Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Graphics

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Gwalcmai said:
I can't find anything about that model... :( Can anyone provide information and possibly some clickies? OTOH, if the damn thing is this obscure, maybe the plane was not produced extensively...
Click to expand...

What has probably troubled you most was the fact that there is a typo on my original post - it isn't the 'Thomas-More' (that would be odd), but the 'Thomas-Morse' :wacko:

I've found another page on it though:

http://www.highgallery.com/military-aircraft-mb-3a.html
 
That'd explain it, yes...

But still, only 261 produced... (And it looks a bit like the SPAD, anyway)

But I seem to remember a sprites thread. Shall we migrate again? :)
 
Gwalcmai said:
But I seem to remember a sprites thread. Shall we migrate again? :)
Click to expand...

That's a very good idea....I shall unearth it and right something relevant so that you remember to post in it. :)
 
Gwalcmai, our graphics expert, could you transform the auxiliary.bmp graphics into something that symbolizes, artillery, siege artillery, gas artillery and engineer attachments?

/Johan
 
Johan Elisson said:
Gwalcmai, our graphics expert, could you transform the auxiliary.bmp graphics into something that symbolizes, artillery, siege artillery, gas artillery and engineer attachments?

/Johan
Click to expand...

Artillery and engineer attachments will surely stay the same as in the normal HOI?

I'm not even sure about keeping gas artillery as an available attachment, considering how ineffective gas was during the war, and that gas was not deployed to particular divisions on a permanent basis, but supplied to those units who required it. Additionally, gas weaponry has to be researched by the player, yet every country would get the opportunity to build a 'gas artillery' brigade from the outset of the game.....even Sanusia.
 
Allenby said:
Artillery and engineer attachments will surely stay the same as in the normal HOI?
Click to expand...

To symbolize all three different artillery attachments, it might be necessary to change all symbols.

Allenby said:
I'm not even sure about keeping gas artillery as an available attachment, considering how ineffective gas was during the war, and that gas was not deployed to particular divisions on a permanent basis, but supplied to those units who required it. Additionally, gas weaponry has to be researched by the player, yet every country would get the opportunity to build a 'gas artillery' brigade from the outset of the game.....even Sanusia.
Click to expand...

Although it would be even more strange to have gas tech advances affect all units, no matter if they "deserve" it or not. All infantry divisions would then gain points from gas techs. Or do you mean that we should remove the gas tech tree completely?

/Johan
 
Johan Elisson said:
To symbolize all three different artillery attachments, it might be necessary to change all symbols.
Click to expand...

I think the artillery attachment - the 'o' - is in keeping with standard NATO symbology. :)


Johan Elisson said:
Although it would be even more strange to have gas tech advances affect all units, no matter if they "deserve" it or not. All infantry divisions would then gain points from gas techs. Or do you mean that we should remove the gas tech tree completely?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be strange to have gas tech advances effect all infantry divisions, seeing as gas was used broadly, not by particular divisions. I am not of the opinion that the gas tech tree should be removed, but that its ability to strengthen the attributes of infantry divisions should be watered down. I should think that gas artillery attachments should be removed and replaced by something else, as the idea of having particular divisions 'specialising' in gas shells seems most odd to me.
 
Allenby said:
I think the artillery attachment - the 'o' - is in keeping with standard NATO symbology. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, but I don't think that there is a symbol for gas or siege artillery in NATO, and it might be good to use something else instead, to not "mix" styles.

Allenby said:
I don't think it would be strange to have gas tech advances effect all infantry divisions, seeing as gas was used broadly, not by particular divisions. I am not of the opinion that the gas tech tree should be removed, but that its ability to strengthen the attributes of infantry divisions should be watered down. I should think that gas artillery attachments should be removed and replaced by something else, as the idea of having particular divisions 'specialising' in gas shells seems most odd to me.
Click to expand...

Well, the divisions aren't specializing in gas, they just have a gas artillery attachment, just as the artillery attachments are stuck to just one division in-game, when they weren't in real life.

/Johan
 
Johan Elisson said:
Well, the divisions aren't specializing in gas, they just have a gas artillery attachment, just as the artillery attachments are stuck to just one division in-game, when they weren't in real life.
Click to expand...

