Ormand
Posts: 682
Joined: 2/17/2009
Status: offline
|
Sorry for the radio silence. I had to get to work early today, and I got home late.
Anyway. YAU! Put up just now at 7:43:20.
Thanks Veni for observations.
I fixed spring low and high mountains in all the at2 files.
I fixed the Mercenary base problem in divisions v1 and v2 (I think it was the sift in items).
Supply: Looking back, when I first started making the units, I was basing them on those in DCCB. So, I also used fuel and supply from DCCB assuming it was OK, and I didn't go back and look at the consequences. Mistake! I already looked at the fuel usage and I think I fixed all those already. For the most part, the supply usage for many units was less than in standard ATG, so I thought that increasing the cost of supplies would balance it out OK. In the end, while armor and most other units were using less supplies, the main drag is almost certainly infantry units, so you probably saw a drain from the fact that your total usage was probably a bit lower due to the armor etc, but the cost was 25% higher. I have gone back, and renormalized all the sft supply usage. And, like fuel, I tried to scale it from the basic game by the difference in production cost. And, I reduced the cost of supplies back to 3. There are a few exceptions. Artillery is a little less than basic, and airplanes use about 50% less. Looking at them, they seemed high to me, so I felt the should be reduced. But this is open to testing and how things work, so feedback is welcome.
Flak: This is a really interesting question, and again the starting point was units in DCCB. Being historical, there isn't much need to model the advantages/disadvantages. Doing some research, I think my original thinking that heavy flak is better suited for high-altitude planes is correct. I read that in general, flak was a layered system. It is fairly intuitive that it should be harder to track low-flying, fast moving planes with the big guns of heavy flak (although if you get hit, its all over). So, I reworked the sft so that light flak is more effective against fighters and divebombers than heavy flak (but only slightly). In addition, I made light flak act somewhat like "machineguns" against infantry (defensive, but not quite as effective). Light flak uses half the supplies of heavy flak, and having much larger guns (much like artillery), heavy flak has 5 stack points, as opposed to the standard 2. So they take up more space in the stack. They are better suited defending valuable targets from level and strategic bombers. But, to make your decision a bit more complicated, I gave heavy flak artillery capabilities. But not quite as effective as regular artillery. My thinking is, of course, the dreaded 88mm Flak 18. For this reason, heavy flak also has good AT capabilities. I also modified mobile flak. Originally it was made to look like light flak, but mobile. The same question comes up: why use this instead of light flak plus a truck? Looking it over, many of the towed light flak have just one barrel. But, with a halftrack or tank chassis, it is pretty easy to have more guns. So, I made mobile flak I a more powerful AA platform than flak II. These give some flavor and choice that I think are reasonably realistic in the sense as to why these different capabilities were introduced historically. I am willing to rethink fighters/divebombers with heavy flak though.
Another modification is introduced to make raids with cavalry a little easier. I made cavalry capable of carrying two turns of supply.
I put up mod files for all the at2 files, including A New Dawn (basic and v2) and a version of A new Dawn with a few new units, like Mountain Troops, Para II, III, IV, etc. I forgot about these, which would simplify using them if you want. I haven't tested A New Dawn v2 too much. I just saw that it would make new models, etc.
|
Printable Version
RE: Updated Graphics (and more!) - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread