So school started and I lost track somewhat of what needs to be fixed from Jonquil.
All kinds of new stuff will be arriving with the next build, but I’d really love some bug reports/balance things.
Right now I have on the to-do:
- Mine cost/number/spread
- Some kind of mine removal function
- Supply spy (may ignore if it doesn’t start working soon, its a simple bit of code that’s throwing a very weird error).
- Make the “faster resupply schedule” option permanent, or at least on by default.
- Bumped up rocket reload time to 45 seconds and per-rocket logistics cost to 30
- 10% decrease in medium tank cost/bt. This is to try to get away from gunning straight for fireflies/tigers/ect
- Bump up Tiger, Firefly costs so that other options get more attention. Potentially drop 17pdr HE AoE.
- Add CA’s doubleclick=fight widget, remove/disable by default >5 units fight widget
- Nade damage/range somewhat so they can’t pick off tanks as soon as they enter nade range.
- Gun/truck scripts/implementation
- Fix all CobWarnings!
- Make sure /give all works.
What else? Bugs bugs bugs? Maackey’s post was noted, but I’m at my wits end for units getting stuck (I’ve tried every frickin yardmap possibility and it still happens sometimes), new cursors are in the works, healthbars is an external widget problem, and truck passenger flailing is an engine issue.
Soviet Tier 1 Tank Yard may be a bit useless at the moment. Though the ISU-152 is an enormous cannon the Katyusha is largely preferred IMO because it throws out a hell of a lot more explosives much quicker (12 x 132mm HE every ~10 seconds vs 2 x 152mm HE every ~10 seconds) and is dirt-cheap. The T-34-85 also largely outperforms the T-34-76 and doesn’t take much longer to build – 40 secs for the '76 and 58 for the '85. IMO this could be resolved by giving the Tier 1 yard more anti-tank power by giving it the SU-85 or SU-100 (the ISU-152 is too inaccurate to pose a reliable defense against enemy armour). The SU-85 would make more sense but the SU-100 could easily fill this spot by giving it a slightly higher buildtime (the SU-100 gun is roughly on par with the Tiger I’s 88mm, so there’s precedence for this sort of weapon in Tier 1). In either case making a single addition to the Tier 1 yard will improve its general standing as a realistic option beyond what cost changes could do.
Nebelwerfer and Katyusha need some sort of universal warmup time. As it stands, if they are in supply radius (which they almost always are), the time it takes to reload is miniscule, and they can easily be sending of salvos every 10 seconds or so (roughly equal to the time it takes a towed artillery piece to fire once). Although its a larger drain on Logistics, its far from unmanagable. Rocket artillery should have a very long reload time, both to balance it (its entire point is to be able to throw out a large amount of damage once, and then reload for quite some time) and reflect reality (it takes awhile to reload all those rockets). Hopefully doing so, plus further simplifying towed artillery (making them combination truck and gun) will make towed guns more useful.
Speaking of which, the above has a bit of a problem: What about infantry guns? Sure, they could maybe build as their normal untowed versions and morph into a truck-borne version (though this doesn’t make much sense…). Also, plans for Landing Zones (British Glider-borne troops) included them having a 6-Pounder light anti-tank gun, would this work the same way? Another option down the road is to give these lighter guns their own light tractors; ie 6-Pounder could have a Universal Carrier rather than a Bedford, LeIG could have Kugelwagen, M8 Pack howitzer could have Willys Jeep, etc.
I’m also thinking infantry may be a little too powerful against close-up vehicles. While I still think a tank rushing up to infantry deserves to die, there are instances where this just becomes silly and frustrating. Infantry should really only be able to kill a tank if it literally is driving over them, as infantry shove grenades into tracks, vision slits and engine vents, etc. A thrown grenade, unless it’s really damned lucky just wouldn’t do anything to a tank. Also there are some instances where effective range of grenades get silly, such as when ifnantry are on a slight hill. They basically become anti-tank soldiers at that point as no tank can get away fast enough before its pummeled by grenades and killed. I’m thinking maybe a special ifnantry tank-killer weapon with a very short range that supercedes grenade usage against tanks (open-topped and unarmoured vehicles should remain as-is as they’re vulnerable against thrown grenades). This would make getting your tank too close to enemy infantry a little more forgivable.
No time to respond fully now, but rockets probably need to drain more logistics and have a longer reload, yes. Although they don’t reload faster in supply, just every 30 seconds. They should not under any circumstances be firing every 10 seconds.
Also, be careful about assumptions on unit costs. ISU-152: 4275 metal. Katy: 4500 metal. Tiger: 6450 (and it is likely to increase). I’m not feeling like that’s too useless - 1.5 ISU-152s will do a lot more damage in general than a single tiger.
I agree that there’s a risk of the sov yard being too upgrade-y and not enough sidegrade-y, but I have a sense that the more spamable tanks and 152 is an ok niche for it as a factory, atm. We can also tweak the 152 accuracy downwards a bit so its more dependable as AT, and play with T-34/76 vs /85 cost.
Inf guns are fine as they are, not going to worry about it. They walk fast enough that they’re not too hard to deal with logistically - nothing like the howitzers in terms of moving annoyingly slow.
Inf vs tanks I’m wary of tweaking - I intentionally left nade damage vs tanks alone when updating HE damage across the board. That said, perhaps this could be done by giving nades that damage/distance tag and tweaking it so it makes no difference for soft targets?
