Armored Brigade beta released
veit...@gmail.com
Here's freeware wargame I've been developing for some time now. Before
somebody says anything about spamming I say this is the first place
where I mention this after the release. It's 2d top-down with real-
time engine, main influences are Steel Panthers, Armored Task Force
and Combat Mission among others. Basic idea has been to combine
elements for games I like into something that hasn't been done
before... It's still in beta stage and far from complete but playable.
If you are interested I'd like to hear some comments how to make this
game better.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Hello,
>
> Here's freeware wargame I've been developing for some time now. Before
> somebody says anything about spamming
Are you kidding ? This is exactly the kind of thing people here *want*
you to post.
> http://www.armoredbrigade.com
The download is 18 MB and is blazingly fast, so give it a go guys.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
4c0c45...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here's freeware wargame I've been developing for some time now. Before
> > somebody says anything about spamming
>
> Are you kidding ? This is exactly the kind of thing people here *want*
> you to post.
Watch some dumbhead find a problem with it, though.
>
> > http://www.armoredbrigade.com
>
> The download is 18 MB and is blazingly fast, so give it a go guys.
You must live on the right continent or something.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"[T]he 'post-racial candidate' thinks we need to talk yet more about
race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we
all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?"
- Ann Coulter
Dennisb55
wrote:
> In article <f07cfc86-805d-4f31-8da3-
> 4c0c453db...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > Here's freeware wargame I've been developing for some time now. Before
> > > somebody says anything about spamming
>
> > Are you kidding ? This is exactly the kind of thing people here *want*
> > you to post.
>
> Watch some dumbhead find a problem with it, though.
>
>
>
> > >http://www.armoredbrigade.com
>
> > The download is 18 MB and is blazingly fast, so give it a go guys.
>
> You must live on the right continent or something.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "[T]he 'post-racial candidate' thinks we need to talk yet more about
> race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we
> all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?"
> - Ann Coulter
Well do ya like it Gifty? Is it better than SP?
Giftzwerg
@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, dboc...@kc.rr.com says...
>
> Well do ya like it Gifty? Is it better than SP?
>
It's upside down.
Let me say that again. When I run it, it's upside down. The game.
It's the weirdest thing.
I click the appropriate desktop resolution, click "fullscreen," and it's
upside down. Windowed mode works OK, so far as I can see.
veit...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <9ea07907-7d2a-4c99-91bf-cdc9340cea68
> @u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, dbocq...@kc.rr.com says...
>
>
>
> > Well do ya like it Gifty? Is it better than SP?
>
> It's upside down.
>
> Let me say that again. When I run it, it's upside down. The game.
> It's the weirdest thing.
>
> I click the appropriate desktop resolution, click "fullscreen," and it's
> upside down. Windowed mode works OK, so far as I can see.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "[T]he 'post-racial candidate' thinks we need to talk yet more about
> race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we
> all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?"
> - Ann Coulter
Up-side down?? That's news to me. It's been tested with several
hardware setups. The only problem I've heard of was that fonts were
not visible, but that was solved by switching temporarily to windowed
mode, then fullscreen again. It's someway related to the 3rd party SDK
I use.
Giftzwerg
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, veit...@gmail.com says...
> Up-side down?? That's news to me. It's been tested with several
> hardware setups. The only problem I've heard of was that fonts were
> not visible, but that was solved by switching temporarily to windowed
> mode, then fullscreen again. It's someway related to the 3rd party SDK
> I use.
I kid you not. It works *perfectly*. But in fullscreen mode on this
laptop[1], it's upside down. Even the mouse movements are reversed; I
turn the laptop the other way, and I can play no problem.
It's the coolest thing!
[I'm sending you two small .jpgs to your email address above, just so
you don't think I'm some raving madman.]
By the way - and everyone maybe take this with a grain of salt, since
I've only played this game for about 20 minutes - this is simply a
*brilliant* game. Seems solid and robust, runs like a rocket, plays
nice with my other programs, not a hiccup. I've played through a few
turns of a couple of meeting engagements, and it's already better than
CM:SF. The interface is amazingly good, everything is in Pausible
Continuous Time, you can give orders paused, graphics are just fine.
I'd have paid for this. Easily.
[1] IBM T60 w/ Mobile Intel G945 Chipset.
Dennisb55
wrote:
> In article <7924be3d-16fe-46fa-aedb-0b2ea8097a82
> @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, veitik...@gmail.com says...
for Steel Tigers (or whatever) but that seems like just a dream right
now.
Wow wierd prob. Did google and found this;
Mohan, Try to press Ctrl+Alt+Upward Arrow keys on your keyboard at the
same time as it's sometimes set as the HOTKEY for rotating the screen.
Giftzwerg
@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, dboc...@kc.rr.com says...
> Dang, now I'm going to have to dl it and try it. I've been waiting
> for Steel Tigers (or whatever) but that seems like just a dream right
> now.
I've been playing off and on for a good part of the day, and I'm *very*
impressed. The version is v.421, but if this is what the designer calls
beta code, then v1.0 is going to be a real stunner.
Coolness abounds. It's a PCT design - no turns or hexes to be seen.
Units are squads and vehicles. The map is fully zoomable from a
topographic large-scale view to a more stylized close-in view. You
right-click on units to get their context menu and give orders. There's
an orders delay (minimal, since it's a modern-era game) before units
carry out your plans. Graphics are nice, crisp "Euro" styled NATO
symbols.
The whole game, at this point, is just a big battle-generator. There
are no scenarios, so you go through a sort of CM-esque DIY process to
set up each game. You pick terrain and force options, weather, sides,
etc. - then you can either purchase your units manually or allow the
scenario generator to set up your force. The game then dumps your units
on the generated-on-the-fly map (kinda haphazardly, like SP did) and you
can drag them around and group them as you want before pressing the
"Start" button to set the scenario in motion.
The interface really shines. I'm playing away, and if there's a manual
or quickstart guide included, it's superfluous; in every case, things
work exactly how you expect them to work. Click to select, right-click
to give orders, click on map to specify where the order takes place.
Units later move out. You can pause things, give orders, run the game
slow or fast.
Lots of neat little touches, too. For example, when a squad or vehicle
is given orders, a little arrow points from the center of the unit
symbol to where it's first waypoint is. Or when you're scrolling around
the map, little triangles at the edges of the screen point the way to
nearby but out-of-the-viewing-window units of both sides.
Gameplay seems damn good. I (admittedly) haven't played it enough to
form any concrete opinions, but I'm having loads of fun with ARMORED
BRIGADE. Similarly, I can't say much about the AI, except that it seems
competent and workmanlike. I hate to dole out faint praise, but the AI
here is certainly no worse than other games - and it seems decidedly
better than more than a few.
There's a ton of stuff I haven't tried yet, but overall my first
impression is:
"This is *beta* code? And *free*? Shit, if I'd shelled out fifty beans
for this game, I'd be saying nice things about it. This is the first
time I've heard of Juha Kellokoski, but my suspicion is that it won't be
the last."
> Wow wierd prob. Did google and found this;
> Mohan, Try to press Ctrl+Alt+Upward Arrow keys on your keyboard at the
> same time as it's sometimes set as the HOTKEY for rotating the screen.
It does the same thing on another PC I have - also with video based
around the Intel 945 graphics chipset. It's absolutely the niftiest ...
I even hesitate to call it a "bug," since the game plays flawlessly,
it's just upside-down. Even the controller is perfectly reversed, so
you can just turn your laptop around and play normally.
The designer emailed me and suspects a bug in the Clanlib SDK. Either
that or some flaw in the Intel chip's processing of that code. The 945
chip is a pretty shitty graphics rig in any case.
Works fine in "windowed" mode - it's just the full screen mode that
reverses.
Ray O'Hara
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.224c311f...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <f07cfc86-805d-4f31-8da3-
> 4c0c45...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Here's freeware wargame I've been developing for some time now. Before
> > > somebody says anything about spamming
> >
> > Are you kidding ? This is exactly the kind of thing people here *want*
> > you to post.
