All Activity

Hola, yo también hablo español pero este es primeramente un foro en inglés. Si puedes usar algún traductor en inglés (más que nada para que en el futuro cualquiera pueda ayudarte) mejor que mejor. Todas las campañas y mods se pueden usar con gruntmods, de hecho, eso es lo que hacemos, creamos misiones para funcionar con gruntmods. Todas y cada una de las listadas aquí son para este sistema. Tienes que descargarlas, descomprimir y aplicarlas correctamente pero todo debería funcionar. Sigue las indicaciones del anterior usuario y hazte con el último exe para asegurarte que todas funcionan perfectamente. Ah, y para otra, si es posible escribe en otra parte del foro y no aquí. Más que nada porque el post principal es el listado de todo lo que existe (para dune 2000) y uso los posts de a continuación para escribir que he actualizado y que cosa he añadido o retirado.

Welcome back! Yes, Gruntmods or Dunemaster can handle all the modded missions, but you might need to update your game exe to support certain advanced / recent missions. The advancements Klofkac has made are detailed in his devlog thread over here: Hope that helps!

Approved message, here is english translation

Hola a todos , quería daros las gracias de ante mano por admitirme en el foro, soy un jugador que a vuelto tras muchos años a jugar a este juego y tela menudo trabajo están haciendo me quito el sombrero,,, soy novato en esto de los mods etc,,, y quería saber si todos las campañas, misiones los puedo usar con gruntmods para pc ? de por si lleva bastantes para hecharle horas pero me surgió la curiosidad , muchas gracias un saludo

Klofkac recently added real queueing to the game. I've been asked to add it to SS, so... details below: I guess that's all, so, good luck and have fun!

Now that que is awesome! I would love to implement that. And im fine with discussing it here or the new campaign thread.

Ah yes, I remember releasing that awhile ago. Glad to be back and editing again Thank you for the insightful tips! Guess im stuck in the old way of naming mission files, I will go ahead an update the mission and folder names so things arent overridden or are too generic. I would rather be consistent and be unique in naming these things so players dont have issues. I will absolutely join that discord server, love the idea of an active community still regarding editing for dune 2k My last goal is to add custom unit types to the game, still working that out.

Hey, long time. I remembre I rearrange your very old campaign because you had to add the imperial palace on the building queue or something like that. Glad to see you are back and creating a campaign. I only gave the missions a quick glance, just to see how a couple of missions locked (but didn´t wanted to see events or anything in deep just to play them blind later). There is already a small issue which it is not exactly your fault. The missions gruntlords release waaaaay back then, the one called "rise of the mercenaries", as you may remember as those they are only 2 missions, well, those missions were named M1v1.map and M2v1.map, which it is the same name you gave yours. If it is possible, give the files a different name. You don´t need to change the name of the campaign or the customcampaign folder stuff, that seems fine. But if you can, you can make your files "Mercenary guild 1.map /.mis /.ini" and same for all 9. Files no need to have any specific name for any specific faction so you can write whatever you want, is just to avoid overwritting those 2 missions from gruntlords. For example, when I rearrange these old campaign from Feda I wrote the name of the authors as part of the file, and this works fine. Also, this another thing is not really necesary: the customcampaign folder you added has "mercenaries" which it is fine, just a bit generic. If you also want you can have it as "mercenariesguild" just in case in the future somebody does a mercenary campaign and decided to use a generic named convention. Again, this is not mandatory, but the same as gruntmods using a generic m1v1.map file, which now can be an issue with yours, a future modder can generate a issue with a generic "mercenary" folder. If you want to get insta feedback on the mission or simply watching people playing it, here on the our discord there is a person that likes to record playing every single new mission or campaign drop and then he shares, so you can see people playing your mission, or at least know for sure that people are playing it even if on the forum we are not too active. You can read the post. The discord is mostly for singleplayer and modders, any question on "how you do this or that" can be solved here if you need help, or if you want to play the game and don´t know which campaign to pick from the big list.

