|
This really looks fantastic, I'm almost looking forward to getting the first draft of tanks done so I can get time to wrap my head around it.
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
I would also say that artillery is on the list of things that don't need an urgent fix. Tanks need fixing and infantry, no matter how you mess with unit stats, are mostly a deck builder issue. Artillery isn't ruining anyone's game except for the ATACMS because used right it can't be countered. You realize you've been mostly talking about how to buff artillery right? This artillery chat has gone off the rails. I personally like the new artillery meta. It's only a problem with retarded pubbies who aren't aware that counterbattery is possible.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Yeah, artillery works, it might not be ideal, but it works. Tanks doesn't work to the point where playing with a modded version makes it vastly more fun (at least to my jaded sensibilities) and fundamentally changes the game. Tanks become relevant without necessarily becoming the spotlight and they become a very useful thing even if they spend a decent amount of time as a supporting arm.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Testing, will let you know. If this works we can pretty trivially create plane loadouts to our hearts content. Also as for the mod? I'm a negative nancy and believe that no matter what we do or don't do Eugen will not implement it except by sheer random chance. As such I don't really care about worrying whether they'd consider a change "possible". I'm happy enough that there's a mod that is fun to play and has enough players that it stays alive. Things I'd like to change in no particular order: Morale Infantry Vehicles for above I liked the long-range implementation of air war, but that's a ton of work and apparently planes aren't quite as broken as they used to be. I have an inkling of how artillery should and could work, but that's something that can't be done before morale has been fixed. Hob_Gadling fucked around with this message at 02:20 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Testing, will let you know. If this works we can pretty trivially create plane loadouts to our hearts content. Suddenly I realize a "copy" one might be more useful for that kind of thing. I'll have to keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Testing, will let you know. If this works we can pretty trivially create plane loadouts to our hearts content. Oh yummy. Do want especially for the smaller players. Airplanes are something that could be very improved by better loadouts. Anyway what I was looking at for scandiboos is largely done, I basically was trying to split tanks by priority on gun or hull and giving availability and vet based on which would help that role more in order to distinguish the choices more and all that jazz. Something to spice up the wall of identical centurions and all that. Not sure about the 103s or the high end leos (also not entirely sure the 1a3 and 1a1no are the same value). xthetenth fucked around with this message at 02:19 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Gonna have to agree that artillery is generally in a good place right now though USSR 152mm needs a bit of a hand, and the AS-90 and Caesar are a bit over the top. A battery of four 152/155 provides withering fire for any breakthrough offensive in the fields or the forests; HE or thermobaric rocket artillery can panick entire towns and allow you to move in infantry. Mortars are very handy for smoke or pinpoint panicking. 203s maybe need a hand WRT aim time, but thats about it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
If someone puts the attention into it, counterbattery is nearly impossible even with on-the-ball ATACMS. The only way to deal with that is to sneak commandos in to launch hits before shots are fired.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Beep boop beep boop an error has occured. Attempting to clone the F15C (Dont ask me, I was just following orders!) for testing produced the following error: code:
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
One change that I would like to see is the sub 155 caliber artillery returned to the big mortar role that it had in AirLand battle. For example 105 artillery is totally underwhelming right now mostly because of the level of HE protection afforded by buildings . Returning them to the responsiveness and something closer to the firing time of mortars would make them a lot more likely to be included without making them over powered, because basically back in Ireland battle anything a 105 could do was the same as having a 120 mm mortar within range. But I would not put it in the Urukburz mod.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
To be precise, it's an error in the way trans tables are handled. This may be a bug in the original tool. It seems they are off by 8 in this case.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Beep boop beep boop an error has occured. Hob_Gadling posted:To be precise, it's an error in the way trans tables are handled. This may be a bug in the original tool. It seems they are off by 8 in this case. Actually it's neither of those things, it's "Translation Table Reference is one of the types I didn't write the loading half for". There should have been a warning about unknown type before that error which is the one that actually mattered but whatever that was easy to figure out. Works fine for me now.