Fiddling around with modern graphics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

ShadowB -> Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 4:00:52 AM)

[image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/ShadowB/Misc/portraitstest.jpg[/image]

Since I might be trying to learn the ropes of the editor to make a modern warfare .ptmaster (don't know how complex, yet), here's an experiment with unit 'portraits'. So far I've only thought of heavy tanks and fighters:

USA

Heavy Tank I: M1A1
Heavy Tank II: M1A1D
Heavy Tank III: M1A2
Heavy Tank IV: M1A2 SEP

Fighter I: F-4E Phantom
Fighter II: F-15C Eagle
Fighter III: F-15C Eagle
Fighter IV: F-22 Raptor

USSR

Heavy Tank I: T-72
Heavy Tank II: T-80U
Heavy Tank III: T-90
Heavy Tank IV: Black Eagle

Fighter I: MiG-21 Fishbed
Fighter II: MiG-29 Fulcrum
Fighter III: Su-30 Flanker-C
Fighter IV: Su-47 Firkin


I'd like to find a different fighter to fill the American Fighter II spot, as having the F-15C doesn't satisfy me. However, it might be the only choice. I'd appreciate opinions and thoughts.

Should I use a limited number of light and medium tank models (M551 Sheridan and M60 Patton and that's about it for the US, for instance) or discard them entirely?



Ande -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 1:55:06 PM)

the I think the term is "main battle tank" and is the only type of tank is widly used but there are also IFVs such as the bradly or bmp which is equally armed (AT missles)and carries infantry but is much less armored. 

I think there should be helicopters, strike fighters and airsupremacy fighters, putting aircrafts like f-15 in the strikefighter category and f-22 in the airsupremacy category. It is a bitt tricky to make helicopters in the editor but they could be shortrange aircraft with huge firepower but vulnerable to AA fire



marcusm -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 2:44:21 PM)

Don't forget our stuff :).

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Swedish_JAS-39_Gripen_landing.jpg/300px-Swedish_JAS-39_Gripen_landing.jpg[/img]

Marcus



Philistine2 -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 2:56:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
{snip}
I'd like to find a different fighter to fill the American Fighter II spot, as having the F-15C doesn't satisfy me. However, it might be the only choice. I'd appreciate opinions and thoughts.


Why not use an F-16?

quote:


Should I use a limited number of light and medium tank models (M551 Sheridan and M60 Patton and that's about it for the US, for instance) or discard them entirely?


Are you just replacing the graphics, or are you going to change unit values, too?

If you're changing unit values, as Ande said, there are IFV's which are probably quite different than medium tanks stats-wise, but otherwise might work as graphics mods. Also, the M60 had 3 pretty distinct versions (M60A1, A2 and A3).

I'm also playing around with a modern mod (doing values as well as graphics) and I'm starting off with the thought that I'll use just 3 levels of research (at least for most things).

Some things--I'm even having a problem coming up with 3 real distinct systems where you've got one system that's been in place a long time (e.g. US CAS -- other than the A10, what do you use?)

--Philistine



marcusm -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 3:01:09 PM)

Here's an cool idea.

How about a fictional Operation Flashpoint based scenario? Ie. A re-creation of the OFP islands.

That would be fun :).

3 sides. NATO, WP and Neutrals (basically using Chech equipment).

marcus



PDiFolco -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 3:44:43 PM)

Having just various M1 version is a bit restrictive, you could put the M60 Patton as level I, it's contemporary to the F4 Phantom.
Same for USSR, the MiG 21 is quite old (60s) and at that time the basic tanks were T-54 and T-62. You could add the MiG-25 also.
For planes the F-15 is more a Fighter-Bomber than a fighter (it's 2-seated), you should put F-16 instead.



ShadowB -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 4:05:46 PM)

I guess that I can't just make a graphic mod. I'll have to start messing around with stats sooner or later

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ande

the I think the term is "main battle tank" and is the only type of tank is widly used but there are also IFVs such as the bradly or bmp which is equally armed (AT missles)and carries infantry but is much less armored.

I think there should be helicopters, strike fighters and airsupremacy fighters, putting aircrafts like f-15 in the strikefighter category and f-22 in the airsupremacy category. It is a bitt tricky to make helicopters in the editor but they could be shortrange aircraft with huge firepower but vulnerable to AA fire

I had considered discarding light and medium tanks and armoured cars, but other than main battle tank, is a single type of unit (IFV) enough to fill the void?

Of course there should be helicopters, and Vic said he was looking into them, so we might be able to make them once the 1.1 patch comes out.