see you there, mate! ping Fey there anytime, I can help ya set up the following: ah, we've actually got a proper queue now. it's hot off the presses, made more recently than the ArkDebut mission. behold: very customizable. comes with bulk, priority, infinite, and other queue functions I see you created a thread for your new merc / guild campaign, so I suppose that would also be a fine place to discuss it further

Hey everyone. I have been on hiatus from the Dune 2000 community for awhile and jumped back in recently. Couldnt believe the amazing contributions and additions to the editors. With that, I decided to do a quick design of a Mercenary Guild campaign. I tried to tie in their Personality/Function as best as I could within the Great Spice War. They appear to be simply Pragmatic, Loyal to only those who pay, not ideological or political I welcome any feedback, or any bugs/issues within the campaign Hope you enjoy INSTALL: Will require the latest gruntmods edition to utilize added colours and custom mission parameters Place the missions in your data/mission folder, and the CustomCampaignData in your dune2000/CustomCampaignData folder CustomCampaignData.rar Mercenary Guild.rar

Youll find all the patches on the D2k site, all you need to do is put it in base director of the orignal dune game. First patch the game to 1.06, then apply the custom patches https://d2kplus.com/patches/high-resolution-patch/

Will do thanks! I am really enjoying all the amazing contributions to the mission editor. I created a basic build que by just handpicking the unit and checking cash stores with a timer. Also did a auto repair when buildings are below a certain HP percentage (always found repairing tedious 😅). Absolutely loving the advanced logic events Im going to post a Mercenary campaign that utilizes some of this. Ill join that server too.

they're also the only map the MP boys like to play Habbanya Erg and nothing else. lol me? we've got uncrushable infantry in d2k now. it was done via a really janky workaround during Summers' Solstice's inception, but Klofkac added proper support for it relatively recently. mostly though, I lean on map design for that and just try to leave infantry rock in lots of places sure dude, feel free to hit me up then SC1 still has quite a large following. if you make something for it, I think you can be very confident it will be played

Personally, I would like to recreate my single player campaign in Brood War with my "C&C" RPS. But who would play it?

That, right there. Is a victory point for you designing the game. As for mission design balance. Money maps are the best way to test balance for multiplayer. Because players spam units and choose what is best for them. You only need to record how much units are used. You see, if the map is entirely covered with big armies. Their effects will shift. Then after that, if you have less money. Armies will be smaller. And certain units will pop out that are better at micro. You want to balance it just right that when players play that money map. The "micro" units come out first. And then the macro units. I think that a failure is a good example here: Consider Red Alert 1. Where all players always try to spam tanks as fast as possible. And yes, on smaller maps an infantry spam with some engineers within is also good. But in money maps. Tanks only is best. And of course, spamming tesla coils. But other units aren't used that much. As soon as there is less money. And a lot of defences. The V2 launcher might pop up. But no one can see a Ranger unless it is trolling. Or an APC (worse trolling). Artillery? Yip, certainly a trolling. Because the opponents always build tanks. If the designers didn't balance from their campaign point of view. But from multiplayer. The tanks would certainly be weaker than their td counterparts. I mean, Tiberian Dawn is waaaay more balanced than red alert 1. And I did play money maps on that one. Buggies, Bikes, mass light tanks, MRLS (for the buggies and bikes), Medium tanks, Noobs build mammoth tanks, the APC is dangerous, the stealth tank is good for scouting and hunting harvesters with more ease, flame tanks ftw against defence structures. Only the humm-vee, I see less use as well as the artillery. And those 2 are actually for single player good due to the enemies training infantry there. As for getting a balance between infantry and tanks. This one is much harder. And the reason why in Starcraft you see much more fodder units is because there is no squishing there. Squishing is a weapon!! Makes me wonder, how are you going to balance squishing? Also, I wonder if it is possible to apply a certain matrix calculation on unit effectivness in 1 on 1 battle's. Obviously, a con, walls do not count in that method. But the root balance kinda shows up. In a way. This matrix calculation shows how much the root factor is needed. The pro is that all value's are good. and the "cost" comes out rolling for those value's. Some value's like attack range don't really matter. Unless you put in the effectivness of micro. I could try to see if a damage matrix with durability matrix can be combined now. Either way, I got a simple example AND a true art of work as example on my pc. I can share screenshots if interested, but only in a PM. As for 1200 on that Siege Tank.... it wasn't because of the attack range. No, I used the following value's: Tank Mode: 96 Health, 24 Armor, 36 Damage Siege Mode: 192 Health, 0 Armor, 48 Damage You only siege mode when dealing with defence structures or having a very good position. Marine: 96 Health, 0 Armor, 6 Damage And I put the weight factor of 24 Armor on x12 So that the Marine would be an all rounder.

