Question Additional units in APB?

[GeneralCamo]

 

There's probably a good reason why the MK2's chin gun is automatic.

Not really. There were plans otherwise years ago, but voices in the team called against it. But this is totally possible.

[devilslayersbane]

Regarding the Airstrike, instead of making the plane able to be shot down, why not attach the entire ability to the radar dome? Then the player has a separate terminal where they can only call in an Airstrike every 5 minutes or so, and they're given a special pair of binoculars to do so. The recently implemented marker system would work to this end for this special pair of 'nocs, and to keep some balance, a faction-color icon appears on the radar for both teams. Then a scripted bomber would come and drop a large bomb, or multiple smaller bombs.

[ganein14]

If that was added, the plane should be able to be brought down, either by AA defenses or Rocket men, as that would make the AA defenses important to some extent as opposed to just acting as a deterrent to Hinds and a lesser extent to Chinooks.

[Ice]

If that was added, the plane should be able to be brought down, either by AA defenses or Rocket men, as that would make the AA defenses important to some extent as opposed to just acting as a deterrent to Hinds and a lesser extent to Chinooks.

^ Indeed. Like the A-bomb, there should be some way of preventing the airstrike from reaching its target. The most logical way is to simply have the planes be destructible.

[TK-421]

Regarding the Airstrike, instead of making the plane able to be shot down, why not attach the entire ability to the radar dome? Then the player has a separate terminal where they can only call in an Airstrike every 5 minutes or so, and they're given a special pair of binoculars to do so. The recently implemented marker system would work to this end for this special pair of 'nocs, and to keep some balance, a faction-color icon appears on the radar for both teams. Then a scripted bomber would come and drop a large bomb, or multiple smaller bombs.

or drop a cluster bomb.

[Pushwall]

The recently implemented marker system would work to this end for this special pair of 'nocs

 

Nope. The game crashes immediately when I try to make the binoculars spawn an a-bomb beacon instead of a radar marker (which is not a beacon), pretty sure this is going to be the case for any kind of beacon I make.

 

If that was added, the plane should be able to be brought down, either by AA defenses or Rocket men, as that would make the AA defenses important to some extent as opposed to just acting as a deterrent to Hinds and a lesser extent to Chinooks.

 

So add a bunch of AA defenses to a bunch of ground maps then. Fat chance.

 

The most logical way is to simply have the planes be destructible.

 

Cinematic units crash the game if they're destroyed (which was possible before Delta when purchased helicopters could actually take damage during their purchase cinematic).

why not attach the entire ability to the radar dome?

 

There is another thing I'm considering doing with the radar dome though (something that's actually doable!): making it also act as a tech centre, since finishing up the tech centres and actually finding room for them in various maps is a huge case of effort >>>>>>>>>>> reward and radar itself isn't that useful outside of Bonsai.

 

Basically if it's destroyed you would lose access to all Tech Level 5 units - Tanyas, Volkovs, MAD Tanks, Demolition Trucks, and anything else in the future that might end up there. Of course this would have no effect on the TL4 Bonsai, but losing your radar is enough of a penalty on that map.

[ganein14]

Unless you're allies and get a spy into the Soviet radar dome.

[Einstein]

 

Regarding the Airstrike, instead of making the plane able to be shot down, why not attach the entire ability to the radar dome? Then the player has a separate terminal where they can only call in an Airstrike every 5 minutes or so, and they're given a special pair of binoculars to do so. The recently implemented marker system would work to this end for this special pair of 'nocs, and to keep some balance, a faction-color icon appears on the radar for both teams. Then a scripted bomber would come and drop a large bomb, or multiple smaller bombs.

or drop a cluster bomb.

 

Or RA1 parabombs! Too bad it can't happen though (at least for now ) But what if the marker was just always auto-placed in the same location in the enemy base instead of set by binoculars? I mean, what are the odds that you'll actually hit a moving target that you might aim for? Nope...

[Pushwall]

But what if the marker was just always auto-placed in the same location in the enemy base instead of set by binoculars?

 

Look if I can't make a beacon launcher then I can't make a beacon launcher. That's still a location that is not the place that the binocular holder is standing.

[des1206]

Unless you're allies and get a spy into the Soviet radar dome.

Yeah what happens in APB if a spy gets into a Soviet radar dome again? If nothing happens, something should happen.

[ganein14]

 

Unless you're allies and get a spy into the Soviet radar dome.

Yeah what happens in APB if a spy gets into a Soviet radar dome again? If nothing happens, something should happen.

 

Nothing happens if the Allies still have radar themselves, though if they don't the spy will restore it by setting up a relay inside of the soviet one. Though I don't know if it will stay that way if the soviet radar dies.

