WW2: World in Flames [REVISED]

[WOWWARS]

i got an idea ye need oil to buy tanks and stuff like planes and artilery (i think)

and make it so the seasons aren't world wide as james did not everywhere in the world has the same seasons

 

[Vuormalainen]

i got an idea ye need oil to buy tanks and stuff like planes and artilery (i think)

You need oil already, which you gain from oil refineries in several cities

 

[WOWWARS]

does oil come from oil refineries and by sea oil refineries lol Merchant ship(oil) lol or
Oil Trucks?

and a crazy idea i got from playing Victoria 2, and wc3 axis vs allies

Declearing war, Trading argeements, Suggest Alliance (prop wont be possible) on neutral or other countries such as Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden.

lol just picture Axis having Spain in there alliance and trade, and Portugal with USSR.

 

[Fingolfin]

Income is generated every two minutes, and is calculated by how many cities or oil refineries you have.

Each oil refinery gives 350 oil per cycle, and cities give currency in proportion to how big the city is (Small: 100, Medium: 150, Large: 200).

 

[millzy]

this looks amazing the only thing im scared of is that the map size may be to big with thos epic models
cant wait for beta

 

[Fingolfin]

Current map size is 3,9mb, but it will be reduced before release due to optimization and cleaning out of unnessecary doodad models.
I will add some more models on top of that though (the last ships, some airplanes, two tanks and an armored personel carrier etc.) so i'm guessing the total map size will be right above 4mb.

 

[Hugomath]

Are there going to be heroes, like in the James' Beta Versions?

 

[khazmorian]

I also have a question!

Is there any medic unit to keep the cannon fodder alive?

 

[Vuormalainen]

I also have a question!

Is there any medic unit to keep the cannon fodder alive?

I don't know if Fingoflin has plans for this in the future, but I know there wasn't in the beta yesterday

 

[Rhakol]

This seems like a brilliant concept, though I have numerous questions;
Will additional types of infantry be featured, such as machine gunners, medics and snipers?
How will the Panama and Suez Canals be featured, if at all?
What about Canada and Australia, who will control them?
Also, as for the British in Africa, how will they reflect the addition of the Anglo-American Forces in Operation Torch, if at all?
(Will there be options to trigger static events like this?)
Will the Civil War in China be represented by a division?
I have numerous other questions, though I think I will hold back the majority for now.

Best regards,
- Tom.

 

[Vuormalainen]

This seems like a brilliant concept, though I have numerous questions;
Will additional types of infantry be featured, such as machine gunners, medics and snipers?
How will the Panama and Suez Canals be featured, if at all?
What about Canada and Australia, who will control them?
Also, as for the British in Africa, how will they reflect the addition of the Anglo-American Forces in Operation Torch, if at all?
(Will there be options to trigger static events like this?)
Will the Civil War in China be represented by a division?
I have numerous other questions, though I think I will hold back the majority for now.

Best regards,
- Tom.

As far as my guesses go, there won't be machine gunners and snipers atleast as there is actually already 3 infantry types; engineer, soldier and flamethrower.

The Suez Canal is there and can be crossed by a bridge. Screenshot

Australia isn't in the map, Canada will probably be controlled by US. Check this map to see whats actually in there, http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...79471631-ww2-world-flames-revised-minimap.png (it's at the top of page 1), although it's an outdated map but the size and locations are the same.

Can't answer the rest of your questions but I'm sure Fingoflin will when he's here! Happy that you're interested!

 

[Hugomath]

Canada was controlled by teal(GB) in the earlier James' beta versions... but Fingolfin may change it anyways.

 

[Vuormalainen]

Canada was controlled by teal(GB) in the earlier James' beta versions... but Fingolfin may change it anyways.

Please use this code if you wan't the signature picture to link to this thread

[URL="http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/map-development-202/ww2-world-flames-revised-173036/"][IMG]http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8173/worldinflameslogo.png[/IMG][/URL]

Anyone is welcome to use in support of the project!
Go here to edit your signature and paste in the code above

 

[Hugomath]

Oops sorry .