>
> Watch some dumbhead find a problem with it, though.
>
> >
> > > http://www.armoredbrigade.com
> >
> > The download is 18 MB and is blazingly fast, so give it a go guys.
>
> You must live on the right continent or something.
>
i downloaded for me in 3 minutes
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "[T]he 'post-racial candidate' thinks we need to talk yet more about
> race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we
> all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?"
> - Ann Coulter
ann coulter is one to talk of race as she is a big time racist. as most
likely are you. not that it matters as you live in vermont
Andy Brown
Andy
Giftzwerg
> No save game feature, or have I missed it somewhere?
I haven't seen one, but the game does have an empty "saved" directory
under \data\. Perhaps this feature is incomplete / yet to be added.
There's also an empty "scenario" folder, I see.
Vincenzo Beretta
> impressed. The version is v.421, but if this is what the designer calls
> beta code, then v1.0 is going to be a real stunner.
And Matrix games will announce they got the exclusive distribution rights...
when?
I'm not kidding: I played it for about 30 mins (USSR vs. USA in 1987) and
I'm impressed too. This can easily become a commercial level game.
Mike Kreuzer
After 50 seconds play I feel much the same way.
There're minor glitches. Generally the game runs fine for me, but:
- In windowed mode the window's slightly wider than my screen & only redraws
the edges sporadically. (Full screen is fine).
- when I exit from full screen mode: kaboom, CTD. Only happens on exit,
and only in f/s mode.
Will need to play some more to see what I think, but it's pretty cool so
far - well done.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Giftzwerg
says...
> After 50 seconds play I feel much the same way.
>
> There're minor glitches. Generally the game runs fine for me, but:
> - In windowed mode the window's slightly wider than my screen & only redraws
> the edges sporadically. (Full screen is fine).
> - when I exit from full screen mode: kaboom, CTD. Only happens on exit,
> and only in f/s mode.
On my Vista system with ATI graphics, I see a few anomalies, graphics-
wise; the buttons on the scenario-generation routines don't draw
properly and the game logo has gone missing. But I'm not seeing any
glitches in the game itself under Vista.
And it's right-side up! Even in fullscreen.
> Will need to play some more to see what I think, but it's pretty cool so
> far - well done.
Yeah. I've seen any number of *released* games that had more troubles
than this.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> I'm not kidding: I played it for about 30 mins (USSR vs. USA in 1987) and
> I'm impressed too. This can easily become a commercial level game.
I've paid $50 for games that weren't at this stage of development. Or
working as well.
And that says nothing of the amazing potential here. Absolutely, any
game publisher with an ounce of brains should be talking seriously with
this fellow.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <frufbk$jn...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, andy...@es.co.nz says...
>
> > No save game feature, or have I missed it somewhere?
>
> I haven't seen one, but the game does have an empty "saved" directory
> under \data\. Perhaps this feature is incomplete / yet to be added.
> There's also an empty "scenario" folder, I see.
Ah, ok, this was one of my remarks at this point. The on-the-fly
scenario creation is pretty awesome, but I do like some balanced pre-
created scenarios as well with named units and an intro story to set
the mood. You know the "outskirts of Munich - a couple of platoons of
Abrams have been tasked with delaying the 3rd Guards Armoured division
until reinforcements arrive" kind of thing.
Anyone seen airmobile units ?
Another thing : what would be double-freaking awesome would be a
strategic level game above this one, fight your battles on the
operational/tactical level, return to the strategic level.
And yet another thing : using the spacebar as a speed-toggle would
seriously enhance the UI - just an idea.
Sometimes you can just take a look at a beta and know this game's a
winner. With this game you only need half a look to come to that
conclusion.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
because Germans and British aren't in. Excellent game for simulating classic
WWIII in Germany. I think that it could be easily adapted to Middle East,
too. Didn't checked if helos are it - they are mandatory IMHO:
The interface and some elements of gameplay need polish, and scenarios, OOBs
etc need to be fleshed out, but the basics are all there and very well laid
out.
My 2 cents gripe: it happened twice to me to select an unit and give an
order to it (for example a "defend" order to an infantry squad) only to be
distracted by some happenings on the battlefield. The cursor shows the last
order selected anyway, but when I returned to my idea of giving the order
sometimes I had troubles in identifying the original unit. A "unit selected
for an order" should be more visible until either the order is given or it
is cancelled.
Also, I noticed the "orders delay"... Does it vary according to
period/army/training? And does the game forces the player to use "realistic"
tactics" by, for example, somehow giving to the Soviets less "flexibility"
in changing a battleplan?
Yes, I'm already at *that level* of doubts. Really a job well done. :o)
Giftzwerg
61c173...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> On 20 mrt, 21:20, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <frufbk$jn...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, andy...@es.co.nz says...
> >
> > > No save game feature, or have I missed it somewhere?
> >
> > I haven't seen one, but the game does have an empty "saved" directory
> > under \data\. Perhaps this feature is incomplete / yet to be added.
> > There's also an empty "scenario" folder, I see.
>
> Ah, ok, this was one of my remarks at this point. The on-the-fly
> scenario creation is pretty awesome, but I do like some balanced pre-
> created scenarios as well with named units and an intro story to set
> the mood. You know the "outskirts of Munich - a couple of platoons of
> Abrams have been tasked with delaying the 3rd Guards Armoured division
> until reinforcements arrive" kind of thing.
>
> Anyone seen airmobile units ?
Not to this point. But there are some suggestions of what's to come.
Page around in the various \data subdirectories, and you'll find winter
terrain (though the beta is "locked" in summer '87), alternate icons,
etc.. Obviously there are any number of features in the "incomplete /
yet to be added" category.
> Sometimes you can just take a look at a beta and know this game's a
> winner. With this game you only need half a look to come to that
> conclusion.
And the designer appears to be shooting for the stars. From the website
[www.armoredbrigade.com]:
* More nationalities
* Wider time-frame: 1939-1945, post-2005
* Scenarios and editors
* Linux and Mac OS-X support
* Multiplayer
Stone the crows. Suffice to say that my bookmarks now feature a new
site.
kev9000
This is a fantastic piece of game design. Simple, elegant, playable,
fun, deep. Clear in its roles and level. Immersive. And I think you
have caught lightning in a bottle here, because as far as I am
concerned you have caught the fun parts of Steel Panthers, ATF and
Combat Mission and rolled them into a one fantastic gaming experience,
and then added something that is unique and somehow new.
I am going to think deeply about suggestions - this is serious, I can
see something here that I will be playing for the next 10+ years. But
I also give you this advice: listen to your own counsel. You
obviously have the ethereal, occult art of wargame design down really
well. Listen to all input and decide what to do *yourself*! I trust
you!
You never know what you are going to find when you wander into this
newsgroup. But I think I will be remembering your posting for a long
time to come.
Thank you. And well, well done.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> I played it a little bit more this morning and I was already grumbling
> because Germans and British aren't in. Excellent game for simulating classic
> WWIII in Germany. I think that it could be easily adapted to Middle East,
> too. Didn't checked if helos are it - they are mandatory IMHO:
The Soviet player can select attack helicopters, but I haven't seen any
Apaches or airmobile / transports. So obviously the groundwork is
there.
> The interface and some elements of gameplay need polish, and scenarios, OOBs
> etc need to be fleshed out, but the basics are all there and very well laid
> out.
I've played several scenarios thus far, and the thing my brain keeps
doing is adding title after title to a rough list I call "$50 Games That
ARMORED BRIGADE Is Already Better Than."
> Also, I noticed the "orders delay"... Does it vary according to
> period/army/training? And does the game forces the player to use "realistic"
> tactics" by, for example, somehow giving to the Soviets less "flexibility"
> in changing a battleplan?