If a division has a gas artillery attachment then it is specialising in that particular area by virtue of it having that attachment, and not being able to get rid of it. There is no problem with the concept of attachments in themselves, but the idea of a gas artillery attachment is, in my opinion, unsuitable. Attachments are meant to give an infantry division a significant boost in their attributes - things which the presence of artillery, anti-tank, anti-air and engineer attachments historically did, yet the use of gas did not - of all the deaths sustained by the British Army on the Western Front, 1.2% was caused by gas. While gas initially had a strong shock factor, it does not deserve to be honoured in the form of an attachment. Looking at the current attributes that gas artillery 'gives' in the mod, it would seem that it increases the cost of a division by 8 ICs, increase the manpower needed to produce the unit by three and increase a division's supply consumption, while (accurately) not contributing anything significant to its attack capabilities - I can't see too many players wanting to be burdened with this. Therefore, I think the gas artillery attachment should be replaced by something more worthwhile.
 
I agree.

What about making a stormtrooper attachment? This would solve the problem of nation specific techs and allow everyone on the appropriate tech level to build these silly buggers to make it fair.

Increased IC, manpower, higher attack value, lower defence?

This discussion should really be in the units thread........
 
There is indeed a NATO symbol for chemical weapons (or to be specific, nuclear, bacterial and chamical weapons). According to the US Army Field Manual FM 101-5-1/MCRP 5-2A it's this:
nbc.jpg


As for whether to include gas artillery, unless anybody has a really good idea of what to replace it with I'd suggest leaving it as is, but making its abilities almost identical to conventional artillery, except that gas should have a higher soft attack and normal artillery a higher hard attack/anti-fortress ability.

Although very few people were killed by gas, it wasn't actually designed to kill people... if a large proportion of your opponents are blinded and choking, another section are forced to help them to the aid stations, and the rest of the troops are muffled up in hot, heavy respirators, they're not going to be resisting your attack very energetically... One key to the successful German and British offensives of 1918 was extensive use of gas shells as part of the hurricane bombardment just before the attack, to disorientate and unbalance the defenders...
 
My idea to replace gas artillery would be a 'heavy-weapons section' to represent machine guns, trench mortars and trench artillery, giving a division a greater soft attack rating, maybe even a better hard attack rating, whilst slightly slowing the unit down.

The idea of stormtroopers, I would think should be left to the tech tree - if we were to have them as an attachment, they could ahistorically be deployed in 1914, whereas the use of a 'heavy-weapons section' would not be so perculiar. :)
 
Perhaps at the beginning(without any gas techs), gas brigades are exactly like artillery brigades, in that they are using conventional shells. When gas techs are researched the gas attributes would then be adjusted.

OR

Gas brigades are removed entirely, and the gas tree gives bonuses to the conventional artillery brigade instead. At this point, the brigade would be a representation of both normal and gas batteries.
 
I say ditch them in favor of the heavy-weapons brigade (I thought we already agreed on this about a month ago...?). Instead let the gas tech's effect defense efficiency, and have gas masks return some to most of that efficiency back.

Then those who have gas tech's can gain an offensive advantage over those who do not even bother to research gas masks. (We could also give a slight soft attack bonus to artillery with the more deadly gases.) And for those who have gas mask tech's not every one could get one on in time, etc. So a small decrease in defense efficiency is okay by me.
 
A question: The heavy-weapons detachment sure sounds like a good idea, but what would make it more attractive than the normal artillery? As it seems to do the same thing, higher SA, slightly higher HA, and a little lower speed?

/Johan
 
Well I would see the HWB being placed between standard infantry and an artillery brigade. Where artillery would get the highest SA/HA bonuses, while HWB would get more SA/HA than standard infantry, but cost less IC than artillery (and more MP than standard infantry).
 
Shadow Knight said:
Well I would see the HWB being placed between standard infantry and an artillery brigade. Where artillery would get the highest SA/HA bonuses, while HWB would get more SA/HA than standard infantry, but cost less IC than artillery (and more MP than standard infantry).
Click to expand...

That's the idea - to give infantry greater hitting power, although not at the same strength of artillery attachments, and at a cheaper price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back