Oh, Fingolfin:
Are you still going to make that awesome DP-28? I remembered it because I played a game which had the DP-28. It so cool , though I still think the FG-42 kicks ass

Here's a picture:

 

[Rhakol]

Thank you for the timely responses. I have always had a strong interest in the Second World War, so this map will very much appeal to my tastes. I can only hope it comes out as good as it looks. ^^

-Best Regards,
Tom

 

[Vuormalainen]

Thank you for the timely responses. I have always had a strong interest in the Second World War, so this map will very much appeal to my tastes. I can only hope it comes out as good as it looks. ^^

-Best Regards,
Tom

No problem, thank you for supporting with your signature! If you havn't already, you might find interesting material in the other pages also

 

[WOWWARS]

lol nice map

 

[Falafelkorv]

These models are just gorgeous. Awesome work man!
Please add description and picture to the stuart light tank and the troop carrier once theyre done.
Also, i really think you should add more infantry types.
I mean like Light and heavy infantry. German Light could have mp 40's as main arment (Or Mauser, idk) and Sturmgewehr for heavy. American could have Grease gun for light and Thompson for heavy etc etc. Also, add anti tank infantry.
Maybe even a MG team, that can dig in? Infantry is very underestimated.
And please clear you inbox, so people can send PMs to you.

//Zelzahim

 

[Hugomath]

I don't think he's going to do this because that's a kind of micro-management or just doesn't look so good... good suggestion though

 

[Falafelkorv]

Yeah, maybe. But this map really need anti-tank infantry.

 

[Vuormalainen]

Yeah, maybe. But this map really need anti-tank infantry.

Played it?
Keep in mind that theres light anti tank cannons and that engineers may lay mines!

 

[Hugomath]

In the previous posts Fingolfin said that there will be no longer anti tank infantry. He didn't mentioned why, but I don't think he will change his mind...

 

[Rhakol]

No problem, thank you for supporting with your signature! If you havn't already, you might find interesting material in the other pages also

Heh, I think the map is fantastic, so how can I not support it? ^^ Also, thanks for the heads-up. Some of those pictures and described features look pretty incredible. It will be great to see this hit release, and honestly, it looks like it will top pretty much every other World War 2 map out there, in terms of historical accuracy, game play and aesthetics, amongst other things. Still, I don't think some variations between infantry would hurt, though I'm hardly in a position to give criticism. Can't wait to see the T-34 in game.

-Best regards,
Tom

 

[khazmorian]

hmm

the Germans had a counter for anti tank infantry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_armor

but i don't know feels weird if there isn't some strong anti tank stuff

 

[elfian]

Finally an awesome and really good-looking World War Map. Congratz!

 

[Fingolfin]

Oh my god! So many posts!
i guess wormas signature image did the trick

I've got a lot to respond to now, but i will try my best.


OK, first of all, the infantry classes.
There reason i'm not including AT-infantry is pretty much the following:
It was totally ineffective.

I was sketching on how the different AT-soldiers would be equipped, and what rocket launcher they would have, when i noticed that the russians didn't have one single form of hand-held anti-tank weapon.
The reason for this was that russian soldiers found that those weapons, due to their awfully low muzzle velocity, had little chance of penetrating any tank armor, and were more likely to just draw the tanks attention. Even by the other factions, theese weapons were only effective under ideal conditions, like firing the projectile into the tanks exhaust, but for that you could use practically any projectile, like a hand grenade or a home-made molotov.
Also, there's the fact that the role that the AT-soldiers had is infact taken by the AT-guns, and in a much more realistic manner (since they were used quite extensively).


As for machine gunners, i've actually been VERY tempted to implement them in the game because of how uniquely they would play, but before beta-testing i thought that soldiers were already very exposed at the battlefield, and were most likely to die en masse anyways.
Here's the deal though; on each beta test, Worma have been implementing the strategy of massing infantry to a huge extent, usually overwhelming most light tanks despite them being genuine infantry killers.
This being said, i'm really hoping that i could find the space to implement those, and if so, they will be used to supress areas; effectively slowing down all organic unit within it's line of fire.

