Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - GalagaGalaxian

Pages: [1] 2
1
Early Dev / Re: Armoured Commander: WW2 Tank Commander Roguelike
« on: November 24, 2015, 07:37:48 AM »
Excellent resource, thanks very much for posting it here!

Well, here is hoping it positively influences the game a little.  :D

It definitely has a point, IMO, about the Sherman's undeserved reputation in popular culture.

2
Early Dev / Re: Armoured Commander: WW2 Tank Commander Roguelike
« on: November 23, 2015, 06:02:32 PM »
Fans of this game, or, perhaps, Rev Sudasana himself, might find this website interesting:

http://www.theshermantank.com/

3
Early Dev / Re: Armoured Commander: WW2 Tank Commander Roguelike
« on: November 15, 2015, 08:15:55 PM »
How you've reduced it to 68  guaranteed combat days instead of months of random chance? I think I like it. It makes things a bit more predictable while the random chance of the daily map and random chance of battles keeps plenty of Roguelike Randomness. It also meant I finally managed to get into a counter-attack scenario.

The fixed calendar system might also make producing alternative campaigns/calendars easier. Still hoping for for Canada's Best and Panov's Best one day (though Panovs is probably a far off thing, given the modifications that would be required for the Eastern Front).

I also like the reduction in size of both the daily map and the map sectors. Given how brutal fights can be, less individual fights is not necessarily a bad thing. Most of my games rarely last until September and far too many end in the first 1-3 days. I mostly blame myself for that, I wonder if my playstyle is too passive/cautious, I often just hunker down and take opportunistic shots while cursing my 75mm AP's impotence rather than try using my movement options more to get myself side-shots on enemy armor.

It has been a while since I played ArmCom (last version in my folder before 2.3 was Alpha7rc2) and I'm really loving all the additions since then. Keep up the good work!

4
Early Dev / Re: Armoured Commander: WW2 Tank Commander Roguelike
« on: November 14, 2015, 08:35:01 PM »
As a minor suggestion, how about tracking the stuff destroyed by the player and friendlies separately on this screen? Also tracking tanks/SPGs separately from lighter, less dangerous vehicles.


5
Looks like some good changes, but does this mean AT guns can no longer be abandoned by getting double stunned like vehicles?

6
Hah, I suggested switching ammo type reload command to R completely forgetting the Ready Rack already had that key. Whoops.

7
Seems like a good little change. Another one you may consider is having the Loader's "Change Gun Load" action default back to "Reload" when completed. That one has caught me up a few times.

[edit] Found one little mistake with your change to rotating the turret on the fire command, the Turret can be rotated using A/D or Left/Right, however the A button is also what is used to determine what the gun will be loaded with after it is fired! MAybe switch that commander to "R" for Reload?

Also, the Rotate Turret command is still in, but seems to do nothing. I tried to use it several times and the Gunner's action was simply skipped.

[edit] Are Counterattack type missions in yet? I honestly haven't encountered them yet, mostly because I have yet to survive to where they are frequent.

8
I swear I've stunned AT guns, actually. And good call on limiting AT gun mobility, being able to haul one around so fast did seem a bit silly.

Speaking of mobile AT guns, if you ever feel particularly malicious when it eventually comes time to add more enemy units, you should consider adding in the Sd.Kfz 251/22 "Pakwagen", which was a standard SPW 251 with a Pak 40 mounted in the troop area.



Essentially, its a poor man's SPG.

9
I should've considered that as a possibility, and starting a new save is no big deal.

I have a question, I noticed you added enemy crews getting stunned by hits (and even abandoning their vehicle/weapon if stunned again while still stunned) which is a pretty cool touch. What are the conditions for triggering it? It seems pretty rare so far (save the one time I caused a StuG crew to bail). Just going off memory from the rare times it happens, you have to roll an [X] exactly where [X] is the number you need to roll under to score a hit, though not all such rolls I scored seemed to cause stunning.

10
Oh yeah, thats all just "one day stuff", I'm quite happy with Shermans right now.

Had something strange happen to me. Combat encounter started with a Panther dead ahead, close range. Being stupid I decided I'd fire an AP shot at it and load my single HVAP from the ready rack for the follow up shot. Except for some reason, the HVAP round didn't get loaded! Coincidentally, I actually recorded a gif of it since I was trying to work on a bit of intro action for my LP.

