RE: v020 ready

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: v020 ready

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: v020 ready

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: v020 ready - 11/27/2008 1:27:42 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Jeffrey H., the graphics again are great. I�m somewhat busy, I will place them as soon as possible. Some of these units are still not created in the game (jets will come in v0.22, to be released in 2 weeks)

(in reply to BULLDOGINTHEUK)

Post #: 151

RE: v020 ready - 11/27/2008 1:43:52 AM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

kewl....

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 152

Bombur mod enters jet age - 11/28/2008 12:29:00 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

-With the creation of SF Fighter VIII (more or less similar to F-80 and Vampire). This is the 167th unit. Almost all WWII units are finished now....

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 153

RE: Bombur mod enters jet age - 11/30/2008 5:19:39 PM

BULLDOGINTHEUK

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: Cardiff, UK
Status: offline

I'm working on a graphics mod for AT random maps and nearly finished. Would people prefer it linked to Nick's 'Real Mod' with the improved terrain or have the AT original terrain?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1766154

< Message edited by BULLDOGINTHEUK -- 11/30/2008 5:21:44 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 154

More graphics? - 12/6/2008 10:29:04 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

As Bombur mod enters the jet age, I�m going to add surface to surface to surface missiles and surface to air missiles. Maybe Jeffery could make me a few more graphics?

(in reply to BULLDOGINTHEUK)

Post #: 155

RE: More graphics? - 12/6/2008 12:56:29 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

... surface to surface to surface missiles ...

Does this one skip on the water?

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 156

RE: More graphics? - 12/6/2008 6:56:00 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

Sure, they go pretty fast now that I've got the hang of it. Also, I found another way to improve the look of them by using anti-aliasing as Vic pointed out in another thread. So, something else to fiddle with. Is there a list or just these two, (surface to surface missles and surface to air missles ?).

< Message edited by Jeffrey H. -- 12/6/2008 6:57:00 PM >

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 157

RE: More graphics? - 12/6/2008 11:31:21 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Hmmm...for now, just these ones, the new graphics you created filled almost all holes. A thing that, maybe, could be done, would be the creation of new ships symbols. I�m using DD for PT�s, CA for CL�s and BB�s for BC�s. Custom graphics for PT�s, CL�s and BC�s would be great.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 158

RE: More graphics? - 12/7/2008 12:08:36 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Hmmm...I lack symbols for APC�s too. I�m not sure if I will create SP AA and SP Artillery too. What do you think? I these SF�s are to be created, then I will need symbols too.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 159

RE: More graphics? - 12/7/2008 5:58:25 AM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

Maybe one for PT's, (CA, CL and BB, BC are too similar in profile to warrant a different symbol IMHO). For APC, we have halftracks, so I'm not sure what you had in mind when you created the APC SFtype. SP & SPAA might work, yeah I think those would be ok.

So unless I'm missing something with the APC, I'd say that's another 5 possibly, broken down like this:

1 symbol for StA missle
1 symbol for StS missle
1 symbol for PT boat
1 for SPA
1 for SPAA

Agree ?

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 160

RE: More graphics? - 12/7/2008 12:29:29 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Halftracks are classified as Soft mobile units in AT, the APC�s will be classified as Armoured units (but I can use the Halftrack symbol). Otherwise I agree with you. This 5 SF symbols will be great.

< Message edited by Bombur -- 12/7/2008 12:30:12 PM >

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 161

RE: More graphics? - 12/7/2008 4:02:52 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

You should provide Marines, Landing Vehicle tracked ( LVT) and dedicated ships for landing troops. There were several types of ships used. Some were fast ships with limited carry capacity for quick landings in hostile environemnts. Some were ships designed to hold landing craft and disembark troops from a well. Some were converted cruise ships. There were special ships for landing Armor as well.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 162

RE: More graphics? - 12/7/2008 4:41:25 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

I would agree with you, but the AT engine don�t allow you to simulate the special features of these units.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 163

RE: More graphics? - 12/7/2008 10:17:54 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

v0.25 uploaded, with a total of 175 units.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 164

RE: More graphics? - 12/8/2008 9:23:09 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

I would agree with you, but the AT engine don�t allow you to simulate the special features of these units.

