Jump to content

RA2YR Dune Mod: Take Two

Recommended Posts

Right, so the last time I tried this I got no help and had to put it on a back burner. This time, I'd like to redo Dune2, but in the RA2YR engine as I already have a fair few bits and pieces done and finished.

What I'd *really* like please, is for you good ppl to let me know what your thoughts on some of the suggestions/ideas that I had for the mod are. That way, I can concentrate on getting the necessary GFX done and release a first Beta for you all to try.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Light Inf had only one weapon, and are easily ported. Troopers though had two different weapons, and the SHPs were squads. Now, squads behave oddly in RA2 and so I want to steer away from them. However, I think that a Trooper would look odd firing a chaingun from a rocket launcher or a rocket from a chaingun. I have several options available:

1a> Have two types of Trooper. Upside is that players will have more than one/two infantry types in their build menus. Downside is that these more specialised troops might make Light Inf obsolete (especially the chaingun wielder!). Another downside is that Sardaukar and Fremen would have the same issues (as they were also based on the GFX).

1b> One Trooper, with a big gun. Fires both rockets and bullets. Upsides are fewer GFX to make, and more in keeping with the original Dune2 GFX. Downside is that the weapon would look a bit odd.

1c>Same as either 1a or 1b, but with different GFX for Sardaukar and Fremen anyway.

Another issue is how useful/balanced infantry were in Dune2. Since this will be mostly for skirmish and MP, I would prefer that there is better balance than in the original game. A big part of this IMO is whether infantry should be crushable.

2a> Have crushable infantry, and tracked vehicles can crush them as Dune2. Upsides are that tanks are better able to defend against infantry and that it is how Dune2 was. Downsides are that it makes infantry much more vulnerable and that will mean they are not built in most games.

2b> Same as 2a, but tracked vehicles can only crush troops when they reach the fist stage (out of two stages) of veterancy. Upsides are similar to 2a except that vehicles must already have had sufficient combat experience to use the tactic and that infantry are not as vulnerable. Downsides are still that a tank can kill its points in infantry reasonably easily once it gains a bit of veterancy.

2c> Infantry are uncrushable, which means that they can participate in all-out fights to the best of their abilities. Upsides are that infantry remain a reasonable option even in later game stages. Downsides are that infantry don't have much effect in fights compared to other units anyway, and that even being uncrushable players will still prefer to build other units.

2d> Similar to 2a and 2b, except that infantry that are crushed do a small amount of damage to the crushing vehicle. Thus, the option to crush troops remains, but the cost of units would discourage players from doing it at every opportunity. Upsides are as 2a, b and c, as are the downsides. Also, a further downside would be that unscrupulous players deliberately place cheap infantry in the way of tanks to act as human AT mines. This ability could just be kept for select troops too, like Sardaukar or Fremen.


These are tricky units. I cannot get them to behave as in Dune2, but even if I could, they were of very limited use. The main difference is that if they are buildable in the mod, they will be player controllable.

3a> Have the Ornis buildable and permanently hover like the RA2 Kirov. Upsides are that it is easy to do, and that the units are safer (generally) in the air than on the ground. Also, no need for landing pads. Downsides are that Orni Rushes are distinctly possible and that it would look odd to have the Orni in the air all the time.

3b> Same as 3a, except that they land when not in use like the RA2 Nighthawk. Upsides are that the units are less invulnerable and that it is easy to do too. Downsides are that the units have a tendency to land where they are after they target is destroyed (pretty fatal!) and that they struggle to follow waypoints properly.

3c> Ornis are like RA2 Harriers and sit on pads on the Hi-Tech Factories (say two per Factory). Upsides are again easy to code and that they would sally forth only to attack and then return to repair and re-arm. Downsides are that if you want a reasonable number of them, you're going to need a fair few Factories as well as the fact that loss of the factory will automatically kill the Ornis associated with it.

3d> Call in the Ornis from off-screen to perform an attack run like they did in Dune 2000. Upsides are that this is not as potentially overpowering as the other options in that the numbers and availability of the units are limited like a SW. Downsides are that they cannot be controlled, and that once the attack is selected, they will carry it out even if there is nothing to target (they can only specifically target static points not units). Also this feature needs to be attached to a building as it is technically a SW.

3e> Have different Ornis; ones with bombs called in from off screen and ones with cannon/MGs buildable as 3a, 3b or 3c for example. Advantages are that different Ornis could be given to different Houses (Ordos only get to call in for example, whereas Atreides can build a fleet), and that it provides more features for a relatively under-used building. Downsides are balancing between the two types and that the disadvantages from 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d still apply but multiply so.


