New graphic mod (Full Version)

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



Message

damezzi -> New graphic mod (10/7/2009 1:40:57 AM)

First of all I would like to say that I have barely played the game, so that I may have accidentally disconsidered any functional characteristic. The fact is that, in opposition to most wargamers, who feel almost ashamed of admitting to like good graphics, I need them; after all it's just a game and ambiance is part of it. Also, I'm kinda addicted to tweaking those little tiles, since it is extremely most difficult to make them work together in any order than to make a 'one piece' 2d map or a 3d one (which is even easier).

I have made some mods for Toaw, which has some advantages like being able to combine terrain types, proportional hexes (not squashed, like in AT),terrain type is kept inside the hex (it's hard to get organic forms with this extra tiles for borders system); but AT system has some advantages too, like alpha channel (the greatest advantage), possibility of casting shadows on the counter (due to alpha channel and the unconstrained size of the counter file), separate file for each terrain and the possibility of creating new terrain type.
Both, Toaw and AT use bmp (without transparency) for the grid, which forced me into embedding the hex overlay into the tiles (which make things more difficult to tweak, after the hex is embedded and doesn't allow to hide it).

I have created new terrain types (graphically), but, due to my inexperience with the game, didn't try to configure them. If someone can do so...

The new terrain types are:
- Dunes, which should restrict motorized movement;
- Dense jungle, which should seriously restrict movement (with almost impossibility of motorized movement), decrease considerably the chance of being spotted, attack capacity, etc;
- Rail and Road;
- Alpine, which should be impassable to non mountain units;
- Escarpment, for which I use a simple line in the place of rivers, since we can't define a direction, like in Toaw;
- Irregular plains, which should be used to differentiate from plain, giving some slight cover advantage to infantry and anti-tank, but with no difference in movement. Plain would be the best tank terrain (like desert flat plains and flat fields, etc) and irregular plain would represent those almost plain regions. I just think that the plain terrain is just too dominant in AT, giving the impression that most regions don't present any kind of topographical features. Well, that's just my opinion, but I think in most maps, the difference between flat regions and plains with some cover elements should be made, mainly when coming close to the tactical level.
- Urban. I have created two kind of urban: one for dense urban and the other for urban (small towns). The two of the are under the urban type, but I would like to have them configured separately. Also, some urban files (1,2 and 4, I think) have a semi transparent overlay to go on top. When using urban near sea, the ones (3 and 5 ?) should be used or the city will display on the top of the water.
- I have made mountain tiles for the three different directions (N-S, NE-SW, NW-SE). All share the same configuration of the original AT mountains, but each will fit better (visually) depending on the configuration of the map.

I have created a master file, but I only learned about it after I had begun doing the mod, so, most of the time I replaced the original AT file, keeping the original names and folders. That's the way it is at the moment, since I don't have the time to reorganize it now; I may do it later.

I have also `stolen` two graphical elements from other mods and altered them a bit: the rail and the fortification. I hope the autors don't bother.

Apart from terrain configuration, I don't know if it is possible to bring the urban green/black base to the top. I have replaced it with a round marker at the right top corner of the hex, but I needed it to be displayed on top.

Is there also a way to change the counters automatically displayed bars? I would like to make them smaller and less saturated, since they spoil a bit the illusion of real counters.

The images show counters with their colors tweaked to fit the mod better. Since counter color is scenario specific, I`ve added two altered scenarios, just for exemplification. If people like the mod, I`ll later write a post with some tips for further modifying it, but here are some tips that may serve for any mod:

- Don't use saturated colors, unless needed. Most of the things we see in the real world don't show colors as saturated as we see in some wargames... just look around.
- Use shadows only when necessary. Shadows are attractive, but if you use it all around, it's effect where really needed isn't perceived. AT original graphics is saturated with shadows, so that one can't even notice counter shadows, for example.
- Try to use the .png transparecy capacity whenever possible; this can make a lot of difference.




