Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That’s bloody awesome! Nice work to everyone involved. I hope I have some time to play in the future to check it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.3.0.1

  • Hostile Waters now ends when a naval factory dies

3.3.0.2

  • Fixed a client crash when changing maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has any comments on the new HUD, I more than welcome the feedback! I plan on improving it further. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ooh new models

Looks like I have some work to do on the classic colors pack once again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so it's known that the HUD is a bit overbearing on smaller resolutions (and apparently even at normal ones) and the MiG's firing mechanics don't translate well to a live environment (except against boats which are large enough to reliably keep a lock on). I'll soon be looking at a better way to handle the MiG firing, and next patch we'll be pushing a slightly smaller HUD by default, and an even smaller one and a larger one (i.e. the current one) as optional downloads on the download section if the new size isn't right for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho the previous HUD we had was good enough, compact and not everything at one place.

Migs are really vulnerable to bullet fire, esp. apc can kill a MIG sooner before it gets 2nd lock. It would be cool to fire all missiles at once too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we think about the difference between the Mig, Yak and the Hind in terms of when is the most optimal scenario to use each?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you fall under the Naval Yard, you end up walking on an invisible plane just under the surface of the water, unlike the Sub Pen which has an actual floor.

Is it possible for the Sub Pen doors to open up to make entering and exiting with subs easier? The doors seem to just be a decorative obstacle as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KevinLancaster said:

Is it possible for the Sub Pen doors to open up to make entering and exiting with subs easier? The doors seem to just be a decorative obstacle as is.

Fun Fact: those aren’t doors they are blast shields, and without them your sub can and will be blown up before you have the opportunity to leave the dock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subs exit under them, and you're not supposed to camp that area, just like you're not supposed to camp the allied naval spawn bay.

They help cover an angle from attacks, it used to be too easy to camp a sub pen with ships. Kind of the whole point as to why I redid those naval buildings ~2 years ago. :v

The invisible geometry and floating ladders does seem weird, I think falling to your death makes more sense. It's even a bit of a maze down there with invisible walls everywhere.

Edit: I think you might be able to place flares down there as well. 

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raap said:

Edit: I think you might be able to place flares down there as well. 

You shouldn't be able to, on HW literally the entire map below sea level except the area around the CYs is a no-flare zone.

Falling to your death "makes more sense" but is it better for gameplay to have to worry about being delayed from entering your boat by 20-60 seconds (and also blocking other people from buying the same boat) if you happen to do poorly on the collision lottery?

"Floating ladders"? All of them are quite clearly attached to something.

I'll be sure to put something in the underwater walkable area, maybe a grate.

9 hours ago, VERTi60 said:

Imho the previous HUD we had was good enough, compact and not everything at one place.

But you had to squint to read it on any modern resolution.

9 hours ago, VERTi60 said:

Migs are really vulnerable to bullet fire, esp. apc can kill a MIG sooner before it gets 2nd lock. It would be cool to fire all missiles at once too.

Air unit in "vulnerable to anti-air unit" shocker. Fire all missiles at once? I think there are enough things that only need one shot to kill arties and make it pointless to try using them, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

But you had to squint to read it on any modern resolution.

Well now there are complains about smaller res having too much of the hud on screen, so there's always an issue. Modern Hud displays are small and usually don't concentrate on one place so you have more visible playing screen instead.

 

Quote

Air unit in "vulnerable to anti-air unit" shocker. Fire all missiles at once? I think there are enough things that only need one shot to kill arties and make it pointless to try using them, don't you?

Why is APC suppose to be dedicated anti air? Shouldn't that be the job for rockets? APC should be a mid anti air support if anything. It can also carry additional rockets as passengers. 

Thing is that the current Mig is not able to kill anything at all. Even that 1 arty unit would at least make some sense for it's price you invest to fly Mig that can be easily shot down before acquiring lock. Even though Migs handle better than Yaks and are quite faster, it still seems that Yak has greater firepower and potential which doesn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VERTi60 said:

Why is APC suppose to be dedicated anti air? Shouldn't that be the job for rockets? APC should be a mid anti air support if anything. It can also carry additional rockets as passengers.