I liked that in Dune 2000, each side has different Combat tanks, but found that the abilities were unevenly distributed due to the tanks' other properties. Less armour had only drawbacks really, and less speed was a fair price for more hitpoints. I'd like to do something similar for the mod, even though it is a departure. I'd keep the changes small, and for each boon add a disadvantage too. Also, I'd like these abilities to be applied to all the Houses' units; there is no point in having one unit be faster for instance if the others can no longer keep up!

4a> The first option is to apply the modifiers globally to each House as RA1 did with the countries. Upside is that it is simple and global. Downside is that it would be applied to everything uniformly; even "Legacy" units.

4b> Keep the modifiers specific to each unit, and have different disadvantages for different units according to House type. Upside is that different units could be balanced differently whilst all having the same basic advantage. Downside is that it is more fiddly and also less uniform; players would have to be made aware/learn the special properties of each unit over and beyond the units basic function ingame.

4c> The modifiers only kick in as the units gain veterancy. Upsides are that all Houses start on a level playing field units-wise, and that players who keep veterans alive reap the rewards of their House's playing style. Downsides are that it would be fiddly to balance as the veterancy bonuses are global, and that disadvantages to compensate for the perks would not be easily implementable.

4d> Keep it as Dune2! Upsides are simpler coding as uniformity between Houses and thus better balance. Downsides are that it would be less varied, and that House choice would boil down to special unit and House background reasons.

Another thing that has sat quietly in the back of my mind, niggling away, is that of identification. If I keep the fully-remap ingame images of units, it would make casual ID of a house very difficult by assessing units if they weren't playing in that House's traditional colours. Eg, if a Harkonnen player chose blue as a MP or Skirmish colour and was playing another Harkonnen player and an Atreides player.

5a> Keep the fully-remap units; players can mouse over the units to ascertain their House (tooltips ID). Upsides are that the same voxel could be used for all Houses and it adds subterfuge to the players' arsenal. Downside is that it can become very confusing when playing against random AI opponents.

5b> Theme units with colour schemes and use remap to denote teams as usual. Upsides mean that others will know which House is which easily and that the schemes can be used to theme the Houses visually too. Downsides are that it is more work and that it could be quite different to Dune2.

Finally for this section is unit production. In the original game, units were produced one-by-one at each factory, and that was it. In subsequent CnC games, units were produced from the sidebar, and having more production facilities just meant faster build times.

6a> Keep it as CnC games. Upside is that this is the easiest/simplest option. Downsides are that armies get produced faster but with no extra penalties past the cost of extra buildings; this leads to the old Tank Rush and secondly that there is no reason not to expand as much as possible.

6b> Each production facility acts like a Cloning Vat but increases unit cost by 100%. Upsides are that you can still build big armies quickly. Also, though the cost-per-unit remains the same, each minimum order increases as you expand, thus preventing players from spamming production buildings. Downsides are that a player may want more units at one stage, and wish to revert to smaller production later. Also it doesn't encourage expansion much - which can also be a bad thing, depending.

6c> Keep the cloning feature, but only for some unit types like infantry. Upsides are that it would be faster to produce certain types of cheaper units that players would want in large numbers  -like infantry- without penalising the production of higher-cost units like tanks. Downsides are that it would exacerbate the Tank Rush tactics typical of CnC games by offering the best of both worlds.

6d> Same as 6a, but with no production bonuses for multiple production facilities. Upsides are that there is the least chance for rushes and that it is simple. Downsides are that there is little reason to build more than one or two of anything except for rally-point or backup reasons. Also, it is the slowest production option.


Each House has different building options and also different specialist units. Some of these were possibly a bit unbalanced in Dune2.

Harkonnen Devastator units were always too slow to do much in Dune2, and were rendered useless against Ordos if there were a few Deviators around.

7a> Devastators have turrets. Upsides are that this makes them better able to shoot at fast units which makes them more generally useful and balances their many disadvantages (cost, speed, self-destruction). Downsides are that this would make it the Dune 2000 (AKA Mammoth Tank) version, and not the Dune2 version. Also, against lighter units it makes the Devastator too good by negating an element of the hit-and-run tactics.

7b> Devastators are cheaper, but still take as long to build. Upsides are that their loss is less keenly felt and that it would encourage players to consider them as part of a main assault. Downsides are that they might be more susceptible to be used for Rushing or even as suicide units.