The machineguns will be the following:
MG34 - Germany

M1919 Browning Machine Gun - USA/Britain/Minor Allies

DP-28, or alternately Maxim Machine Gun - Russia

I'm still not sure about this though, as the flamethrower is still an excellent anti-infantry unit.

The machine gunner would act the following:
*It would have to deploy before it can fire
*It would have a slow movement speed
*In deployed mode, it would do splash damage, and slow down all enemy units in an area around the target
*It would be decently expensive

 

[Hugomath]

Maybe the Soviet borrowed the American M9A1 Bazooka... or maybe sometimes used stolen Panzershrecks from Germany...

Anyways,
*Indeed, machine gunners do are interesting. They usually kill many enemies, for example a single machine gun team could slay a squad of normal infantry(unless one of them has a Bazooka or something ). Even against flamethrowers they were effective, with the chance of hitting the fuel tanks in the back, incinerating anyone standing nearby.
*The weapons sounds great, although the MG-34 and the Browning m1919 have slightly more ammo capacity than the DP-28(for example, the Browning had about 300-500 bullets pr magazine, while the DP-28 had about 70-100, don't know exactly). Anyways, most of players don't know that much of these stuff... I guess...

 

[Fingolfin]

Actually, the DP-28 only had 41 bullets. lol.
And as for your motivation for the machinegun.. well, i wouldn't want it for the sole purpouse of slaying tons of infantry, rather having it as a debuffing unit that slows down from a distance rendering them vurnerable to artillery or bunker fire.

 

[Falafelkorv]

Actually, the russians had PTRS-41.
Wikipedia:

The PTRS-41 was produced and used by the Soviet Union during World War II. In the years between the World Wars, the Soviet Union began experimenting with different types of armour-piercing anti-tank cartridges. Finding the 12.7x108mm insufficient, they began development of what would become the 14.5x114mm armour piercing round. Famous Soviet weapons designers such as Vasily Degtyaryov and Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov designed rifles to accommodate this cartridge. In 1938, Simonov designed the PTRS-41, a magazine fed, anti-tank rifle.

The five round magazine was loaded into the receiver and held under pressure by a swing magazine underneath. On firing the last round, the bolt is held open, and the magazine release catch can only be operated when the bolt is locked back. The gas-operated PTRS has a tendency to jam when dirty, and the 14.5 mm cartridge produces significant residue, blocking the gas port. The 14.5 mm armour-piercing bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1012 m/s and good ballistics. It can penetrate an armour plate up to 40 mm thick at a distance of 100 meters.

To balance it, you could make it a little stronger, but cheap to produce.
Its better if AT guns have slow movementspeed, so AT infantry is, not as powerful as AT guns, but good movementspeed to keep pace with advances.
I also got another idea. Instead of "Food" for infantry, as someone suggested, have the same system, only that it goes down if they are cut off(This requires a good frontline system). This way, you could surround enemeis by cutting of their supply- and reinforcement routs. To just starve them out.
Another thing would to make them not have a regeneration. Then make a "Healing aura" around halftracks. Another way to cut off supplies.
What do you think?

//Zelzahim

 

[Hugomath]

Seems nice... although it was a kind of sniper lol.

So Fingolfin, how's the work with the map going?

 

[Vuormalainen]

Actually, the russians had PTRS-41.
Wikipedia:


To balance it, you could make it a little stronger, but cheap to produce.
Its better if AT guns have slow movementspeed, so AT infantry is, not as powerful as AT guns, but good movementspeed to keep pace with advances.
I also got another idea. Instead of "Food" for infantry, as someone suggested, have the same system, only that it goes down if they are cut off(This requires a good frontline system). This way, you could surround enemeis by cutting of their supply- and reinforcement routs. To just starve them out.
Another thing would to make them not have a regeneration. Then make a "Healing aura" around halftracks. Another way to cut off supplies.
What do you think?

//Zelzahim

We're not gonna have snipers. Theres flamethrowers, engineers, soldiers aswell as it seems we're gonna get the machine gunner! It's enough, no need for more micro managing.

