new art in progress

[mamba]

Those are all fine ideas. Although the mod is "sort of" set in Australia, so it's a little unlikely there would be any Russian tanks around. Does anybody know offhand if there is existing unit art for any of these? I have not poked around through all the modern armor modpacks.

Yes, Snafusmith made a version for all 3 units.

 

[Refar]

Sure "Improvized" looking Tanks and Gunships would fit a lot better. But right now there is no art for that kind of thing.

A modern armor model should do fine for the tank. Sure it looks a bit like a Abrams... But it might be another "Similar-but-a-lot-better-suited-for-Post-Apo"-design.

 

[Pyr0mancer]

Australia apparently used the post-WWII British Centurion, then changed to the German Leopard I in the 70s. Personally I say a Cold-War era tank is both more likely to have survived, and more likely to be easily reactivated and returned to service. Any active tank depots would likely be targeted in the apocalyptic nuclear exchange, and modern MBTs are far more complex to maintain and run.

 

[arkham4269]

I never played SMAC but I know the basic idea. We don't have detailed backgrounds for all the leaders, and some of them are only published so far in the leaderhead backgrounds thread. But at least two of them did come into the post-apo world with a "plan" : Christopher and Viktor. Most of the others just happened to survive, with whatever people were around, and they weren't anybody you would have wanted as a faction leader. For example, Ironhead and Jane.

We are still missing backgrounds for four leaders, in particular for a junkyard type guy; so maybe there is an opportunity to put in more people who did have a plan.

Well like I said, using the "Alpha Centauri" model, would I think have to require a separate scenario since each faction would start with a bit more, but also would start with different stuff depending on the faction. Also, they would start in different terrain, I think.

It would have to be like this since it sort of violates the tenet of Fury Road that you are basically starting "The Day After" and your eventual leader might have been a nobody prior to the collapse but they had what it took to rally their new Civ around them.

Plus, I think in a AC scenario you'd also have the advantage that your people already share your vision whereas in 'classic' Fury Road, you have a bunch of refugees thrown together and at first, there would be a lot of tension that is going to present problems for the player.

 

[arkham4269]

Sure "Improvized" looking Tanks and Gunships would fit a lot better. But right now there is no art for that kind of thing.

A modern armor model should do fine for the tank. Sure it looks a bit like a Abrams... But it might be another "Similar-but-a-lot-better-suited-for-Post-Apo"-design.

I would think somewhere along the line you'd want someone to take a crack at taking an existing skin and fiddle with it to show it having extra fuel cans strapped on like the old T-34's had.

That being said, as I pointed out, there are plenty of museum tanks out there, but the weapon system have been deliberately destroyed. Plus, even if they weren't, who makes 75mm tank shells anymore? Hell, you'd be hard pressed to find 102mm shells anymore for older tanks like the M-60. I know it's one thing to make your own shotgun shells or ammo for a black powder weapon, I would think it's another thing entirely to try to fabricate tank shells.

So then you'd have to figure out what to replace it with. Compressed air gun? Gunpowder cannon? Turn your tank into a big Battlebot? (Which isn't such a bad idea: the mine-flail used in counter-mine operations is a simple tech and would not be a pleasant anti-personnel weapon if you were the poor schmoe it's being used on) or maybe do what they did in WW II and use a flamethrower fired down the tank's gun barrel. That would probably be a easily made (if not overly safe) weapon system.

 

[Pyr0mancer]

I was looking for units that might be useful and saw that http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=226568 apparently has an RPG-7 and Bazooka trooper, perhaps you could borrow and reskin that for the anti-tank infantry?

Also, apparently snafusmith has a Leopard 1 in his Modern Vehicles pack (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=269541)

Some helicopters from late-40s and 50s:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=263815 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=263662 and a Huey: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=240506

Oh and while we're at it, a balloon: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=183795

 

[arkham4269]

Although the mod is "sort of" set in Australia,/QUOTE]

BTW, not to bring dreary old reality into it, but I remember reading (in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jarid Diamond) that due to lack of volcanoes and the like in Australia, the topsoil was originally very thin. After very little time of agriculture by the European immigrants, this top soil was lost and today Australia is the largest importer of nitrates and other fertilizers.