7c>  Make Devastators immune to Deviators. Upsides are that it solves the cheap problem of being Deviated-and-destructed and that is still has weaknesses that an Ordos player can (perhaps more fairly?) exploit.

7d> Leave it as it is; Harkonnen already get other advantages anyway! Upsides are that this would be more in keeping with Dune2 and that it compensated for Harkonnen having both a less vulnerable House SW and having "better" tech earlier on than the other Houses (Troopers, Quads). Downsides are that the Devastator was too easily destructed, and that when it did so it damaged the rest of the attack force.

Saboteurs are a unit that was certainly effective, but that was a bit too easily stopped in Dune 2 - especially compared to the destruction that the Death Hand could wreak.

8a> Have Saboteurs as in Dune 2000; several are buildable up to a unit limit and each does some damage but not enough individually to destroy the biggest/best items in the game. Upsides are that it is easier to balance, and that the Ordos player can be more flexible with them; attacking several different smaller targets or one big one, losing one unit and still having several left to carry out the attack. Downsides are that they are still vulnerable and easily killed, and that they are less effective individually than the Dune 2 ones.

8b> Change the Saboteur to a Spy/Thief like the RA2 Spy. Upsides are that this is easy to do, and would be a better special than a suicide unit. Downsides are that it isn't a Saboteur unless it enters a Powerplant or Outpost (shutting them down) and that the most useful features - stealing veterancy and cash - are kinda limited once they've been done a couple of times in a game.

8c> Saboteur cannot harm infantry, but can disguise as any infantryman it can click on like the RA2 Spy. Upsides are that this reduces the vulnerability of the old Saboteurs and lets them be as individually devastating as in Dune 2. Downsides are that this wasn't a feature of Dune2 and that I'm not sure how this works having not tested it before.

8d> Change the Saboteur to a vehicle thief/saboteur like the TS Hijacker or the RA2 Terror Drone. Upsides are that both have been tested, and that both are suitable for taking over/damaging high-value vehicle units like harvesters, Devastators, Sonic Tanks, etc. Downsides are that this is not what the Dune 2 unit did, and that they would have no real effect against infantry or buildings (though I guess they could have some AP pistol or whatever).

8e> Drop the Saboteur altogether and give House Ordos a SW. Upsides are that it would be fairer as they are traditionally the weaker House to play ingame and that it is simple enough to implement. Downsides are that this is a radical departure from Dune 2 and that the Saboteur "Legacy" unit would be dropped.

Atreides have the Fremen as their SW, but this is tricky to implement in RA2 as it was in Dune 2. Biggest difference is that the troops are controllable.

9a> Have Fremen appear via a special Paradrop SW on the map like RA2 US Paratroopers. Upsides are that it is easy to do and that it is similar to the way they could appear anywhere on the map in Dune 2. Also, by being non-buildable like this, it stops player spamming them. Downsides are that they would need a plane or other delivery system, and that even if invisible and invulnerable etc the delivery system would still show up on the owner's radar.

9b> Fremen are buildable at Barracks one the Palace is built. Just like Dune 2000. Upsides are that this solves the disadvantages of 9a and is simple to do. Downside is that they can be spammed. if a unit limit is placed on them, then their attacks are limited in size too - with 9a, a player can "hoard" the troops by dropping them somewhere safe.

9c> Fremen can be built without limit but take a very long time to build. Upsides are that this is simple, and that players can either save up a big attack or make smaller but more frequent raids. Downsides are that if they are buildable they will be subject to the Barracks production bonuses anyway and the build speed may be rendered moot as well as the problem that it holds up the production of other infantry.

Another question is whether Fremen should cloak.

10a> Fremen cloak just as they did in Dune 2000. Upside is that they are inherently better than normal infantry like this and they don't need mega-attacks or such to achieve it. Downsides are that this wasn't how Dune 2 had them and that cloakable units can be hard to find if you are playing a kill-everything game.

10b> Fremen look to other players like regular light infantry at all times but are obviously not and appear as Fremen to their owner. Upsides are that this keeps them visible but still makes them harder to target as special threats. This misdirection is more like the original "visual camouflage" of Dune 2. Downsides are that you will need to have lots of other light infantry to act as decoys and that opposing players can still see (potentially) where you may have the Fremen hidden.

10c> Fremen look like Fremen. Upsides are that everyone knows what the unit is when they see it and that it is simple to do. Downsides are that it makes the Atreides SW more vulnerable to being stopped and that Fremen can be targeted in special preference to other units.

Finally access to other units.

