Jump to content
Rydygier

[SP] HETMAN: War Stories

Recommended Posts

If possible add option or script to removing motorized (car or truck+ infantry) group from battles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello Rydygier is it possible to make version for coop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. 

 

No such plans currently, I'm generally not interested in MP and simply do not like MP scripting. If someone would like to try himself... It may be possible with substantial amount of work hours, woulnd't be trivial though, especially around stuff like spectator mode or initial GUI. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rydygier, You would once have had the option to set the manual start points of both sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was added a button to the GUI to choose manually on the map battlefield area, but not where exactly armies will be initially positioned around it, IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to get this mod working but I don't seem to be getting the same behavior as other people. When I tested the Steam demo mission, the team leader just gives an order to move left or right 100 or 200 meters, pauses for 30 seconds, and then orders the squad in the opposite direction and then pauses 30 seconds again and repeats zig-zagging to the first objective.  Once  reaching the first objective, the squad leader just moves back and forth 5 meters at a time in random directions, and never proceeds to the next objective.

 

Could this mod have been affected by the recent CBA update or something?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a short patrol in a holding pattern, often at mission start but sometimes can carry on through the mission. 

You can always team switch to a more active role if you want. (U on the keyboard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was long time till last update, not quite planned to return to HWS  now, but it sorta happened. For now it's just a "wip" in open form - I'll appreciate any feedback, bug reports etc. 

 

HWS 1.10 wip1

 

Changes:

 

1. New "Armor Density" setting: NONE. If chosen, both forces should be composed statistically around 80% of infantry and 20% of motorized (+supports). No mechanized/tanks. May be useful, if player wants more prolonged battles, especially on maps with lots of flat/open areas. 

 

2. New "Faction" setting: MULTI. If chosen, additional list should show up with all factions of selected side. It allows to choose multiple factions per side (forces should be randomly picked from the pool of groups from all selected factions). Could be especially useful with mods, that make every type of forces a separate faction. If at least one side has no faction selected, pressing start mission button will be efectless. 

 

3. New code for spectator mode. I guess, not many even uses this mode, but I couldn't resist to try this anyway. I called it "natural cam" (or shaky cam) because the aim was to make camera shot looking less artifical, and more like the camera operator was a human being (camera stabilized, but controlled "by hand"). So the script tries to mimic imperfections of human reflexes and accuracy - if current target swiftly changes speed/direction, camera adaptation may be delayed or inaccurate, requiring corrections. Usually works nicely with vehicles, sometimes gets choppy for infantry though, not sure, why, it is per frame loop, same code works well with vehicles, so this may be not fixable. Sometimes it produces really immersive camera work and in general I like it much more, than previous camera code. Here's a sample (that BTW demasks occasional dullness of driving AI) :

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off let me say that HWS is awesome. I've experienced some of the best A3 SP virtual combat ever while playing these missions. I primarily play on European maps such as Weferlingen, Livonia and a few others while using Cold War assets such as Global Mobilization and the Cold Conflict mod. GM is great but I've experienced something that is a bit off-putting when using those assets. The Shilka and Gepard AA vehicles tend to get fielded and used like tanks. Even though I'm also using the LEN Cold War aircraft mod, I would like to know if it's possible to exclude those AA vehicles from being used through the advanced options dialog box? I've looked through the HAL manual and while I see some things that refer to AA vehicles and anti-air infantry, I can't seem to figure out if there is a way to exclude them from making an appearance. I would also like to know if there's something that could be added there to prolong the combat just a bit more? HWS is great but battles that sometimes end in the middle of a fierce firefight are a bit of a letdown. Being able to set my own victory or defeat conditions would be great even if it's not particularly realistic. Any help with any of that would be greatly appreciated.

 

My ideal dynamic campaign scenario would be a combination of HWS and DUWS. I would like to see a system with the AI leadership capabilities and multi-faction support of HWS with the multi-terrain and whole map dynamic campaign features of DUWS. While such a combination might make the multi-terrain feature hard or even impossible to implement, the community would probably create ported versions in a fairly short time period. That's not really a request but more along the lines of personal musings and suggestions should anyone be considering something along those lines. I've been playing dynamic campaigns sine A1 and I've often wished that BIS would build such a system into the base games. That way, anytime a new forces mod is released, it could simply be dropped into the dynamic campaign/mission generator and could be used immediately without the need to create your own mission/campaign or wait for someone else to do it.

