[Mod]Spring : Modern Warfare [General stuff/concepts]


#1

Okay, I already talked to members about the Ideas of my mod and stuff.
The mod is planned to play in 2044.

I’m still planning to make use of cannons, missiles, EMPs, lasers,…etc.
weapons like lasers are planned to be a more exotic thing so I think more about projectiles/cannons and missiles.

What do you guys think?
Will cannons like we know them today stay in future? Maybe further developed “intelligent” projectiles=?
Or more missiles?

I already made a “unit list” for buildings which I work on, vehicles and weapons are now something I’m not sure about since some people think future combat will more be powerd by missiles.


#2

Well, I think by 2044 cannon weapons will still be around. They are cheaper than other projectile weapons, and somewhat more reliable. Guided missiles and such can be countered with ECM or other tricks (chaff/“heat traps”), try to do that to a simple metal slug :slight_smile:

Tank guns have several main directions to improve, I’d expect either larger calibers (up to 152/155mm) and/or higher rate of fire (with auto loaders) and/or guided ammunition (hard to do in spring as of now).

Lasers, on the other hand - not really. Maybe as a form of anti-missile defence (or maybe anti-sniper system), but not as main weapons for battlefiels units. They REQUIRE line of fire/line of sight to the target, which even modern tanks (not even ‘pure’ artillery units like self-propelled howitzers) don’t need. You don’t want to expose yourself just to make a shot.

Missiles/rockets - will be there, will be a main form of anti-vehile weapons (like they are today), but will also be counterable so no 1-shot kills.

EMP weapons - basic “explosion magnetic generator” (a device that creates a strong but very short elector-magnetic pulse using specially built explosives) can fit into even a 105mm shell. This will jam/fry most electronics in ~30m radius from the blast point. So such weapons are very probable (and probably very expensive as well). Won’t do much to humans, but should disable all the electronic stuff.


#3

That is exactly what I think okay i didnt gave lasers that much attention except those chineses thing on the K-2 which can jam the electronical sights.

I still think to go with large caliber cannons or maybe smaller caliber.

I plan to give my Anti Vehicle Weapon modul a 120/125mm and its upgradeable with a close to middle range anti tank rocket system (81mm or bigger?) with autoloader. For cheap camp protection the weapon modul will feature a 120mm or 125mm cannon.


#4

Also realize that by 2044, our model of the gas driven military will no longer appear sustainable. You can differentiate between sides or just units by including different power sources/different operational systems built around local power generation and high efficiency electric vehicles. You might like to look into ekranoplans, minisubmersibles, unmanned/ubiquitous remote control modifications to commercial vehicles as new vehicular options of the period.

The costs of plastic synthesis should have increased while the costs of ceramics should have decreased, so I expect to see a resurgence of natural textiles and ceramic elements in military applications. This could play into the heavy reliance on both napalm and thermite projected to counter biological and chemical contaminants which minor powers should deploy with increasing frequency.


#5

That is something very important.

UAVs are something I thought about, the idea of ekranoplanes is also very good.

Interesting as well.

Thanks for your respond! Hope there are coming more ideas! =)


#6

UAVs and generally unmanned/remote controlled combat units seem to gain popularity. That’s where EMP shells come in. So you have unmanned units which are cheaper than manned ones, but can be taken out rather easily by using that EMP blast (which is much less powerful against manned vehicles and infantry, but should still disrupt them a bit as their electronic equipment reboots).

This can even serve for side differentiation. One side can for ex. have mostly remote controlled units instead of infantry, while another (some poorer country) could field just ‘normal’ soldiers.


#7

Something I didn’t thought about, maybe Training human soldiers could be cheaper then fielding UAVs… as alternative. I like the idea. So then I know what unit will be first up for NATO states :slight_smile:


#8

Training humans is indeed cheaper and I don’t see that changing any time soon. :wink:


#9

xD Except if the equipment cost more lol :slight_smile:


#10

Are you planning to produce infantry in squads, like we do, or perhaps produce them in squads and have them controlled like squads?

Either way, you might consider how different powers in the present/recent past construct their infantry groups and how this is likely to change. The United States treats snipers, classically, as lone wolves. We neither train or use many of them - in part for this reason they are regarded as a military romantic image in some circles. They have come to represent the American tradition of pseudo-narcissistic individualism. Alternatively, the Soviets and various Soviet-bloc countries often trained sharpshooters and snipers to distribute among normal infantry groups, embedded in the culture with a cooperative role.

At the present, the United States military is somewhat personnel starved. As a result, while there are supposed to be two fire teams of five men under a Staff Sgt. in an Army squad, our military culture has adapted to have two fire teams of four. If our military deploys to more zones without a general draft we can foresee a further thinning of infantry presence and a requirement for smaller more mobile groups. We might even move to the Canadian model, with two men per fireteam, two fireteams to an assault group and two assault groups to a section. The communist/ex-communist nations of Asia usually run with three man fireteams.