APC being anti-air and mammoth-armoured was a decision made about a year ago to give the Allies more options to respond to hinds/yaks (beforehand it was just rocket soldiers, rocket soldiers and rocket soldiers), have a better anti-infantry option for engaging Volkovs, provide a bit more synergy with the "infantry carrier" role (Hinds are one of the biggest threats towards infantry, so make the infantry carrier resistant to and able to deal with said threat! ... though this still didn't encourage its use as a carrier) and distinguish it from the Ranger since there was hardly any purpose to the unit before this change:

  • there's not much point in trying to haul around a ton of infantry in one APC - unless you just so happen to have spare APCs sitting around while your War Factory is dead. (Maybe it could become a Radar Dome airdrop option to encourage this, but what would the Soviets get on their airdrop to balance it out? Or maybe it'd replace the Medium Tank?)
  • APC and Ranger could both outrange all infantry except Kapitans/RPGs back then so the Ranger's weaker durability was not a dealbreaker for hunting down infantry in the open.
  • APC is one of those units that are MUCH more dangerous in the Soviets' hands so you absolutely don't want to let them take it - meaning an APC infantry rush is pretty much forced to leave one person in the APC to wait or get it killed just so that you don't end up turning the game against yourself (unless you're killing the barracks or Soviets already lost it). This also means Tanyas don't want to use it as a solo chariot, which they can do with LTs/Rangers without risking the game.
  • it's easier to hit and to notice than a Ranger; sure it has more health but Allies don't care too much about the max health of their units because of mechanics

Nowadays the choice is showing its age a bit; Volkovs being changed to snipers instead of shorter-ranged everymen means you want to use APCs over Rangers against them anyway due to the armour difference, the addition of Chrono Tanks and their subsequent armour class upgrade means the Allies now have yet another tank that can pull anti-air duty, not to mention Phase Tanks also do pretty well at mowing down planes (but lose against Hinds). APCs might still want to be okay against planes because of Guard Duty where Chrono Tanks aren't an option, but they could stand to be a little weaker in this regard possibly. Maybe I could lower their max turret tilt so that they can easily hit low-flying Yaks but not high-flying MiGs (which don't exist on Guard Duty).

 

1 hour ago, VERTi60 said:

Thing is that the current Mig is not able to kill anything at all.

Tell me something I don't know :v I already said I'm aware its firing mechanics did not translate to live gameplay well and I'm going to be looking into an alternative, and letting it fire all its missiles at once is not going to be a good alternative because it means you only have one chance to line up a lock-on instead of two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

APC being anti-air and mammoth-armoured was a decision made about a year ago to give the Allies more options...

It's a good thing APC is support for anti air but shouldn't be dedicated anti air. In current state the APC is just too versatile making other units weaker in comparission. It's not really a rant for APC it's just that it seems it can beat the soviet "dedicated anti armor bomber" very easily, but would probably struggle more against a Yak (e.g. can't even mech it when under fire from Yak).

 

Quote

Nowadays the choice is showing its age a bit; Volkovs being changed to snipers instead of everymen means you want to use APCs over Rangers against them anyway due to the armour difference, the addition of Chrono Tanks and their subsequent armour class upgrade means the Allies now have yet another tank that can pull anti-air duty, not to mention Phase Tanks also do pretty well at mowing down planes (but lose against Hinds). APCs might still want to be okay against planes because of Guard Duty where Chrono Tanks aren't an option, but they could stand to be a little weaker in this regard possibly. Maybe I could lower their max turret tilt so that they can easily hit low-flying Yaks but not high-flying MiGs.

Lowering their turret tilt is actually good idea for balance, but maybe too restricting for players? Maybe worth giving it a try but I would much rather have a slower turret rotation so that you can't really keep up with faster air units passing by but you could target them if they are approaching you straight on. Or perhaps a combination of two.

 

Quote

Tell me something I don't know :v I already said I'm aware its firing mechanics did not translate to live gameplay well and I'm going to be looking into an alternative, and letting it fire all its missiles at once is not going to be a good alternative because it means you only have one chance to line up a lock-on instead of two.

Yea but if you can get a successful lock once, why not opting for firing all missiles at once so you don't have to risk throwing away the other salvo? Getting a successful lock twice in order to kill something is currently almost impossible.

And even if the lock will always be hard to acquire, at least it would make the unit a high risk high reward mechanic instead of being outclassed by it's lower tier/cost alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VERTi60 said:

Lowering their turret tilt is actually good idea for balance, but maybe too restricting for players?

Hey, if they can deal with the whole line of MBTs only having 17.5 degrees of vertical tilt (which was still enough for Mediums to hit Hinds scraping the flight ceiling on Ridge War previously!) they can deal with APCs having something smaller than 60 degrees. :v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pushwall said:

Hey, if they can deal with the whole line of MBTs only having 17.5 degrees of vertical tilt (which was still enough for Mediums to hit Hinds scraping the flight ceiling on Ridge War previously!) they can deal with APCs having something smaller than 60 degrees. :v

I always find a ridge to tilt my tanks in order to shoot choppers, it looks a bit silly and now imagining that doing with apc too :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I at some point suggested more role and visual clarity for the APC, specifically to give it a single-row anti-air mounted top gun, or a triple-barrel rotary variant for more rapid fire anti-air. 