 

***EDITED***

 

I took another look through this thread and read through some Steam comments and I seem to have found the answers to most of my questions. Apparently specific vehicles can't be excluded due to the way that assets are loaded (unless there's some way around that that I'm not aware of) but I'm wondering if a whole class of vehicles (such as all AA vehicles) regardless of faction can be excluded? I also read that altering the morale values can make the battles last longer. I tried inputting the following into the advanced dialog box and the battle seemed to last a fair bit longer than usual:

 

RydHQ_MoraleConst = 4;
RydHQB_MoraleConst = 4;
 

My understanding is that the higher the values are, either the higher morale remains no matter the attrition rate or the less importance the AI leader places on morale. I'm not sure which is correct (or if either is) but if the outcome is about the same, it doesn't really matter. Or does it matter when playing with campaign mode on? I'm aware that there is a hard limit of 75% losses before a side capitulates but I'm curious as to just how high those values can go before they break something or get dismissed? Any further input strings to prolong battles would be welcome as well. Also, is there a way to copy and paste text into the dialog box? Inputting that text (plus any other variables I might try) by hand is a bit time consuming. Thanks.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had missions that have continued until the last man has died. The message is that the enemy withdrew. It may be that there are units spawned else on the map. I have found that sometimes units do spawn some distance away and make their way to the AO, but sometimes some stay away.

 

 The new experimental version seems to work well. The only comment is that the factions are all intermingled. It would be better if they worked as self contained factions perhaps with one attacking from the flank .

 

 It was wonderful to mix CSAT with Spetsnaz and have Persian, Chinese and Russian voices on the radio even though a Russian got Friendly Fired by a CSAT soldier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The only comment is that the factions are all intermingled. It would be better if they worked as self contained factions perhaps with one attacking from the flank .

 

Well, that depends. In some mods one faction contains all/only the tanks, other all the infantry - sometimes intermingled would be desired state. So player would need to have a switch to turn factions separation on/off. Since such thing (faction separation) isn't present in the current code at all, this requires some consideration, maybe someday... Thanks for the feedback. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I see some things that refer to AA vehicles and anti-air infantry, I can't seem to figure out if there is a way to exclude them from making an appearance. 

 

Not sure right now, probably would need custom RHQ categorization - the units, that shouldn't be moved may be marked as "static" for instance. Applying such RHQ definitions should be possible via Advanced setup window, but again - not sure right now. 

 

Quote

I would also like to know if there's something that could be added there to prolong the combat just a bit more? HWS is great but battles that sometimes end in the middle of a fierce firefight are a bit of a letdown. 

 

Lately added way (wip version linked above): no armor setting. 

 

Quote

Being able to set my own victory or defeat conditions would be great even if it's not particularly realistic. 

 

How exactly you imagine such customizable conditions?

 

Quote

whole map dynamic campaign features

 

Not impossible, HAL has Big Boss after all, but current code is not designed in that direction. This may be some challenge. 

 

Quote

multi-terrain feature hard or even impossible to implement, the community would probably create ported versions in a fairly short time period

 

Not sure, what actually means "multi-terrain", never really played DUWS, but anyway porting HWS is described at the beginning - very simple. 

 

Quote

 and I've often wished that BIS would build such a system into the base games.

 

Exactly. If you think about it, it's really weird, they didn't. Such stuff fits perfectly Arma. There was something in A2 though IIRC.

 

Quote

how high those values can go before they break something or get dismissed? 