Obviously after The End(tm), this wouldn't be possible so the really nasty, desert Australia shown in the movie Tank Girl probably isn't that far off the mark. Since it seems better that every Fury Road map be a set map, it would seem that a Australian game would have to have different terrain with tundra colored to look like plains but acting like tundra and grasslands would be very rare and thus plains would be the the best you could hope for except for flood plains. This would really put pressure on building up technologies that would result in fertilizer but till then, population would be hard pressed to generate enough food to really grow.

Again, obviously, this would be radically different then a scenario based in the Pacific Northwest where we have plenty of rain, plenty of ash from volcanoes, not to mention plenty of rivers for hydro-power which really be the crucial in getting technology going again. Playing a Australian scenario would really, really be hard if you wanted to be very realistic.

Perhaps a Australian scenario might have a 'Fremen' route and have condensation traps (a building that would add health and/or food) to help get more water and other arid/desert technology like qanats/kareezes that could be built and provide a food bonus to farms next to it.

Also, here is a link for info on a steam tank: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_tank - Looks like if you had the steel, this wouldn't be that hard to make. My only question, I have no idea who to ask, would be how small can you make a powerful steam engine? Those WW I tanks were huge and I sort of doubt the same engine would fit in a WW II type tank.

 

[Refar]

I am not sure the Steam Engine idea is that good.

Mechanically a steam engine is by no means "Simple" - it's not like everyone could make one out of scrap. And for a surviving pre war mechanic it is more likely to build up something he knew well from before the war - which by 2050 certainly would not be a steam engine.

Also steam engines are really huge - something you can't go around - because of the need for boilers, cooling tanks and the space taken up by the fuel. For that reason steam powered tanks were - while somewhat awe-inspiring as they first appereared - more or less a failure - being under-powered, with very low mobility and awfully bad performance in difficult terrain.

Another thing would be tha availability of fuel - it's not like Steam Engines run on air. Coal deposits are largely used up, what is left is hard to access and unlikely to be extracted in a post apo setting. Wood is scarse too, in the post nuclear desert.

and as Davidlalen already mentioned - while steampunk is a interesting theme on it's own, it does probably not add a lot to the post apocalyptic setting.

------

Another thing is "Australia" - the game is played on a random map, that does not look like australia and does not necessarily have Earth Australias properties, so i dont think we should analyze too deeply into the "Would this be possible in Real Australia"-Subject.

 

[Pyr0mancer]

Actually, there are many steam engine enthusiasts capable of building a (small) steam engine in their own homes, at least in the United States. It seems quite likely that they would be the types that would survive the apocalypse as well.

Building a stationary steam engine/turbine for power generation, for example, would be well within the realm of possibility. Building a steam engine capable of moving a multiton armored vehicle across broken terrain, however, would almost certainly be impossible. However, it brings to mind an interesting idea. What about a steam-powered siege engine? A vehicle armored only along the front and upper sides would be significantly lighter, and could be useful in a siege.

 

[arkham4269]

Building a steam engine capable of moving a multiton armored vehicle across broken terrain, however, would almost certainly be impossible. However, it brings to mind an interesting idea. What about a steam-powered siege engine? A vehicle armored only along the front and upper sides would be significantly lighter, and could be useful in a siege.

Well I'm doing my research and did find that there where steam tanks and there are modern steam engines capable of powering vehicles such as these:

I'm trying to find out how big these engines are since it seems to me that while you could have an engine with the power to move a tank, I doubt that it would fit in the engine compartment fit for a diesel engine. So then the question is how much modifications would you need?

 

[arkham4269]

Another thing would be tha availability of fuel - it's not like Steam Engines run on air. Coal deposits are largely used up, what is left is hard to access and unlikely to be extracted in a post apo setting. Wood is scarse too, in the post nuclear desert.

Another thing is "Australia" - the game is played on a random map, that does not look like australia and does not necessarily have Earth Australias properties, so i dont think we should analyze too deeply into the "Would this be possible in Real Australia"-Subject.

From what I have seen, most modern steam vehicles use propane to heat the water to get the boiler at the proper temperature.