[Einstein]

 

But what if the marker was just always auto-placed in the same location in the enemy base instead of set by binoculars?

 

Look if I can't make a beacon launcher then I can't make a beacon launcher. That's still a location that is not the place that the binocular holder is standing.

 

No binoculars. Binoculars are gone from this idea completely.

 

What I meant, and what I am asking is if there can be a predetermined location in the other base that will never change that will be hardcoded into the map where a marker/flare/beacon/whatever it needs to be will always be no matter what, that when activated, causes aircraft(s) to fly by and do their thing. Coded there, not set by a player or a player's binoculars, only activated by a player at a special terminal. Not possible? Breaks everything? Thats cool, I get it. I totally don't know how this stuff works which is why I'm asking. In that case, what about just a predetermined flight path like the Nod supply plane that drops vehicles, except in this case it drops parabombs?

[GeneralCamo]

(slightly off-topic: I would prefer to see free-falling bombs rather than "para" bombs which make no sense at all. Para bombs can be chalked up to game engine limitations, as the cutscenes showed free falling bombs)

[Einstein]

(slightly off-topic: I would prefer to see free-falling bombs rather than "para" bombs which make no sense at all. Para bombs can be chalked up to game engine limitations, as the cutscenes showed free falling bombs)

 

Then what about the mig strike? Those were missiles I know but does that necessarily mean that the game can't do "falling bombs"?

[Jerad2142]

I think it'd be neat to see a working overhead map for chronotanks, instant teleport anywhere the user clicks. To make it a bit more fair/fun you could add fog of war onto the map (only parts of the map would be visible where your teams units where/your base) thus only alowing the chronotank to teleport to spots that where within friendly units line of sight. I think that'd lead to more people rushing with a single humvee and then suddenly having a bunch of chrono tanks around them

 

(slightly off-topic: I would prefer to see free-falling bombs rather than "para" bombs which make no sense at all. Para bombs can be chalked up to game engine limitations, as the cutscenes showed free falling bombs)

 

Then what about the mig strike? Those were missiles I know but does that necessarily mean that the game can't do "falling bombs"?

 

Parabombs are definitely doable if you have an ounce of creativity.

 

The recently implemented marker system would work to this end for this special pair of 'nocs

 

Nope. The game crashes immediately when I try to make the binoculars spawn an a-bomb beacon instead of a radar marker (which is not a beacon), pretty sure this is going to be the case for any kind of beacon I make.

 

The most logical way is to simply have the planes be destructible.

 

Cinematic units crash the game if they're destroyed (which was possible before Delta when purchased helicopters could actually take damage during their purchase cinematic).

 

1. Then I recommend you don't make it a beacon, a lot of ECW's items are just normal weapons that has a script watching ammo count, if the count changes it triggers code.

 

2. That shouldn't be a thing, stock Renegade has plenty of Cinematics that you can kill the helicopter that's dropping troops or w/e.

[GeneralCamo]

 

 

(slightly off-topic: I would prefer to see free-falling bombs rather than "para" bombs which make no sense at all. Para bombs can be chalked up to game engine limitations, as the cutscenes showed free falling bombs)

Then what about the mig strike? Those were missiles I know but does that necessarily mean that the game can't do "falling bombs"?

 

Parabombs are definitely doable if you have an ounce of creativity.

I was talking about the original Red Alert engine. Free-falling bombs (from what I can tell) weren't possible in Red alert. So they decided to make parabombs instead, even though they make absolutely no sense for a dedicated bomber (they make sense for a very low-flying aircraft (typically not dedicated bombers) so they can evade the bombs, but you lose accuracy) and also all the cutscenes showed free-falling bombs. So if the bombs were implemented here, they really should be free-falling.

[Ice]

I was talking about the original Red Alert engine. Free-falling bombs (from what I can tell) weren't possible in Red alert. So they decided to make parabombs instead, even though they make absolutely no sense for a dedicated bomber (they make sense for a very low-flying aircraft (typically not dedicated bombers) so they can evade the bombs, but you lose accuracy) and also all the cutscenes showed free-falling bombs. So if the bombs were implemented here, they really should be free-falling.

I would think that free-falling bombs should be easily possible in the RA engine, considering it's merely an updated version of the Tiberian Dawn engine, which featured A-10 airstrikes with free-fall napalm bombs. Plus I recall modding RA1 a couple years ago and messing around with various units/weapons via the rules.ini, and I'm pretty sure I got free-falling bombs to work in-game.