 

Mentioned variables are multipliers of Hetman's sensitivity to the factors changing morale in plus and in minus. This way:

 

_morale = _morale + ((_balanceF - _lossWeight)/(_HQ getVariable ["RydHQ_MoraleConst",1]));

_morale = _morale - ((random (_diff * 10))/(_HQ getVariable ["RydHQ_MoraleConst",1]))

 

_balanceF - own forces/known enemy forces strength ratio factor 

_lossWeight - own losses factor, where older weight lesser (mostly for simulating an impact of recent, big losses shock)

_diff - IIRC, total attrition factor

 

As you can see, RydHQ_MoraleConst is a divisor of morale change value. The higher - the less morale will change. Can be as big number, as Arma's engine can properly compute in theory. 

 

 

Quote

Also, is there a way to copy and paste text into the dialog box? 

 

Ctrl+c/ctrl+v should work in Advanced setup window...

 

Thanks for that valuable input. Not sure, if I'll spend more time with HWS in the near future, but who knows...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rydygier said:

 

Not sure right now, probably would need custom RHQ categorization - the units, that shouldn't be moved may be marked as "static" for instance. Applying such RHQ definitions should be possible via Advanced setup window, but again - not sure right now. 

 

 

Lately added way (wip version linked above): no armor setting. 

 

Glad to hear. Now if some of those HWS ports on Steam would just get updated!

 

44 minutes ago, Rydygier said:

 

How exactly you imagine such customizable conditions?

 

To be honest, I hadn't given it much thought beyond tweaking whatever values already exist, such as the morale changes already mentioned. I don't want to have to hunt down the last enemy on the map to end the mission but perhaps something along the lines of an option to continue chasing a retreating enemy to further deplete their forces or continuing to hold out after the commander has decided to surrender or withdraw from the battlefield would be welcome. I certainly understand if such a thing is beyond the scope of HWS though. 

 

44 minutes ago, Rydygier said:

 

Not impossible, HAL has Big Boss after all, but current code is not designed in that direction. This may be some challenge. 

 

 

Not sure, what actually means "multi-terrain", never really played DUWS, but anyway porting HWS is described at the beginning - very simple. 


DUWS allows the mission to be changed to another map simply by changing the name of the mission pbo file to include the name of the terrain that the user wishes to use. I don't recall the exact wording that had to be used when changing the file name but it was something as simple as changing the mission file name from "DUWS.Altis.pbo" to "DUWS.Namalsk.pbo" and the mission would launch using whatever new map had been chosen through the name change. It might sound a bit confusing and I have now idea how it works but it was really simple and actually very elegant. I can see that something like that might not work with HWS but as I said, the community would probably quickly fill that need by releasing ports to other maps so that isn't that big of a deal. Really, I'm just thinking how awesome it would be to have a fully dynamic whole map campaign with the ability to choose our own factions. DUWS came close but there was no multi-faction support without making a new port and adding everything manually and the AI command was a bit lacking.

 

44 minutes ago, Rydygier said:

 

Exactly. If you think about it, it's really weird, they didn't. Such stuff fits perfectly Arma. There was something in A2 though IIRC.

 

I do remember something dynamic with A2 but I think it was more of a dynamic battle/skirmish generator rather than a campaign. I don't believe that a complex and easily configurable dynamic campaign would alleviate the need (or desire) for scripted missions and campaigns but it would add a lot in the way of replayability and there's no reason why such a system couldn't be configured by BIS to work in SP or MP. Also the simulation aspect of being able to role play small to large scale military operations with very little necessary in the way of setup would be very welcome.

 

44 minutes ago, Rydygier said:

 

Mentioned variables are multipliers of Hetman's sensitivity to the factors changing morale in plus and in minus. This way:

 

_morale = _morale + ((_balanceF - _lossWeight)/(_HQ getVariable ["RydHQ_MoraleConst",1]));

_morale = _morale - ((random (_diff * 10))/(_HQ getVariable ["RydHQ_MoraleConst",1]))

 

_balanceF - own forces/known enemy forces strength ratio factor 

_lossWeight - own losses factor, where older weight lesser (mostly for simulating an impact of recent, big losses shock)

_diff - IIRC, total attrition factor

 

As you can see, RydHQ_MoraleConst is a divisor of morale change value. The higher - the less morale will change. Can be as big number, as Arma's engine can properly compute in theory. 