1200 resources in Starcraft for Siege Tanks? 💀 ik range is, like, the most powerful stat, but doesn't that just mean you gotta mess with how the economy works so the player's income can keep up with that kinda inflated price? my father likes to play on easy mode just to blow stuff up, and aarmaageedoon says my missions are "too easy" even with multiple restarts 😆 can't please everybody I'm not the worst at d2k, and my focus is on mission or campaign design - player versus AI - so my process is testing crap on hard mode / fastest game speed, then scaling it down for normal and easy modes. it matters for the maximum difficulty since players on hard are looking for a challenge. it should be both fair and engaging. normal and easy, those are where some theoretical scaling should suffice to nail the target difficulty as long as hard mode is done up nicely the metric I look to primarily for determining if a mission is balanced how I want it is how long it takes me to complete it, including compared to its neighboring or counterpart missions. players will inevitably have a variety of experiences, but how closely in time it takes for me, knowing them in and out and optimizing for them, to complete them does a lot to illustrate the sum of whatever balance decisions I made for them already that doesn't mean I don't consider how things might work out in a hypothetical multiplayer game though. I passed an MP compatible version of my stuff over to the boys, and some unexpected metagaming came out of it, like... walls and concrete were useable. lol micro potential is a big deal in determining units' viability. take Blink micro for Stalkers in SC2 for example. you can have a unit with relatively weak stats, but with good player control, it dominates. over here in d2k, in ArkDebut, the Keravnos Laser Tank's shield system has revealed some interesting interactions already and suggests great micro potential. needs more testing. there are innumerable complex interactions in RTS, even in a simple one like d2k. makes theoretical balance pretty messy when the rubber hits the road wym money maps? like, macro-heavy, macro missions? there are a lot of differences between how macro and micro missions need to be designed and how a player will use units just thanks to that fundamental difference. or do you mean how the resources are painted on macro missions? at some point we get more into mission design theory as opposed to unit balance theory 😛 different things