You can already surround and cutting of their reinforcements routs, very easily and then bombard them No need for useless complicated memory-eating systems!

Seems nice... although it was a kind of sniper lol.

So Fingolfin, how's the work with the map going?

Even if you asked Fingoflin, I guess I could confirm that it's moving on very well, yesterday it was made possible to damage a tank's tracks, engine and even a chance of hitting the ammo storage, blowing things up! Engineers can repair tracks and engines

 

[Fingolfin]

A tank rifle is not a rocket launcher, and as i said, i can't really find a useful role for anti-tank infantry. There's also the fact that tank rifles were obsolete against anything larger than a light tank.

And Worma is right, this map is very fast paced, and i doubt any units would have to sit around long enough to starv to death (that would be lame, lol), and besides, how could i ever be able to detect when a unit is surrounded?
There is simply no way to script that.

As for the map progress, i can say that i have made a new sweet custom tile that represents farmland, and i've also done a new custom tree model that gives the game a less cartoony atmosphere.
I've also just made it so that the shells of the light tanks slow down target organic units in it's AoE. We'll see how it helps the light tank in it's anti-infantry role.

 

[Hugomath]

Good to hear . Would be nice if you could make a kind of orb effect to the tanks(like those that can hit the tracks, ammo dump, etc) against infantry that blows up the guys and they fly high lol

 

[elfian]

"how could i ever be able to detect when a unit is surrounded?
There is simply no way to script that. "

Liek, that'd be totally simple, but probably resource-wasting since, you would have to check it all the time for every unit or so. Maybe you can script flanking instead?

 

[Fingolfin]

I already do; tanks take damage differently depending on what direction the attacker is shooting from. If you fire from the side, you can even score a fatality by penetrating the enemy tanks munitions storage, effectively blowing it up instantly (or at least dealing massive damage).

And yes, is is pretty hard to detect if a unit is surrounded and in lack of escape routes; you'd have to do the test on each unit in the map, and at the same time test all units within whatever range and test their weapon range to see how large of an area they cover, then you have to take into account the terrain pathing, and you have to find some kind of way to... well, how do you define a "surround" in scripting anyways? How far away can the enemy stand and still block your path? How is warcraft supposed to understand that your units can't get out?

The whole concept is just silly, if it was me, i'd just storm them right away and blow them to pieces. Or if i was the owner of the surrounded soldiers, i'd just suicide rush them into the enemy, they are quite dispensable anyways.

 

[Hugomath]

Damn, I would order them to blow the grenades on themselves

Anyways, I remember that you said something about the soldiers evolving their weapons as the time pass, for example, the Germans would evolve from MP-40 to StG-44.

 

[elfian]

I already do; tanks take damage differently depending on what direction the attacker is shooting from. If you fire from the side, you can even score a fatality by penetrating the enemy tanks munitions storage, effectively blowing it up instantly (or at least dealing massive damage).

And yes, is is pretty hard to detect if a unit is surrounded and in lack of escape routes; you'd have to do the test on each unit in the map, and at the same time test all units within whatever range and test their weapon range to see how large of an area they cover, then you have to take into account the terrain pathing, and you have to find some kind of way to... well, how do you define a "surround" in scripting anyways? How far away can the enemy stand and still block your path? How is warcraft supposed to understand that your units can't get out?

The whole concept is just silly, if it was me, i'd just storm them right away and blow them to pieces. Or if i was the owner of the surrounded soldiers, i'd just suicide rush them into the enemy, they are quite dispensable anyways.