As for fighters, since I'll be replacing dive bombers with CAS aircraft, how would you set them apart from your suggested strike fighters and level bombers (probably renamed to strategic bombers)? Perhaps the difference would lay in their general bombing ability (CAS < Strike Fighter < Strategic Bomber, but the opposite against units), but I need to take a better look at aircraft stats.

Then there's the air superiority fighters, which'd be the best when it comes to interception. Perhaps strike fighters should be able to carry out this task as well, though considerably worse. Both the F-15C and the F-22 would be air superiority fighters. The last two US strike fighters would be the F-15E and perhaps the FB-22.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philistine

Why not use an F-16?

Because the F-15 and F-16 are contemporary aircraft, the former not meant to replace the latter. You might be able to say it's the same deal with the MiG-29 and Su-30 on the Soviet side. Hmm... Perhaps I'll use the F-16, just for variety's sake. [:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcusm

Don't forget our stuff :).

I'm planning to add two more sides besides the United States and the Soviet Union: the European Union and China. [;)]

Even though the Gripen is nice, the Eurofighter Typhoon would be the top air superiority fighter, preceded by the Tornado ADV. The I and II spots are open for now, and I have the Draken and Viggen in mind. However, I need to check if there's any other suitable aircraft, to add more national variety. Hmm, perhaps a Mirage...

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcusm
Here's an cool idea.

How about a fictional Operation Flashpoint based scenario? Ie. A re-creation of the OFP islands.

That would be fun :).

3 sides. NATO, WP and Neutrals (basically using Chech equipment).

marcus

For now, I'm just working on a .ptmaster file, to be used in random maps. Scenarios might come later, I don't know. [:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Having just various M1 version is a bit restrictive, you could put the M60 Patton as level I, it's contemporary to the F4 Phantom.
Same for USSR, the MiG 21 is quite old (60s) and at that time the basic tanks were T-54 and T-62. You could add the MiG-25 also.
For planes the F-15 is more a Fighter-Bomber than a fighter (it's 2-seated), you should put F-16 instead.

Yes, I could use the Patton for level I MBT, but after that... well, the Americans have been sticking to the M1 for a long time now.

As for the MiG-21, it saw a lot of action, and it's contemporary to the F-4, despite the latter is newer. There's the MiG-25, as you said, but it'd compete with the MiG-29 for the level II spot. Not sure yet.

Regarding the F-15, the C variant is single-seat, designed for air superiority. The D one, two-seat, is a training version, not to be confused with the E variant (Strike Eagle), the fighter-bomber one.



marcusm -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 4:28:24 PM)

You mean if Eurofighter ever gets properly finished ;).

Well, regarding OFP, I might do it myself based on your mod if I manage. Drawing the map
shouldn't be too hard, just use Everon/Malden as overlays, even better put both on same map
:).

Helicopters just became my no 1 wish for 1.1 or 1.2.

Marcus



Ande -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/14/2007 8:27:24 PM)

difference between CAS and strikefighters. Strikefighters could be used as a fighter but is best at fighting the ground, it is vulnerable against AA weapons but hadles interseption well. CAS aircraft is optimized for anti ground combat and handles AA well (like the A-10) but is vulnerable against interseption



chekers_MatrixForum -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/15/2007 6:25:09 AM)

Did you think about adding missile defense? i.e. patriot?



ShadowB -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/15/2007 6:20:33 PM)

Here's my preliminary unit plan, which is obviously open to opinions and (if needed) extensive change. Most of the work will be getting sub-formation pictures for all levels for all planned sides (USA, USSR, EU and China). I've taken the liberty of detailing helicopters, but their abilities depend on how Vic implements them in 1.1.

UNCHANGED:
Staff
Engineers
Truck
Fighter
Transport Aircraft
Cargo Ship

RENAMED:
Rifle -> Light Infantry
SMG -> Assault Infantry
Machinegunner -> Support Infantry
Scout -> Recon Infantry
Mortar -> Mortar Team
Flak -> AAA
Dive Bomber -> CAS

MODIFIED:
Paratrooper: more levels
Artillery: more range on better levels?
Level Bomber -> Strategic Bomber: more damage
Bazooka -> Anti-Tank Infantry: somewhat stronger, to counter the threat of MBTs
Submarine: stronger and with shore bombardment capacity, to simulate missile attacks?
Destroyer -> Frigate: carries one helicopter, shore bombardment capacity, to simulate missile attacks?
Cruiser -> Destroyer: carries two helicopters
Aircraft Carrier: more aircraft capacity, including helicopters?