Nothing to do with the above:

I still pretend to try to do my chess scenario with AT (I mention it in another thread). As a war game, I think it could complement Toaw in periods which Toaw can't really represent well. There are mods I've seen here representing ancient period which seem fantastic. As a twentieth century wargame one caracteristic annoys me a bit (even if I can`t still evaluate it well): the production system. There seem to be too much freedom. Toaw doesn't have a production system and things may be too rigidly stuck to historical facts sometimes; I don't think all wargames should be so faitful to history, but mantaining the feel of a specific conflict is important, or the only difference between scenarios will be the initial setup. I have read AARs in this forums in which scenarios finish with mortars saturated armies or with infantry only (in WWII Europe), etc. This makes them feel extremely non historical and, depending on players style, may make all scenarios seems alike after some turns. Historical characteristics of a nation don`t resume to it`s initial force setup, but also to it`s production capabilities and doctrinaire views, which must consider it`s already installed capacity, it`s resources availability, military doctrines and dogmas, political forces, economical interests,etc. Not even Hitler would be able to enforce a mortar only army or to stop production of all kinds of tanks. Games have flaws when representing war variables (after all, they must be extremely simplified) and players know things that commanders didn`t at the time, so all systems in a game must have constraints to simulate a period and it`s tendencies. WWI, for instance, should consider the resistance there was to using tanks or parachutes for pilots (just an example, since there isn't such a thing in the game), even if they were available to production or the conflicts would be completely mischaracterized.
I have read that some scenario designers try to simulate those restrictions, but if it is a difficult work around, 9 in 10 scenarios won`t use it.
In reality, I think production should be directed by players in it's tendencies and not decided through detailed choices. Something like: let's focus a bit more on the production of fighters in the next months... with some inertial element until production flows. Not the 'stop producing/begin producing' method. And it should be restricted by lack of resources, political pressures, economical pressures, etc. Imagine the kind of reaction (from industry men, ministers, high command officials) if a 'supreme commander' (the player role) said: 'I'll stop producing any kind of aircraft'.

Well, that's just my opinion about an issue of the game I would like to see changed. I think it would make things much more historical without changing the essence of the game. As I said, it is a beginner impression; maybe I'm wrong.


http://rapidshare.com/files/289629002/DamezziATgraphicsmod.zip

[image]local://upfiles/25850/87255B341C094262A31F11B5EA82D641.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 1:41:54 AM)

A test layout with almost all terrain types.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/F729D571334F47D295797AA49BF46DD6.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 1:42:36 AM)

One more.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/C8959439DBDF43619ED23919EDDF50C9.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 1:43:16 AM)

Another one.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/8809F0B1576940178936F1FAC6DE528D.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 1:43:53 AM)

Finally the last.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/3916CF4C11AB4F57BE2DF5F92D6EBC88.jpg[/image]



gre81 -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 4:27:40 AM)

Looks great. Im not sure where I should unzip it to though.



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 4:53:20 AM)

There are two versions: one with embedded hex (the official one) and one without it (just in case someone prefer it, since some tiles will not fit so well without the hex). Each version has a folder called 'default' and another called 'systemgraphics' inside. Just place those folders inside your \Advanced Tactics\bin\graphics folder and click yes to overwrite the files when asked. First make sure you have made a backup of your graphics folder.

I'll do another masterfile later using different folders, so that one doesn't need to substitute the original graphics, but for the moment you have to. Anyway, this isn't a big issue since, if you want to go back to the original graphics, just pull your 'graphics folder' backup into the bin folder and overwrite the new files.

I hope this helps



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 4:57:33 AM)

Btw, if you like the way the counters look, with the less saturated colors, just open the scenario file in the editor and tweak the color of the regime... it is very easy to do. This is scenario specific, so the counters colors isn't part of the mod (the counter form, shadows and nato symbols are) and some scenarios have so saturated counter colors that the counter volume illusion vanishes.



GrumpyMel -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 3:53:06 PM)

Wow, Nice looking graphics. I'm one of those wargamers who really isn't very focused on graphical presentation... but I have to say what you did looks really nice.

