bluechip

@Benny - Have you decided how to license the code (eg GPL2/3, BSD, MIT)? I'm still interested in your project, I just can't do anything with it without a license.

Thanks! I know you get a lot of messages, so I'll try to keep this short. I'll keep an eye on SteamWorkshop and here for a source code repository link before I try writing any code. If you don't mind people doing whatever they want with your code, I would feel better with an explicit BSD, or MIT etc. license packaged with it to guarantee those freedoms, at the least so I know how to license my own contributions. I don't mind the GPL either, because I wouldn't use your code in a closed-source project without specifically asking anyway, and I can't imagine why anybody else would. Thank you for your time and for the great game!

Not quite. Benny's implied permission can be overridden if someone else acquires the rights. Even while Benny is still sole owner, lack of a clear license can be problematic for other developers considering contributing their own work, as well as to Benny who could be sued for using contributed code that hasn't agreed to a license.

Yes. Without a license it belongs to him. He is the only one who has rights to it. Anyone who uses, changes, or distributes unlicensed copies could be sued by him or even a future owner of the code. I would like a copy under a free license, like the GPL, BSD, or MIT license, please.

Also, there's no license attached to the code. What license is BeCTI Be released under?

Benny, I know you receive suggestions and feedback constantly, but the suggestions SpanishSurfer and I elaborated are important to me, and I don't know if you want to implement them. Do you maintain a source code repository that can be forked?

DELETED - Accidental repost

Well, changing the ranges of the weapon systems would be the best way to fix the problem. I compared the Tunguska VS Apache for real world figures. The Tunguska's missile is the SA-19/GRISON and it's maximum range is 8km-10km. The Apache's Hellfire missile range is up to 8km. So for game play purposes I would halve those values and make all mobile ground AA (not to be confused with hand held AA launchers, which should prob have half of that range, 2km) have a range of 4km and all aircraft air 2 ground missile range at 4km as well. It would be great if we could give an edge to attack helicopters of an extra kilometer when other players on the ground are lazing targets for them with a designator and mobile AA platforms a 1 km advantage when within 100m of a team factory, call it radar bonus. Sounds good. Here's a few additional notes: Hellfire/SA-19's - Both of these weapons visual range weapons in reality. It might be safe, even, to reduce their ranges to 2 km in-game without losing the tank plinking capabilities of gunships. That range would also allow artillery ranges to be reduced to 4 km without bringing them into the range of defensive gunships. - FIM-92 Stinger's have a range somewhere in 4.8-8 kilometers (not sure which), which is less than Hellfire, so yes, missile soldier range could probably be left untouched in-game and remain true to reality. I think that range is 1.5-2 km. Radar - I agree, we could potentially add a kilometer to AA missile range with adequate radar. Interesting facts about AA radar: Radar is an important and expensive component of AA systems. Anti-radiation missiles (ARM) are designed just for hon in on radar emplacements as a part of air defense suppression. ARMs have a much much longer range than typical ordnance in order to strike from outside AA range (or at least as far as possible), but I haven't found a missile that exceeds the S-300's range, let alone the S-400. Laser-guided weapons (LGW) - I didn't cover LGWs in the document, but I found data on one with a range of 9 km (the Sudarshan). The advantage of LGWs doesn't seem to be so much their range as their accuracy and low-cost, and the fact that they don't need an IR or radar lock.

Thanks. I was surprised to find that many of the prices in-game already reflect their real world counterparts. For units with significant differences, perhaps correcting their ranges/capabilities might finally put them in their place, whereas changing the price alone might only fix part of the problem. In the AA section I suggested modifying the ranges/capabilities of the Gunship and Cheetah/Tigris to be more competitive. I'm not sure if it's possible, but it seems it would be. What do you think?

Most of them yes. 2. The orders shall come from the commander, a TL cannot and shouldn't be able to decide. 4. The problem is that there is so little content regarding defensive structures... There was a good concrete wall model unfortunately it cannot be damaged for some reasons... 6. An excel/good doc spreadsheet could be usefull there to adjust the prices. Regarding vehicles, I think that the AI should be tweaked regarding the driving behaviour, It's kind of carmaggedon. Anyone in a repair truck can repair destroyed structure quite fast (repair/construct speed depends on how many time it was destroyed thought) 2. I understand, now. That makes sense. 4. Can user content be created, or do we have to work with what we have? 6. I scratched together some preliminary figures so we can see how it might look. I think it's doable for all units and could fix some other problems, but some of the unit ranges will need to be modified. I proof-read it, but I was sleep deprived when I wrote it, so sorry if it's unreadable: http://pastebin.com/6daXBa2W Regarding vehicles, I didn't know the AI could be tweaked. There's some other ways the AI could be more autonomous drivers, if it's possible, such as making them impervious to crash damage with inanimate objects, and teleporting them 10 meters back when they get stuck. Even then, I would still replace all crewmen with repair specialists. It would be a lot easier for them to spawn that way. This wouldn't be far from reality, as crewmen are trained to perform maintenance and repairs on their vehicles in the field.

Long list, I'll only answer about the new/non existing features. 1. Class based system is planned. 2. Towns: - Some stuff will be reworked. I'd like to remove the supply notion still. 3. Award: - I could boost the capture coefficient (there's already a system to prevent exploiting this) - I'll add infantry bounty but with a longer delay (way longer). 4. Base: - Base placement in/out of towns could be a parameter - Buildings HP has been reworked 5. Commander Roles: - 0 to 100 is a terribad idea, 30 to 100 is ok. - HQ shouldn't be able to be repaired without a repair truck. 6. Costs: - Some prices will be tweaked. - Heavy vehicles should be accessible. Above 10k is overkill as noone would be able to afford it in a reasonable amount of time. - I'll raise the Air prices. - 100k is just too much for artillery. 7. - Gear to vehicle is planned. - It's possible. I like a lot of these ideas. I would like to add the following: 1. Classes - No comment. 2. Capture Towns - I agree that players should not have to run supply routes manually. Even though supply trains are an important part of warfare, it would distract players from the fun parts. - The order towns can be taken shouldn't be forced. Distant towns already pose a logistical challenge to "lone wolfs", and most players attack nearby towns first, anyway. 3. Obtaining Cash - Just like in real war (usually), cash/supply should only come from a base income, capturing and holding towns, and perhaps salvaging wreckage. Adding resources to players for kills can take an asymmetric war and just make it more asymmetric. It's enough to know that the enemy has fewer assets. Victory is the reward. - It might not even be all bad if most income was optionally from base income. Battles would be fierce to the end. It might be worth playing with. 4. Bases - Tweaking structure HP a little might help, but I don't think it should be made too unrealistic. Harden walls and defenses, and allow construction without the HQ. Buildings are simply vulnerable to destructive devices. They have to be protected by walls and defenses. When a persistent attack inevitably destroys core structures, let it not be too difficult to reconstruct them. Perhaps allow the commander full construction capabilities from repair vehicles. 5. Commander - No comment. 6. Unit Costs - I would like unit costs to reflect their equivalents in actual warfare. A rifleman might only be $40, a tank $5000-$8000, and a gunship only $12000-$15000, but that's modern warfare. Any imbalance can be offset with effective AA radar, and possibly more limited fuel for aerial vehicles so they have to land more. I think those are two of the main factors that prevent aircraft from obsoleting tanks in the real world. Not sure about maintenance costs. Please consider. In addition, I would like all vehicles purchased to automatically be manned with repair specialists. In the current game, AI drivers are guaranteed to wreck your wheels, and anyone who doesn't bring a rep spec is going to have a bad time. But, it's a pain having to always load them manually.

[deleted]