11a> Houses get access to general unit that they otherwise cannot build by constructing the Starport. Fore example, Harkonnen get the Trike, and Ordos get the Missile Launcher. Upsides are that it fill holes in the Houses' arsenals and balances them out. Downsides are that it costs the Houses their uniqueness somewhat and that it makes balance that much harder; the Starport is usually fairly late game, and Missile Tanks are more likely to be useful then than the Trikes for example.

11b> Houses do not get access general units. Upsides and downsides are opposite to 11a but with additional downside that this is not how it was in Dune 2.


Starport logic cannot be done as it was in Dune 2. However, other things can be done instead.

12a> Starports offer one or more of various production bonuses; income (like RA2 Oil Derrick), discounts on cost of vehicle and/or aircraft units, production speed bonuses and recycling options (like the YR Grinder). Upsides are that this gives players a similar boost to their war efforts just like the original and that it is simple to do. Downsides are that there are no negative effects like the fluctuating/high costs of the original Starports.

12b> Starport gives access to Alliance units (like Ix, Tleilaxu or Mercenaries/Guild). Upside is again simplicity. Downsides are that this is a radical departure from the original, trickier to balance and that players would not have a choice of who to ally with.

12c> Starport gives access to Guild information. Players get a chargeable SW like a Spy Sat (Yuri Psychic Revealer) or a black market deal (money donation to owning player like Generals China Cash Hack). Upsides are that it is useful but not game-winning. Downside is that it may not be useful enough (especially to some Houses/players) to warrant building.

12d> Combination of 12a, 12b and/or 12c. Upsides are as the comments for each option, as are downsides.


Contours weren't in Dune 2; it was all flat. The mod will have contours, and so tactics will matter more.

13a> Implement Infantry-only rock. Upsides are that this was a feature of Dune 2 and that such rock can be placed in quite a few different terrain types - not just on construction rock. Downside is that though it provides shelter for infantry in that vehicles cannot enter it, it offers no protection from shooting attacks.

13b> Implement Infantry-only rock that can be destroyed. Upsides and downsides as 13a, except that the rock can now be destroyed.

13c> No Infantry-only rock. Upsides are that it is simpler and that it may influence the options in 2. Downsides are that Dune 2 had it and that it adds visually to the barren landscape of Dune.

Right, that's it for now! I *really* would appreciate it if ppl could let me know their preferences and if possible their reasons. I will say this though; it won't be an exact Dune 2 clone because (i) there is little point in the mod otherwise; players could just play either Dune2 or one of the other clones, (ii) the RA2 engine is different to the Dune2 engine, and not all the old options are translatable.

Thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know all about your talents from other forums, so thank you Universal, but I prefer to do without your particular help. Theiving and lying will get you no sympathy or forgiveness from me. :-X

Besides that, in my post as I'm not asking for 3d models, skinning or help in making the assets for it; I just wanted to know people's preferences on various aspects of what I had in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Yotta/Universe/Universal/DAA:

No, you've been repeatedly caught stealing assets from various sources - including other mods - and passing them off as your own. You have also been repeatedly banned from several modding sites for this and for making certain offending remarks.

As such, I don't want to have anything to do with you or your work, and you still have not posted anything relevant here. You know perfectly well what my feelings are towards you.

I therefore ask that you please refrain from spamming, irrelvancies, and indeed from posting in my threads.

To everyone else:

I apologise for seeming unreasonable on this, but this is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern of behaviour. As a modder, I don't like the idea of hard work being stolen and disgused, whether it is a game company's work or a modder's.

I'm also sorry this had to be done here at all, and I'd prefer it in fact if a moderator could delete these last few posts so that we can move on with the subect of my original post.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I love RA2 and would love to see a good Dune 2 version on the RA2 engine. Will you create new graphics (based on the Dune 2 look? or will you just take the original Dune 2 and convert/scale it to RA2? I suggest that you make the main part of the game as close as possible to Dune 2, but I hope that you will use the CnC solution for the orni's as the automatic ornies was a huge mistake in dune 2.

Keep up the work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Nema:

Poor choice of words, I accept that.

@ Vidiware:

Well, what sort of CnC style would you suggest/like to see for the Ornithopters? There were at least three different ways that fliers were represented in RA2, and each has the good and bad points...

As for GFX, I will be remaking (or have done) everything from scratch. One main reason is that the Dune GFG are all aoblique, whereas subsequent games have been isometric (until Gens anyway). This means that there will some difference anyway, and though I wanted it to stay close to Dune2, I did also want to take advantage of the better engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's brilliant with new graphics as long as it stay close to the original (not like the Emperor one with complete new units).