Orders delay varies according to *something*, and it almost seems like
it's communications; US vehicles seem to react much faster than Russian,
vehicles faster than leg infantry, etc. So even if the orders delay has
been abstracted to this point, there's nothing to stop the feature from
being fully developed.
> Yes, I'm already at *that level* of doubts. Really a job well done. :o)
When I got home last night, I installed on my desktop and started
playing fairly seriously. I opened up a text editor to type some
suggestions / criticisms as I found them. When I finished up, I only
had about three things on the list - and they were just embarrassing; I
would have had to entitle the list, "Painfully obvious stuff the
designer is already well-aware of."
I'm sure I'll think of things later on. Maybe.
veit...@gmail.com
Do you mean that window size is not what you select in the resolution
menu? What kind of graphic card do you have? It should be able to
handle at least 1024x1024 sized textures.
Vincenzo Beretta:
Maybe there should be line drawn from the selected unit to cursor
location when giving orders?
According to the Clanlib developers that "upside down" issue happens
to users with onboard intel graphics chips. None of their developers
have that chip so they cannot reproduce or fix it yet. Some have
reported again that fonts are not visible, Clanlib people suggest that
I use too wide font textures and all graphic cards cannot handle them.
I'll try to fix that for the next release. Today I tried Armored
Brigade first time with Vista and GeForce 8400, it worked ok except
was quite slow and crashed every when I exited game in fullscreen
mode.
I had plans to make an operational layer and had it pretty much
designed but then I realized that it would be like doing another game
on top of this. Most of things you mentioned are already on my long
List but I'm sure it will take years to implement them. I decided to
release this now because the basics are in pretty good condition and I
wanted some feedback, so far I've practically had only one tester.
Just remember that this is a work in progress.
Savegame function is not yet implemented but is top priority, although
at first it will be single slot only and used automatically when user
exits battle.
Because there seems to be quite a lot interest in this game I'm
probably going to externalize data bases so they can be edited by
hand. Winter, jungle, desert etc map types are already in, you can
select these in the battle generator. Apaches and Cobras will
definitely be there, I just need to improve chopper AI first so they
can hover. Anyway, air units are out of player's control. Airmobile
units are on the list but I'm not yet sure how they should be
implemented. Should choppers just fly straight to the landing zone,
unload troops and fly home, or is it better to use infiltrators that
appear in the opponent deployment zone?
Command delay can be affected by nationality, I have temporarily set
it same for everyone. Currently delay is calculated by HQs and radios:
does the unit have radio or is it close to another unit with radio
(with visual contact it can be somewhat farther) and is it within
command radius of HQ (both unit must have either radio or visual
contact). Units must always be unbuttoned to use visual contact, and
usually visual contact without radio results in longer delay. Morale
is not yet implemented but it can have some effect.
About AI: As usual with this kind of games, AI is the weakest part in
my opinion but it can do the job. It will be improved for sure.
Current AI has different behavior for mech/armor/infantry force types
selected in the battle generator, so infantry AI usually advances
dismounted and keeps tanks behind for fire support. It's also possible
to add some nationality specific behavior, I wonder what that could
be.
Giftzwerg
@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, veit...@gmail.com says...
> Today I tried Armored
> Brigade first time with Vista and GeForce 8400, it worked ok except
> was quite slow and crashed every when I exited game in fullscreen
> mode.
Just for information, ATI graphics on Vista work just fine - no crashes
at all - the only issue being that the background of the buttons ("Main
Menu", "Generate", "Exit Game" et al...) isn't rendered properly (it's
all scrunched up above the button text). The buttons function just
fine, though, and the pre-game screens are the only place this appears.
Also, on Vista / ATI, the "Armored Brigade" logo isn't there. The
background appears, but no text.
> Should choppers just fly straight to the landing zone,
> unload troops and fly home, or is it better to use infiltrators that
> appear in the opponent deployment zone?
Given the short-time scope of the battles, I'd argue that transport
helicopters should be assigned LZ areas, fly in from off-map after a
suitable delay, unload and retreat off-map.
> Command delay can be affected by nationality, I have temporarily set
> it same for everyone. Currently delay is calculated by HQs and radios:
> does the unit have radio or is it close to another unit with radio
> (with visual contact it can be somewhat farther) and is it within
> command radius of HQ (both unit must have either radio or visual
> contact).
Very modern, very slick, very nice feature, this. {Applause}
> About AI: As usual with this kind of games, AI is the weakest part in
> my opinion but it can do the job. It will be improved for sure.
> Current AI has different behavior for mech/armor/infantry force types
> selected in the battle generator, so infantry AI usually advances
> dismounted and keeps tanks behind for fire support. It's also possible
> to add some nationality specific behavior, I wonder what that could
> be.
Not to say that you couldn't / shouldn't make every effort to improve
the AI, but I'm finding it no worse that dozens of other games I could
name. It can march towards the objectives, hunker down and shoot it
out, and generally ... well, I was half-expecting *no* AI in a beta
version. That there's a reasonable well-working beta version already
argues that you'll be able to improve it.
Do you have commercial plans for the game? Not to blow a freebie, but
when you get to v1.0, you can probably get fifty bucks from me. Of
course, by then the US dollar will probably be worth about .05 Euros,
but it's the thought that counts, right?
[PS: You know the one thing I didn't like? The title. ARMORED BRIGADE
sounds a bit generic. How about THUNDERING STEEL or CRASHING IMPACT or
TREADS OF DOOM? Well ... think about it; maybe somebody could think of
something non-generic *and* non-stupid.]
Vincenzo Beretta
> Maybe there should be line drawn from the selected unit to cursor
> location when giving orders?
Yes, that would be a simple but functional solutio.
> Because there seems to be quite a lot interest in this game I'm
> probably going to externalize data bases so they can be edited by
> hand.
A game like this with an editable database like Harpoon ANW/Harpoon Classic
Commande Edition would be "da bomb"! I can already see interested people
writing databases for from Korea 1950 to Belgium vs. EU 2010.
> Should choppers just fly straight to the landing zone,
> unload troops and fly home, or is it better to use infiltrators that
> appear in the opponent deployment zone?
I agree with Giftzy on this one: it is the best solutuion.
> Command delay can be affected by nationality, I have temporarily set
> it same for everyone. Currently delay is calculated by HQs and radios:
> does the unit have radio or is it close to another unit with radio
> (with visual contact it can be somewhat farther) and is it within
> command radius of HQ (both unit must have either radio or visual
> contact). Units must always be unbuttoned to use visual contact, and
> usually visual contact without radio results in longer delay. Morale
> is not yet implemented but it can have some effect.
This is very good - maybe make it tweakable via the database: in your kind
of games one of the strenght is the possibility for the player to adjust
values until "they more realistically portray the real world" (translation:
his own private idea of "the real world"). This would be a great selling
feature.
> About AI: As usual with this kind of games, AI is the weakest part in
> my opinion but it can do the job. It will be improved for sure.
> Current AI has different behavior for mech/armor/infantry force types
> selected in the battle generator, so infantry AI usually advances
> dismounted and keeps tanks behind for fire support. It's also possible
> to add some nationality specific behavior, I wonder what that could
> be.
Yes, I noticed that the AI is a little weak, but can be improved. Today I
played my first complete scenario: a classic armored assault by USSR in 1987
with a small mechanized/armored US force defending. The usual "first kill
zone - rush to the secondary line of defence under TOW cover - second kill
zone" tactic worked beautifully, and the Soviets were mauled.
However, I can't praise enough how smooth and realistic was commanding the
troops: retreat facing the enemy, covering fire, mount and dismount of
infantry - everything was smooth, intuitive and realistic. This is really a
job well done.
My suggestions beside the obvious ones:
The graphics should be smoother: more levels of zoom and a smoother
scrolling around. Just now both are too sluggish.
On my system (QuadCore 6600 at 2GHz, 2GB RAM, Geforce 7800GTX, 1920x1200
resolution) I find a lag in the UI response in medium to big battles: the
unit menu needs a second or two to pop up, the "order" pointer is sluggish
etc. For sure the engine needs more optimization.