After playing a bit more, it is really weird, but I may have discovered the reason! This was a save I loaded from 6.3, so my loader was still set to the "Load" action, I just noticed the command has been renamed to "Reload". Could that possibly be it? Could explain why earlier shots never achieved RoF...

Ok, played even more, that is very likely the problem. Took a shot at another target later, AP with AP set as the reload, got the "no shell loaded" message again. Gunner was defaulted to the "Load" action at the start of the encounter.

http://i.imgur.com/PKVupGG.png
http://i.imgur.com/0nBBzUZ.png

Also since switching to 6.4 (4 or so encounters) I have yet to achieve Rate of Fire. Could be horrible luck, could be an error.

11
Yeah, I wouldn't care much if you decided that tracking ammo for the machineguns isn't worth it. If I remember right, they had boatloads of ammo anyways and typically were only consumed in large amount during advancing fire and the morning ammo expenditure roll. The exception was the .50cal AA MG, which only came with 6 boxes of ammo (compared to the 30+ of the Co-Ax). But overall tacking MG ammo and replacement periscopes (both optional rules from Patton's) is probably too much detail for too little gain. Main cannon/MG Malfunctions might be worth including though.

Advancing Fire being planned is good, its a very useful tool. I also agree with your idea to simplify it down to just a chance-to-kill on all enemies rather than Patton's method of selecting up to 6 zones with markers. Not sure if you want to emulate Patton's rule of advancing fire weakening as more friendly tanks get knocked out over the course of the day, but if so, you could simply model it as a penalty to the chance-to-kill roll for every 3 or so friendly tanks destroyed.

As for skills, intial thoughts without having played much is that the activation percentages might be a bit too low. Mostly the 3%/5%/7% ones feel a bit low but like I said, I haven't played much with them yet, so I could be wrong. The one that stands out to me is scrounger. Scrounger has decent odds 10/25/40% but at the same time I think to myself that I almost never have to resupply during most missions, so the idea of putting points in that for how much you get out of it feels like a waste. Once advancing fire comes in, though, that could change as I'd be expending a lot more HE shells. As a suggestion, maybe scrounger could instead give a bonus to sourcing more HCBI or HVAP shells each morning? (or a similar skill that does the same).

 I admit I practically never use smoke rounds*, but the idea of potentially getting more HVAP rounds is pretty appealing if I'm in a 76L armed Sherman.

*  I almost never use WP/HCBI smoke rounds because my two options are wasting a turn changing the gunload (Which is bad because I'm usually in a tight spot if I want smoke!) or firing a damaging shell at a target to clear the chamber and hope RoF kicks in to load the smoke round. This means the enemy unit will probably shoot back because I attacked it and I might not get my smoke if the RoF fails! Easier just to use the smoke mortar if present and, if not, just have the commander throw a smoke grenade and sit tight and hope the enemy is low on ammo and that I don't look worth the AP shell.


In a different topic, you put the campaign calender to an external, editable file. That is cool, looking at the format I think I understand it and I'm tempted to create a version that covers an alternate combat calender from an old Avalon Hill Magazine that features a Canadian Tank unit. However I think I'll wait for now as you might change the format at some point and I'm lazy about manual data entry.  :P



To be honest, it looks like a "hard mode", I mean look at those activation percentages! It seems you'd see a lot more combat on average than the default US 4th Armored Division campaign. That said, they do get access to the Firefly with its 76LL gun, which is cool. I mean, who wouldn't want a tank that always starts a fight hull down and has a gun that basically fires HVAP as standard ammo, punching through anything short of a King Tiger or Panther's front hull armor with ease (and for those you get APDS rounds, which are super HVAP)? I mean, other than the Firefly having a special rule that replaces most of the "Enemy fires at lead tank" action results with "Enemy fires at you" because they're terrified of that 76LL gun and concentrate fire on Fireflies when IDed.

Of course, my big dream would be getting to drive the M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer, the ultiamte in "High Risk, High Reward" Panther/Tiger killers. But, I'm rambling at this point, so I'll just shut up.  :P


[edit] You don't get XP if you don't finish the day of combat? Ouch, teach me to throw a track an hour before sunset! I think it'd be fair for the surviving crew to still get XP, maybe apply a penalty though, like halving it.

