll make it haha

Or gaining medals, for that instance? Maybe you can't actually 'see' the medals, but make them just buffs.

 

[RiotZ]

Why would you need a group and an array?
Point values are static, by the way.

Yeah I just recently realized that.
The array would be for each player or a number of other things, but basically just to keep you from over flowing if you're using more than one unit group. But you don't really need to do it with an array.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

So... Can the Medal one do?

 

[Fingolfin]

@xRoitZx: ah, you're talking about the squad suggestion?
Well, then i figure you'd need an array to store each group, although as mentioned, the system is not quite suitable for this map.

@Mis_foxy: You really like medals, don't you?
What do you mean the practical difference would be?
If i ever implement a rank system of some kind, it will only have a very discreet icon of a typical rank symbol, like theese (except possibly in silver).

 

[Khaled]

When do you think you'll finish this map?

 

[Fingolfin]

We are aiming for january. Technically we could beta test it now, but there is some terraining, balancing and polishing left to do.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

I'll be eagerly waiting then
So... Will most of the suggested stuff be added in the Beta?

 

[Fingolfin]

What do you mean by "suggested stuff"?

 

[RiotZ]

I'll be eagerly waiting then
So... Will most of the suggested stuff be added in the Beta?

Based on their opinions, no lol.

Suggested stuff being stupid shit we said you could add, Fingolfin.

 

[Fingolfin]

Ok..
I really hope you guys are actually reading my responses, otherwise you'll just be asking the same questions over and over again.

 

[RiotZ]

Ok..
I really hope you guys are actually reading my responses, otherwise you'll just be asking the same questions over and over again.

It sure sounds like that is happening a lot. xD

 

[Miss_Foxy]

I'm really sorry Fingolfin...
Erm, will tanks give armor bonuses to nearby units for 'Cover' like in Ham Ham's game?

 

[Vuormalainen]

I'm really sorry Fingolfin...
Erm, will tanks give armor bonuses to nearby units for 'Cover' like in Ham Ham's game?

Not currently, but it sure sounds like a good idea to me if the bonus is keeped low enough!

 

[Miss_Foxy]

In this game, how significant is 10 armor?

 

[RiotZ]

That's one major question I have. Do infantry or vehicles gain cover bonuses when behind, well cover... Obviously?

 

[Hugomath]

Infantry units could have increased armor when it stands near an armored vehicle. I believe we discussed this a very long time ago, perhaps between the third to ninth page. I remember that Fingolfin did liked this idea, but I don't know if he is going to include it in the map.

 

[Vuormalainen]

That's one major question I have. Do infantry or vehicles gain cover bonuses when behind, well cover... Obviously?

When they stay close to cover yes, there would be too much microing putting them BEHIND the cover all the time when having armies of 50+ infantry and other.

 

[Fingolfin]

@Miss_Foxy: 10 is very significant. each armor level deacreases incoming damage by i think 6%, so that would be damage * (0,94^10), which is almost 50% damage reduction!

I'm not sure how i like the armor buff system, since i don't like how it is just symbolising cover provided by the tanks. Technically, every tree on the map could be used as cover for infantry, and then i would rather give armor buffs for infantry hiding in forests (which is not a bad idea actually!).

 

[Falafelkorv]

Couldnt that be solved by giving all trees a small armor-aura for any living units within a small range?
Also, i really like the idea with Veterancy, that way you could group you most hardened soldiers into "Elite-divisions"

//Zelzahim

 

[Vuormalainen]

Couldnt that be solved by giving all trees a small armor-aura for any living units within a small range?

//Zelzahim

Yep, if you make trees units like I did in my map instead. Destructibles can't have abilities.

 

[RiotZ]

When they stay close to cover yes, there would be too much microing putting them BEHIND the cover all the time when having armies of 50+ infantry and other.

That's essentially my point. That will be a very interesting aspect of the game.

 

[Fingolfin]

Having trees as unit would cause massive lag. I'd rather place buff dummies in forested areas rather than have every single tree in the map carry an aura.

And i agree with you falafelkorv, i too like to make my own little elite korps in strategy games. I think i will include the experience system after all, it can't exactly do any harm.

 

[Vuormalainen]

I'd rather place buff dummies in forested areas rather than have every single tree in the map carry an aura.

True daaaaat, though my map doesn't lag.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

How about an increased 0.5 - 0.75 armor? Or 1 - 2 if it isn't enough?

 

[RiotZ]

How about an increased 0.5 - 0.75 armor? Or 1 - 2 if it isn't enough?

Lol I don't think they are adding that Foxy..
Unless you mean a bonus for the elite units :?

 

[Miss_Foxy]

But, it could be a decent buff, like if you have tanks nearby at least the infantry can benefit from it too instead of just getting shot down like any other soldier.

 

[Vuormalainen]

But, it could be a decent buff, like if you have tanks nearby at least the infantry can benefit from it too instead of just getting shot down like any other soldier.

I totally agree. It's obvious that in real infantry would fail harder without tank than with.

(Infantry can in fact hide behind tanks. Tanks draw attention. Infantry gets more time.)-(Micro)=Armor buff

Also it will make pure infantry spamming less effective.

 

[Fingolfin]

@Vuorma: Perhaps your map isn't 420x420 in size.

@Miss_Foxy: Thing is, i don't think it benefits the playstyle i want for this game. I don't want your infantry to cluster up near the tanks (since they would be an easier target for light tanks), and i don't want infantry to feel useless without tank support. This game is extremely tank centered as it is. Though i've seen vuorma do his pure infantry spam a couple of times, i'd say it isn't very effective.

 

[Vuormalainen]

@Vuorma: Perhaps your map isn't 420x420 in size.