 

Thanks for the info. From the suggested values I've seen here and elsewhere, I'm guessing that somewhere between 4 and 10 would be most appropriate. I tried it with 7.5 and it seemed to work fairly well with the enemy eventually surrendering after about an hour or so of gameplay. Would a value around 25 be too high or make much in the way of a difference? Like I said earlier, I don't want to have to hunt the entire map for a single soldier or even a squad but if there's a large group out there and the commander has an idea of where they are, I wouldn't mind pushing on until most of them are eliminated.

 

44 minutes ago, Rydygier said:

 

 

Ctrl+c/ctrl+v should work in Advanced setup window...

 

Thanks for that info as well. I'll give it a try next time I play.

 

44 minutes ago, Rydygier said:

Thanks for that valuable input. Not sure, if I'll spend more time with HWS in the near future, but who knows...

 

 

 

You're welcome and thanks very much for what you've provided for the community. I intend to enjoy HWS for quite a bit more time to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would a value around 25 be too high or make much in the way of a difference?

 

Hard to say, it will basiacally make sides morale 25 times less sensitive to losses and such. IMO anything > 10 will practially make morale factor negligible. But, as you noted, there are also other than morale reasons, that may end the battle. If you make sides invulnerable morale-wise you'll start to see endings due to killing Leader unit or losses reaching 75% or too few forces left to take an objective (10 units by default) or even probably most rare - all units of one side farther, than 5 km from the battle center, but, I would guess, without "morale broken" ending possibility there will be also higher risk of never ending stalemates, like both sides bled out, but below 75% and stuck in defensive mode forever etc. BTW technically player can break the stalemate by finding and killing enemy Leader unit, which in time should break this side morale no matter, how high RydHQ_MoraleConst is. 

 

Anyway, due to 75% losses treshold, there is rather no risk of "searching for the last enemy hidden somewhere" situations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rydygier said:

 

Hard to say, it will basiacally make sides morale 25 times less sensitive to losses and such. IMO anything > 10 will practially make morale factor negligible. But, as you noted, there are also other than morale reasons, that may end the battle. If you make sides invulnerable morale-wise you'll start to see endings due to killing Leader unit or losses reaching 75% or too few forces left to take an objective (10 units by default) or even probably most rare - all units of one side farther, than 5 km from the battle center, but, I would guess, without "morale broken" ending possibility there will be also higher risk of never ending stalemates, like both sides bled out, but below 75% and stuck in defensive mode forever etc. BTW technically player can break the stalemate by finding and killing enemy Leader unit, which in time should break this side morale no matter, how high RydHQ_MoraleConst is. 

 

Anyway, due to 75% losses treshold, there is rather no risk of "searching for the last enemy hidden somewhere" situations. 

 

Thanks for the reply. That's exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for. I actually kind of like the idea of breaking the morale system and seeing how a mission plays out. If it doesn't work out well, it's as simple as lowering the values and trying again until I find what "feels right". Searching for the enemy leader to break a stalemate actually kind of appeals to me as well. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving the new features! Allowing us to pick a battle location is very nice, paired with the territory control it makes War Stories a very fun "campaign" generator. The multi-faction feature is great too, it adds a ton of variety to the missions. My only request for that is to add some way of scrolling through the list when choosing the factions- I have a large number of faction mods and they actually go past the end of the list, making it impossible to select any factions below a certain point for the multi-faction feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! Glad to hear you like it. 

 

Quote

add some way of scrolling through the list

 

Some types of GUI elements provide scrollbars. Unfortunatelly - this is not one of them. AFAIK I can't even dynamically change its size or font size/number of the rows. If I do not find any other element type, that could work instead of this one, but with the scrollbar, the only thing, I can is enlarging hardcoded element size and number of rows (with reduced font/row size), but there will be still a hardcoded limit of factions, that will fit within GUI boundries (seems 50 is reasonable meximum per single column). My advice would be disabling mods, that provide factions, you don't plan to choose.   

 

BTW currently I'm implementing "whole map" mode using Big Boss, it's tedious - many code adaptations required, also not sure, how it will turn out in terms of gameplay fun factor. Most of the time it will be like empty locations capturing one by one and much less actual fighting, while gameplay will take much longer. Also I must significantly increase amount of forces per side to cover such big area, which means extra CPU load. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Thanks! Glad to hear you like it. 