Regarding the AI, it is a field that I don't know, but I like the idea of
having different basic AIs according to the National doctrine/kind of
unit/esperience is, of course, very good. I can only suggest the reading of
some of the field manuals available on the net re: US tactics and OPForce's
ones (I think that you already know this kind of books).
Multiplayer! Multiplayer! Multiplayer! :o)
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Because there seems to be quite a lot interest in this game I'm
> > probably going to externalize data bases so they can be edited by
> > hand.
>
> A game like this with an editable database like Harpoon ANW/Harpoon Classic
> Commande Edition would be "da bomb"! I can already see interested people
> writing databases for from Korea 1950 to Belgium vs. EU 2010.
<falls over>
And then we'll have 14 competing versions of the database, all
incompatible, fucking everything up totally. And flame wars to boot.
Just like H3.
Terrible idea. Strangle it in the crib. Another H3 fiasco nobody
needs.
The developer needs to rule the database.
Andy Brown
> incompatible, fucking everything up totally. And flame wars to boot.
> Just like H3.
>
> Terrible idea. Strangle it in the crib. Another H3 fiasco nobody
> needs.
Best of both worlds? An easily mod-able database for enthusiasts who want
it as well as an "official" version of the database for competitive play?
Andy
Giftzwerg
Why not just have the developer retain control of *his game's* database,
and incorporate carefully-vetted additions from third parties - making
them a part of the *ONE* official database that ships with every copy of
the game?
That's my only contention here: that any / every game needs to have
*ONE* database, known by all, edited by a tiny, select few, to prevent
the kind of chaos that always ensues when conflicting databases are
called for from incompatible scenarios.
Vincenzo Beretta
>> needs.
>
> Best of both worlds? An easily mod-able database for enthusiasts who want
> it as well as an "official" version of the database for competitive play?
Exactly: the "fiasco" in H3 is in the community, not in the multiple
databases (that are easily switchable, BTW). It would be unfair to extend
the mental issues deeply rooted in the H3 community's collective unconscious
to the experience as a whole: Actually, the editable databases gave to H3
welcomed features like realistic ready time for aircraft, more realistic
torpedo use by the AI etc - and are a feature that I would love to see
ported into more games.
WitP has multiple "personalized" versions, and is good for it. Same for many
other games.
And to prevent another "community meltdown" you only need to state the
obvious in the EULA: what is created for a game with the tools provided with
the game is owned by the game's copyright holder. If you accept the EULA you
accept this basic fact. If it works for the EA and the Sims (among the
*stunningly big* number of other game that use the same caveat re: third
party content - like Neverwinter Nights), be sure that it works =)
Vincenzo Beretta
> *ONE* database, known by all, edited by a tiny, select few, to prevent
> the kind of chaos that always ensues when conflicting databases are
> called for from incompatible scenarios.
Harpoon ANW currently has a simple interface that allows you to select a
database, and only the scenarios compatible with it show up.
This way one can concentrate on writing a database for the 50s'-60s, another
one a database for, let's say The Arab-Israeli Wars, and so on. It is easy
and functional. And of course the game owner still retains copyright.
Again: the real problems with Harpoon 3/ANW are the bugs, the community and
the management: a pity, since, as I always said, the underlying game is
solid, and potentially good (exp. now with multiplayer). Harpoon Classic
Commander Edition is showing what a well coded, well managed iteration of
Harpoon can accomplish. Let's hope for the future.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
\
> >> Terrible idea. Strangle it in the crib. Another H3 fiasco nobody
> >> needs.
> >
> > Best of both worlds? An easily mod-able database for enthusiasts who want
> > it as well as an "official" version of the database for competitive play?
>
> Exactly: the "fiasco" in H3 is in the community, not in the multiple
> databases (that are easily switchable, BTW).
No. No. No. "Switchable" is wrong. One, single, integrated database
is The Right Thing.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > That's my only contention here: that any / every game needs to have
> > *ONE* database, known by all, edited by a tiny, select few, to prevent
> > the kind of chaos that always ensues when conflicting databases are
> > called for from incompatible scenarios.
>
> Harpoon ANW currently has a simple interface that allows you to select a
> database, and only the scenarios compatible with it show up.
Yeah. And H3 is a total piece of shit. A buggy fiasco. Do you really
want to use H3 - in *any* incarnation - as an example of what a new and
innovative designer should emulate??!?!?!?
> This way one can concentrate on writing a database for the 50s'-60s, another
> one a database for, let's say The Arab-Israeli Wars, and so on. It is easy
> and functional. And of course the game owner still retains copyright.
I don't have a problem with additions to the database. But there are
two ways to do it right:
(1) Scenarios that add to the database incorporate self-contained,
*temporary* supercessions to the database. In other words, if I create
a "Lord of the Rings" scenario for ARMORED BRIGADE, I can build into the
scenario superceded data that takes the place - for *this specific
scenario* - of official database units. For this scenario *only*,
certain aspects of the official data is changed.
(2) Additions to the database necessary for scenarios are vetted and
approved by the designer, and update the database holistically.
> Again: the real problems with Harpoon 3/ANW are the bugs, the community and
> the management: a pity, since, as I always said, the underlying game is
> solid, and potentially good (exp. now with multiplayer). Harpoon Classic
> Commander Edition is showing what a well coded, well managed iteration of
> Harpoon can accomplish. Let's hope for the future.
*Nothing* from H3 should be incorporated into *any* game. Ever. It's
the poster-child for fucked-up. Everything the designers of that
shitbug software ever did should be avoided like a bucket of pus.
Andy Brown
> is The Right Thing.
Nope. I really disagree with this.
I've lost count of the number of times I've disagreed with some aspect of
game's database. There's nothing worse than playing a WW2 game that allows,
say, German 88mm ATG to go through <whatever> mm of RHA at 1000 metres when
I "know" that, in real life, it was actually 1057.
By making everything as mod-able as possible, you allow people to get
maximum enjoyment out of the game. If anyone can do anything they like to
the database, no one's going to be disappointed.
All that's required is an "official" version of the game for serious or
competitive play. If you want to play competitively or against strangers,
you use the official database. Too bad if you don't agree with it 100%, you
take it or leave it.
Of course every man and his dog is going to lobby to have their irrefutable
interpretation of <weapon effect> included in the official database.
Whether that happens or not is the perogative of the game developer and
there will almost certainly be some excitable people who end up criticising
the developer's parentage because the officially sanctioned version of the
game doesn't agree with their view of reality. That happens anyway.
With a fully mod-able database, however, the game may retain some appeal to
those who would otherwise dismiss it as a bad joke. It's one more player
option. Options are good, right?
Andy Brown
Giftzwerg
If you're asking if people should be allowed to mod their game behind
closed doors, then fine. Who could have a problem with that?
The problem comes in if you get a community of users who are creating
scenarios for the system - and they all create special *and incompatible
with each other* versions of the database for their scenario. Then the
gamer is forced to continually play a ridiculous game of "musical
databases" just to go from one scenario on the list to another.
Even worse, half of these Junior G-men scenario designers aren't going
to be *careful* when they "upgrade" the database; "I needed slots for
the Hungarian Army units, so I used the British 1914 slots."
There have been games where this gets so friggin' retarded that someone
has to come up with a "database switcher" *utility* so the gamers don't
just fling the entire accreted nightmare into the recycle bin.
Here's an excerpt from harpoonhq.com:
"The developer's horrible planning, their limited understanding of naval
warfare, plus their poor testing has resulted in hundreds of newly
introduced bugs that make the game unplayable. And it gets worse with
each new release. The scenarios they ship with the game are not
compatible with the game engine any more, and the database will not work
as intended. The scenario editor has been released in a dysfunctional
and untested state, and not even the AGSI experts (uhm, right LOL!)
know how to use the 'updated' database editor. Version 3.7 and 3.8 are
also far less stable than 3.6, and run considerably slower.