ADDED:
Main Battle Tank: general tank, comparable to the heavy tank, might start as weak as the medium one, but improve more dramatically
IFV: carries 10 infantry, power roughly equivalent to the light tank
Light Artillery: less power, but airdroppable?
SP Artillery: self-propelled (obviously), more expensive than regular arty
Rocket Artillery: self-propelled, more range but more expensive than regular SP arty
SAM: better range but more expensive than AAA
Mobile SAM: self-propelled, more expensive than regular SAM
Mobile AAA: self-propelled, more expensive than regular AAA but less than regular SAM
UAV: cheap, can't do anything but recon
Strike Fighter: multirole, less unit attack than CAS, less structure attack than Strategic Bomber, less air attack than Fighter
Attack Helicopter: high unit attack, medium (Strike Fighter level) structure attack
Transport Helicopter: carries 10 infantry
Anti-Sub Helicopter: can detect and attack subs, operating from land or ships at sea

REMOVED:
Horse
Halftrack
Armored Car
Light Tank
Medium Tank
Heavy Tank
Tank Destroyer
Anti-Tank Gun
Infantry Gun
Battleship (???)



Ande -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/15/2007 6:48:48 PM)

I have put some thought in a modern mod on my own, that's why I have so many opinions

battleships is still used as a navalbased heavy artillery. I think there should  also be frigates and cruisers, they has equal firepower but the cruser can carry helicopters and have more hitpoints and range(supply carrage).

how about infantrybased AA such as the stinger?

then I thought of a kind of superunit: special forces
they would be able to do almost everything, having all the abilites of scouts but adding paradrop ability and maby even a small amount of engineering points, they would ofcourse be extremly expencive (mabe like 500-1000 per unit)

also, the rocket artillery I thought of was equally expencive as normal artillery but needs lots of supplies and loses a lot of readyness while attacking, meaning it needs some time to rearm. In return they would be devestating to moral, readyness and casualties



ShadowB -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/15/2007 7:13:06 PM)

The last American battleships were taken out of service last year, and nobody else uses them at this point, so it'd be impossible to find pictures of them to use in SFTs: you could find Iowas, but they've no equivalents in the EU, Russia nor China. Perhaps I should rename the Battleship to Cruiser, so to include Ticonderogas and Kirovs. All the fire support BBs used to provide would be replaced by missile firepower.

As for AA infantry, it sounds like a good idea, but since I already have Mobile AAA and Mobile SAM (and their static versions), is it really necessary to have another anti-air unit?

As for special forces, I guess I'd only implement them if there was a way to limit their number (for example, a maximum of 50 units). Unless you put a ridiculously high price tag on them, you'd see the most industrious players building armies of commandos to replace their regular infantry. That'd be preposterous.

Finally, as for rocket artillery, well, I haven't delved into supply usage yet and I wouldn't know what values to assign to the unit, but I guess that's another good way of representing it.



Ande -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/15/2007 8:55:33 PM)

infantry AA fills the role it's rough terrain.
Does it exist static AA?, I mean in the days where anything static is a target and all.
I don't think huge commando armies would be a problem. paratroopers, engineers and scouts cost double normal infantry and is only used when specifically needed, special forces would fill many roles and should cost accordingly. You will not use them if there is not a need. I do however thing there should be some sort of effective counter against them, it would destroy or atleast change the game drastically if both players brakes eachothers lines with them. maby they should be vulnerable against armour?



SSFSX17 -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/16/2007 1:12:26 AM)

Keep the F-15 as the Fighter II, but change the Fighter III to the F-35. Even though it was based off of F-22 technology, it was specifically designed to be inferior.



ShadowB -> RE: Fiddling around with modern graphics (12/16/2007 2:20:11 AM)

Special forces are elite infantry, and as such much better than regulars. For that reason alone, and unless there's some built-in limit (say, 50 units maximum) or they're ridiculously expensive (for instance, like an MBT), some players would start using them as frontline infantry, replacing standard soldiers. Engineers, paras and scouts are used only when needed simply because they have other uses and aren't better than rifles in combat (paratroopers should be better, but I suspect they remained equals due to the aforementioned matter)

As for the AA infantry, you bring up a good point. And now I do realize static (towed) anti-air is scarce nowadays. However, it'd be nice if engineers could build SAM sites, but I don't think the engine allows that. Not to mention I'm not very good making graphics from scratch (the SAM site graphic would have to seamlessly match with the rest of the map graphics).

And SSFSX17, the F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter (multirole), and it's too modern to be level III. I aimed to have level III units represent stuff from the 1990s. Basically, it goes like this:

Level I: 1970s
Level II: 1980s
Level III: 1990s
Level IV: 2000s

However, I might use the F-35 as the American level IV strike fighter.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5947266