I still don't think the APC screams "anti-air unit" and it needs some work ideally, but unfortunately creating weapons isn't my field.

Lastly I guess we always could revive the idea of a Mobile AA Gun vehicle - although it needs a new model, so again, more art work that would need to be done by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raap said:

Lastly I guess we always could revive the idea of a Mobile AA Gun vehicle - although it needs a new model, so again, more art work that would need to be done by someone.

It's probably not needed; the introduction of the Chrono Tank gives Allies another proper AA vehicle and adding yet more ground vehicles for them is just bloat. I'm fine with tweaking the APC so it can't really be effectively used against MiGs (maybe a bit of a nerf against Hinds too) but it should probably continue to be able to fight Yaks due to Guard Duty, and it probably doesn't need a new weapon to look convincing for this because anything with enough projectile velocity can hit a low-flying Yak and warplanes weren't exactly known for their armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pushwall said:

It's probably not needed; the introduction of the Chrono Tank gives Allies another proper AA vehicle and adding yet more ground vehicles for them is just bloat. I'm fine with tweaking the APC so it can't really be effectively used against MiGs but it should probably continue to be able to fight Yaks, and it probably doesn't need a new weapon to look convincing for this because anything with enough projectile velocity can hit a low-flying Yak and warplanes weren't exactly known for their armour.

Locking it back to a ground focused unit is fine by me, you're right, the Chrono Tank (and to some extent, the Phase Tank), do seem to serve the AA role well enough right now.

Still, if you do ever find artist budget, I wouldn't be against a more distinct APC top gun, the current one is so small and feels too similar to Rangers and Captains from a gameplay perspective. Could be why so few people ever buy it, its just not a very exciting unit. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raap said:

Could be why so few people ever buy it, its just not a very exciting unit. :)

Nowadays it's not a rarely seen unit as a result of all the changes to it making it more viable against Volkovs, air units and small arms users. And even despite this the Ranger still sees use (though not as much) due to downsides to the APC that are still present (being bigger and slower and easier to spot, not being expendable, slightly more expensive though that doesn't matter much, having worse DPS against light vehicles and base defenses). That first-dump Ranger coil rush last night makes it pretty evident that the Ranger still has its place; a Light Tank or APC rush could have gotten our objective too but would have made it harder to afford stuff after our death and would have been more likely to be spotted ahead of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

Nowadays it's not a rarely seen unit as a result of all the changes to it making it more viable against Volkovs, air units and small arms users. And even despite this the Ranger still sees use (though not as much) due to downsides to the APC that are still present (being bigger and slower and easier to spot, not being expendable, slightly more expensive though that doesn't matter much, having worse DPS against light vehicles and base defenses).

Sorry let me clarify what I meant; With "not exciting" I wasn't trying to discredit the small roles handed to it via game logic. I purely meant that in terms of audio/visuals the weapon looks and plays too much like similar weaponry, even if game logic allows it to do other things.

Just my opinion, anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new changes to the camera logic make the APC even better than before imho. I find it really enjoyable to play with. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come the destroyer looks like it's made of lego? Especially the chimney. 

Can we make the Mig missiles disappear after it fires them?

On rangers: rangers/mechanic combo is excellent mid/late game to drive around repairing allied tanks while staying out of harm's way.

On maps with both Hind and Migs, I wonder if people will use Yaks at all?

Edited by des1206

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, des1206 said:

How come the destroyer looks like it's made of lego? Especially the chimney. 

Even though the current model still looks miles advanced than the old one, I kinda agree it could look a bit better.

Destroyer could use a bit more texture detail work too, some of the parts seem to not have any texture on it, all the parts seem to have plastic look as you've put it. Middle deck could use wooden floor for example, the hull could be darker. Maybe adding some animations on radars or light work.

I also would like to have the RA1 render missile turret if possible:

Image result for destroyer red alert 1

 

14 minutes ago, des1206 said:

Can we make the Mig missiles disappear after it fires them?

+1 Should work after some script work is done on it I suppose

 

14 minutes ago, des1206 said:

On maps with both Hind and Migs, I wonder if people will use Yaks at all?

Currently Yaks are much better for their price, although harder to fly. Migs would need to coordinate a lot more and attack bigger targets to be any efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×