True. I remember 3 moments where I had to adjust my calculations as well. 1. The formula all above in this topic has movement speed and attack range on the same side. That is wrong. Because 0 damage with infinite attack range would make the unit infinite expensive. And a lot of formula's on the internet do the same. Why was it there in the first place? Many thought that a longer attack range would add to the durability of an unit. While true, it is movement speed that truely adds to durability, simply by moving away. 2. Attack range on equal grounds as movement speed? That didn't stay too long. Many games showed that the attack range is taking place on a 2d field. While movement is 1d. What I mean is that if you have a terrain. And you want to reach your target. Using movement, would need you to move to every spot possible on the map in case of the most crowded map with impassable terrain. As for attack range, a simple direct trajectory is the case in 99.9% of the RTS games. This means that the average terrain creates a factor between the movement and attack range. You only notice the effect of long range weapons if the designers did it wrong. I noticed this in Red Alert 2 with the Prism Tanks, but also the sniper and the GI inside a IFV. 3. The size of units. The combat density is one that is done wrong more than other value's. And this includes a limit on units as well. I started to look into this a lot more when I was making Starcraft/Broodwar maps with an altered RPS. The Siege Tanks in there are actually super small and packed together. Especially when I applied my own rules. According to my calculations, the Siege Tanks would cost 800, while marines cost 100. First, I thought it was the cumulative versus squared rule. But I quickly could rule this out. I discovered that due to the size effects, eventually I had to ram up the cost to 1200. This is over 10 years ago by now. As for theory and practise. I never said that you make it with theory alone. There are still aspects like: - Player Skills Slow/fast, dumb/smart, where do you place your balance? - Resource managment Testing on money maps, show the best results - Visuals How much can players see? Highest attack range, like in Warcraft 2? Or lowest tier attack range, like in Warzone2100? What about fog of war? - Special designs/Unique functions Some units, you need only 1 or 2 of. Maybe 3. Or a dedicated squad. If you build too little or too much of them, they don't serve their function anymore. Sounds like the Flame ATV from KKnD But, the buggy/bike from the C&C games is similar. Which are great example for the 3 practical balances regarding the Flame ATV: A player needs to be smart. As for being fast, not sure, maybe? Resource managment in the map has to be relatively low. The unit is cost efficient, but only at a small number. Spamming has no use due to short range attacks. Visuals is not a key here. 1 can do the job. But if the enemy defends properly, Build like 4 to 6. No more. Or use 2 squads of 4. It depends on the map layout and defence structures. Their purpose? Find unquarded enemy structures. Preferably the resource managment of the enemy. As for the Buggy/Bike: A player needs to be fast. Resource managment requires the player to have decent defences as well. where it matters. As for attacking, a nice mix of buggies and bikes is what matters. Visuals is key here. There is a lot of FoW in C&C3. While in C&C td the vision for the player is simply small. You attack all over the place. In C&C td, 6 bikes. Or you spam them. In C&C3 you spam them anyways. The buggies are there for being fodder and dealing with some infantry if needed. But also to create even more chaos for the enemy. You poke all over the place. Until you get the upper hand and snowball your way into the enemy. In KKnD it is more of a tactical move, part of a grander strategy. In C&C3, clearly it is RTS all the way with that tactic. The player simply needs to see for when it needs to switch tactics at the right time.

I dunno, mate. maybe it's just cuz I'm a hands-on learner, but I've played KKND and this still sounds both overcomplicated and oversimplified at the same time... there are so many more factors that define a unit's strengths or weaknesses there was one concept you brought up that's particularly comprehensible to me though 😛 how I tried to balance the Summers' Solstice campaign was through units' roles, or functions as you put it, as opposed to on an individual basis. so even if we've got some new stuff here or there, they fall into certain categories and their strengths and weaknesses are representative of the category they belong to like Shock Raiders, for instance. fast, high damage, low durability. excels over open terrain, swarming targets. bad in head-on frontal assault. very similar to Quads, Raiders, Flame Tanks, other stuff like that even that example accounts for movement speed, effective weapon range, and other stuff like that too though. not just health and damage a lot of theory falls apart in practice, I've found. you know what they say: in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. in practice, there most certainly is a difference 😆