The stats for terrain types is pretty straight forward, you just have to do different things in different areas. Basicaly AT uses Movement Groups, these are defined in the Editor and can vary from scenerio to scenerio. The ones in the basic game are pretty good, but for specific scenerios you may need to tweak them (for instance, if you wanted to have Alpine units have different movement capability in mountains from other foot units, you'd need to create a new movement group for it). The Movement Groups are created off the settings menu in the editor. Just pick an unused movement group and edit the string to give it a name.

Once you've got a movement group created, you can assign any SFT's that you want to use it. That's done in the SFT section of the Editor.

To determine how easy it is to move through a particular terrain type... you just go into that terrain type in the editor and set the number of AP's it costs for each movement group to move through one hex of that terrain. Units normaly start the turn with 100 AP's (though they can have less if they are disorganized) so if you want a unit to be able to move 5 hexes through that terrain a turn you make the terrain cost 20 AP's to move through (100/5 = 20). You'll also want to set the Entrenchment Values for that terrain in the same section.... essentialy how easy is it for a unit to dig-in in that terrain.

Finally, you go back to the SFT section of the editor to assign how well a particular SFT fights in that terrain type. There are seperate numbers for Attack and Defense.... the number represents a multiplier of the SFT's regular combat value... so if you want the terrain to have no effect on combat, you set the number to one...if you want the terrain to reduce the SFT's combat capacities by 20% you set it to .8, if you want to make it 50% easier to fight in that terrain you make the number 1.5, etc.

The Production stuff you talk about is more difficult to do... but there are some methods for controling a players production capabilities a bit. If you get comfortable using the editor, putting in some production restrictions (via techs, resources and/or different location types, or even using the upgrade method to build combat sft's) really isn't as hard as it might sound initialy.

I was pretty intimidated about trying it with my Space Opera scenerio...but once I started it I found that it really wasn't all that difficult to do... and the engine provided alot of tools to achieve that.

You could even use the Event system to work something close to what you are looking for. For example, if you wanted to make sure the player couldn't build all mortars and no rifles... You could create a Mortar Resource and a Rifle Resource and make the SFT's cost the appropriate resources to build. You then dole out the appropriate number of resources to the player each round as an Event.... and if you wanted the player to be able to increase the number of mortars he outputs in a round for instance... you could make an Action Card to give him extra resources of that type when played.







GrumpyMel -> RE: New graphic mod (10/7/2009 4:43:47 PM)

As a side note, personaly I like the players having pretty wide latitude about Production. The way I like to use resources in designing scenerio's is not so much to push the player down a certain historical production path/national tendency but to force them to think more deeply about their strategy and to make their choices a little less straight-forward.

For instance, without resources in the game... the decision about whether to go after a 2K production city or 10K production city is pretty much a no brainer. However you add resources into the mix and the decision about which objectives to go after becomes more complex. A 10K production city might sound attractive, but if you don't have the raw materials to make use of that production capacity it's not going to be doing you much good. It then starts to become a real decision as to whether you go after that 10K production city...or you try and grab a badly needed resource hex.

Differentiating the resources into a few different types (I really don't like to go overkill here, just a handful of different types is more then enough for my tastes) also adds to the complexity of choices.

Let's say you want to build highly mechanized forces... but the resources required to build mechanized units aren't easily accessable to you.... however there are several resources to build foot units that would be pretty easy for you to acquire.
Your faced with a pretty interesting choice... Do you though caution to the wind and go after the more difficult to acquire resource type because mechanized forces are of that much importance to you.... or do you grab the easy to acquire resources and try to adapt your strategy to make good use of foot-mobile forces even if they aren't ideal for your situation?

As a scenerio designer and as a player, those are the kind of decisions I love to see players wrestle with... and AT provides some really great tools to include those kind of choices in your scenerio's. It really is an awesome engine for anyone that likes to design scenerio's.



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/8/2009 12:00:20 AM)

Thanks GrumpyMel for all those ideas. In fact, what prevented me from setting parameters to the terrain types wasn't the logic of the system, but rather my lack of experience with the effects of such parameters. I can't still really tell the in game effect of reducing 10 points here, adding 10 there and so on, so that I would accept suggestions for the values.
Anyway, anyone willing to use this mod, modify it, add something to it, feel free to do so. Since I still don't know the game well, it would perhaps be better if someone more experienced helped finishing it, if there is any interest. If not, I'll just go on trying to configure my 'chess scenario', which is a very specific ambition, mainly for my own use, I imagine.

