|
TheFluff posted:I didn't even pay attentions to the parts of the thread that discussed gameplay suggestions, I was busy nerdraging about people arguing about "authenticity" based on some kind of Hollywood movie view of reality. You shouldn't be so mean to obvious victims of being trapped inside a MBT while driving through a napalm fire, having suffered brain damage from the lack of oxygen they can't argue their point fairly. 
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Philman posted:I hope everyone learned a valuable lesson about pre85 west German support decks yesterday. The only thing I learned is that every deck you play is terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:57
|
|
I EVER SPENT
|
Goons I have made it easier to install the Tanks Mod: Install JSGME Mod Enabler into your main Wargame Red Dragon directory (C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Wargame Red Dragon or similar) Open JSGME and select or create a folder for your mods; by default it will create a folder called MODS. Download the mod system and extract the folder into your MODS folder You may now activate and deactivate the tanks mod at will, without having to fiddle around with renaming files and such-like. If other mods are put into the same format they can also be easily installed. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Oh hey, thanks. Those couple of games with the tanks mod were pretty drat fun, though it's hard to say 100% if it wasn't because they were just already good games (that turnaround in that last one was great fun to play).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
InstantInfidel posted:The only thing I learned is that every deck you play is terrible. I learned that Bravo is important and so long as you have more cards of cheaper poo poo that you can lose than them, and you can stop them at T-40 points to victory, you can make pubbies prepare their anus and rage. -e- also that 6v6 games where everyone on your side has the same deck are kind of fun because you integrally know what capabilities all your teammates can have, and whether or not they can give you any help (e.g. no asking for "Need gunship here" when you know your only side's helos are light ATGM carriers) -ee- backstory was we did a goon 6v6 WG '85 Support decks vs. a pubbie team. We threw unit after unit into the meatgrinder, and the pubbies managed to get up to 1160/1200 conquest points before we finally attritted them down enough to stabilize the bleed. There was no time limit. We were all running low on units when we realized that both us and the enemy had completely forgotten about the entire left side of the map after the opening and we were all just throwing our units into the same meatgrinder. We eventually overran and swept them and won with +7. Most of us had several tabs that were completely out of units, but by the end the pubbies were essentially COMPLETELY out of units. For comparison purposes they had T-80UMs and our only tank was a Kpz M48. Incidentally watching 18 Peace Rhines unleash miss after miss is hilarious. Leif. fucked around with this message at 04:54 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Oh hey, thanks. I am actually as bad as I say I am, but that was kind of cool. The midgame seems to be a lot about taking out weak enemy forces when they present themselves to you but there's definitely a lot more ability to be aggressive about it. Big lategame disadvantages are bad though.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Today I learned that boats trying to pass under a bridge can be stopped by wreckage on said bridge. Why Eugen why  e: OctaMurk posted:Download the mod system and extract the folder into your MODS folder Why is there a Wargame exe in this archive?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Today I learned that boats trying to pass under a bridge can be stopped by wreckage on said bridge. Why Eugen why The exe in there is the v319 exe, which you need to use for the mod to work.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:The exe in there is the v319 exe, which you need to use for the mod to work. Usually game companies do not like you distributing copies of the executables, even for reasons like these. Did Eugen say differently and I missed it? So is it there to cause the game to ignore the 339 patch folder? If so, why not just move the contents of that one out of the way and dump your NDF_Win file in there instead? Or does this somehow break references between the NDF_Win.dat file and the various other version'ed dat files? At first glance this seems to be a needless layer of complexity but I've been wrong before. (I have thought about doing my own manager based on having the mod team distribute just the xml patches so the manager could apply multiple mods at once and reapply them if the game updates, but that's a long ways off if I even decide to do it)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Would be odd if so. Thankfully, Eugen (for some reason) has every .exe and NDF_Win cataloged for us to access (as I'm sure you know). I imagine that honestly, you can dump it there without trouble.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Would be odd if so. Thankfully, Eugen (for some reason) has every .exe and NDF_Win cataloged for us to access (as I'm sure you know). It's for replay backwards compatability as far as I recall.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
hohoho http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/595912127858520864/04B00048C0A1DE2A4BC881FD0522E506A900CB69/