12
Unsure, but that was probably it, as I actually do recall being given the option to select which MG to fire in the past. I'll keep an eye out for it though.

Though speaking of Machine Guns, when does the commander get his .50cal AA MG? My command needs that Ma Deuce so the gunner doesn't hog all the kills.  :P Also, do you plan to eventually include tracking .30cal/.50cal ammo (it was an optional rule in Patton's)? Though the feature I miss most from Patton's Best is advancing fire, it'd be useful for moving into those areas of "heavy" expected resistance.

I'll keep an eye out for more bugs, but for now, sleep!

13
Another possible bug. When trying to fire both the Co-Ax MG and the Bow MG at the same time,  when the results of the Co-Ax MG finished, the bow MG was seemingly skipped. This was attempting to fire on a close range target in the front arc, so the bow MG should've had a valid target.

14
In 6.2 I noticed a potential error with enemy shot math and another possible bug/display error.

http://i.imgur.com/x1qLlRS.png
http://i.imgur.com/3aJRt8I.png

In both these rolls, the dice don't seem to add up. First one is 2+1 = 5? And the second one is 4+3 = 4? I only noticed these after the fact so I dunno how many other shots were off (I have one screenshot, taken before the other two, but in the same battle as the Panzer IV screenshot I believe, where the math works fine). For the die roll math, can I suggest inserting a "+" between the two rolled numbers? Just to make things more clear to the user its a additive roll (maybe mention its 2d6 somewhere).

As for the other problem, that third screenshot mentions my Sherman being struck by a 75 AP round from a Pak 38, which it lists as a 50L gun (the Pak 38 being a 50mm gun historically). I'm unsure if this is a display error, and its firing 50AP or its a display error and its firing 75AP. One is a minor display error, while the other is a much more dangerous (for the player) error.

I also have some thoughts regarding crew skills, but I'll wait until I get some more games in before making any firm opinions there on if some need adjustment.

[edit] Just had a JdgPz IV report firing a 76 AP shell at me even though the tank is listed as carrying a 75L. Thankfully that shot, whatever it was, glanced off the turret!

15
Ended up not playing this weekend, but I did just play a quick game and I noticed one probable bug, plus one thing that stood out to me.

First, some crew still seem to be surviving when it seems like they shouldn't be. In this case, two crewmembers who were incapacitated managed to bail out of the tank.


Secondly, at one point I ran into a Panzer V. The first turn I tried to get hull down while rotating the turret and loading 75AP, and it just shifted position. Next turn I moused over it and saw it was moving in the open and on a side facing. Figuring this was a decent chance to take it out, I opened fire, only getting off one shot, which hit the turret, but failed to penetrate. It then took its second turn, firing at the lead tank. When I moused over it again at the start of my (third) turn, it was now hull-down on a forward facing.

Is enemy tanks being able to change facings and hull down status while making attacks intentional? I honestly can't remember how it works in Patton's Best. Even if they are allowed to turn to face you, I don't think they should get to be able to achieve hull down as bonus. Much like your own tank (without a gyrostabilizer) I kind of feel like the enemy tanks should be allowed to shoot OR move, but not both. Rotating the turret and firing I'd be fine with (assuming they took a similar penalty) but being able to theoretically instantly snap from a rear facing to facing forward, hull down AND shooting at you is a bit much. In addition I guess this would mean SPGs could only fire at you if they were already on a front facing. (I'm rather fine with that though, as things are already dangerous/lethal enough, the player's poor Sherman needs every advantage it can get)

I guess its a simplicity vs detail issue though. If you start tracking enemy turret facings and requiring stuff like Move Or Shoot you have to decide how many clauses to include in the enemy's otherwise random actions (Similar to how they are more likely to target you if you fire at them if they're facing you, or reposition if they're not facing you). I unfortunately don't know how complex such things would be, but I'm sure they're not extremely simple. Still, the situation stood out to me, so I thought I'd mention it.

[edit] Actually thinking back, I think I may have run into another bug in that at one point I may have retained my own hull down status after pivoting the tank.

Pages: [1] 2