Glorthoron
Warlord
Why do howitzers in a city get more than one defensive bombardment?
R.E.D. World War II development thread
- Thread starter Gedemon
- Start date
Glorthoron
Warlord
Gede,
Could you add a return to main menu option to the in game menu?
Could you add a return to main menu option to the in game menu?
gargoyle575
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 94
Couldn't you put a popup message that would tell you what going back to the main menu does? I like going back to the main menu just to switch save games.
Glorthoron
Warlord
Or at least an option to load saved games with these mods.
I've planned a fix, but it's relatively too long to code compared to the benefits.
there is a worst bug caused by loading a game within a game, and this one is not fixable.
Glorthoron
Warlord
can you bring back the fortify until healed option? "rest until reinforced"? Maybe only while in cities?
Also, if a unit is not attacked in the previous turn, you could allow a reinforcement bonus.
Am I seeing this wrong, or are units not in supply taking damage? Edit: Ok, I think I'm wrong about this, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. Perhaps for every turn after the first of not being in supply, damage is taken, and it could be an be an exponentially increasing amount each following turn: Turn 1 = 0 damage, turn 2 = 2 damage, turn 3 = 4 damage, turn 4 = 8 damage, etc.
Also, if a unit is not attacked in the previous turn, you could allow a reinforcement bonus.
Am I seeing this wrong, or are units not in supply taking damage? Edit: Ok, I think I'm wrong about this, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. Perhaps for every turn after the first of not being in supply, damage is taken, and it could be an be an exponentially increasing amount each following turn: Turn 1 = 0 damage, turn 2 = 2 damage, turn 3 = 4 damage, turn 4 = 8 damage, etc.
Glorthoron
Warlord
Thoughts?
thecivinator58
Warlord
@Gedemon
One question, does the Fiat G.55 require XP from the Fiat G.50? Because if it doesn't, the project should come up in January '43.
One question, does the Fiat G.55 require XP from the Fiat G.50? Because if it doesn't, the project should come up in January '43.
Planned. Reported until I have a look at that part of the code, which I'll do when I'll try to add recon missions to aircraft.
Nop, too penalizing for the AI.
I don't remember, all the projectd will need a look out when the new units will be added.
still working on adding the new units, and while I'm at it, and after a few reading, I think I'll change some of the existing ones.
I'm going to add an "infantry tanks" line with the Matilda I & II, the Valentine and some French models (H-35 & H-39, FCM-36). the logic would have me to had the French R-35 & R-40 to the list, but the Hotchkiss and Renault tanks would have almost the same stats, so a couple will stay (or be changed) to the light tank class, for gameplay.
I plan to make the infantry tanks "regiment" units so they can stack with... infantry. Still undecided on how to represent their general characteristic (slow, well armored, but lack of firepower against other tanks) in gameplay mechanism...
On another class, I've struggled a bit with Japan air force, but now have a better idea of the global hierarchy. there is just the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden which is a single engine interceptor, but that I want to place in the heavy fighter category (as it was designed to be used mainly against bombers: fast to climb but less maneuverability) but without the air-ground bonus.
I'm going to add an "infantry tanks" line with the Matilda I & II, the Valentine and some French models (H-35 & H-39, FCM-36). the logic would have me to had the French R-35 & R-40 to the list, but the Hotchkiss and Renault tanks would have almost the same stats, so a couple will stay (or be changed) to the light tank class, for gameplay.
I plan to make the infantry tanks "regiment" units so they can stack with... infantry. Still undecided on how to represent their general characteristic (slow, well armored, but lack of firepower against other tanks) in gameplay mechanism...
On another class, I've struggled a bit with Japan air force, but now have a better idea of the global hierarchy. there is just the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden which is a single engine interceptor, but that I want to place in the heavy fighter category (as it was designed to be used mainly against bombers: fast to climb but less maneuverability) but without the air-ground bonus.
just a note to myself:
add a reliability value for mechanical units: probability to get combat/moves penalty at start of turn and/or after moving (probability raised), and/or after attacking (probability raised again)
add a reliability value for mechanical units: probability to get combat/moves penalty at start of turn and/or after moving (probability raised), and/or after attacking (probability raised again)
That's a bit of a legend, the Tigers were notably unreliable (many were actually destroyed by their crews to avoid capture in Sicily and Russia for instance), some Panzer III variants also had reliability issue, and generally speaking, the raputitsa proved quite a difficult foe for the Heer! Broken tracks, overheating engines weren't the sole privilege of early British tanks (or the B1) which had probably not be designed with the desert in mind (or rasputitsa for the German ones).