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Goons I have made it easier to install the Tanks Mod: This is not working for me, I get blank box. It looks like it doesn't recognize the DAT file in the MODS folder as a mod.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:hohoho !!! But are the landing zones still all messed up?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Hubis posted:!!! I only changed zone values so probably yes?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Sorry to keep bothering people with this xml stuff. So I can get it to identify the file and all that fine, but I need to insert values into one of these collections (which are just a list of localisation hashes, and not a separate table), specifically the 3rd. Here's a pastebin of the reference file: http://pastebin.com/5vMabZf0 I'm out of ideas on how to go about addressing a sub-collection of a collection. Just about everything I've tried parses fine and throws up no errors but doesn't seem to actually change anything. I figure it has something to do with the key but I just haven't been able to work out the format it wants (and couldn't really find any similar examples etc in the documents). And here's a pastebin of my last attempt before I go to bed: http://pastebin.com/Ue6V8Rgq As usual I am grateful for the inevitable pointing out of my latest moment of stupidity if anyone can help;)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is not working for me, I get blank box. It looks like it doesn't recognize the DAT file in the MODS folder as a mod. Did you extract the Uralgraznomod folder from the link I have into the MODS folder? It contains the folder tree and the files that need to be replaced to make the mod go, if you just extracted the .dat file into the MODS folder it wont work.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Feature request! Let me do a "table of contents dump". I want to dump instancenumber : property value(s) into a single file for easier referencing. Typical use would be to TOCdump TUnites ClassNameForDebug. Complete dump would look like this: 12469 Unit_152mm_SpGH_Dana 12470 Unit_2K12_Kub .. 13962 Unit_rfa_Tornado_Marine It's much easier to keep one text file open on monitor 2 when you're finding the correct XML files from a complete dump than any of the alternatives.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Uralgraznomod 1.3a observations: -W German KPz M48A2G/G2 at the same price -French AMX-10 RC SB availability 0/0/20/8/0 (maybe increase veteran availability to 12?) I'd find more nits to pick, but I'm sick of looking at the armoury already.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Yeah, and there's some overlap in the CW Cent selection at 10 points. I think what I did with the scandiboos should work decently enough there again, and probably for the G/G2. I think the rough idea of the vet increase is that those cards are for optimizing combat power for the opening by getting more vet, because points are tight in the opening, while the fuller cards are for the later parts of the game where AP is tighter than points are. The AMX-10s are really useful in the opening so that card comes at a bit of a cost. In many decks if you need numbers as well the Sagaies are available as backup, and for armored it's something pretty much no other armored deck gets in the first place so not being able to minmax veterancy isn't a huge deal imo. (I kinda tend to think that we should give availability/vet scaling on tank cards another look though, it seems inconsistent in places). xthetenth fucked around with this message at 21:32 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Fyi, ignore user "Another505"'s critique for your mod on the forums, guys. He's one of the most incompetent players I've seen, yet you'd think he was at least loving capable of tying his own shoes judging by how he tries to speak on balance issues etc. He's clueless. Keep up the awesome work, xtenth!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
I rather figured that when his reductio ad absurdum failed to produce an actually bad tank. Speaking to him about tank balancing and so on was at least in large part a chance to give an example of how the tank balance is set up and why it works the way it does. Answering his criticism so it wouldn't be hanging there unanswered was kind of a side benefit.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
FWIW, another505 isn't a great poster but he is on par with the majority of goons in terms of actual game skill level and he's not wrong that the T-80UM is outright superior to the T-72BU (something fortunately accounted for by availability already). We talk about tank simulations, theoretical usage of tanks, results of tank duels, the value of various stats etc and most egregiously of all in my opinion, what sort of tanks you should be using against what targets--this is all fine for rough balancing passes but I find that things often play out pretty differently in actual gameplay.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Yeah there's one thing my tank simulator taught me, is the T80UM is a much more effective tank at killing than the T72BU, which is much more effective at taking hits, but most of the time that's not a really viable strategy either when heavy ATGMs and other nato super heavies are on the field. The real problem with the T80UM and T72BU is their low accuracy has them operating well below their potential, whereas NATO super-heavies are operating very close to their peak potential. Also fun fact, every 2RPM is worth approximately the same as 10% to ~13% accuracy.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
power crystals posted:Today I learned that boats trying to pass under a bridge can be stopped by wreckage on said bridge. Why Eugen why The Bridge of Bullshit was a wildly effective technique to prevent counterattacks on Three Mile Island in ALB.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
The 72BU is a pretty frustrating tank all told. It can at least take hits like a proper superheavy and trade shots with a beat up superheavy but it just doesn't have the damage output to actually do a ton with its durability, which frankly means a lot less in the face of Blufor's extensive collection of TOW 2s. The T-80UM can do the damage but its lower armor means you've got to play cagier with it and can't take as many risks. I don't particularly adore either to be honest. The NATO ones deliver a package of firepower and durability and the Redfor ones trade more than I'd want of that away for a missile that's cool but the tank doesn't really carry enough to be a missile unit. The whole spreadsheet optimal use stuff is a bit silly, but in my use the centerpiece of all of it is that there's a few roles that a given unit fills, and that it's a matter of how well the tank fills those various roles. Usually within a given unit type is where the real differences stand out, since as far as a given medium tank goes a Leclerc and Leo 2A5 are relatively similar in that they'll both wreck them mercilessly, but the Leclerc'll be a bit better. It isn't a matter so much of use this against this, as this unit fills these roles out of what a force needs to be able to do particularly well. In practice more often than not a heavy tank is a heavy tank and an expendable tank is an expendable tank, but that's a stage where 10 points more to get 200 points on the field isn't the end of the world if that's what fills your needs at that moment. The balancing and deck building is rather more minmaxy and those 10 points and fiddly details matter a lot even if in practice slugging it out between heavies is a goofy idea and you're daft if you aren't trying to leverage some form of advantage.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