I agree. Well, having to check for no remaining escape routes is way harder than simply checking if someone is surrounded tho. Both ways it's probably going to cause lag and you are better off without it. I'm glad to hear about the flanking. I remember that when I played Company of Heroes the direction had matter like this. When they hit your tank from behind they may damage the engine, rendering you immobile and devastated. :]

 

[WOWWARS]

Americans going from thompson to BAR

 

[Hugomath]

The only problem with the BAR is that it has only 20 bullets per mag. It is quite powerful though.
Americans had the M3 Grease Gun too. About the Soviet, I actually don't know, maybe the PPS-43...
What could be nice is that the soldiers had chances to spawn with different kinds of weapon. For example, Americans had 50% spawning with a M1A1 Garand/Carbine and 50% with the Thompson. However, it doesn't sound too good due to the fact that the Soviet and the Germans would have to spawn with Kar98K's and Mosin-Nagant's, which were bolt-action rifles and would make a huge difference between soldiers with SMG's. Maybe even if they used self-loading rifles, like the G43 and the SVT-40, they would attack slower than the SMG's. But that's missing the main point.

My suggestions are:
Americans: Thompson->M3 Grease Gun or Thompson->M50 Reising or Thompson->United Defense M42.
Soviet Union: PPSh-41->PPS-43 or PPD-40->PPSh-41.
Germany: MP-40->StG-44

 

[elfian]

Are we going to have Katyusha vehicles in the map?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SLvtP6KMUM

And you know I wasn't talking about the song.

 

[Hugomath]

He did mentioned about Rocket Artilleries, but I'm not sure if he will put them in the map.

 

[Fingolfin]

Yes, the idea of evolving weapons is still being considered. I'm not sure how much it would contribute though, since anti-infantry combat doesn't evolve anything in the late game - the only two such units you can have (the light tank and the flamer) are available from the start. From an aesthetic aspect, i could still say that the weapon detail won't be visible from a player perspective, so it won't make the units look better either.

one thing that me and worma talked about though, is for infantry to be trained in groups, giving you - say - 5 soldiers instead of one, but at a higher cost and slower build time. In that case, 2 of them could be riflemen with a longer range, slower cooldown, and higher damage. Rifles were so common in ww2 that i currently feel bad about not having them in the game.

It is clear though that engineers will be armed with a rifle, so perhaps i don't have to implement the above idea. Sometimes, you just want to build your infantry one by one.


EDIT: I love the katyusha, but we'll see if i have map space for it.
I'd love to have the US Callilope and the Katyusha as exclusives for those factions.

 

[Falafelkorv]

What are the german artilleries?

 

[elfian]

Spawning 5 soldiers instead of 1 would be much better imo. I'd like it even more if it's a single squad unit consisting of 5 (or N) soldiers.

 

[Vuormalainen]

What are the german artilleries?

Wespe

 

[Hugomath]

You do what elfian told you: each infantry unit as a squad. For example, infantry squad: x Riflemen and x Sub-machine gunners. Then, the flamethrower would be: x Riflemen and x Sub-machine gunners and 1 or 2 flamethrowers. Engineer same thing, but with one or two engineers. However, that would require that you remake the infantry soldiers, adding 4 or more soldiers.

 

[Vuormalainen]

Infantry is good as it is, don't ever try to repair something that works. Squads and their selection are complicated and not suited for wc3, therefore also decreasing performance..

 

[Fingolfin]

Well, it's not because of performance that i am not likely to implement squad systems (i have already made a few fully working ones for earlier maps), but the fact that infantry dies in such a rapid pace that you are quite likely to end up with a whole bunch of leftover squads with about 1-2 units in each, and also, transporting squads would cause some troubles since you have to fit them all.

 

[elfian]

Well, it's not because of performance that i am not likely to implement squad systems (i have already made a few fully working ones for earlier maps), but the fact that infantry dies in such a rapid pace that you are quite likely to end up with a whole bunch of leftover squads with about 1-2 units in each, and also, transporting squads would cause some troubles since you have to fit them all.

That's fixable. Make them able to reinforce when they have missing members. For example when a squad is near a barracks you click a 'reinforce' button, while you have it in your selection and a unit get trained by the barracks, which then comes out and joins your squad.

 

[Vuormalainen]

That's fixable. Make them able to reinforce when they have missing members. For example when a squad is near a barracks you click a 'reinforce' button, while you have it in your selection and a unit get trained by the barracks, which then comes out and joins your squad.

Too micro-ish... we don't need squads.

But we're adding some sort of "millitary commands" like in my Helms Deep, where you can easily control a lot more units than the default 12.