The post from Posted August 4, 2013 contains a mistake in the calculations. While it was used for a board game. It doesn't work that way. I never corrected that one. A few extra modifications on these, and you can use most of them for RTS as well. I see some on the internet. Assuming that they differ due to different game mechanics in their RTS. Most common used formula's in my department Main balance formula: Stats = a * ( Body + Weapon ) + b * ( 2* sqrt( Body * Weapon ) ) / ( a+b ) Initial H/D ratio. You simply pick a number that indicates how many turns or seconds a basic ammount of damage is needed for destroying a basic ammount of health: = HDratio Normally: Cost = Stats = Size Used for stacking cover mechanics. The SumSize gives different proportions to units that take cover inside things: SumSize = Body + Weapon Used for hiding cover mechanics. The Size of a design can also decide on the combat density of an army. Smaller means a higher density: %Cost = %Stats / sqrt( %Size ) Basicly, if the size is only 25% of what it is supposed to be. The costs will double. I left the %Stats in there, it is always 100% stats, so you can replace it with a 1. Please note that the Armor mechanic works completely different in every RTS game. In some, its subtraction. In others, it is part of a RPS system. Here it is part of a "RPS system" and receives a weight percentage: Body = %Armor * Health * %BodyAttributes * ( Speed + HDratio ) / HDratio Map design can be of influence on movement and projectile movement. Most modifications are withing the Attributes. But there is always a fixed factor between the Body and Weapon calculation: = Rf Personally, I always use 1.5 here. But the average number in RTS is actually sqrt( 2 ). %Damage is the mirror of %Armor: Weapon = %Damage * Damage * %WeaponAttributes * ( Rf * Range + HDratio ) HDratio Some designs can move AND attack at the same time: Weapon = %Damage * Damage * %WeaponAttributes * ( Speed + Rf * Range + HDratio ) HDratio Instead of simple Damage, you can also add in a SalvoFactor or DPS number in the Weapon formula above. However, the SalvoFactor is a sum of the moments that damage is dealt. And each moment has its own weight: SalvoFactor = Sum of all DamageMoments DamageMoment = (( HDratio / ( HDratio + 1 ) ) ^Moment ) / HDratio Salvo's can contain smaller salvo's. With each smaller salvo having its own moment weight. A simple example; if you pick a HDratio of 5 seconds. And the weapon shoots every second. With the first moment at exactly 1 second. The second moment at exactly 2 seconds, etc. The SalvoFactor will be 1. If you however start at 0 seconds immediately, your SalvoFactor will be 1.2. And to balance this, the damage should be 5/6th. A HDratio of 5 is actually very short. The fun starts when you consider a higher cooldown. So you fire every 5 seconds after the first one being on 0 seconds? The SalvoFactor here will be 0.33438. In a sense, this design may deal roughly 3 times more damage in order to be balanced again. In my boardgame, splash damage works different than in RTS games. In RTS games, there are several ways. But the main rule is that it is a yes/no mechanic, depending on the targets choices. This means that an explosion causing splash damage, will get an 50% extra weight for each additional possible target. In most RTS, smaller units can receive more damage this way. In rarer occasions, there is a maximum ammount of targets that actually get hit in the explosion. This is based on the fact that certain units absorb the damage, like in real life. This factor is often put in the %WeaponAttributes: %WeaponAttributes = 1 + 0.5 * NumberOfPossibleTargets If the game allows lower damage value's, further away from the centre of the explosion: %WeaponAttributes = 1 + 0.5 * %Exploson * NumberOfPossibleTargets + 0.5 * %Exploson2 * NumberOfPossibleTargets2 + ...

It is not the core. It is the giftpackage that finishes it. In order to understand it. I explained it with the 2 most basic value's. As practical example. Where I got this idea from would be KKnD. KKnD is the best example. Here you can tell which units act as tanks and which as support. These tanks often move forward too. The AI shoots at the units that are the closest. The player can get an advantage here by aiming for easy soft targets that normally give dps. The units that are tanky, compared to their damage: Survivors have the Anaconda Tank and ATV. But also the Swat, these infantry are relatively cheap, but very durable in small forces combat. The Mutants have the Monster Truck, which just so happens to be 99,9% balanced to the ATV. And the Mastodon is the equivalent of the Anaconda Tank. They excel in their durability. And their infantry version would be the shotgunner. While the game has a lot of assymetry. The functional uses of the units are almost always, the same. My boardgame was another example. But that project slowly died due to creeping. As for other RTS. You can tell the absense of this root factor in C&C td. As for the core for balance. The H/D ratio, is THE key number for the weight factors of the movement speed, attack range, salvo (or dps, but cooldown and charging included). Map design also adds weight to the attack range. Body has the health, movement speed and other body related value's. Weapon has the attack range and salvo. As for the whole game balance. You have a basic formula. Based on the H/D ratio. Then you wrap it up with the root factor. Getting advanced? If you wonder if your H/D ratio changes due to having more or less support combat units. You could recalculate this one. And recalculate the entire list, assuming all units are used equally. A little macro. And you end up with a mathimatically balanced list. Still theory. Playtests will show how much players truly use certain units. Now for the fun part. Upgrade the list with the weight factors on how often the units are build. If they weight more. Their influence on the H/D ratio will weight more as well. Recalculate the entire list again. I believe that C&C3 didn't use the root factor to begin with. But I suspect they did use a matrix balance on multiplayer results. C&C3 also has an important factor...Size, thus the combat density sometimes matters when large armies are used. And another factor that matters with low unit counts. Would be the fodder/tank ratio.