Worse, it seems like that the MS/Access editor needed to upgrade the
database from 3.6 to 3.8 may not be released to the public. Since the
3.6 scenarios don t work with the 3.8 game engine, it may seem that new
customers will not be able to play any of the user-created scenarios
hosted here on the HarpoonHQ, or anywhere else on the web."
Not. What. We. Want.
Here's my core principle: "Keep it simple, stupid." Let's let the guy
get the game built and working to his satisfaction before we go
"modding" it out of existence.
Vincenzo Beretta
[snip]
Please, Giftzy: keep your quotes from Ann Coulter or Dick Cheney, if you
wish, but not HarpoonHQ.
HHQ supported fanatically H3 when the game was as buggish as it is now,
going to such extremes as forbidding open discussion of bugs, vetoing
buglists etc. Then, after a fallout with AGSI, all of sudden "Harpoon ANW"
(a product *as buggy as the one they exalted*), is THE DOING OF THE DEVIL.
Almost every word that comes out of HHQ is politics. They did their part to
keep the game alive, nobody denies that, and I liked some of their work in
the past - but almost none of their *words*.
I know that you do not play Harpoon ANW - for good reason. I did but I
stopped (for the same reasons). However, database editing and the simple
utility for database/scenario switching are probably the best thing in the
game and a good lead for games to come - like this Armored Brigade itself,
for example.
What I mean is that even from Bin-laden you could get a functioning heart
and save a life - even if the donor is Bin-laden himself :o)
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> I know that you do not play Harpoon ANW - for good reason. I did but I
> stopped (for the same reasons). However, database editing and the simple
> utility for database/scenario switching are probably the best thing in the
> game and a good lead for games to come - like this Armored Brigade itself,
> for example.
Saying that the best thing about H3 is the masses of conflicting
databases, incompatible scenarios, and ongoing thermonuclear flame wars
is like saying that the best thing about a compound fracture of the
femur is being able to bend a coathanger to scratch under your cast.
Again, though, there's nothing wrong with modding or database
extensions, it's just crucial that they be done in a way that's
completely *invisible* to the system and the gamer. In other words, a
database "upgrade" is *never* allowed to break *anything*. Ever. And a
user may *never* be asked to flip back and forth between databases.
So as long as your v3.2 of the database impacts *nothing* in a v1.0
scenario, then fine. Go for it. But where you're going to create the
usual chaos (H3) is when crowds of people create scenarios willy-nilly -
and who cares what it breaks!!?! My database is better!!! Use
DataBase-Switcher v2.1.8 to swap back and forth ... but be careful, cuz
D-S 2.1.8 is only compatible with db2008 or db2005.4 database formats,
not the improved v6 db7 upgrade. Oh, and if you want to *manually*
install a new database, use this convenient 17-step process...
Bleagh.
ERutins
You're really not an objective observer when it comes to H3ANW. I
realize it all started with you purchasing a version of H3 right
before AGSI stopped supporting it in favor of H3ANW development, but
you can't believe everything you read on this. The situation between
the game, database, scenarios and community is a complex one and one
that lends itself to many different versions of the truth. If you'd
like to give the latest 3.9 version a try yourself to see how it
works, e-mail me at erikr AT matrixgames.com and I'll send you a copy
so that you can inform yourself instead of relying on the opinions of
others.
Regards,
- Erik
Giftzwerg
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com says...
> You're really not an objective observer when it comes to H3ANW. I
> realize it all started with you purchasing a version of H3 right
> before AGSI stopped supporting it in favor of H3ANW development, but
> you can't believe everything you read on this. The situation between
> the game, database, scenarios and community is a complex one and one
> that lends itself to many different versions of the truth.
Ah, but my point isn't *why* the "situation" became so "complex," but
that the competing versions of the database (and associated issues...)
are one of the primary irritants - not to mention a terrible idea from a
purely systems standpoint.
And from a rhetorical / argumentation perspective, bringing up *HARPOON
3* as the poster-boy for The Wonders Of User-Created Game Databases
seems like the wrong move. It's like citing Amy Winehouse as emblematic
of the sterling potential for user-initiated pharmacology.
> If you'd
> like to give the latest 3.9 version a try yourself to see how it
> works, e-mail me at erikr AT matrixgames.com and I'll send you a copy
> so that you can inform yourself instead of relying on the opinions of
> others.
You know what? I'll take you up on that offer.
Email dispatched.
Vincenzo Beretta
>
> Email dispatched.
I'm starting to think that this was Giftzy's plan since the very beginning.
Maybe he is going too (like me) through a marathon of "Dr. House" :o)
Giftzwerg
Vincenzo Beretta
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:MPG.224f41718...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <HgdFj.29442$q53....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> rec...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > You know what? I'll take you up on that offer.
>> >
>> > Email dispatched.
>>
>> I'm starting to think that this was Giftzy's plan since the very
>> beginning.
>> Maybe he is going too (like me) through a marathon of "Dr. House" :o)
>
> Dr. House? Heh?
"House MD" in the States. Catch some re-run if you can, and you will see
what I do mean :o)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/quotes
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Dr. House? Heh?
>
> "House MD" in the States. Catch some re-run if you can, and you will see
> what I do mean :o)
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/quotes
Bleagh. This is weird for a guy married to a nurse, but doctors terrify
me.
Andy Brown
> So as long as your v3.2 of the database impacts *nothing* in a v1.0
> scenario, then fine. Go for it. But where you're going to create the
> usual chaos (H3) is when crowds of people create scenarios willy-nilly -
> and who cares what it breaks!!?! My database is better!!! Use
> DataBase-Switcher v2.1.8 to swap back and forth ... but be careful, cuz
> D-S 2.1.8 is only compatible with db2008 or db2005.4 database formats,
> not the improved v6 db7 upgrade. Oh, and if you want to *manually*
> install a new database, use this convenient 17-step process...
So your beef is actually that numerous user-modified versions of a database
can break a game installation for a user who installs mods without
considering how they work?
But if a player wants to play a mod produced by some enthusiast who has
radically altered the data base, isn't that the player's problem?
Those who don't want to play around in database hell can simply elect not to
play any scenario that messes with the database. Or they can install the
game twice. Or whatever.
It seems to me (as a completely disinterested outsider) that the problem
with the various incarnations of Harpoon is that different data bases
attracted their various supporters who lacked the interpersonal skills to
get along with each other. Once the developer(s?) started taking sides, the
Harpoon fanbase fractured into a number of mutually hostile factions, each
"improving" the game in their own ways. But perhaps I over-simplify?
As long as there's only one centre of development , and only one "official"
version of the game, I'd argue that most of Harpoon's problems should be
avoidable.
Cheers,
Andy
Giftzwerg
> > So as long as your v3.2 of the database impacts *nothing* in a v1.0
> > scenario, then fine. Go for it. But where you're going to create the
> > usual chaos (H3) is when crowds of people create scenarios willy-nilly -
> > and who cares what it breaks!!?! My database is better!!! Use
> > DataBase-Switcher v2.1.8 to swap back and forth ... but be careful, cuz
> > D-S 2.1.8 is only compatible with db2008 or db2005.4 database formats,
> > not the improved v6 db7 upgrade. Oh, and if you want to *manually*
> > install a new database, use this convenient 17-step process...
> So your beef is actually that numerous user-modified versions of a database
> can break a game installation for a user who installs mods without
> considering how they work?
>
> But if a player wants to play a mod produced by some enthusiast who has
> radically altered the data base, isn't that the player's problem?
>
> Those who don't want to play around in database hell can simply elect not to
> play any scenario that messes with the database. Or they can install the
> game twice. Or whatever.
<shrug>
What if I want to play user-created scenarios *without* fucking up my
installation? The games that are most successful at building a
scenario-design community make it *easy* for players to download and
play a scenario. Games that are lousy at this offer players exactly the
nasty choice above; forego an interesting scenario and preserve your
installation, or load it and probably screw yourself.