In forty years, there are two simplified possibilities for powers engaged in war across the globe. One, a high population military due to increased general population and decreased opportunity in the private sector - this would make for larger groups of infantry more tightly controlled by the hegemony of command and a reduced value assigned to the individual soldier. The other is a low population military due to artificial decreases in general population (Epidemics, Terrorism, Infrastructure Disaster, Famine) - this would make for smaller groups of better trained infantry more loosely controlled but considerably more valuable. Note that these are very simplified models of the possibilities, they’re not predictions and there is a lot you can flex around. I just provide them because I think they might be useful.


#11

USA, France and Germany = NATO Team (later more planned)
China, Japan, and North Korea = UAM (United Asian Members)(more planned as well)

I first thought more about to produce them single, then in squads.
The advantage of this is… you produce more what you really want then wasting the ressources on things you really dont need yet.

For example I thought simple Infantry men and RPG/Anti tank soldiers to come single. Sniper (with scout) more squadlike (2).

But that stands against the plan how to get soldiers in the hot zone.
I plan to get soldiers by a Helipad (a transportshopper carrys them to the build helipad) and they get out. So I think I will go fore squads. And I think that I will need help with the “chopper-carry-in-hotzone” idea.

And then I think that I can concentrate on the squad teams itself.


#12

If there is anything specific you want help with, while I can’t produce lua, I can try to support/contribute as best I can otherwise. Just ask.


#13

I think that it will be like the paratroopers except that it automatic flys to the helipad/“barrack”. Anyways I’m now doing some better models to replace the older test models.

UVmapping and texturing is now the main problem. But that shouldnt wonder anyone…


#14

There is one more thing I’m always thinking about… if I look at the size of the current svn of Spring 1944 (or the original svn I use (2667)). I’m asking myself… how the hell I should later upload ~300mb? I have only 20kb/s upload…lol mhmm… I think the first stuff will not be that big… but later when it comes to bigger sizes… omg. I need days to upload. >_<

What eva.

neddie you asked if I already have corpses… well no… I think thats something I can do later… but If I think now about it I think that the most will get a huge explosion. Maybe nuclear reactors will get smaller. I heared that Bill Gates is now working on smaller reactores which dont need to get that often new Uran.

oh… since I dont know where some of you guys are channel is somehow clean -.-

Does somebody knows how I can replace the muzzle effect of a gun? I wanted to use a CA muzzle effect/ground effect as well. So I copied the script and some H-files from their script folder, as well as the effects from their effects folder. But the muzzle effect still dont works. (hierachy on the model is correct) If i zoom in my model while its shooting i can see a small muzzle effect… but somehow not where i want it -.- wtf? So I checked the script again:

FirePrimary() { emit-sfx 1024+0 from ground; move barrel to z-axis [-8.000000] speed [500.000000]; emit-sfx 1024+1 from barrel_back; emit-sfx 1024+2 from muzzle; //show flare; //sleep 200; //hide flare; wait-for-move barrel along z-axis; move barrel to z-axis [0.000000] speed [3.500000]; }

emit-sfx [sfxtype] from [piece];

Okay I have this sfxtype file in my script folder like in CA. But I still don’t get it -.-


#15

You don’t upload the entire directory tree on changes, just incremental updates.


#16

Have a look at gamedata/explosions folder in S44. There are files which define the effects. CA probably has them in a similar location, but in lua format (which you should use, too. Our tdf format in S44 is obsolete). When you use effect names in unit files, effects are taken from that folder. So if you just copy the names from CA, it’s no wonder they won’t work - you need to copy the files as well.


#17

Thats what I did I copied the files from their /effects/… folder to gamedata/explosions/…

I added some H files (sfxtype.h and exptype.h) to the script folder.

I have a effect IN my model but its not the same like in CA. I try to get this to work for now 3 days. :-/

Problem solved!


#18

N3mesis, have a look at this. Might give a few ideas for NATO warplanes for the years to come (although it looks crazy in places).


#19

That is very interesting the idea of a rotor at the back of a plane is pretty old xD but it have somehow style.

I plan to make more use of VTOL planes like the British Harrier and big planes like the A400M will be called in. But some of them look really cool I think they will influence my plane design ideas :slight_smile: thx.

A Plan to Diesel powered vehicles and Electronic powered vehicles.

Basically all Teams will have both Diesel and Electric powered units. “Poor” countries will have more Diesel powered units while other “richer” countries will more have Electronic powered units. But both will be included in every team because Diesel-units will be cheaper.


#20

Some days ago we made a SVN. Anyways, next week I want to add the new models, problem is that we don’t have Texture artists and good UVmapper. So the work is somehow blocked more or less. Can somebody help? Without getting interrupted in his own work?