I'll just let here the idea for Vic to create a method, in future versions, of feeding combat results from outside. Searching for a system that could model the chess scenario I described in another recent post, I came across a lot of people searching for ways to administer campaigns or operations for tactical level games. AT could be the first system to be used as an interface to play campaigns or strategical scenarios, integrated with other games. Players would be able to play close combat, combat mission, ASL, Steel Panthers and so on, and then use AT for the conduction of a campaign. Obviously the game would keep it's combat engine, but players would be able to opt for an external way of resolving combat. AT is already a flexible system and that would put it into a category of its own.


quote:

As a side note, personaly I like the players having pretty wide latitude about Production. The way I like to use resources in designing scenerio's is not so much to push the player down a certain historical production path/national tendency but to force them to think more deeply about their strategy and to make their choices a little less straight-forward.


I respect that and I think a game as flexible as AT should allow for strictly historical scenarios, lightly historical ones and fictional ones. On this end it already does well (random games are an example), but at the strictly historical it would benefit from some optional restrictions. Even if I prefer historical scenarios, I like the fictionals too. Toaw, for example, has great fictional scenarios and 'what ifs'.

Also, I don't think players should be pushed down a historical production path, even because historically there were multiple possible paths too, but just avoid them to follow on extremely implausible ones... or paying political and economical penalties for doing so.

What are the most historical scenarios available for AT at the moment, in your opinion?



GrumpyMel -> RE: New graphic mod (10/8/2009 3:19:59 PM)

quote:



What are the most historical scenarios available for AT at the moment, in your opinion?


I'd suggest that you take a look at some of Grymme's scenerios. He really spends alot of time on the historical details.

There is also a very cool little scenerio about the Campaign for Cherbourg... very historicaly accurate....unfortunately not very balanced (tough to do both with that one).

Of the more commonly played ones....I'd say take a look at GPW or Operation Barbarossa.

I've only worked on designing 2 scenerio's myself. Space Opera (science fiction) and Achtung Invasion.... the later I think captures the flavor of the Normandy Landings very well.... but it's not historical at all. The map is entirely fictional...and the OOB has been tweaked around for better play. If I had the time, that's one I'd really love to go back and redo....put in a historical map and correct the OOB.

On a happy note, I think the new game Vic is working on (which is supposed to be backward compatible with AT)....is moving much more in a historical direction.



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/9/2009 4:14:36 AM)

Grymme's scenarios seem to be fantastic. It's a pitty there seems to be so few like those. At least, I wasn't able to find more.

I hope you do try to redo your Achtung Invasion in a historical fashion. It would be nice to see how a Normandy Landing scenario works with this system.

Perhaps an idea would be to take good Toaw scenarios (and there are plenty of them) and transpose them to AT giving them a more strategical flavour. It would be nice to play a scenario on the operational level in Toaw and on the strategical level in AT, with the same basic setup. Just an idea.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: New graphic mod (10/9/2009 8:10:29 PM)

Did you check out Grymme's personal website ? He was for a while looking at selling his scenarios.



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/10/2009 8:37:35 PM)

I have. Great. Yet, I don't believe in the possibility of selling scenarios. Look at Toaw, for instance: it has dozens (among its hundreds) of well researched, detailed and play tested scenarios, all for free. But I think games like Toaw and AT are as good as the scenarios created by its communities. Programmers make the 'infrastructure' available, but scenario designers show the limits of this infrastructure. Being so, I think that scenario designers like Grymme should be brought into the design team (is there a team for AT, or is it just Vic?), not only to design scenarios, but also to guide, stimulate and supply material for other designers.
I don't think that a slap on the back should be enough to guys like Grymme which seem to be supporting this game with scenarios for a long time, as I could infer. People that support Toaw with scenarios were brought into the team and are testing the new patch. I think they gain nothing (financially), but they sure have more influence over future design ideas and I don't think it is improbable some get called to work in a new release if that is to happen.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: New graphic mod (10/11/2009 3:12:23 AM)

And this model of development is alive and well with AT.