> As long as there's only one centre of development , and only one "official"
> version of the game, I'd argue that most of Harpoon's problems should be
> avoidable.
Why not have things both ways? Build the system such that a scenario
designer can include a .csv file containing database additions or
changes which relate *only* to the specific scenario being designed.
When the game system loads the scenario, it reads the .csv file and
either adds the new units temporarily to the main database, or
supercedes existing units with new values.
And, of course, people can also submit additions and corrections to the
designer, for incorporation into the official version.
In this manner, a scenario builder who needs to add or correct a unit
can do so, the designer keeps control of his design, and players can
download and try even far-out scenarios secure in the knowledge that
they *can't* make a bad decision.
rus4...@hotmail.com
> Before somebody says anything about spamming I say this is the first place
> where I mention this after the release.
Spam?
Normally, the only spammer around these parts is the abandon-ware
reseller, NWS.
A true shyster, he's not doing anything but trying to line his own
pockets.
You on the other hand, obviously, are very, very talented.
Keep us informed.
r4e
Giftzwerg
@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, rus4...@hotmail.com says...
> Spam?
>
> Normally, the only spammer around these parts is the abandon-ware
> reseller, NWS.
>
> A true shyster, he's not doing anything but trying to line his own
> pockets.
*plonk*
Andy Brown
> designer can include a .csv file containing database additions or
> changes which relate *only* to the specific scenario being designed.
> When the game system loads the scenario, it reads the .csv file and
> either adds the new units temporarily to the main database, or
> supercedes existing units with new values.
Sounds good to me.
Briarroot
> Giftzwerg,
>
> You're really not an objective observer when it comes to H3ANW. I
> realize it all started with you purchasing a version of H3 right
> before AGSI stopped supporting it in favor of H3ANW development, but
> you can't believe everything you read on this. The situation between
> the game, database, scenarios and community is a complex one and one
> that lends itself to many different versions of the truth.
"Different versions of the truth?" Oh my. :-(
--
"Communists are people who read Marx and Lenin. Anti-Communists are
people who *understand* Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan
Briarroot
It's Bertie Wooster! ;-)
Frank E
<er...@matrixgames.com> wrote:
>Giftzwerg,
>
>You're really not an objective observer when it comes to H3ANW. I
>realize it all started with you purchasing a version of H3 right
>before AGSI stopped supporting it in favor of H3ANW development, but
>you can't believe everything you read on this. The situation between
>the game, database, scenarios and community is a complex one and one
>that lends itself to many different versions of the truth.
Which kinda proves Gifty's point.
If I'm thinking about buying a game and I hear that "the situation
between the game, database, scenarios and community is a complex one
and one that lends itself to many different versions of the truth", it
doesn't really matter who's right or whose version of the 'truth' is
correct. The one safe assumption is that it's a fucked up situation
from the gamer's perspective.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >You're really not an objective observer when it comes to H3ANW. I
> >realize it all started with you purchasing a version of H3 right
> >before AGSI stopped supporting it in favor of H3ANW development, but
> >you can't believe everything you read on this. The situation between
> >the game, database, scenarios and community is a complex one and one
> >that lends itself to many different versions of the truth.
>
> Which kinda proves Gifty's point.
>
> If I'm thinking about buying a game and I hear that "the situation
> between the game, database, scenarios and community is a complex one
> and one that lends itself to many different versions of the truth", it
> doesn't really matter who's right or whose version of the 'truth' is
> correct. The one safe assumption is that it's a fucked up situation
> from the gamer's perspective.
Unless your presumption is that the ongoing flame-war might be loads
more fun than the game itself. Then you'd be correct to just plunge
ahead!
veit...@gmail.com
Exactly what I was told in the beginning, that "ARMORED BRIGADE" is
too generic name. The hardest part in every project is to invent a
good name. An alternative name was "PINK TANK" but that was too cheesy
after all. Maybe new name is a good idea if there's a commercial
version of this game some day.
Vincenzo Beretta:
I had more levels of zooms but in my opinion it requires too much
mouse wheel use to zoom from far to close. I'd like to get more
feedback about this before I change it back. How about this scrolling
issue, could you describe it a bit better? It's been smooth with every
computer I've tried. Your 1920x1200 resolution sounds very high, do
you experience lag in both normal and contour map modes? It should be
noted that modern graphic cards are optimized for 3d and have poor 2d
performances in comparison. You can use shift+F9/F10 to adjust
distance where the map mode is switched, countour map has much better
performance when zoomed far out.
The worst performance problem is with pathfinding, when there are lots
of units simultaneously searching path to the waypoint which is in the
opposite side of a very large map. That can put everything to halt for
seconds just like you described.
I've studied field manuals, Red Thrust Star, Finnish AT Guide and
everything possible. But in practice, I'd say that it's very hard to
make a dynamic AI that can adapt to every situation with every
possible force (infantry platoon-tank regiment) and map (hilly jungle-
desert plain) combination, while being challenging and doctrineally
correct. That's the bad side of dynamic AI. I agree that multiplayer
is very important, but it will take some time before we are there.
I'll have to think about that external database thing.. That would be
extra work, now there's already hardcoded "database" just waiting for
values and graphics to be added. I really dislike that if I download a
scenario for certain game and it requires mod X and mod Y, optionally
also mod Z but definitely not mod X2 to function properly. I want to
play the game, not to toy with files. On the other hand, editable
database is mandatory with any popular wargame these days.
I hope I can setup a forum in the near future so all issues can be
discussed there.
kev9000
> extra work, now there's already hardcoded "database" just waiting for
> values and graphics to be added. I really dislike that if I download a
> scenario for certain game and it requires mod X and mod Y, optionally
> also mod Z but definitely not mod X2 to function properly. I want to
> play the game, not to toy with files.
I think you are along the right lines: "freedom to edit" takes
away the freedom to *not* be a Software Configuration Manager and
risks
narrowing the player base into an even smaller, more hardcore crowd.
Maybe you might release the data format, a submission template and
take submissions for new database items from gamers before releases/
upgrades?
These might be filterable through a small group of knowledgeable
volunteers
before they get to you, to save you time. Then scenarios would be
compatible with "Version X" as oppposed to "Version X with Kev9000's
datapack V.2 with Eddy's Jeeps and Landrovers Release 10.98" etc.etc.
Just an idea for a middle ground. It's a tough call but I know that
I don't have time to be messing with selections of databases,
dead links, etc.
Or loading up scenarios only to find that Eddy's Jeeps are knocking
hell out of the stock Tigers but the scenario readme failed
to tell me exactly what configuration was needed.
Mike Kreuzer
news:14171ef1-0e6f-436f...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Mike Kreuzer:
> Do you mean that window size is not what you select in the resolution
Yep. It's the width of the frames. The windows are all 16 pixels wider than
they should be.
> menu? What kind of graphic card do you have? It should be able to
> handle at least 1024x1024 sized textures.
>
Happens with both a Gigabyte 256MB 8600GT and an Asus 512MB 9600GT. The
window doesn't start centered either.
The crash at exit happens on both cards too.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Backspace
> Watch some dumbhead find a problem with it, though.
I found a problem! "Dumbhead" is two words and there should be no comma
after "though".
Backspace
> It's upside down.
Yep, some dumb head found a problem with it. Hehe
Backspace
> Hello,
>
> Here's freeware wargame I've been developing for some time now.
Hmm, looks similar to the strat command interface in Steel Beasts.
Downloading now and just going by the screenshots on your web site. Thanks!
Backspace
> After 50 seconds play I feel much the same way.
Wow! That's the quickest evaluation of a game I have ever seen posted.
Even Dkaitana required more gameplay than that to see it was complete shite.
Backspace
> Stone the crows. Suffice to say that my bookmarks now feature a new
> site.