There are numerous ways to make them useful and effective. Do not need special code at all.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 165

RE: More graphics? - 12/8/2008 11:56:51 AM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

I�m interested in your suggestions.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 166

RE: More graphics? - 12/8/2008 1:38:01 PM

BULLDOGINTHEUK

Posts: 505
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: Cardiff, UK
Status: offline

You can use my icons if you want I will post the mod on the AT forum this weekend hopefully.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1766154

_____________________________

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 167

RE: More graphics? - 12/8/2008 4:12:31 PM

Grymme

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline

A suggestion for the mob bombur is to lower the costs of research a bit.

In our test game we have played 22 turns. I still havent researched the next land unit level even though i have 19 cities. and i do produce 10-25pps every turn. I think something like the vanilla game researchcosts with 10-20pps/research is ok when there are so many of them.

The same can be said for some units. Who is going to pay 30 000 points for a zeppelin or 15 000 points for a port gun. I might pay 500 pp for a port since they arent much use other than defending coastal cities.,

Enjoying the game otherwise.

(in reply to BULLDOGINTHEUK)

Post #: 168

RE: v020 ready - 12/8/2008 5:37:44 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Try this again, my internet setup cuts me off once a day and it did so after I typed the reply.

AP Ships.... Cargo vessels should be slower then normal Naval units. AP should be as fast as normal Naval Units. AP should have more cargo space as well. They should have limited or no strategic lift. They should cost more to build as well.

Marines... Marines should have bonuses in certain terrain, they should be slower then regular infantry but carry more supplies. They should cost more than regular infantry.

LVT... LVT should be front line armor, should have no strategic lift capacity , they should move 2 spaces across water and have a shorter movement then half tracks on land. They should be as good as machine guns or even light tanks. They should be able to hold 4 turns supply. I give them a lift capacity of 15 rather then 20.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 169

RE: More graphics? - 12/8/2008 8:21:57 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

Halftracks are classified as Soft mobile units in AT, the APC�s will be classified as Armoured units (but I can use the Halftrack symbol). Otherwise I agree with you. This 5 SF symbols will be great.

I guess I had a bit of a mental block on what sort of historical vehicle might represent the APC for the era's we've been working with. I've been trying to limit the symbols to ~ early 1960's vintage equipment and I think that's the general flavor of the mod.

One vehicle that comes to mind for an APC is the US M113, (to me, the profile is instantly recognizable) but I'm not really sure what era that vehicle came into the US Army inventory. There was a Soviet equivalent, BT something or another.

I guess another option would be the USMC LVT as Two Tribes suggests. We know that one existed during the WWII/post WWII timeframe but the only thing about it is that it's amphibious which might not exaclty bring "APC" to someones mind when viewed in the fashion these counter symbols are created in.

If you agree with the use of the US M113 for the APC symbol, even though it might be slightly out of period, I'll do that one too. Otherwise I'll leave it off the list.

< Message edited by Jeffrey H. -- 12/8/2008 8:23:32 PM >

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 170

RE: More graphics? - 12/9/2008 12:27:30 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

There was an APC developed before the end of WW2 it just wasn't put in to large production, M-59? Can't remember now but it had the same basic shape as the M-113. So that is when they started to appear.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 171

RE: More graphics? - 12/9/2008 3:35:51 AM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

There was an APC developed before the end of WW2 it just wasn't put in to large production, M-59? Can't remember now but it had the same basic shape as the M-113. So that is when they started to appear.

Found this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m59knox.jpg&imgrefurl=http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/apcm59.html&usg=__diGqJyfJ2hGlz5bNhgr_Mydx2-Y=&h=300&w=520&sz=38&hl=en&start=11&tbnid=pI4v6bWqAjc9-M:&tbnh=76&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3DM-59%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff

Lotta gibberish in the URL but yeah, it looks pretty much like an M113. So I'll throw it in as #6 on the list.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 172

RE: More graphics? - 12/9/2008 11:18:52 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BULLDOGINTHEUK

You can use my icons if you want I will post the mod on the AT forum this weekend hopefully.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1766154

-Thank you, I will take a look at them...

(in reply to BULLDOGINTHEUK)

Post #: 173

RE: More graphics? - 12/9/2008 11:23:35 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

A suggestion for the mob bombur is to lower the costs of research a bit.

In our test game we have played 22 turns. I still havent researched the next land unit level even though i have 19 cities. and i do produce 10-25pps every turn.�I think something like the vanilla game researchcosts with 10-20pps/research is ok when there are so many�of them.