it sounds a bit too basic to really work out ^^ there are so many other factors to consider in a unit's power. maybe as a starting principle, but certainly not as the core of balance decisions and whatnot do you have some kind of example to showcase the success of this method? a practical example, not... not more math

Right, I guess in simpler/different terms? When you have the body value's and weapon value's added up. There is an optimal balance at a 50%+50%=100% value. But when you start shifting the percentages. To either meat or support. The overal effectivness of 1 unit will drop. Compared to the most optimal design. You can see this by simply multiplying the value's of the body and weapon. 50 * 50 = 2500 40 * 60 = 2400 30 * 70 = 2100 20 * 80 = 1600 10 * 90 = 900 0 * 100 = 0 The productvalue is what matters in combat. And the lower it gets, the less this unit is effective. If you apply the root factor for calculating the costs. You get: 2* sqrt( body * weapon ) 2* sqrt( 25 * 100 ) = 100 and the producvalue will then be: 25 * 100 = 2500. Which brings it back to the maximum possible effectivness. Of course, we cannot have infinities. Thus we need to add a bit of the normal calculation. 1:1 portions ( body + weapon + 2 * sqrt( body * weapon ) ) /2 With 30%+75%. We get: ( 30 + 75 + 2 * sqrt( 30 * 75 ) ) /2 = 100. And the productvalue is 30 * 75 = 2250. This is now 90%. 1:5 portions ( body + weapon + 10 * sqrt( body * weapon ) ) /6 With 30%+80%. We get: ( 30 + 80 + 10 * sqrt( 30 * 80 ) ) /6 = 100. And the productvalue is 30 * 80 = 2400. This is now 96%. While previously we had 2100 or even 1600, which equals to only 84% or 64%.