>
OK, you are not a fanboi, just an average garden variety sycophant.
Backspace
I'm an objective observer and was think of getting H3 just today. So, I
go to your H3 forum and start reading. First, I see someone telling a
potential purchaser he can alter the DB if he doesn't think it is
accurate enough. Well, the issue there is that the game is advertised as
a MP game so if he alters the DB and plays with someone not using the
same DB then he is fucked. Right? Next I see a post from a long time
Harpoon player and he says the AI in H3 is fucked and needs lots of
work. After reading that malarkey I no longer feel objective about
buying H3. Can you blame me?
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Maybe you might release the data format, a submission template and
> take submissions for new database items from gamers before releases/
> upgrades?
In other words : keep control of the database, allow people to add to
it through the developer ? Sounds ok to me.
> These might be filterable through a small group of knowledgeable
> volunteers
> before they get to you, to save you time. Then scenarios would be
> compatible with "Version X" as oppposed to "Version X with Kev9000's
> datapack V.2 with Eddy's Jeeps and Landrovers Release 10.98" etc.etc.
Only when Jeeps can kill Tigers :)
> Just an idea for a middle ground.
> It's a tough call but I know that
> I don't have time to be messing with selections of databases,
> dead links, etc.
Good idea.
> Or loading up scenarios only to find that Eddy's Jeeps are knocking
> hell out of the stock Tigers but the scenario readme failed
> to tell me exactly what configuration was needed.
All kidding aside : basically this boils down to the developer keeping
controll of the database but allowing input. That's what most
developers seem to do barring the you-know-who's
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Dirk Gross
without reading anything. First problem for me was realizing it took
two clicks to select a unit with my 1000 points. Took about 15 seconds
to figure that out. OK, got a Russian Mech Platoon, some tanks, an ATGM
section, and HMG Section. Deployed, advanced, got killed... :-(
OK, I suck. Game ran quickly and no issues. I'll say at this point I
own many real time wargames...and never have taken to them no matter how
good they are. That's just me. It seems pretty good though and I'll
try to work with it a bit more. I'm using Vista 64 Business SP1, GB
X-38 Intel motherboard, Intel Core 2 8400, and ATI HD 3870 with Catalyst
8.3. I noticed no graphical glitches.
A comment I'd offer: I'd like more info for the AAR. All I could see
were the number of enemy AFVs and men lost. I'd like to see what the
vehicles were that I killed. I assume the (K-#) after a unit of mine
were the vehicles killed by that vehicle. I like that.
Raging Tiger
> somebody says anything about spamming I say this is the first place
> time engine, main influences are Steel Panthers, Armored Task Force
> and Combat Mission among others. Basic idea has been to combine
> elements for games I like into something that hasn't been done
> before... It's still in beta stage and far from complete but playable.
> If you are interested I'd like to hear some comments how to make this
> game better.
>
> http://www.armoredbrigade.com
Juha,
I designed Raging Tiger, The Star and the Crescent, and most
of Air Assault Task Force for ProSIM. I am very impressed with your
game. It is clean, simple, and user-friendly. I can see all of the
influences you mentioned in your game. I can also see how easy it
would be to modify and adjust to personal preferences. Some things of
note which may already be known, but thought I would offer:
- Works fine in Vista SP1 in windowed or fullscreen, however it
doesn't exit cleanly - I get the "abrigade.exe has stopped working"
dialogue. Not sure what's going on there.
- Engineering doesn't seem to be working for me. Not sure if it's even
enabled.
- Air Strikes - Not sure I understand the reasoning for such a small
area or why the area isn't adjustable in size. Also, there should be a
"loiter" and "target of opportunity" toggle to allow the air strike to
attack targets on its ingress and egress routes. Just a suggestion.
- Arty Sheaf - I think you need a "rotation" selection for linear
missions - these are very important for smoke and area-denial weapons
such as FASCAM minefields. Something to consider.
- Graphics - Overall, very clean and functional. I've already
experimented with new overhead shots of actual equipment (sorry,
couldn't resist!). I do think there should be a more distinct
difference between engaging fire from red to blue. Seeing a blue icon
turning red intermittently is a tad bit confusing. Maybe a separate
red line from the enemy to blue? Not sure what would work better, IF
anything would work better.
- LOS - May want to consider displaying LOS for grouped vehicles to
allow for quicker and more comprehensive evaluation of vehicle
placement in the defense. This would be a VERY handy tool.
- AAR/Reports - You may want to consider a searchable function for
incidents during the game. Maybe even a replay feature.
All in all, I'm very impressed with the work you've done! All you need
now is messaging to command and control systems! Seriously, though, if
you ever need anything from me when it comes to graphics or scenario
design, give me a shout - I basically work for free quite often. ;-)
HermanH
> > And then we'll have 14 competing versions of the database, all
> > incompatible, fucking everything up totally. And flame wars to boot.
> > Just like H3.
>
> > Terrible idea. Strangle it in the crib. Another H3 fiasco nobody
> > needs.
>
> Best of both worlds? An easily mod-able database for enthusiasts who want
> it as well as an "official" version of the database for competitive play?
>
> Andy
I think that Andy has hit upon the best idea. In fact, it is already
being used by ANW. The company controls its own database and
enthusiastic third-parties maintain their own. IIRC, a primary reason
behind the creation of many user-databases was the fact that the
company could/would not update/fix its own work. This fact continues
to this very day.
On Mar 21, 6:56 pm, "Andy Brown" <andy...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Of course every man and his dog is going to lobby to have their irrefutable
> interpretation of <weapon effect> included in the official database.
> Whether that happens or not is the perogative of the game developer and
> there will almost certainly be some excitable people who end up criticising
> the developer's parentage because the officially sanctioned version of the
> game doesn't agree with their view of reality. That happens anyway.
>
> Andy Brown
This works well. For example, the Official database might have only
one entry for the F-16 Falcon. However, since this plane is used by a
multitude of countries, one configuration may not fit every
situation. Allowing enthusiasts to adapt or customize their own
database to a more user-friendly format is definitely helpful to the
game. One only has to note that not a single user-scenario has been
created for the official databases issued by the company to see how
popular the official offerings are.
This concept is already being worked on.
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74006
Customized *.ini files for each scenario or battleset could be a good
addition so that default values are not changed permanently.
The current situation in ANW is that every database is managed within
its own folder along with all associated scenarios built for it. This
is one of the best features added to ANW and works very well.
Unfortunately, AGSI couldn't leave well enough alone and also
incorporated their unbelievably idiotic 'signature' function so that
every scenario must match the EXACT database it was written with.
This function is so bad that they had tried to delete discussion of
its very existence from Matrix forum for fear that users might find
out the long-term implications of this stupidity. It has been
resurrected on GameSquad.
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=968943&postcount=6
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=968943&postcount=7
On Mar 21, 3:48 pm, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> And to prevent another "community meltdown" you only need to state the
> obvious in the EULA: what is created for a game with the tools provided with
> the game is owned by the game's copyright holder. If you accept the EULA you
> accept this basic fact. If it works for the EA and the Sims (among the
> *stunningly big* number of other game that use the same caveat re: third
> party content - like Neverwinter Nights), be sure that it works =)
Probably the best overall solution to prevention of such a mess.
HermanH
wrote:
> In article <15e4109a-d4ec-4ce8-8fa4-f50208d549a4
> @d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com says...
>
> > If you'd
> > like to give the latest 3.9 version a try yourself to see how it
> > works, e-mail me at erikr AT matrixgames.com and I'll send you a copy
> > so that you can inform yourself instead of relying on the opinions of
> > others.
>
>
> Email dispatched.
>
> Giftzwerg
Excellent idea. If you'd like a quick game to really test the MP side
of things, drop me a line.
Giftzwerg
8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
> > Best of both worlds? An easily mod-able database for enthusiasts who want
> > it as well as an "official" version of the database for competitive play?