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: New graphic mod (10/11/2009 3:44:49 PM)

Many thanks Damezzi. Downloading now!



Widell -> RE: New graphic mod (10/11/2009 5:26:15 PM)

Bringing active players and scenario designers into the design process for new/future upgrades has IMHO been part of many of my favourite games. WITP + AE, TOAW, HTTR/COTA just to mention a few. The developers that make very limited use of their community tend to get stuck in endless arguments on the theme "it was an early design decision that will not change" and/or fixing minor stuff rather than evolving the game and taking it to the limits! Vic is a very active designer and interacts with his community. I have put forward the proposal to include community scenarios in the vanilla releases a couple of times (like TOAW has done for a long time), but so far the proposal has not caught much attention :-)



Grymme -> RE: New graphic mod (10/11/2009 8:48:45 PM)

Really nice graphic mod. It certainly rivals and complements the Real mod for graphics. Which graphics are which exactly? The only thing im not so hot about are the multitude of "stations" on the railroad tracks. Cant you get rid of them? maybe you have some older playtest version without them. Have been looking forward to someone with this kind of skill coming forward. Also since the engine is so flexible when it comes to scale more scenario types are certainly welcome. What scenario is the screenshots from? And do i detect some of my NATO counters in them? Also i am wondering what you do to get the TOAW graphics out of the graphicsheets that come in TOAW?

As for the discussion regarding TOAW, scenario designing etc. Vic has, at least as long as i have known him, always been very open to getting scenario designers more involved in the process. There have been discussions about different distribution ideas, possible renumeration etc. So far nothing much has come from it but he has shown a very open mind and even taken initiatives on the question himself. Í think it benefits both the developer and the designers to have some sort of "reward" for doing scenarios. As for the TOAW idea of gettíng scenariodesigners involved in the development of future patches/games etc i would say that this is already being done.

For the record i do think that the developer of games like TOAW benefits hugely from its scenariodesigners and that they certainly should give something back to them more than a slap on the back. That its not being done is not a reason to not do it in the future.

As for my own little venture of "selling" scenarios it has hardly been a financial sucess. I can think of a lot of reasons why. I think there is a lot of people who would readily give 10$ to get access to all of my scenario if they could by it over the MCdonalds counter. But then there is the issue of payment, support of scenario, not a official product, maybe embarassment to be paying for a "fan project" etc. Also i have a lot of competition. There most certainly are more competent designers out there than me. Tweber and Lunaticus comes to mind. My "niché" seem to be being extremely stubborn and getting out tactical/operational WWII scenarios. That being said i will continue with my business model and see what happens.



GrumpyMel -> RE: New graphic mod (10/12/2009 3:01:53 PM)

Grymme,

I don't think there is anything wrong with you asking for some payment for scenerio's. It takes alot of work to put something together well. No reason not to see something back for that time.

Part of the difficulty, I think, might be the fact that the real value/fun (at least as far as I'm concerned) from playing the scenerio's comes from playing against a human opponent. It feels a little awkward advertising for a PBEM opponent for one of those scenerio's but then telling the person who responds that they have to go buy the scenerio.

Once you have a decent number of people that have picked up those scenerio's then that issue goes away. It's just getting to that point which is the trick...not sure what the resolution for that is.

Anyways, that and having a pretty full plate already are the only things that have kept me from picking up some of the scenerio's from your site.

You know it'd be kinda interesting if Matrix released some of their games with a core of set scenerio's that you got with the game. Then added a section where you could buy extra content (scenerio's, mods) for a small fee, a-la carte.... and kicked part of that fee over to the content designer.... either as a credit or as cash.

I know I wouldn't object to paying a couple of dollars for a well designed scenerio (kinda like people pay for downloading songs they like)... as long as the price per scenerio was kept pretty low, I don't see much of a problem with it.