Not to mention rushed production from 1944 in Germany...
To Gedemon: don't forget that H39 and R40 had a better gun, and that both Hotchkiss were for the cavalry (thus faster 36km/h, close to the Somua's 40 km/h) than the Renault ones (30 km/h). Should be easy with your new unit system if I understood you correctly?
thecivinator58
Warlord
Well, I think a new class should be added, called "Old fast bombers" Stats would be as follows:
35 strength (vs 40 for normal fast bomber)
11 range (vs 12 for normal fast bomber)
10% evasion (against normal fighters) (vs 25% for fast bombers)
25% evasion vs obsolete fighters (You know, the ones with 30 strength) (Same as normal fast bomber)
+40% vs land (vs +50% for normal fast bomber)
+40% vs sea (vs +50% for normal fast bomber)
-30% vs sub (vs -25% for normal fast bomber)
List of the new units:
Russia:
SB-2
Note: next two not new, simply re-designated.
UK:
Bristol Blenheim
Greece:
Bristol Blenheim
Italy:
Caproni Ca.135
Hungary:
Caproni Ca.135
Note: Finland's Blenheim and China's SB-2 also fall into this new category.
I know this cannot go in immediately, but is it something to consider?
35 strength (vs 40 for normal fast bomber)
11 range (vs 12 for normal fast bomber)
10% evasion (against normal fighters) (vs 25% for fast bombers)
25% evasion vs obsolete fighters (You know, the ones with 30 strength) (Same as normal fast bomber)
+40% vs land (vs +50% for normal fast bomber)
+40% vs sea (vs +50% for normal fast bomber)
-30% vs sub (vs -25% for normal fast bomber)
List of the new units:
Russia:
SB-2
Note: next two not new, simply re-designated.
UK:
Bristol Blenheim
Greece:
Bristol Blenheim
Italy:
Caproni Ca.135
Hungary:
Caproni Ca.135
Note: Finland's Blenheim and China's SB-2 also fall into this new category.
I know this cannot go in immediately, but is it something to consider?
thecivinator58
Warlord
Yes, but a "light bomber" would be purpose built as a light bomber, like the Po-2, as opposed to these, which functioned as fast bombers in the pre-war period.
I posted at greater length in the other concept thread, but i want to briefly mention it here because its an important point:
The AI needs to show a higher degree of 'total commitment. It uses moderate measures and attempts every 4 to 6 turns, when a greater feature would be to only try to do what its doing every 10 or 15 turns, but do it with total commitment.
The behavior it exhibits in trying to invade france from England, or trying to invade England from Germany, is exactly what i mean. Its lukewarm offensive nature in general means that Germany vs Russia (with both as AI) never results in more than a moderate exchange of tiles and maybe a city or two being taken.
This could be backdoored by having more operations that spawned tremendous amounts of units that properly fill the battlespace to allow for proper offensive behavior, or it could mean programming the AI to commit more resources and units into total efforts. Or it could do both, but any effort in developing either of these features would be an excellent addition to the game.
The AI needs to show a higher degree of 'total commitment. It uses moderate measures and attempts every 4 to 6 turns, when a greater feature would be to only try to do what its doing every 10 or 15 turns, but do it with total commitment.
The behavior it exhibits in trying to invade france from England, or trying to invade England from Germany, is exactly what i mean. Its lukewarm offensive nature in general means that Germany vs Russia (with both as AI) never results in more than a moderate exchange of tiles and maybe a city or two being taken.
This could be backdoored by having more operations that spawned tremendous amounts of units that properly fill the battlespace to allow for proper offensive behavior, or it could mean programming the AI to commit more resources and units into total efforts. Or it could do both, but any effort in developing either of these features would be an excellent addition to the game.
Similar threads