> I think that Andy has hit upon the best idea. In fact, it is already
> being used by ANW. The company controls its own database and
> enthusiastic third-parties maintain their own. IIRC, a primary reason
> behind the creation of many user-databases was the fact that the
> company could/would not update/fix its own work. This fact continues
> to this very day.
Why not give the new designer the benefit of the doubt, and see if we
even *need* to "fix" anything????
Why assume everyone is AGSI-quality, sight unseen?
> > Of course every man and his dog is going to lobby to have their irrefutable
> > interpretation of <weapon effect> included in the official database.
> > Whether that happens or not is the perogative of the game developer and
> > there will almost certainly be some excitable people who end up criticising
> > the developer's parentage because the officially sanctioned version of the
> > game doesn't agree with their view of reality. That happens anyway.
> This works well.
It works not at all, because it forces the user to play "musical
databases" just to play a scenario or two, then suffer through another
chorus to return to the original database, then load a third database
because scenario three is...
Ugh. And stupid.
> For example, the Official database might have only
> one entry for the F-16 Falcon. However, since this plane is used by a
> multitude of countries, one configuration may not fit every
> situation. Allowing enthusiasts to adapt or customize their own
> database to a more user-friendly format is definitely helpful to the
> game. One only has to note that not a single user-scenario has been
> created for the official databases issued by the company to see how
> popular the official offerings are.
The first question would be whether the differences between the various
F-16 variants are significant enough *in a squad level land combat game*
to warrant diddly-fucking with two dozen entries. Indeed, I'd say a
better case can be made to shove all the F-16 marks - and about 100
other breeds of fighter-bombers - into an abstracted "light strike"
aircraft.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The consequence, which you can already feel, is an inchoate resentment
among many white voters who are damned if they will be called bigots by
a man who associates with Jeremiah Wright. So here we go with all that
again. And this is the fresh, clean, new post-racial politics?"
- Christopher Hitchens
Giftzwerg
e97ba5...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
> > > If you'd
> > > like to give the latest 3.9 version a try yourself to see how it
> > > works, e-mail me at erikr AT matrixgames.com and I'll send you a copy
> > > so that you can inform yourself instead of relying on the opinions of
> > > others.
> >
> > You know what? I'll take you up on that offer.
> Excellent idea. If you'd like a quick game to really test the MP side
> of things, drop me a line.
One thing I can report up front: the scenario-loading bug is fixed!
HermanH
wrote:
> In article <c0d544e5-e1db-4879-89ac-9d29c2bb806e@
> 8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, herman...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > Of course every man and his dog is going to lobby to have their irrefutable
> > > interpretation of <weapon effect> included in the official database.
> > > Whether that happens or not is the perogative of the game developer and
> > > there will almost certainly be some excitable people who end up criticising
> > > the developer's parentage because the officially sanctioned version of the
> > > game doesn't agree with their view of reality. That happens anyway.
> > This works well.
>
> It works not at all, because it forces the user to play "musical
> databases" just to play a scenario or two, then suffer through another
> chorus to return to the original database, then load a third database
> because scenario three is...
>
> Ugh. And stupid.
>
> Giftzwerg
Well, we've already set up the PlayersDB to minimize any and all
problems. Just one click to install and that's it.
Already, you can easily see how quickly you can switch between the
OriginalDB and the ANWDB through one click in your configuration
launcher. If one click is too troublesome for you, that's fine, but
that's the truth of the matter. It only takes one click to install
and another to select the database -- not 17 steps.
Some folks will not even walk down to their corner store for a
newspaper and prefer home delivery. That's certainly their
prerogative.
If you are running the tutorials and scenarios included with the game,
I would strongly suggest that you try ours:
http://www.harpdb.com/h3/pdb/scen/Complete_ANW_Library.exe
There's just a shitload of bugs and problems we found and fixed when
we re-built them for compatibility with the PlayersDB. It might save
you a bit of frustration.
veit...@gmail.com
> - Works fine in Vista SP1 in windowed or fullscreen, however it
> doesn't exit cleanly - I get the "abrigade.exe has stopped working"
> dialogue. Not sure what's going on there.
>
I had the same problem with Vista.
> - Engineering doesn't seem to be working for me. Not sure if it's even
> enabled.
>
It should work. If the defender can purchase obstacles (set defences
to "fortified" in the battle generator) then leading tank of every
advancing platoon has plow, just drive it across obstacle. There's a
small probability that it fails and tank is immobilized or destroyed.
Breaching vehicle slows down and also traverses turret to safe
position if the obstacle is minefield. I'll add dismounted engineers
later but probably no MICLICs or stuff like that (AI issue).
> - Air Strikes - Not sure I understand the reasoning for such a small
> area or why the area isn't adjustable in size. Also, there should be a
> "loiter" and "target of opportunity" toggle to allow the air strike to
> attack targets on its ingress and egress routes. Just a suggestion.
>
Target area in this game is more like a waypoint, maybe it should also
look like that. I've planned that when aircraft reaches the area it
automatically drops some bombs (like napalm) even if nothing is
spotted. "Target of opportunity" toggle could be a good idea, I'll see
what I can do. At least I have to improve helicopter AI.
> - Arty Sheaf - I think you need a "rotation" selection for linear
> missions - these are very important for smoke and area-denial weapons
> such as FASCAM minefields. Something to consider.
>
I was planning to use different fire patterns but decided to take more
abstracted approach... I'll think about that but it would need some re-
design.
> - Graphics - Overall, very clean and functional. I've already
> experimented with new overhead shots of actual equipment (sorry,
> couldn't resist!). I do think there should be a more distinct
> difference between engaging fire from red to blue. Seeing a blue icon
> turning red intermittently is a tad bit confusing. Maybe a separate
> red line from the enemy to blue? Not sure what would work better, IF
> anything would work better.
>
Separate red line doesn't work in every case because enemy unit is not
always spotted and actually I want to maintain some confusion. The
next version has "under fire" messages for player.
> - LOS - May want to consider displaying LOS for grouped vehicles to
> allow for quicker and more comprehensive evaluation of vehicle
> placement in the defense. This would be a VERY handy tool.
>
Good idea, but LOS is very heavy algorithm. On large map it takes time
to calculate for a single unit, with company it would be 10x
longer...
> - AAR/Reports - You may want to consider a searchable function for
> incidents during the game. Maybe even a replay feature.
>
Some kind of replay feature is on the (LONG) todo list.
> All in all, I'm very impressed with the work you've done! All you need
> now is messaging to command and control systems! Seriously, though, if
> you ever need anything from me when it comes to graphics or scenario
> design, give me a shout - I basically work for free quite often. ;-)
Yeah, I need help with the vehicle sprites when I've finished basic
functionality. And of course with scenarios in the distant future.
Raging Tiger
> > - Engineering doesn't seem to be working for me. Not sure if it's even
> > enabled.
>
> It should work. If the defender can purchase obstacles (set defences
> to "fortified" in the battle generator) then leading tank of every
> advancing platoon has plow, just drive it across obstacle. There's a
> small probability that it fails and tank is immobilized or destroyed.
> Breaching vehicle slows down and also traverses turret to safe
> position if the obstacle is minefield. I'll add dismounted engineers
> later but probably no MICLICs or stuff like that (AI issue).
The problem is with the defender being able to set defences - I set
myself as the defender and "purchased" a bunch of mines/wire/etc., but
was unable to build any defences. I had "fortification" set and was
able to select the materials, but when it came time to build them, I
got nothing - the RMB scrolled through the different available
obstacle types, but trying to LC the mouse gave me nothing.
veit...@gmail.com
these in your deployment zone? Do you see yellow rectangle when you
have selected "Build" and hold left mouse button?
veit...@gmail.com
these in your deployment zone? Do you see yellow rectangle when you
have selected "Build" and hold left mouse button?
On 28 maalis, 21:03, Raging Tiger <RagingTi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Raging Tiger
Okay, I have it working now. It was my fault - had to have all the
variables set correctly