I would prefer the a 1-1 landingpad situation like the Orcas in CnC, but I think the way the Harriers act in RA2 is brilliant.

How do you solve the caryall and vehicles? Is it possible to redefine what units a helicopter can carry?

Could you post a teaser Voxel or SHP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have YR, but I must say RA has a certain amount of potential to make a DII replica. For one thing, the palettes work very well - the allied blue-gey is similar to the blue-grey of metal (units, fences, some buildings) int DII, and the soviet brownish grey works as a parallel to the DII concrete colours. I have in the past created quite successful replicas of DII units using voxels. The Grizzly can easily be modified to imitate the Combat/Rocket/Sonic tank chassis. The soviet greatcoats aldo make for good fremen.

Regarding the trooper/inf question, I had the same conundrum making Collapse of a Dynasty. My solution was to have four infanty types: light and heavy infantry and troopers. The heavy versions of each were on the whole better, but the extra expense could not always be justified, particularly when the enemy had few anti-infantry forces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe make trooper infantry fire rockets as primary and anti-infantry grenades as secondary weapons (or vice versa), so that there is more logic in their gun GFX? Or, alternatively, have them wield machineguns with underslung grenade launchers (against vehicles/buildings)?

On the other hand, I think that, at least, in Tiberian Sun you can exactly replicate the situation with two weapons in Dune 2 if they have different ranges ??? I'm not sure though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. Well, if you're giving them IFV-style rockets (one at a time, of course) you could give them a primary weapon of a medium-short range rocket with a trail, and a short-range anti-infantry projectile with the same graphics, but without a trail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe make trooper infantry fire rockets as primary and anti-infantry grenades as secondary weapons (or vice versa), so that there is more logic in their gun GFX? Or, alternatively, have them wield machineguns with underslung grenade launchers (against vehicles/buildings)?

On the other hand, I think that, at least, in Tiberian Sun you can exactly replicate the situation with two weapons in Dune 2 if they have different ranges ??? I'm not sure though...

In Tiberian Sun, a unit chooses the weapon by considering primarily the damage per shot and warhead modifier. If you have a rocket soldier with two weapons, one with HE and other with AP, it would always attack none-type armor with HE, even if the one with AP has a longer range. Or it would fire one AP shot and then it'll get closer, I'm not sure in this.

RA2 has mostly same scripts, but I'm not sure in this, I didn't mod it much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, new posts!  ;D

@ Vidiware:

Yes I can post some images, but I'm trying a few ideas out before I launch into making everything; I've done that before, and it tends to kill off enthusiasm for finishing when you're having to keep redoing things... :-[ As such, I'll try and post something up over the next couple of days (hopefully with an animated Gif so that you can better see my intentions...).

As for the helipads/RA2 Harrier method of Ornithopters, that can be done. In fact, the old Dune2 GFX had a landing pad drawn on the Hi Tech Factory, and I suppose I could use that as a base. I'd probably allow two units to land on it though, as it wouldn't be cost-space effective to build the Factories otherwise.

I didn't really need to solve the Carryall problem, as it can pick up whatever vehicle-type units you want it to. The two issues with carryalls are that {i} they can pick up ships and drop them on land and vice-versa (so I understand) because you cannot limit what it is allowed to transport. In addition {ii} they cannot be (easily) automated like they were in the Dune games - i.e. they behave like the Advanced Carryalls in EBFD. Anyway, if it were a problem, there is a workaround that is less pretty too; treat it like the RA2 Nighthawk, and determine what it can carry and how much by its passenger toggles. Issue {i} isn't a problem as there are no naval units. Issue {ii} isn't a huge problem, it just means that players need to micro a bit more.

@ Nema Fakei:

Well, actually, I won't be limited to the RA2 palette for SHPs as I think I'm gonna be using the Rock Patch. These means a custom palette for every building if I like! Voxels are limited to RA2 colours though.

I don't have a problem with voxel-making either, and am happy to make whatever I need from scratch. This means I won't need to touch the Grizzly Tank in any way  ;).

Finally, I did consider your infantry solution. And similarly for other situations in other mods. But there is always one major problem IMO: cost effectiveness. If one of the classes becomes "better value" than the other, then the inferior unit(s) will not get built much in competitive play. If they are both the same "value" then the earlier unit will get used in preference.

For example, if for the same total build time and cost, four light infantry with MGs are just as good as two Troopers with MGs, then the light infantry would get built as they are available sooner and won't be outdated by the Troopers later. If one becomes "better value" than the other in any useful way, then the other won't get built much.