 

BTW currently I'm implementing "whole map" mode using Big Boss, it's tedious - many code adaptations required, also not sure, how it will turn out in terms of gameplay fun factor. Most of the time it will be like empty locations capturing one by one and much less actual fighting, while gameplay will take much longer. Also I must significantly increase amount of forces per side to cover such big area, which means extra CPU load. 

 

I really like the sound of that and I hope it works out because I love the idea of being able to play a single HWS mission that plays out more like a whole map CTI campaign rather than a series of individual battles. I'm guessing that the end results will be pretty much the same as playing the current release in campaign mode but I really like the idea of consistency and persistence that a whole map campaign can offer. I want to be able to continue pursuing a beaten enemy before he can rest and refit for the next battle. I also like the idea of being on the opposite side of that and trying to break contact with an overwhelming enemy force so that I can take care of those same things and get back into the fray. Hopefully you will also consider an option to choose a role rather than working our way through the current method of changing  roles until we find a unit we want to play as. Generally I just want to play as infantry (squad leader or not depending on how I feel at the moment) somewhere near the front line so that I see as much action as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm guessing that the end results will be pretty much the same as playing the current release in campaign mode

 

It's rather pure Big Boss way, without any additions. Which means series of locations to take in order to win. After all - HAL in HWS includes Big Boss already, just unused in normal modes, so it was natural choice to wake him up. 

 

Main problems are "space to forces count" ratio, which from one end affects gameplay, from the opposite - CPU performance. Small amount of units will make the gameplay rather dull most of the time - travelling long distancies from location to location through mostly empty landscape, probably less exciting, than you hope - while big amount of units will choke the CPU. Workarounding that via gradually spawned reinforcements would require brand new scripting and will not solve everything, just mitigate the issue a bit. For example - one way or another, taken locations may require garrisons. Also, since it is not player-centric battle, one way or another vast area need to be populated with AIs densely enough. 

 

Another way would be to reduce the area of the campaign, but that's against the whole map idea. Only amount of locations picked as strategic will be limited. 

 

Anyway, for now I just want to make it functional anyhow. Improving is more long term goal. Maybe in time I'll incorporate some HAL-friendly variant of caching, similar to Zorrobyte's concept, who knows. 

 

Quote

Hopefully you will also consider an option to choose a role

 

Good news, it is implemented already, from the beginning IIRC. All units of your side are set as switchable/playable. Use default Arma way to teamswitch between playable units (U key in my case).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played Hetman with Big Boss so I'm interested to see how that works out. I hope you're able to get everything working in a fun and exciting as well as reasonably performing way. Perhaps ZBE Caching will be the way to go. I used to use it on occasion for missions with lots of units and assets in them such as DUWS but I haven't used it in a long time. IIRC I experienced some units un-caching within visible range and that's one of the reasons why I stopped using it. I now have a better computer than I did back then so that's another reason I stopped using it. Hopefully most of the issues I recall have been fixed by now.

 

As for choosing roles, I know that we can do so using the "Team" menu while on the map screen but if possible and not too difficult to add, it would be nice to choose a unit directly on the map and then switch to whatever position is desired within that squad. It's not really a big deal though as switching is possible. Usually when I do a random switch, I have the map screen open anyway so that I can see where on the map the unit I've switched to is. If I don't like the location I keep switching until I find something I like. I was just thinking that it might be a a little simpler for those that want to play as a specific type of combatant such as an infantryman, a tanker or helicopter pilot and to be easily able to switch to a unit near the front lines but it's not a big deal and I would much prefer that you concentrate your modding energies on making the new Big Boss HWS version smoothly playable rather than worry about non-essential features such as menu or map driven unit switching. Just consider it a fanciful suggestion that would be nice to have at some point if it's not too difficult or time consuming to implement. BTW, thanks for all that you've done for the community. I've really been enjoying HWS for the last few months when I got the desire to start playing using Cold War units. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rydygier said:

Some types of GUI elements provide scrollbars. Unfortunatelly - this is not one of them.