 

I always thought the decision to use parabombs in RA was mostly a balance choice; Allowing units time to escape the danger zone before the bombs impacted.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Ice

[GeneralCamo]

The A-10 strike was hardcoded, so of course it was capable of doing that. But from what I saw, the bombs in RA were basically the same as the paradrop but bombs instead of rifle soldiers. So it used the same logic to also spawn parachutes.

[Jerad2142]

 

 

 

(slightly off-topic: I would prefer to see free-falling bombs rather than "para" bombs which make no sense at all. Para bombs can be chalked up to game engine limitations, as the cutscenes showed free falling bombs)

Then what about the mig strike? Those were missiles I know but does that necessarily mean that the game can't do "falling bombs"?

 

Parabombs are definitely doable if you have an ounce of creativity.

I was talking about the original Red Alert engine. Free-falling bombs (from what I can tell) weren't possible in Red alert. So they decided to make parabombs instead, even though they make absolutely no sense for a dedicated bomber (they make sense for a very low-flying aircraft (typically not dedicated bombers) so they can evade the bombs, but you lose accuracy) and also all the cutscenes showed free-falling bombs. So if the bombs were implemented here, they really should be free-falling.

 

I made a napalm bomber in one of my RA1 mods when I was a kid using the U2 spy plane, definitely possible.

[delta]

Isn't there that "Napalm" weapon in the rules.ini that's basically a free-falling bomb? Also I'm pretty sure there's not any fundamental difference between it and the Parabomb, it's just that the latter falls more slowly and takes longer to hit the ground.

[Jerad2142]

 

 

 

(slightly off-topic: I would prefer to see free-falling bombs rather than "para" bombs which make no sense at all. Para bombs can be chalked up to game engine limitations, as the cutscenes showed free falling bombs)

Then what about the mig strike? Those were missiles I know but does that necessarily mean that the game can't do "falling bombs"?

 

Parabombs are definitely doable if you have an ounce of creativity.

I was talking about the original Red Alert engine. Free-falling bombs (from what I can tell) weren't possible in Red alert. So they decided to make parabombs instead, even though they make absolutely no sense for a dedicated bomber (they make sense for a very low-flying aircraft (typically not dedicated bombers) so they can evade the bombs, but you lose accuracy) and also all the cutscenes showed free-falling bombs. So if the bombs were implemented here, they really should be free-falling.

 

My changes were only rules.ini changes.

 

Isn't there that "Napalm" weapon in the rules.ini that's basically a free-falling bomb? Also I'm pretty sure there's not any fundamental difference between it and the Parabomb, it's just that the latter falls more slowly and takes longer to hit the ground.

Yeah I'm pretty sure there is, not sure if its falling by default though...

; napalm bomblets (dropped from plane)

[Napalm]

Damage=100

ROF=20

Range=4.5

Projectile=Bomblet

Speed=5

Warhead=Fire

 

That's from RA95's rules INI, looks like your right delta!

 

​Here is the parabomb entry:

; parachute bomb

[ParaBomb]

Damage=300

ROF=4

Range=4.5

Projectile=Parachute

Speed=5

Warhead=HE

Report=CHUTE1​

[delta]

Hmm, so I had an idea...what if both sides could use a beacon to summon in a few bot-controlled units? Soviets could get paratroopers (an assortment of rifle infantry and shock troopers and whatever) while Allies can have a Medium tank teleported in via chronosphere...or a Chronotank if that ever gets modeled. Should be simpler than trying to implement the Chronotank's function with a top-down map or whatever.

[Pushwall]

Ughhhhhhhhh bots have been brought up so many times for different purposes and I'm just going to give you the same answer I always have: no, that won't work because most maps only have enough pathfinding sectors to cover the area between a base and its respective ore field, because that's all the Ore Truck needs and because the editor crashes if I let it generate pathfinding across an entire large map. And not only will bots obviously not venture outside the pathfind grid but they don't even shoot at things that are outside the pathfind grid. Have you ever seen the AI OT technicians pursue people across the map? No, they stay inside their comfort zone because that's all they can do except on maps that are small enough to support full pathfinding coverage like Camos Canyon, which is why that map happens to have a bots version.

[Raap]

Ughhhhhhhhh bots have been brought up so many times for different purposes and I'm just going to give you the same answer I always have: no, that won't work because most maps only have enough pathfinding sectors to cover the area between a base and its respective ore field, because that's all the Ore Truck needs and because the editor crashes if I let it generate pathfinding across an entire large map. And not only will bots obviously not venture outside the pathfind grid but they don't even shoot at things that are outside the pathfind grid. Have you ever seen the AI OT technicians pursue people across the map? No, they stay inside their comfort zone because that's all they can do except on maps that are small enough to support full pathfinding coverage like Camos Canyon, which is why that map happens to have a bots version.

