WWII mod?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
But, well, I don't like WWII I guess... 
The main barrier is graphics. If you can get enough, of high enough quality, done, you could start working on a fork. (that's what it would have to be, IMHO: a fork.)
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
-
Maeglin Dubh
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: November 16th, 2005, 8:38 pm
- Location: Valley of the Shadow of Death
- Contact:
The main obstacle to most of these concepts seems to be graphics. Spacenoth, the Pirate mod, and this... Not to mention almost every faction idea ever mentioned....
If I thought I'd be any good at graphics, I'd try it, but I have zero experience.... Coding, I've done some modification with basic Angband code, but nothing with Westnoth, and it would probably require more time than I have. But I acn definitely help with unit concepts. I'll probably get shot down a lot, but what better way to learn?
On topic, I like the idea of a WWII era. But give us some more detail; what will the factions be? Nations, or alliances? And which nations/alliances? If you can supply that information, then everything else will come faster.
(Personally, I think it best to start with just Axis and Allies, then eventually branch out into different nations, for simplicity's sake, but that's just me.)
If I thought I'd be any good at graphics, I'd try it, but I have zero experience.... Coding, I've done some modification with basic Angband code, but nothing with Westnoth, and it would probably require more time than I have. But I acn definitely help with unit concepts. I'll probably get shot down a lot, but what better way to learn?
On topic, I like the idea of a WWII era. But give us some more detail; what will the factions be? Nations, or alliances? And which nations/alliances? If you can supply that information, then everything else will come faster.
(Personally, I think it best to start with just Axis and Allies, then eventually branch out into different nations, for simplicity's sake, but that's just me.)
Are you going to make all the nations balanced? (if nations are chosen...)
Or perhaps Poland should be nothing to Russians for example...
Make finnish good in forest and snow.
Maybe Alliances would work better?
What happens to resistances? There can be fire, impact and pierce, but was there any cold, holy or blade attacks in WWII?
Or perhaps Poland should be nothing to Russians for example...
Make finnish good in forest and snow.
Maybe Alliances would work better?
What happens to resistances? There can be fire, impact and pierce, but was there any cold, holy or blade attacks in WWII?
-
Maeglin Dubh
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: November 16th, 2005, 8:38 pm
- Location: Valley of the Shadow of Death
- Contact:
Fire, impact, and pierce might be it.... Maybe blade, for combat knives and bayonets, or even for frag grenades; concussion grenades would be impact, as would personnel weapons relying on force of impact (stopping power) for their effectiveness; i.e. service pistols or submachine guns, while pierce would work for sniper rifles, anti-tank guns, etc... Fire would be tracer rounds, as well as flamethrowers.
-
Viliam
- Translator
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
- Contact:
The Russian side surely should start the game with more villages, if the game aims to be realistic... but whether the units are weaker or stronger, that's another question. Weak/strong units should IMHO represent technology available/typical for the countries. But even so the factions in multiplayer can be balanced, if better technology would be more expensive.deserter wrote:Are you going to make all the nations balanced? (if nations are chosen...)
Or perhaps Poland should be nothing to Russians for example...
Multiplayer should be balanced, or nobody will play it. However, the multiplayer "factions" do not have to be "nations", they could rather be alliances, so that a weaker nation can be combined with a stronger one. Different multiplayer eras could reflect alliances in different years of war.
-
Maeglin Dubh
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: November 16th, 2005, 8:38 pm
- Location: Valley of the Shadow of Death
- Contact:
That's why I recommended using alliances, rather than the nations. At least to begin with. Here's a basic mark-up, feel free to add, delete, criticize, or correct. (One problem I'm having with this idea is the difference between Japanese and German engineering styles, so consider this to reflect the European theatre of war.)
Axis
-Powerful tanks (Low movement, high attack, very high resistance, not so high defense. [tanks being hard to hide or dodge with.])