Very well. If there are any questions, feel free to ask. This balance theory looks at the fact that in RTS, players can attack those with the lowest ratio of body points to weapon points. And that synergy between 2 different designs, is not an option for the players. First I explain without the balance. First some basics. When you design an unit. The design consists of value's that belong to a body. And value's that belong to a weapon. I am not going into detail of all the value's that can be in a RTS game. But the most important ones, for explaining this, would be: Body: Health Weapon: Damage That is all we need for understanding this. We are not going to look at movement speed, attack range, size or other stuff. Just the 2 mentioned above. Of course we need to shoot an X times with Damage before we get to Health. The cost of Body is Health. The cost of Weapon is X * Damage. Most designers initially add the 2 together. What you get is that a well balanced design had 50% Body and 50% Weapon points. 50%+50%=100% In case of the above, lets say we have 72 health and X=12 with 6 damage. The cost here is 144. If we now design a support unit. One that deals more damage. We could design the following: 36 health and 9 damage. The cost...? Would still be 144. But while this unit deals 50% more damage on anything. It is much weaker compared to the balanced design. It has only 50% health. What do we get when we look at a 1v1? 72 health / 9 damage = 8 hits 36 health / 6 damage = 6 hits The balanced design here, has 33% more durability. *** This is all fine if you have a game with the rules that one unit blocks projectiles for another. You see this in games like Warzone 2100 (Yes, it happens, look it up ) And designing like that would be ok. Because you get this synergy: The tank would have 108 health and deal only 3 damage. 2 Normal vs a tank and a support: Normal: 72 + 72 health. Tank + Support: 108 + 36 health. Both sides deal 12 damage before one of the 2 dies. If there is no micro, except for one player putting the healthiest one in front. 72/12=6 hits 108-72=36. Now, the normal are down to 1. And can deal only 6 damage. 72/12 =6 hits. 36/6 = 6 hits. Clearly the tank takes the bullets here. And voila, the support unit is still at full health after this exchange. *** What happens in RTS? The player with the normal units first focus on the support unit. 72/12= 6 hits. 36/12= 3 hits. Clearly we remove the support unit here. And the normal units take only 12 x3=36 damage. 36/3= 12 hits. 108/12= 9 hits. Clearly we now also remove the tank unit. And the normal units take only 3 x9=27 damage. The normal units here have 9 health remaining on one, and the other is at full health. This is the reason why most support units have more attack range. Because you need to move further into the army in order to destroy them. A RTS that I think fails here would be The Frozen Throne. Where the support units have weaker armor, compared to Warcraft 3. But also, the rocket soldier in C&C td seems to be much weaker. And is not used that much in direct combat at all. It melts vs most tanks. *** The root factor? If we look at the cost calculation. We can balance tanks and support units with normal units with one simple calculation. Instead of body + weapon. We do 2 * sqrt ( body * weapon ) We get for the normal: 2 * sqrt ( 72 * 72 ) = 144 We get for the support: 2 * sqrt ( 36 * 108 ) = ~125 (ok, not the most perfect number, but my time was short) But if we keep the health the same and increase the weapon or damage value. We get: 2 * sqrt ( 36 * 144 ) = 144 And for that 144 in weapon value, we have a 12 in damage value. A normal has 72 health, divided by that 12 = 6 hits. A support has 36 health, divided by that 6 = 6 hits. The support and normal are equal now. And the same goes for the tank. The tank would keep the 3 damage, but have 144 health. 144 / 6 = 24 hits. 72 / 3 = 24 hits. And a tank vs support? 144 / 12 = 12 hits. 36 / 3 = 12 hits. When a tank or support face a normal, the battle takes longer. But when a tank or support faces each other, the battle takes the same time. Of course, a tank vs a tank is super slow. And a support vs a support is super fast. Ok, so, to finish this formula. Let's design a wall then, the ultimate tank in a game. How much health should it get? The formula breaks here. Because we have 0 damage. 2 * sqrt ( ? * 0 ) = 0 It depends on the game how much micro players can apply. Thus, how fast would a player attack the support units first, before taking on the tank units? What a good design does is: a * (body + weapon) + b * (2 * sqrt ( body * weapon ) ) / ( a+b) You can see the results in KKnD for this one. As for the walls, they are not free anymore. But support units and tank units are now more balanced compared to the normal units. And depending on how much micro the players can use. You can shift the bar between a and b. If you use Excel for this, it can be an easy factor at the top of the list. My favorite a and b are: 1+1 and 1+5. With the 1+5 I have walls being 12 times more durable than their soldier counterparts. In a sense, I have 600 for body, 0 for weapon, costs is 100. A rifleman has 50 for body, 50 for weapon, costs is 100. A support type of rifleman has 30 for body, 80 for weapon, costs is 100. -20 on the body for a +30 on the weapon is a good exchange already. And once you add in attack range and movement speed. You can make the support units even more effective or better said, immune to micro managament effects. Either make support units slower, thus more durable. Or faster, can hit and run. And you get this RPS between units, based on the root factor, movement speed and attack range. This RPS is a natural one. If there are any questions, feel free to ask. I understand if it is a bit too much to get in one go. So, as soon as you get a question. It is better to answer that one first. Before you continue the read.

try running a game just against AI via CNCNET. that might rule out if it's display issues, renderer problems, etc... I also recommend ensuring you and your son have the same game version. Gruntmods and Dunemaster are the two nowadays, and if one doesn't appear to be working for you, try the other it's also worth noting that due to the way the Mission Launcher works, if either of you have run modified single-player missions via the Mission Launcher, it could result in desyncing issues in multiplayer. a fresh / separate install specifically for multiplayer would prevent any related problems I hope that helps!

lay it on us, brother 👀