 

Alright, makes sense. Thanks for checking!

 

6 hours ago, Rydygier said:

BTW currently I'm implementing "whole map" mode using Big Boss

 

And that sounds like it'd be really cool. Having a dynamic AI-run CTI campaign where the player is a cog in the machine is something I've wanted for a while, and with HAL's implementation in HWS, this would be ideal for it except for the issues you stated.

 

And I second Scimitar's thanks- your dynamic missions are consistently my favorite ones to play, and HWS is probably my favorite Arma mission ever, thanks to its variety and customization ability. Your missions do a lot to put the player in a living battlefield, which is Arma at its finest in my opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HWS wip2

 

Changes:

 

1. Added setting for factions separation (requested);

2. Increased capacity of multi faction choice window (to 50);

3. Added "WHOLE MAP" mode to the "Campaign" setting - such gameplay will be separated from normal campaign progress and will not affect it. Utilizes HAL's Big Boss mode (adapted slightly and set to be as dynamic, as possible). There will be randomized dozen or so locations amongst all viable on the island, that become strategic. Two sides, two leaders per side, each under Big Boss control, will try to take all of them. It's wip. Seriously. Expect any kind of weird occurences on this stage and please, let me know about them. Also let me know, how you like it in general, pros and cons, what needs to be changed, added, improved etc. Note: "scale" setting affects also this mode, for me anything above "small" seems too much for my CPU, please, let me know, how it looks performance-wise for you. 

 

PS also would be good to check, if/how latest code changes could break normal battles...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rydygier said:

HWS wip2

 

Changes:

 

3. Added "WHOLE MAP" mode to the "Campaign" setting - such gameplay will be separated from normal campaign progress and will not affect it. Utilizes HAL's Big Boss mode (adapted slightly and set to be as dynamic, as possible). There will be randomized dozen or so locations amongst all viable on the island, that become strategic. Two sides, two leaders per side, each under Big Boss control, will try to take all of them. It's wip. Seriously. Expect any kind of weird occurences on this stage and please, let me know about them. Also let me know, how you like it in general, pros and cons, what needs to be changed, added, improved etc. Note: "scale" setting affects also this mode, for me anything above "small" seems too much for my CPU, please, let me know, how it looks performance-wise for you. 

 

PS also would be good to check, if/how latest code changes could break normal battles...

 

Gave the whole map mode a trial run using Altis in the editor and without mods. Battle size was set to medium and starting FPS was 25 FPS and which later increased to 35+ FPS.

 

Opfor started in Molos. Blufor started in Neri, so about 30km apart. Playing as an OPFOR squad, we were picked up by helicopter and dropped outside Paros with Paros as our objective. Moved into Paros unopposed, and other units joined us by road to establish control. It was over 90 minutes before the first contact in Paros when a Hunter drove into town. There were losses on both sides but the Hunter crew was killed. Further contacts were had in Anthrakia before it all went quiet. I had to seek out a squad and engage them from 600-800m. Blufor were flanking left and right and popping up behind the front lines and inflicting casualties. I spotted one of their officers who was on his own so I hunted him down and killed him.

 

The two Blufor officers were Brute and Idiot. Brute suffered zero casualties so was probably still in Neri while the idiot was attacking and was the one I killed. Opfor were Dilatory and Genius, but Genius only had a small force. 

 

I did notice that units patrolled and garrisoned in buildings, and that nobody suffered any losses at the start which was unusual. Blufor also established a small presence at the objectives on their side of the island whilst Opfor didn't, but that may have been strategic decisions made by the different officer personalities.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Genius, but Genius only had a small force

 

Unlike the idiot. Pure life... 🙂

 

Thanks a lot for your feedback. 

 

Long waiting before first contact is unfortunate, but expected. Made some adjustements to shorten this gap, but... Could be better on the smaller map though. This mode however is made for patient people wanting multi-session gameplay. BTW, forgot to mention, now most of editor placed objects are removed (spawned at init by the script instead), which makes porting easier, but also not sure, if one can simply paste new scripts into old ports to update them. Maybe so, but I wouldn't recommend it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×