 

On that subject, you could shape an "AI world" within a level by having an AI-only collision (since special collision groups can now be made) and script zone mesh to funnel AI into specific parts of a map, say for example, only bases and on roads between said bases. The script zone part of this mesh would be a flare-or-no-flare script, so any spawned AI would always land within the "AI world" area.

 

This should theoretically, allow for an AI that can navigate to key objectives, while ignoring vast map backdrop areas, and not requiring map-wide pathfind generation.

 

Alternatively the collision part of this could be handled like water used to be handled pre-light solve fix; Place it during pathfind generation, remove it afterwards.

 

The flare-or-no-flare script zone should be a little smaller to fit within the "AI world" region of the map, so that the AI isn't likely to spawn just outside the edge of where they should be, although this particular issue completely depends on how the AI is spawned via cinematic effects.

 

Edit: That said, I don't think you want the AI to attack an enemy base on it's own. Any AI units that could be spawned should probably more serve a guard duty role, so a team can use them to build up security in their own base, or spawn some on a map objective, or inside the enemy base as a distraction (they should probably be set to ignore AI Ore Trucks otherwise they will basically do nothing useful). Good example; You captured an Oil Derrick on Pipeline, you spawn a flare calling in ~2 AI bots to then protect it from lone enemy Engineers.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Raap

[Pushwall]

And not only will bots obviously not venture outside the pathfind grid but they don't even shoot at things that are outside the pathfind grid.

 

So in the end you need pathfinding everywhere anyway. Unless the only AI units that exist are ones that don't shoot (OTs) or only have the ability to shoot as a joke and aren't expected to actually be shooting every enemy that a normal player would notice (OT technicians).

[Raap]

 

And not only will bots obviously not venture outside the pathfind grid but they don't even shoot at things that are outside the pathfind grid.

 

So in the end you need pathfinding everywhere anyway. Unless the only AI units that exist are ones that don't shoot (OTs) or only have the ability to shoot as a joke and aren't expected to actually be shooting every enemy that a normal player would notice (OT technicians).

 

 

If this is an unsolvable issue from a programming perspective, then you got one more option of an additional extension to the "AI world", a non-connected pathfind region to act as a "AI firing line", to extend a reasonable distance away from the "AI world" region, let's say 50 meters since that's around the range the standard rifles have. Since this "AI firing line" region isn't connected to where the AI can exist, they won't try moving towards it, but should in theory still identify targets within that second pathfind region.

 

Targets even further away than this "AI firing line" region (so 50+ meters) likely shouldn't be shot at anyway since we can assume that such player units are "hidden".

[Pushwall]

Submarine bots would definitely not work out. Subs are VTOLs that pretend not to be, and the AI is not very good at moving them even in the environments VTOL AIs normally get used where they won't accidentally snag on any flight ceilings (remember that the ocean surface is essentially a flight ceiling), bots wouldn't be aware of the "no firing while submerged" limitation, even if that limitation was lifted they wouldn't know that they can't hit things that aren't at the same height as themselves, they wouldn't know that submerging can save their life either, vehicle bots are not good at turning to face their target because they all seem to assume they have 360 degree turrets or homing weapons, and if they were given homing torpedoes to account for their turning/aiming troubles they'd start firing them at ground targets too, and that's where we get into "can't stop that" territory because there are only two ways of categorising vehicles for the AI to prioritise: "heavy" and "light", and we already use those to tell base defenses that they should prefer certain targets over others. Like if a pillbox is given a choice between shooting a tesla tank and a mammoth tank it prefers the tesla because the pillbox can actually tear through the tesla's paper-mache armour.

 

Boat bots on the other hand, that would work, except for destroyers focusing on submerged subs that they can't hurt, and without functional sub bots to pit them against why bother anyway?

[SarahNautili]

just put all the bots on the allied side and all the players on the soviet side and make it a coop under then

[Raap]

I think the TLDR version of this can be seen as: W3D AI capacity is very limited, and to even get basic things working, major development time-intensive workarounds would need to be created (see my firing line theory).

 

Weigh the pros and cons against the development time required and you will probably have to conclude it to be... Not worthwhile.

[delta]

Eh, the idea I had was that you just use the beacon to summon the bots to a location where you think they'd be useful, and the bots basically just stay there and shoot whatever comes into range. No need to put in pathing orders, just have them sit there more or less. That's doable, right?

 

Just throwing out ideas...not saying I'm clamoring to have this feature added to APB, but if we want to see the Chronotank and/or Badger added in, this might be a way to do it.

Edited March 21, 2016 by delta