-Fighters should be fairly well-armoured, well-armed, but not as fast as their allied counterparts. (To reflect the ridiculous range of American warplanes, they should have high movement.)
-Two infantry branches..... One of Bundeswher (sp) type units, conscripts/militia, another of Waffen SS types, elite troops, more expensive.
Allies
-Cheaper, faster tanks (mid-range movement, mid-range attack, high resistance, slightly-higher-than-Axis-tank defense).
-Fighters should be faster than the Axis fighters, but not as heavily armed. Armour (resistances) should be similiar. Defense for all fighters should be on an individual basis, since some were more agile than others.
-Infantry should be plentiful, and shoud probably follow the same pattern as the Axis; individual types will vary, i.e. Rangers, OSS, GI's...
Axis
-Powerful tanks (Low movement, high attack, very high resistance, not so high defense. [tanks being hard to hide or dodge with.])
-Fighters should be fairly well-armoured, well-armed, but not as fast as their allied counterparts. (To reflect the ridiculous range of American warplanes, they should have high movement.)
-Two infantry branches..... One of Bundeswher (sp) type units, conscripts/militia, another of Waffen SS types, elite troops, more expensive.
Allies
-Cheaper, faster tanks (mid-range movement, mid-range attack, high resistance, slightly-higher-than-Axis-tank defense).
-Fighters should be faster than the Axis fighters, but not as heavily armed. Armour (resistances) should be similiar. Defense for all fighters should be on an individual basis, since some were more agile than others.
-Infantry should be plentiful, and shoud probably follow the same pattern as the Axis; individual types will vary, i.e. Rangers, OSS, GI's...
-
Casual User
- Posts: 475
- Joined: March 11th, 2005, 5:05 pm
Good afternoon!
A few comments.
I think it would be more fun if it was divided by nations than alliances. With the notable exceptions of Poland, Russia and Japan, most of the countries in question had comparable military levels (i.e. units would be balanced, Russia and Japan could get weak but very cheap lvl 0's, Poland ... needs to be discussed).
I also think you should have more infantry types, maybe a resistance-type unit for some of the nations.
A few comments.
Why ?(that's what it would have to be, IMHO: a fork.)
Use custom attack types. Since you'll have to have custom movetypes anyway, define custom attack types like 'sidearm' (pistols,knives,etc...) 'firearm' (rifles,machineguns,etc...) 'explosion' 'armor-piercing', and so on... Then include resistances for these attack types in the movetypes.What happens to resistances? There can be fire, impact and pierce, but was there any cold, holy or blade attacks in WWII?
One of the strong points of Axis tanks were their mobility, hence the blitzkrieg strategy. Tanks should be fast but have a very tough time in rough terrain (in many ways, they should be similar to cavalry).-Powerful tanks (Low movement, high attack, very high resistance, not so high defense. [tanks being hard to hide or dodge with.])
I think it would be more fun if it was divided by nations than alliances. With the notable exceptions of Poland, Russia and Japan, most of the countries in question had comparable military levels (i.e. units would be balanced, Russia and Japan could get weak but very cheap lvl 0's, Poland ... needs to be discussed).
I also think you should have more infantry types, maybe a resistance-type unit for some of the nations.
-
Maeglin Dubh
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: November 16th, 2005, 8:38 pm
- Location: Valley of the Shadow of Death
- Contact:
For the Axis tanks, I was thinking in terms of the King Tiger (prob a level 3 in the game...) with ridiculous armour plating and all, but you're right about the mobility.
My little piece there was just a basic outline... If you have ideas on how to flesh it out, feel free to post them. By resistance type, you mean like the French underground? I don't think -all- nations should have one... Appropriate nations seem like France, Poland, maybe Russian....
My little piece there was just a basic outline... If you have ideas on how to flesh it out, feel free to post them. By resistance type, you mean like the French underground? I don't think -all- nations should have one... Appropriate nations seem like France, Poland, maybe Russian....