As for "Real Australia" regardless of whether the map is computer generated or not, having a scenario tailored to regions make sense. Australia is different from Africa which is different from North America. As previously mentioned, your post-apocalyptic adventure is going to vary greatly depending on where the map is placed. Afghanistan is a hellhole, but if you want to scavenge weapons and old, less tech wise ways of doing things, it's the place to be.

Plus, I would think that pre-made maps make sense in the way it allows the map-maker to look at someplace in the world, extrapolate where you might actually be able to survive. I mean if this mod did take place after a mid-level nuclear war, there are going to be plenty of places that are just too destroyed to be livable. I mean in my neck of the woods, with Boeing, Fort Lewis, the Naval bases, Seattle, Microsoft and the like, that area probably would get nuked pretty good and thus contaminating that area pretty badly; so where could you live and what would be left?

Again I think the main issue here is between the idea that you want to simulate the end of the world and those who just want to play in an end of the world sort of environment. All I'm saying is that many of these things can be done in scenarios that leave the base mod intact. Don't want zombies, or steam or Martians, or Planet of the Apes or any number of post-apocalyptic things? Don't play the ancillary scenarios. I really don't think any one mod is going to satisfy the wide range of Civ players anyway.

 

[Pyr0mancer]

I'm trying to find out how big these engines are since it seems to me that while you could have an engine with the power to move a tank, I doubt that it would fit in the engine compartment fit for a diesel engine. So then the question is how much modifications would you need?

The thing is, that truck is maybe 10 tons at most (probably way too high of an estimate). Modern MBTs are 60-70 tons, which is far too heavy to be practical for a steam engine. WWII tanks were typically around 30 tons. Oh and also, the precision and equipment necessary to build a steam engine efficient enough to power such a large vehicle are probably beyond the abilities of our survivor communities.

 

[arkham4269]

The thing is, that truck is maybe 10 tons at most (probably way too high of an estimate). Modern MBTs are 60-70 tons, which is far too heavy for a steam engine. WWII tanks were typically around 30 tons. Oh and also, the precision and equipment necessary to build a steam engine efficient enough to power such a large vehicle are probably beyond the abilities of our survivor communities.

Yes, but one would expect most MBT's to be destroyed in what ever brings about "Fury Road" so your best bet would be older tanks that are left over in militia/reserve units or used as museum pieces.

A WW II era M4 Sherman is 30 tons. A M113 APC is a mere 12.3 tons by comparison and the T-55 & T-72 Soviet tanks are around 39-41 tons.

Makes you wonder if you could take an old steam train and attach treads to it to make a Warhammers sort of monstrosity! (And then I find this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=swsihXKrchY)

Plus in the long run, it would be wise to convert away from diesel when it comes to using military vehicles. I spent two years as a logistics clerk so take it from me when I tell you that the MPH for military vehicles is worse than any mid-life crisis SUV you can think of.

 

[Pyr0mancer]

Heh, yeah, I looked up the Sherman, T34, and Abrams as the weight references.

Isn't the M113 too lightly armored to serve in the role of armor? I seem to recall reading that its armor can only withstand up to rifle and medium machine gun fire. Bear in mind that I'm just a college student with too much time on my hands though, so my information is only as good as I can find on Google or Wikipedia

Oh and yeah, I've seen the fuel figures for the humvee and Abrams. The M1 gets what, half a mile per gallon?

You know, come to think of it, what about the Hussite War Wagons as a unit? Basically exactly what it sounds like, a horse or ox-drawn armored wagon with gunports. Finding a way to actually make the units 'circle the wagons' for combat would be sweet.

 

[arkham4269]

Isn't the M113 too lightly armored to serve in the role of armor? I seem to recall reading that its armor can only withstand up to rifle and medium machine gun fire. Bear in mind that I'm just a college student with too much time on my hands though, so my information is only as good as I can find on Google or Wikipedia

Well the thing to remember is that it is a APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) and not a IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) like a Bradley or a BMP. However, the armor is relative to what's being used. It is prove against small arms fire and with a bit of 'jingle armor' as we would say in Afghanistan, it would even be more effective, although heavier. However, up to military grade ammo, say armor-piercing .50 cal rounds (and no the basic .50 cal round isn't armor piercing) or RPG's, most APC's would be proof against most weapons used use on it.