I like that idea (nade damage/distance), didn’t even think about it, it sounds like it’d be the best option.
Maybe it just seems like every 10 seconds because it takes some time for the rockets to fire all their ammo. Is reload time counted from moment it starts firing, or after its done firing?
I’d really like you to consider seriously adding the Su-85 to the Soviet tier 1 tank yard. I’m still quite upset that neither the Su-85 or Su-100 are used after I put so much TLC into them. Especially the Su-85 with its very noticable air recognition paint. Chugging the 85 in there would provide balanced all-round use for the Tier 1 yard – spammable tank, decent tank destroyer, awesome assault gun (vs tier 2 decent tank, awesome tank, awesome rocket arty).
Then that’s probably whythey appear to be reloading faster. Well, not so much for the Nebelwerfer, it takes about 5 seconds to unload all 6 rockets, leaving a reloadtime of about 25 seconds, but for the Katusha it takes it roughly 15-20 seconds to fire a full salvo and will fire another within 10-15 seconds.
I think both are a little too fast reloading anyway. I mean, standard 105mm guns have a 15-second reloadtime; which basically means that over a 1 minute period a standard 105mm cannon will be able to fire 4 shells, the Nebelwerfer will fire 12, and the Katyusha will fire 32. As the time increases the difference in rate of fire also increases. The original idea behind rocket artillery was that it would provide for far superior short-term firepower, unleashing large salvos in quick time, with an enormous reloadtime that, over a longer period, would even out with standard artillery (ie over the course of 5 minutes they’d throw out roughly the same amount of firepower).
Also, why was artillery RoF cut so heavily from 5 seconds to 15? Maybe the problem could be fixed by slightly increasing cannon artillery RoF (to 10?) and decreasing rocket artillery (to 45 or 60?).
I don’t think the rockets and shells should be directly equated; rockets are hugely damaging, but also very inaccurate and suck up massive amounts of logistics very quickly, while a regular howitzer will fire much more consistently and accurately with a smaller logistics drain.
It’s also worth looking at costs: a nebel is 2450 metal, a lefh18 1750. so 40% more. if I raise rocket reload to 45 seconds (since they were implemented after the great +50% of cannon weapon reloadtimes), you’ll have over a span of 5 minutes 20 shells vs 40 rockets. logistics drain of 400 vs logistics drain of 1200.
I don’t think its feasible to make them fire equal numbers of ‘shells’ over time, because then howitzers would be firing faster than most heavy tanks at the moment. However, I think with a +15 second reload and increase in logistics cost, the rockets will be ok.
Sounds OK. Although maybe you want to alter them a bit; afterall, the Nebelwerfer has only 6 rockets, while the Katyusha has 16, 3x as many. Maybe the Katy could take 60 to reload. Also, it’d be great if this reload started after the rockets were fired, not before
Looks like we are missing one more side of rocket vs arty debate, and that is counter-battery fire. A howitzer firing for several minutes would realistically be detected and fired against by enemy arty. A rocket launcher can launch the same number of rounds in a single salvo during less than a minute and promptly leave the position, making any kind of return fire ineffective (esp. true for self-prop rocket launchers like the Katyusha). It’s just that most maps with the current game mode aren’t really well-suited for ‘proper’ artillery battles, but with pre-set forces this could change (in deployment mode you place some arty somewhere the enemy doesn’t know, and then use that to suppress any enemy arty that shows up, etc.)
I changed the exhaust color again (now armed with better knowledge of blending modes). What do you think?
Also I don’t know why they decided to make spheres alwaysVisible by default but everything else not.
I think it looks absolutely splendid!
Truck-Gun units need visible firing arcs like non-towed guns had.
Zerg: Vickers and Maxim shouldn’t be able to attack without deploying.
Maybe they should, as medium MGs (ie shorter ranged, less accurate version of their deployed weapon)?
I’ve noticed deployed AT guns may traverse too slowly. In a game I just had with IK I’d build 3-4 Pak guns and I’m not sure if they got any kills; IK was easily able to simply move around them, and they only fired if their target was basically dead ahead sitting immobile for 5 seconds.
I couldn’t seem to get them to attack when deployed either. Maybe I accidentally used a point out of LOS…
Also Vickers throws COB errors upon deploy.
Opel Blitzes refuse to morph back into trucks after morphing into supply piles - no other truck has this issue.
MGs sometimes get stuck crawling.
Random infantry production without a barracks?
There appear to be three major issues:
Infantry Mortar Scripts
Deployed Opel Blitz supply piles won’t morph back into trucks
Mine Clearing function removes all mines, friend or foe, from entire map (unlimited range).
Each of these could be rated “B” – they do not stop the game from being played but they wreak havoc. However these are the only pressing issues I can think of.
I’ll look into mine clearing problem. Btw, how should it behave in regards to mine owner? Only clear enemy mines, or just non-player (but maybe his allies) ones?
I personally think all the mines should be hostile to everyone, the player who placed them just gets to see the warning sign, but not the mines themselves. Maybe all the engineers should just not trigger mines (so they can enter minefields and do clearing, which can then have a short radius). They should not be immune to mines, of course, they just need to be outside mine’s OnlyTargetCategory.