-
Casual User
- Posts: 475
- Joined: March 11th, 2005, 5:05 pm
No precise ideas yet, but I will post if I have any...
A lighter more mobile tank and a heavier, more plated one would be an interesting fork. Both should be at least a bit faster than footmen in open field, but not in rough terrain.
For infantry, maybe two trees : one heavier, more defensive, maybe with machine guns and anti-air missiles; the other lighter, faster and more flexible.
Resistance type troops would fit in well with :
-France
-Norway
-Belgium
-Serbia (if included)
-Poland (maybe)
I was thinking about my last post, and I wanted to add a little precision :
Russia would have access to weak but VERY cheap lvl 0's
Japan would have access to strong lvl 0's
A lighter more mobile tank and a heavier, more plated one would be an interesting fork. Both should be at least a bit faster than footmen in open field, but not in rough terrain.
For infantry, maybe two trees : one heavier, more defensive, maybe with machine guns and anti-air missiles; the other lighter, faster and more flexible.
Resistance type troops would fit in well with :
-France
-Norway
-Belgium
-Serbia (if included)
-Poland (maybe)
I was thinking about my last post, and I wanted to add a little precision :
Russia would have access to weak but VERY cheap lvl 0's
Japan would have access to strong lvl 0's
-
irrevenant
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 3692
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
- Location: I'm all around you.
Here's the advice that's not working for meMaeglin Dubh wrote:If I thought I'd be any good at graphics, I'd try it, but I have zero experience....
: You have to be awful before you can be good. The best artists on this board were as unskilled as you and I at some point.It's irrational to fear not being instantly superb. Sadly, that doesn't make it any easier to overcome...
I don't want to turn this into a historical debate but, regarding the Russians:
a) Russia would definately need a resistance/geurilla unit. After all, Russian partisans were among the most active behind-enemy-lines organisations in the whole of WWII, if not the most active.
b) They are often credited with the most successful tanks of the war. These include the KV tanks, which were massive and slow but so well armoured that German Panzers often couldn't even penetrate their plating, and the T-34. a medium tank with high power weapon, moderate armour and able to cope with many terrain types (snow, mud, broken ground etc).
c) They had significant artillary power. The Katyusha rockets were well known as a terrifying 'area-attack' weapon. However because of supply and logistics problems, artillary operators often needed to conserve ammunition.
d) On the downside their air force was outdated by the Germans and almost totally destroyed within weeks of Germany attacking the USSR/Russia. It was only later in the war that the Russians managed to build up a worthwhile airfleet.
Thats just factual/historical stuff. Not sure how you would want to translate that into Wesnoth units.
(Sorry 'bout the long post, but I hate to see the Russians not get the credit they deserve.
)
Anyway, this idea for a fork/mod/era sounds great. If I can help by providing any information like that above (especially in relation to Russians) then I would be happy to.
Good luck.
a) Russia would definately need a resistance/geurilla unit. After all, Russian partisans were among the most active behind-enemy-lines organisations in the whole of WWII, if not the most active.
b) They are often credited with the most successful tanks of the war. These include the KV tanks, which were massive and slow but so well armoured that German Panzers often couldn't even penetrate their plating, and the T-34. a medium tank with high power weapon, moderate armour and able to cope with many terrain types (snow, mud, broken ground etc).
c) They had significant artillary power. The Katyusha rockets were well known as a terrifying 'area-attack' weapon. However because of supply and logistics problems, artillary operators often needed to conserve ammunition.
d) On the downside their air force was outdated by the Germans and almost totally destroyed within weeks of Germany attacking the USSR/Russia. It was only later in the war that the Russians managed to build up a worthwhile airfleet.
Thats just factual/historical stuff. Not sure how you would want to translate that into Wesnoth units.
(Sorry 'bout the long post, but I hate to see the Russians not get the credit they deserve.
)Anyway, this idea for a fork/mod/era sounds great. If I can help by providing any information like that above (especially in relation to Russians) then I would be happy to.
Good luck.