That being said, however, an APC is just an armored box with treads/wheels; it's main purpose is that it can transport troops into harms way. Sure you could build (like they did in Road Warrior) a Trucknaught that would carry lot of people...along as you had roads. I would expect in any Fury Road situation, you'd have lot's of odd vehicles out there. Look at that guy who went whacko and created a homemade tank as seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuaJ0neJzac

As long as you can weld, making things like this wouldn't be hard, especially since there is probably lots of material laying around in destroyed buildings and vehicles.

You know, come to think of it, what about the Hussite War Wagons as a unit? Basically exactly what it sounds like, a horse or ox-drawn armored wagon with gunports. Finding a way to actually make the units 'circle the wagons' for combat would be sweet.

Again, that would be something to build, but the problem is that if you are up against people in vehicles, their mobility is going to get you. That's why I'm so big on steam; you may be 'stuck' with just guys in cars using small-arms, but at least you can get around.

I would think that actually one of the biggest issues for a Fury Road civ is that there are certain things you know you can do, but it's going to take time to do them. For example, you're not going to have knights in armor on horses since those breeds of horses are very rare. I would think that you should only be able to build cavalry with a stable since you have to not only train the rider, you have to train the horses! Cavalry horses were just not any old horse with a saddle on it. You had to train it to be less fearful, not bolt at the gunfire and be able to trample people that horses refuse to do by nature. Sure if you live in Montana you probably have lots of horses that are used to having their rider on them shoot at varmints and the like, but it's another thing to do it with 50 other horses around you along with the enemy trying to kill you.

Which reminds me, I think animal units should get a negative going up against any sort of mutated creature. Science Fiction has always shown animals do NOT like mutations, zombies, or Terminators for that matter.

 

[Refar]

I had typed a loooong essay about Australia and Imported Fertilizers, Gas Operated Steam Engines, a few more things and above all "Gameplay before Realism". But i deleted it, because another thought just stroke me...

Why do we having this discussion in the "New Art" thread .

 

[arkham4269]

I had typed a loooong essay about Australia and Imported Fertilizers, Gas Operated Steam Engines, a few more things and above all "Gameplay before Realism". But i deleted it, because another thought just stroke me...

Why do we having this discussion in the "New Art" thread .

Yeah, I've been sort of wondering (and feeling guilty) about.

 

[Pyr0mancer]

Eh, I think it started because we were discussing what model to use for the Tank instead of what it is now, or the Modern Armor, and went WAY off topic.

Now to attempt to steer this back on topic: What about Dragoons/mounted infantry? I recall Germany at some point doing something similar with donkeys to increase the mobility of their infantry. Then again, I don't see a real niche for them, except maybe as a cheaper but weaker alternative to Utes. Also can't think of any easy or practical way to show them ingame other than just '2 guys and a horse' or something similar. Maybe it's possible to make a human dismount a horse for combat, but it sounds very time-consuming and not worth the effort.

Hmm, just thought of an interesting mechanic: what about a buildable unit that can be attached to existing infantry units to provide an increased move range? Either a horse or a vehicle of some sort would work, basically it would just be providing the infantry with better transportation.

 

[davidlallen]

Let us continue this discussion on this new thread.

 

[Refar]

With this ^^ sorted out and exiled in a new thread ...

Here are some of the UTE variants...
Unfortunately it took a bit longer than i expected, so i did not have time to make the "Armored" extension today (nor to finish up the knight, sorry)

The AT variant with TOW missile and one MG - i did not want to make it "Missile only" - i think it would look odd, the "Heavy Weapon" with 2 Browning MG's and a HeavyAT with both dual Mg and TOW. All featuring SeZereth's cool guys.

The LandRover_*** texture set is the same on all 3 (4 with the basic crossbow variant) so it might be a good idea to put all units in one folder, to save momery. Or keep separate folders, but move the 3 textures to the "Shared" Art folder.

Also i only actually tried the HeavyAT variant in game. There should be no problems with the others - they are more or less clones animation-wise.

EDIT: Oh... The File...