Widell -> RE: New graphic mod (10/12/2009 6:24:55 PM)

1) Maybe this thread should be moved to the Mods and Scenarios sub forum since it deals with just that? Minor issue really, but still :-)

2) Of course it's free for everyone to come up with a way to get credited for their time and effort, and my post was not speaking against that. I have no clue about how TOAW has dealt with this, but I know Panther Games (HTTR/COTA) are giving away licenses to their Beta Team when their products are released, and also makes sure people are mentioned in the "About" box or wherever the general credits go.

3) Personal opinion coming up here: I think it's extremely hard to get something back from the community beyond a pat on the shoulder and some general positive feedback. I did run a fantasy hockey league for several years, and had the option for the participants to donate through PayPal. The league had 30 teams out of which maybe 10 had the same person managing them for 3 to 5 years, the other 20 changing now and then. I got $10 over 5 years all in all :-) My stake was 1 to 2 hours per day in average and paying for the server.... That equation does not equal out to say the least, and after this I decided to go Open Source and GNU in different versions for almost everything I do as I figured I would need a real business set up in order to get anything monetary back. Not that the $10 was a deal breaker for the hockey league as the fun was reward enough, but it still proved to me that even very loyal players were not ready to sponsor anything. My 2 cents, but of course it's up to each and everyone to try out different ways. After all, it's by being innovative that some people find what they are after :-)



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (10/12/2009 8:29:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Really nice graphic mod. It certainly rivals and complements the Real mod for graphics. Which graphics are which exactly? The only thing im not so hot about are the multitude of "stations" on the railroad tracks. Cant you get rid of them? maybe you have some older playtest version without them. Have been looking forward to someone with this kind of skill coming forward. Also since the engine is so flexible when it comes to scale more scenario types are certainly welcome. What scenario is the screenshots from? And do i detect some of my NATO counters in them? Also i am wondering what you do to get the TOAW graphics out of the graphicsheets that come in TOAW?


Thanks Grymme. The stations weren't an aesthetic choice, but the way the system fits roads is awkward, since they must fit in the middle of the hex and you only have 3 shapes. When one uses a solid color it works reasonably well (yet, toaw system with different shapes for each situation makes roads seem much more organic. less pattern like), but when one makes a more broad road with borders, they will seem to overlap each other in the middle, giving the impression of multiple interruptions; so, I preferred to have a symbol that remember the hex center point of tactical level wargames to hide it than to have those interruptions. Anyway, I can think about a better solution when I have more time, since I don't think this is the best solution either.

The screenshots are from the gothic line and ardennes scenarios.

You're right. I used your Nato symbols as reference among other sources. Most of them I got from a Nato symbol manual, but since I wasn't able to find the symbols to some naval equipment, I used the original AT graphics within the square frame in this case. Some of the symbols of your list weren't on the manual, but I though it would be useful to make them too, so that people could use with your scenarios. There is a bigger list of symbols on the Nato symbols folder (even redundant ones), so that people may substitute them if necessary. Some units types on AT don't have a specific symbol for their representation. Half Tracks, for instance; there is a symbol for half tracked units, which I used there, but usually it will be combined with another one, like infantry.

I think I only used one Toaw tile (the swamp). I use photoshop. Just open the toaw tiles file select the region you want and paste it inside the AT file. Toaw uses pure white (255,255,255) for transparency, so the trick is to use the select wand with a '1' tolerance setting to select pure white pixels; use the select similar command to extend your selection to all pure white pixels in the image and just press delete to clear those pixels.

I know a lot of wargame designers use such programs as paint to retouch or create graphics, but you have MUCH better and faster result using layer capable softwares. It's worth the time invested in learning them. If you don't have photoshop, try to use some open source softwares like: http://www.gimp.org/

Well, in reference to selling scenarios, I want to make clear I`m not against it... not at all. I just don`t think it works. I think that, perhaps, the solution of creating a content package with multiple scenarios from multiple designers may work better, but I`m still sceptical in relation to a significative financial return. I still think that the best way for wargames programmers is to select, with time, the most deserving, useful and talented scenario designers to work together and expand the system to its limit. I don't mean a great number of them, since I think that wargames can't support a big designers team, but only the few ones which showed capacity of really adding something to the game during a period of time (consistency is important). Well, that's the only way I see to keep the stimulus of good scenario designers, since even the most productive ones will, at some point, give up and search for new challenges elsewhere.

