Skip to main content

Engagement distances.

Today I did some work on the mini-map. It's working great.

Later I'll be using some textures to make it look better, but for now it's just in the testing phase.

You can already see that it shows the location of friendly units and their viewing range.
Line of sight is currently dealt with as a radius only. I've thought of using obstacles to block sight but I think it's one of the things that was really unpopular with the original blitzkrieg. When an enemy was shooting at you but you couldn't see it to shoot back or even guess where it was. Very realistic, but also highly annoying.

I think there's going to have to be a compromise. If something is far beyond your line of sight, you can't see it (though it might see you). If something is blocked by a building, you might see it, but can't shoot it. You need to get a direct line of sight.

I'm also thinking of making out of range or blocked units invisible but represented by a question mark. You can still target them but your shots will be very inaccurate and you won't know what it is you're trying to hit.

I read some interesting info about WWII battles on a forum:
In late 1941 effective range was thought to be around 750m for the 2 pounder and somewhat over 1000m for the short 50mm. However, shooting often started at ranges far in excess of that. On Totensonntag 1941, South African 5th Brigade opened up with 2 pounders, 25 pounders and small arms at 3000 yards and there is a question about them running out of ammunition before they were overrun.
From memory, I think Crisp (in Brazen Chariots) gives accounts of his Honey opening up at 1500 yards but he also indicates that they had little chance of hitting / doing any damage at that range, or much closer ranges for that matter. He also, from memory, attests to German 50mm guns effectively out ranging the 2 pounder by some distance.
Most combat is about making the enemy withdraw, not killing them outright. 
...most firefights take place at ranges just outside the effective ranges of the weapons involved. It is only the very brave who place themselves within effective range.
If you get very close to the enemy then you can kill their soldiers and destroy their tanks. But just by staying at range you can often make them withdraw or make them dig in. In the real life blitzkrieg attacks were often used to pin an enemy in place while other forces moved to cut them off or bypass them. Enemies cut off and encircled in this way quickly ran out of ammo and supplies and had to surrender.

 Some other interesting statistics:
In WW1 for every combat casualty there were around 10,000 rounds fired.

By WW2  this figure rose to about 25,000 rounds.

In Vietnam it was about 50,000 rounds.
In Iraq and Afghanistan today that figure is in excess of 250,000 rounds for every enemy solder killed. This is partly because of the type of weapons used:
A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.

I'd like to make this a part of the game. At long range weapons will be pretty ineffective, and being in buildings or trenches will add further protection. But you will be able to suppress the enemy, reducing their rate of fire and pinning them in place or making them flee. Rifles will be better than submachine guns when doing this at long range.

If you really need to get in close and clear an enemy position you'll have to enter the killing zone, where your own troops will be vulnerable to enemy fire too.

The ability to decide when to suppress the enemy and when to engage will be quite important. On the one hand you want your experienced troops to survive, but on the other hand there will be times when you actually have to attack.

When that happens you'll want to have dedicated assault teams armed with grenades and sub machine guns and supported by well armored assault tanks.

If you'd like to help me out I've posted a poll about the best location for a UI in my game.


Popular posts from this blog

Make your game models POP with fake rim lighting.

I was watching one of my son's cartoons today and I noticed they models were using serious amounts of simulated rim lighting. Even though it wasn't a dark scene where you'd usually see such an effect, the result was actually quite effective.

The white edge highlighting and ambient occluded creases give a kind of high contrast that is similar to, but different from traditional comic book ink work.

I'll be honest, I don't know if there's a specific term for this effect in 3d design, since my major at university was in traditional art. I learned it as part of photography.

You can find plenty of tutorials on "what is rim lighting" for photography. It basically means putting your main sources of light behind your subject so that they are lit around the edges. It can produce very arresting photographs, either with an obvious effect when used on a dark subject...

..,or as part of a fully lit scene to add some subtle highlights. See how alive the subject look…

How to... build a strong art concept.

So you want to make some art assets for your game. The first on the list is a Steampunk Revolver for your main character to shoot up Cthulhu with. Quickly opening your internet browser you start with a Google image search. Ah, there is is!

It might be a good idea to find a few influences so you don't accidentally end up copying a famous design.

Just mash them up and you're ready to go! Off to your favorite modeling program.
But wait! isn't there more to building a strong design concept than that?

Of course there is.
One of the diseases of modern design is that of recursion. Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy. This is especially a problem with "historical" concepts. Over the course of that recursive process the concept becomes infected with modern design elements, and ends up looking very similar to everything else that anyone else has ever made.
If you want to come up with a really fresh idea, you have to get beyond secondary references and go look at real …


Ok, so it's not exactly skynet, but I have got my first AI state working, kind of.

The first state is "HOLD" in which case the agent stays in place where they are and shoots at any unit that comes in range. When I started writing this module, I found that the existing method of triggering actions wasn't good enough to allow the AI to choose the best weapon or target. It worked by simply sending a command to the unit to trigger the currently selected action.

If the action is valid, it triggered, if not it didn't.
That's fine for play controlled units, as that's all they need to do. But AI needs to know in advance if the action is valid. The player can get that info from UI feedback, but that wasn't available to the AI player.

There were three problems:

1. The UI feedback duplicated code in the action trigger function. These  two sets of code could get out of phase so that UI feedback was wrong.

2. The action trigger didn't give enough feedback for …