Another example of this is the Trike and the Quad in Dune2; once the map is mostly explored, the Quad is better value than the Trike and nobody builds the Trike anymore. If the map is small(ish), they may be no need for the Trike at all. If Ornithopters can scout the map for you a bit later anyway, there is no good reason to build the trike at all. So the Trike and Quad need to have different properties to keep them from making each other obsolete.

@ Mr Flibble:

The grenade idea is pretty good actually. Hell, the MG/Grenade might work as-is. The grenades would be like the old unguided rockets anyway. The only downside to not having the Rockets is that Troopers fire at Ornithopters, and grenades don't really fit that bill. Hmm, more suggestions needed I think?

Also, yes, different weapons can have different ranges, even if they are mounted on the same unit. Also, they can be given different warhead types and properties so that they treat categories of targets differently.

@ Caid Ivik:

RA2 is similar, but not quite the same. In my experience weapons in RA2 can only affect certain target types if you want them to alternate between different targets. So an MG must do no damage to tanks if you want a cannon on the same unit to fire at tanks, and the cannon must do no damage to infantry if you want the MG to be used against them.


Being me (no known cure I'm afraid), I have also missed something obvious in my consideration in the second post of this topic. Cloning only works on infantry, so the options apply only to infantry where cloing logic is concerned. The rest of the for/against arguments still hold though, so I've left them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks  :D

Remap is the blue band under the cockpit canopy. The quad is still a bit WIP as the canopy needs better normals and a few other tweaks. I wanted to lighten the remap a bit as well, but contrast of blue against the canopy glass isn't the greatest... Shoulda shown it with a red remap I suppose! Mind you, I never liked remap all that much anyway.

BTW, I had the cameos, sidebars and units colour-schemed to fit each House. Atreides units would be in sand-beige, Ordos in caunter and Harkonnen in either a dark brown or a grey. The cameos and sidebars would be kept in a retro-style as shown above, but also themed a bit in colour.  This is in keeping with some of my musings in point {5}.

What are people's thoughts on this? Good or bad? If scroll up to point {5} you can see what my arguments/thoughts on this were and see if you agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need some remap (though I can't stand the RA1 style). I also strongly agree with the idea of three colour schemes for the voxels (no surprises... precisely what I did for COAD). Though to be honest, if it's easier to do everything in one colour to begin with, that would free up time for more essential stuff.

What tools are you using for the Voxels and SHP's, by the way? Is Will/Plasmadroid/Koen's still the standard?

Ah, I remember RA2 normals. Horrible, horrible things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree remap is needed, but I still don't like it much. I usually keep it to a minimum and put it somewhere visible.

I am pretty old-school with Voxel editing actually. I use Will's original Voxel Editor and paint TS normals by hand (though I can paint RA2 normals too). I find that the newer proggies add too much extraneous stuff that slows their speed down whilst not adding enough that is *needed*. I do have them and use them, especially for the occasional specialist function like copy-pasting a layer, but rarely. Still, I'd rather that there were new editors being worked on and released than not.

As for differing schemes, it doesn't take that much longer, but I will finish all the Atreides' units as "standard", and then add/recolour for the other two Houses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is always a possibility of using faction color (reds, I think), and so you'll have the color which you choose in ie multiplayer

Yeah, that's Remap. Thing is, if you are playing Atreides, and you happen to select purple as your team colour, how will other players know that you're Atreides and not Imperial? They'd have to click on or scroll over your units to find out, and it isn't as visually obvious as it could be. The alternative is to give each House a fixed scheme with limited remappable areas, and then the units are recognisable irrespective of what team colour is chosen (like EBFD). I covered the two options in point {5}.

Full remap is more true to Dune2. Full remap is also confusing as hell when playing skirmish/MP! So which to choose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you're going to make units based on the DII unit graphics, then put in as much remap as the DII units had. But if you're going to make units based on the nicer, larger graphics (as you did with the quad), then remap only small areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] if you're going to make units based on the nicer, larger graphics (as you did with the quad) [...]

So, I take it you like the schemed units more then?

I redid the Trike (again!), and now I'm not sure which style I like more. I think the glass bubble canopy looks better, even though the larger pictures showed an armoured cockpit; the rest of the Trike is as the large pictures in both cases though. Anyway, I've attached both below, and I'd appreciate others' views on which they prefer.

Also, I'm surprised that after over 200 views of this topic, nobody has much to say on the game issues I identified originally... :-


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...