Anyway, I really wish you good luck. It would be very nice and beneficial to the community if the good scenario designers and wargame programmers could make a lot of money with intellectually focused wargames. Maybe I'm wrong and, with time, you can have financial return from your work... after all, sometimes you have to collect a nice variety of products before calling attention and beginning to make money. Perhaps if you can reproduce the most popular board games or something like that. Vassal does exactly that, but with AT you have the advantage of automatic book keeping and an AI. Yet, I don't know if the system goes that far.

I should say that, in what concerns me, I would surely buy a scenario package which had one good scenario for each important time period on human warfare history. I've seen a japanese scenario post around (it seems to have been interrupted) which seem to me one of the most attractive scenario ideas, together with your punic war scenario. If AT had more of those it would surely rival Toaw as my preferred wargame. The simplified combat system (in relation to Toaw) makes AT more flexible in terms of time period, but it doesn't seem to have been explored significantly.



Grymme -> RE: New graphic mod (11/11/2009 8:37:04 PM)

Damezzi. So were you in fact drawing the terrain yourself? Do you have any tips on how to draw/import terrain. Maybe make a short tutorial. Could you do a terrain on request?

Also, i was trying to use your rough terrain but it looks really strange, se screenshot

I am trying to make a terrain with high mountains, low mountains, hills and rough (4 different terrain levels above plains)

[image]local://upfiles/27522/875B80C7C194456491CCC93361BFB5DA.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: New graphic mod (11/11/2009 9:53:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Damezzi. So were you in fact drawing the terrain yourself? Do you have any tips on how to draw/import terrain. Maybe make a short tutorial. Could you do a terrain on request?

Also, i was trying to use your rough terrain but it looks really strange, se screenshot

I am trying to make a terrain with high mountains, low mountains, hills and rough (4 different terrain levels above plains)




Yes Grymme, I've drawn them from scratch... I used to work with computer graphics; mostly 3d, but I must say I take more pleasure from 2d drawing.

I could do a terrain on request if it isn't a too complicated idea, mostly because of lack of spare time at the moment. Tell me what you need and I can try to sketch something.

I'll think about the possibility of making a tutorial on graphics, but the problem is that I use photoshop, which most people doesn't have available. There are a couple of open source painting softwares around, but most scenario designers won't be willing to go through the learning curve (even if it isn't steep, in fact) just to tweak graphics; I really think it's worth the effort, since after learning the tools one will ask how could he have lived without them as a designer. If I make a tutorial, it will be based in photoshop, but most of the logic can be easily transposed to other painting packages.

The rough terrain use some alpha (i.e. transparency), so you must set it under the other terrain types, just above the plain terrain. Look at it as a fractal structure that alters the plain terrain. I have also made one with a more brownish color to alter arid plains. The problem in your image is that it is on top of other graphics and, since its transparency is 'cloud like', those graphics show through the semi-transparent holes.

The '4 layers' terrain type you describe is challenging because of the exiguous space in the hex, but it may be possible. Anyway, when you're trying to create a combined terrain hex, it's good to have the uncombined version already established, to maintain coherence. If you'll use the original mountains graphics, you'll have problems with the little space left, or mountains will have to be represented in smaller scale only in the combined hex. That's why I prefer smaller size representation. Toaw use smaller size representation and you can combine all terrain types together, even if, sometimes, they become a little messy and you have to read the status window to see what terrain types are present.


EDIT: Just to remember that the rail and fortress terrain were based on terrain tiles I took from other mods. I don't want to take credits from others work.



lion_of_judah -> RE: New graphic mod (10/17/2010 7:35:56 PM)

does anyone know if this mod has been updated in a while. Thinking about downloading this but don't know if I want to overwrite my system graphics. Any thoughts



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375