-You actually can decrease research costs by changing research speed in the random map screen. However, I�m considering a general decrese in res costs for next version. Keep in mind, however, the v0.20 will already increase research speed by decreasing supply costs by 80%, thus releasing space for research. I will also consider a decrease in pp costs.

quote:

The same can be said for some units. Who is going to pay 30 000 points for a zeppelin or 15 000 points for a port gun. I might pay 500 pp for a port�since they arent much use other than defending coastal cities.,

-I increased costs for coastal guns because the AI was building lots of them. I think these pieces are actually useful when the enemy has naval superiority.

(in reply to Grymme)

Post #: 174

RE: More graphics? - 12/9/2008 11:27:23 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Jeffrey and Twotribes:

The first APC�s were developed in late WWII. The first one seems to be the Kangaroo, an improvised APC build over a SP artillery gun. The Soviets also built their own APC�s, starting with the BTR-40 (the BTR-152, 60, 70...). The USA APC is the M-113, it would be an excellent SF symbol. I�m considering, maybe 2 or three levels of APC�s.

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

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 175

RE: v020 ready - 12/9/2008 11:31:17 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

AP Ships.... Cargo vessels should be slower then normal Naval units. AP should be as fast as normal Naval Units. AP should have more cargo space as well. They should have limited or no strategic lift. They should cost more to build as well.

I already have AP�s and they work more or less in the way you suggest, except that they are slow (all ships with top speed below 20knots are rated as ship 1, with movement costs of 25)

quote:

Marines... Marines should have bonuses in certain terrain, they should be slower then regular infantry but carry more supplies. They should cost more than regular infantry.

-Marines are naval infantry, they should have a bonus in amphibious operations, but I cannot give them this bonus...if I can�t have an unit with higher ratings for disembarks, I see no need for Marines

quote:

LVT... LVT should be front line armor, should have no strategic lift capacity , they should move 2 spaces across water and have a shorter movement then half tracks on land. They should be as good as machine guns or even light tanks. They should be able to hold 4 turns supply. I give them a lift capacity of 15 rather then 20.

-Could LVT navigate on high seas?

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 176

RE: v020 ready - 12/13/2008 2:21:25 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur

quote:

AP Ships.... Cargo vessels should be slower then normal Naval units. AP should be as fast as normal Naval Units. AP should have more cargo space as well. They should have limited or no strategic lift. They should cost more to build as well.

I already have AP�s and they work more or less in the way you suggest, except that they are slow (all ships with top speed below 20knots are rated as ship 1, with movement costs of 25)

quote:

Marines... Marines should have bonuses in certain terrain, they should be slower then regular infantry but carry more supplies. They should cost more than regular infantry.

-Marines are naval infantry, they should have a bonus in amphibious operations, but I cannot give them this bonus...if I can�t have an unit with higher ratings for disembarks, I see no need for Marines

quote:

LVT... LVT should be front line armor, should have no strategic lift capacity , they should move 2 spaces across water and have a shorter movement then half tracks on land. They should be as good as machine guns or even light tanks. They should be able to hold 4 turns supply. I give them a lift capacity of 15 rather then 20.

-Could LVT navigate on high seas?

Of Course LVT couldn't operate on high seas. However they could disembark a long ways from shore. With a low range and limited supply you can use them to take nearby Islands rather then needing a port and a vessel.

One thing I may try is adding a cargo ship to the stack for supply and then destroying the cargo ship just before shore. Expensive but might be fun.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 177

RE: v020 ready - 12/13/2008 10:18:10 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Of Course LVT couldn't operate on high seas. However they could disembark a long ways from shore. With a low range and limited supply you can use them to take nearby Islands rather then needing a port and a vessel.

One thing I may try is adding a cargo ship to the stack for supply and then destroying the cargo ship just before shore. Expensive but might be fun.

-That�s the trouble, being unable to cross high seas I must create a new kind of terrain to allow them (I�m actually considering this, but for a latter version). They should be restricted to shallow waters.

< Message edited by Bombur -- 12/21/2008 9:32:56 PM >

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 178

RE: v020 ready - 12/21/2008 9:34:22 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Bombur mod is advancing in the 50�s with jets up to Mig-15/F-86 and bombers up to B-36. A new version with almost 200 units will be released soon.

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 179

RE: v020 ready - 12/21/2008 11:48:40 PM

Bombur

Posts: 3642
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

Created the first MBT (T44/M46/47) and the second cruise missile (SS-N-3). It will work like a "kamikaze" unit launched from submarines. Not sure how it will work...

(in reply to Bombur)

Post #: 180