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Lee Outrageous posted:For navy v. navy, get the cheapest longest range ASM boats you can, the cheapest and best CIWS boat you can, and a card of a command boat that doesn't suck for it's AA missiles and guns for cleanup, shore bombing, and capping points. You will also need supply boats. Advanced Botes: Landing craft are great because they have the same HP as Coasters and Riverboats, with massive availability at super low prices. They're the reservists of the sea. They suck up huge amounts of naval gunfire, and unlike riverboats, they're valid targets for anti-ship missiles. Meaning they will tank tons of damage while your good ships blow stuff up. On pact I always take a card of 10 point RCL jeeps in 10 point transports, because you get 20 of them, and they all have guns which stun planes as well as smoke rocket launchers. For NATO you can get reservists in 10 point transports in 5 point landers for maximum Matroishka doll action. They aren't as shooty as the PACT ones but they still do an admirable job of tanking. You might actually use them if you get to the enemy's shore! Plus if either version ever closes the distance to the enemy fleet, their peashooters will still do morale damage and crits, making it much easier to land ASMs, particularly from planes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Advanced Botes: That is hilarious and awesome! power crystals posted:Is that the rule? I thought it was they could only lock onto [SHIP] missiles. Could very well be, I don't put a great deal of effort into understanding the game in depth, I am just getting beyond taking the Zapp Brannigan method of commanding mans.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Pubbies can't use tanks.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Okay, help me out. Someone point out my stupidity for me please. Alternatively consider this a bug report.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Okay, help me out. Someone point out my stupidity for me please. Alternatively consider this a bug report. There's a bug in your XML. Copypaste the contents.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Another tanks mode replay, this time with actually fairly balanced teams (GreaseGunner, Heer98, Yohan vs. Superskippy, OctaMurk, Malamars) Download We had some running tank battles in the open fields between a USSR armored deck and a Eurocorps deck, while two Czech decks faced off against the Americans and Canadians in the forests and towns; was a pretty back and forth map with areas changing hands frequently. OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:There's a bug in your XML. Copypaste the contents. Yeah, we got this solved. Seemed to take issue to some extraneous newlines or something. It was weird but fixed. OctaMurk posted:Another tanks mode replay, this time with actually fairly balanced teams (GreaseGunner, Heer98, Yohan vs. Superskippy, OctaMurk, Malamars) I'm pretty excited to see a fairly even team matchup. Most of these have been fun matches but hardly what I'd call even teams.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
How exploitable is the "double your deck when your ally drops" feature? I won a game last night when my partner left 40 minutes into a 60 minute meat grinder Conquest match and I got all my expensive cards back, to the chagrin of my opponents. They gave me a lot of guff about it but we were winning beforehand anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Some people do it at the start of the game quite intentionally. If you or your team can hold out well with a person down (ie multitask over a larger sector) it's often a pretty good deal. 1v2 can be a bit hard but on the other hand you have the numbers and income to do stupid stuff like spam a whole bunch of one unit type, so many that they won't have enough counters in place to do anything about it. Cheap attack helicopters are good at this generally.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Well, about to end Pearl of the Orient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk Now I wanna try it without overrunning retreating chinese regiments...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Magni posted:Well, about to end Pearl of the Orient. It's perfectly possible to do it and to hold every territory you start off with, without destroying routing regiments ever. A bit too easy to do that, in fact, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Yeah, we got this solved. Seemed to take issue to some extraneous newlines or something. It was weird but fixed. You may want to consider something like Notepad++ that does syntax highlighting so that it can tell you when you have misaligned quotes and other such things. I should also probably try to separate the "file doesn't exist/can't be read" and "file can't be parsed" errors.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Some people do it at the start of the game quite intentionally. If you or your team can hold out well with a person down (ie multitask over a larger sector) it's often a pretty good deal. I remember being on the recieving end of three or four cards of grenade launcher little birds back when the norks got them for 20 points. Not fun, they just scoured infantry and stuff out. Shanakin posted:I'm pretty excited to see a fairly even team matchup. Most of these have been fun matches but hardly what I'd call even teams. I'm sorry I'm a scrub IRL. That replay's pretty awesome, I love how it isn't nearly as defined a series of attacks as usual games and what matters more than anything else is the overall course of five minute long attacks and periods of pressure and even with all the tanks battle meta stuff like infantry took a huge if not central role in a good few places. The balance of unit types seems a lot healthier than I've seen in a long while.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
power crystals posted:You may want to consider something like Notepad++ that does syntax highlighting so that it can tell you when you have misaligned quotes and other such things. I should also probably try to separate the "file doesn't exist/can't be read" and "file can't be parsed" errors. Already using something like that. xthetenth posted:
For what it's worth I'm pretty mediocre myself. I haven't had a chance to watch the rest but it sounds good.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Can we get the inhouse mod / how to install linked in the OP?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Has anyone figured out how to hide the default decks yet?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Can we get the inhouse mod / how to install linked in the OP? I have literally the post after it so I can do the next best thing in the interim. Save me typing too. Yep, first post after Xerxes' stuff, or for the lazy pop open a text window and start typing tanks till it finds it for you. It contains the "word" tankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstankstanks in its entirety. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Magni posted:Well, about to end Pearl of the Orient. Pfff it's not really winning Pearl of the Orient unless you have British tanks rolling through Shenzhen.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Pfff it's not really winning Pearl of the Orient unless you have British tanks rolling through Shenzhen. I could have done that, too. I decided that a big loving throwdown on the plateau would be more fun. And it was. Turns out that M108s are actually kinda adequate when you deploy 16 of them next to two FOBs. Also, gigantic zergrush hitting a line of Challengers and Chieftains while twenty aussie Leopards and a dozen Scorpions go on a flanking attack that turned out to be well-timed indeed because said line of british armor was about to get hit by two dozen of the chinese Grad-equivalents. That campaign truly ended with a bang. 
Magni fucked around with this message at 01:30 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
How are reservists vs line infantry ever since the reservist nerf?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Scandanavia tanks update done.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Magni posted:I could have done that, too. I decided that a big loving throwdown on the plateau would be more fun. Man gently caress the plateau. That map can suck a hundred dicks. I want to take the first map from the USSR/Japanese campaign (Obama I think its called? Not making GBS threads you here) and use that, as it matches the area's RL terrain MUCH better.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Feature request time! Let me say something like: WGPatcher.exe NDF_Win.dat -file pc\ndf\patchable\gfx\everything\TUniteAuSolDescriptor -match DescriptorId NameInMenuToken I want to be able to dump a specific file within the archive. I also want to define the matchreference(s) to be used when dumping the file. Latter is useful when changing modules without a clear ID in them such as optics.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Feature request time! Specific file match was already on the todo list. What if I gave you a config file it would read that tells it which fields to use as matchconditions when generating the dumps instead of passing them as arguments? I was going to put something like this in the program itself but it occurs to me this is something people would want to adjust without yelling at me to change it. It'll probably be a day or two before I get another one out because one of my coworkers got me sick (  ) but I will make note of any further requests in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Jet Age posted:Has anyone figured out how to hide the default decks yet? Would also like to know this. Also, anything but mod-chat seems to be getting lost, is there enough interest for it's own thread for that?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Specific file match was already on the todo list. What if I gave you a config file it would read that tells it which fields to use as matchconditions when generating the dumps instead of passing them as arguments? I was going to put something like this in the program itself but it occurs to me this is something people would want to adjust without yelling at me to change it. A config file works also. Do let me specify different matchconditions for different ndfbin files within the config file and I'm happy. Something like code:
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
power crystals posted:It'll probably be a day or two before I get another one out because one of my coworkers got me sick ( Not exactly in a hurry but going back a bit: power crystals posted:Ok so basically what you want is a thing that will compare two .DATs (original and modded) and produce a diff file in that XML format. That I can probably do. I'll give it a shot sometime this week. Something like this would be incredibly useful. If we could compare tables in different dats and export a change list in a vaguely readable format it would be pretty awesome for my spreadsheeting endevours (bonus points if you include localisation matching). Even better if there is an option to have it generate a patch.xml out of the differences. This way you could take existing mods, compare them with the original they are based off and generate the patch xml. I wouldn't really have a lot of use for that myself mind you but I know others would. Low priotiy though compared to actual mod tools. Also for the sake of convenience, perhaps a config file might be useful for defining dat/tables to compare etc. Otherwise this thing is looking pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
I also think that it'd be a real useful tool for folks with mods already in progress to extract their changes from a modded .dat, which might make it a lot easier for people to switch over.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:05
|
|