I'm half thinking the solution to them is to make them into what people keep saying they are. Really strong ATGM vehicles, and let them carry ~8 missiles a piece. Or we could just give them enough acc. to be competitive after an ATGM hit or something.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Give em 10 RPM, and work around that. Make them competitive with, but not superior to BLUFOR super's. Make up for that with proper pricing, and things should be fine. The Leopard2A4/T80U W:EE balance is a good target here. Balancing around ATGM's is ALWAYS going to be an issue, and honest to god it may just be better off to omit them totally and balance them cleanly vs their peers on a gun vs gun level. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 03:09 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Shouldn't morale not effect rate of fire for high end PACT tanks (and hell, even some low end) since most of them (iirc) use autoloaders anyway? Why would panicked tanks with autoloaders fire slower? Accuracy, sure, the gunner is pissing his pants and bleeding out his ears from concussive forces, but it shouldn't load any slower. Giving them more ATGMs shouldn't be the answer; I hate to sound like a sperglord/pubby but part of the reason I like Wargame is how accurately it models/portrays modern weaponry and performance. Combat load on PACT tanks usually didn't exceed 3-4 barrel-launched ATGMs.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
 That would probably help the Redfor tanks stand up to their opposite numbers better though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:
Is there any value that can be tweaked so certain vehicles don't suffer ROF penalties for morale loss? It would make for a neat experiment if so.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:Shouldn't morale not effect rate of fire for high end PACT tanks (and hell, even some low end) since most of them (iirc) use autoloaders anyway? Clearly because the gunner panics and doesn't know which round to load next!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
It would be a massive unrepentant swine to balance because its value would be pretty much totally subjective and most games aren't actually decided by 50 points over the course of an entire game unfortunately so it's really hard to pin it down if it isn't done right.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
The interesting thing about the 2A4 vs T80U was that the T80U was straight up superior as a guntank and then had the ATGMs providing it with a very limited duration higher ability. However the 2A4 was also a loooot cheaper, 30 to 40 points from memory. I don't have a problem with that dynamic being reversed, but it means that russia's tanks need to be priced according to their ability. (and/or their ability needs to be boosted to match their assigned price).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Originally the T-80U was not that much more expensive to my recollection, but it got both price and availability nerfs since it was so far superior to anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
I'm gonna throw forth a retarded idea... Get rid of the TGM's for most tanks. Scale their gun and accuracy to more realistic levels/countering those of NATO tanks. RoF as well. gently caress that 7 RPM clownery. T72A? 45% T72B? 50% Etc etc. T64A at 35% 64B at 40% 64BM/BV at 45% or even 50% Some of these are already ingame ofc  Also autoloaders are 100% doable, but I dont think you want to open that can of worms. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 05:01 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:I'm gonna throw forth a retarded idea... I don't like this as it would be making near mirror sides for armor which would be lame.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Seriously, you guys should try to find that morale ROF penalty and cut it way down for the PACT tanks if possible. Instead of like 1x/2x/4x or whatever it is, cut those values at half as a starting point and shoot some rounds at each other. The real key to this change from a gameplay perspective is that it gives the TGM ability of PACT tanks a much larger role, because while they can leverage them to knock some early HP off the NATO tanks, the real goal is to cut NATO ROF down through morale damage so that when the fight does start, PACT tanks, even taking superior return fire, are always firing at a faster rate. This gives them a lot of value, that while not openly transparent in the stats, will really give them a lot more killing power in a sustained shootout. Volume of fire was always the PACT advantage in the EE heavy meta, where you would field 3-4 T-80s and your 2 T-80U against the usual cadre of 2A4s, generally having an extra tank on the field in a time before guns/AV were loving ridiculous. That little ROF bonus of another tank meant a lot. Reinstating this a bit with some morale changes could be interesting. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:57 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
No way no make morale penalties selective last time I checked. At best we can make them into pseudo autocannons and that's it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:No way no make morale penalties selective last time I checked. At best we can make them into pseudo autocannons and that's it. On a side note, sorry I missed that steam message, too much War Thunder tanks beta and WoW ( ) eating up all my free time.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:39
|
|