@Miss_Foxy: Thing is, i don't think it benefits the playstyle i want for this game. I don't want your infantry to cluster up near the tanks (since they would be an easier target for light tanks), and i don't want infantry to feel useless without tank support. This game is extremely tank centered as it is. Though i've seen vuorma do his pure infantry spam a couple of times, i'd say it isn't very effective.

Well my map still had more trees so xD But well with the systems WiF already got I guess it could lag then.

Infantry spam rules, I can recall 200 infantries defending off France from Soviet T26s, T34s as well as SU76s. Oh and it doesn't have to feel useless if you just make the buff pretty low as Foxy said, as well as the radius big enough so that you _don't_ have to focus clustering infantry around tanks, and if you do, you'll get ownt by artillery - (if they got AoE which I can't remember).

If not this, perhaps lower the infantry stats by just a very little bit and then add the tank armor buff.

edit:
200 german infantries, which I had, would cost 4000 currency and no oil. You would get 12 Tigers for that price (+2700 oil, which is a lot), and those 12 Tigers would of been totally owned. So I think either what we just discussed, or add AoE vs infantry.

 

[Fingolfin]

You are assuming that the tiger is effective at fighting infantry, which it is not. It is a support unit. Also, training 200 soldiers would require 1400 seconds of training time, while 12 tigers would only take 540 - not even half as much.

Try having a similar ammount of light tanks against that, and it would make more sense.

I am planning to make the alternate (machinegun) damage of the medium tanks stronger, and perhaps add a little bit to infantry cost (although it is supposed to be low) - they already take AoE damage from both artilleries and light tanks though.

As for the whole tank aura thing.. not that your argument would actually support it, but i guess we can consider it. At least with the larger tanks. You can't have armor values less than 1 though, so we'd propably have to double the ammount of armor each tank has, and half the ammount of damage reduction provided by each armor point.

 

[Vuormalainen]

You are assuming that the tiger is effective at fighting infantry, which it is not. It is a support unit. Also, training 200 soldiers would require 1400 seconds of training time, while 12 tigers would only take 540 - not even half as much.

Bah, every town can build infantry you know, and theres not even half as many factories as towns is there?

we can consider it.

Thanks.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

Maybe there should be another buff implemented for erm, like an 'Empowered' buff which increases attack speed when many infantry units are standing together, that way they'll feel more safe.

PS: I grew by 1 cm today!

 

[Falafelkorv]

That would just support infantry-massing, wouldnt it?

Also, gratulations Miss_Foxy

 

[Vuormalainen]

That would just support infantry-massing, wouldnt it?

Not if you do what I said, reduce stats of infantry by lets say -1 armor and make the buff give 1 armor, for example.

Makes _pure_ infantry spamming worse atleast.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

And maybe increase certain chances of debuffs when there's infantry exceeding lets say, 20 in a zone? Like, make a buff called 'Crowded' which makes soldiers have a harder time dodging bullets, giving them a 5-10% increase in damage taken.

 

[Hugomath]

I liked Foxy's suggestion. Would be much easier to destroy this large group with Artillery too.

Something like that could happen with mechanized units. A large group of tanks(lets say 30 Panzer IVs) could have decreased speed and rate of fire, since the formation obviously interferes on both stats in real life.

 

[WOWWARS]

german armor wins russian infantry wins Allies naval wins

 

[Fingolfin]

It is very hard to make buffs based on unit concentration, and you'd have to compare the distance to every other unit, by every other unit (which means the trigger have to check [number of units on the entire map]*[number of units in range], and meanwhile work with distances and comparisions - to makeit short, a lot of work and cpu spent for little gain.

@WOWWARS: To be honest, i'd say that russia has the best tanks, germany has the best soldiers, britain has the best planes, japan has the best ships. Pretty much the way it was in history.

@Hugomath: Fortunately, it is easier to destroy larger groups with artillery.
As mentioned, they have an AoE (though i think it only applies to infantry), and they have a quite distinct role as heavy tank killers (which proved excellent against vuormas constand infantry/heavy tank spam).

 

[Miss_Foxy]

What about make it so that tanks have a tiny AOE against vehicles too? It sure would make players spread out their tanks a bit.

 

[Vuormalainen]

What about make it so that tanks have a tiny AOE against vehicles too? It sure would make players spread out their tanks a bit.

You wouldn't have time for spreading out your tanks or any units actually

I'm pretty sure we rather lay weight on overall strategy than micromanaging SC2 style

 

[Fingolfin]

I agree. First of all, it's not realistic to have tanks take AoE damage, especially not from other tanks (since AP projectiles are designed to explode inside the tank), and also, there is simply no time for you to spread them out everytime you move them, there's just too much other stuff going on.

Anyways, i've decided that the experience system will be included, and that the germans will either have a preexistent perk or an upgrade (available from the beginning of the game) that causes all their infantry to start at an "experienced" level rather than "unexperienced", to represent the superior training that german soldiers recieved compared to other nations in the war.

 

[Miss_Foxy]

Sorry Fingolfin. I'll try to suggest something more realistic then... ):

 

[Fingolfin]

no problem, there's nothing wrong about your suggestions. Some of the things you guys have suggested have proven to improve the game after all.

 

[WOWWARS]

@WOWWARS: To be honest, i'd say that russia has the best tanks, germany has the best soldiers, britain has the best planes, japan has the best ships. Pretty much the way it was in history..

German soldiers were drafts only elites were Waffen SS Germany And Hitler broke teh law of having mass tanks in Europe.

 

[Hugomath]

I'd say Russia had the largest number of men, Germany had the best tanks, Britain had the best aircraft, Japan had the best navy and the U.S had everything balanced.