[Release] Ordos's Tactics

[Fey]

Less than 20 events? Damn. I usually fill up events and conditions to make sure things all work - I program berserk triggers, reinforcements (possibly even with multiple carryalls in the same drop for cinematic purposes), I make sure messages are there for when an enemy is eliminated, that harvesters are delivered to any side that has a refinery and lacks a harvester... you know. I usually run out of space with little more than those functions, actually, which is unfortunate because I'd like to include more depth. Ah, well.

Having taken a look at the new editor, I realize that it's a "tile revealed" trigger now, and that's really extremely useful to know. I feel as though things are falling into place as I learn more about how this game functions.

I would love to add some story, myself, but I really like to leave things open-ended in terms of map design. Leave the player with little to start with, let them build their own base, and give them multiple avenues of attack. I like some narrow spaces, but I like them to be strategically placed. Large, open spaces are, I believe, a necessary part of map-making because without open spaces, you fight in really cramped areas, which messes with unit pathing, chokes masses of units, and other stuff. You can see some of that in the links I linked on the other thread.

Speaking of which... I left some questions on that thread, the one with my maps in it pertaining to the editor and stuff. I figure you would be one of the best people to ask! If you know what any of the answers are, I'd love to hear 'em...

[Feda]

Do I have missions with less than 20 events? Maybe the old ones, but War of Assassins should have more than that on average  For me it really depends on the type of mission, for example the Sandstorm expansion mission 4 of all 3 houses has plenty of events IIRC because it is more like a cinematic mission (and as Fey mentioned, cinematic stuff requires many events, but it's worth it since it looks good), while missions where it's just a normal battle without any secondary/optional objectives or without plot changes in-game can take, indeed, less than 20 events for me :D. 

 

The huge open space was always an issue of mine, probably because of playing online and being haunted by sonics jamming entrances of pretty narrow maps. However, narrow maps, especially for campaign maps, could be better in many situations, and they certainly look better. It really depends, for example if I'm making a mission that takes place in the Funeral Plains, I won't make it narrow, since it's a plain, it should have a lot of open space. I sometimes make the AI bases one-entrance only, which some people like a lot and some people dislike a lot (based on feedback). This is because the AI can easily be exploited, since it's kinda stupid, and by having 2 or more entrances you can easily create diversions and the AI will use the units in a very ineffective way. Yes, this is strategic, and if the player realizes it's good for him, but when I want a mission to be harder I want to force the player to show he has better unit control and production than the AI and that he can't use the backdoor to beat them. It works pretty well, the mission gets harder that way, and that is what people who like this approach love about it: it's more difficult. This is only to the main bases of the factions, if the faction has more than one base, the secondary bases will always have more entrances, or if single, a big one.

 

I usually don't count a lot on reinforcements, and that is a big problem of mine: i'm being lazy when it comes to adding reinforcements to the AI to make them attack more. I usually focus on editing the AI segments to make them be strong by production instead of reinforcements, but sometimes the reinforcement approach can serve better. Again, situational things.

 

It's nice to see how other people think when they are making their missions, and it's good to see there is enough creativity, after spotting these differences between our styles of mapping I really wish there were more people making missions, since whenever u get home tired and u feel like playing some dune and you don't want to sweat your shirt playing online and want to just rape the AI, you go play some missions or skirmish.

[Fey]

2 hours ago, FedaYkin said:

The huge open space was always an issue of mine, probably because of playing online and being haunted by sonics jamming entrances of pretty narrow maps.

(stuff about base entrances here)

I usually don't count a lot on reinforcements, and that is a big problem of mine: i'm being lazy when it comes to adding reinforcements to the AI to make them attack more. I usually focus on editing the AI segments to make them be strong by production instead of reinforcements, but sometimes the reinforcement approach can serve better. Again, situational things.

Oh, God, yeah. Those sonic tanks

I enjoy me some front gate-raiding fun with a mass of units against the AI, myself, but I do it a little differently. Unit control is obviously a crucial part of the design decision, and I think that attacking two locations at once encourages unit control too. But, uhh, I like to boost the AI's production capacity as well, and I also like to play very aggressively in general, so on a map like H3V1 (my version), where the AI has a single base entrance guarded by turrets and the only other option is infantry-only (who get slaughtered without vehicle support), it becomes very difficult to attack early or inflict any sort of damage when the AI is pumping out quite a few more units than you are, and the only units you have capable of breaching the base entrance are Troopers.

They have three Barracks right next to each-other, but each one belongs to a different team. So, rather than faster production, they have more production. And... it adds up!! At least only one of them pumps out Grenadiers.

Reinforcements are cool in moderation, but I don't think much of it should be used. I think increasing the AI's production and tweaking their attack strategies, with some obvious exceptions, is generally a better way to go about making the AI attack the player. Typically, I use reinforcements for very specific purposes, like... encouraging a more defensive playstyle early on by sending extra stuff at the player early. See A2V1 / 2 or H3V1 / 2, my version. Usually allows the computer to build up more units for the late game. Or, countering an attack on an enemy expansion. See O2V2, my version - destroying one computer AI's base will cause the units defending the other one's base to come for you, and for replacement reinforcements to arrive to defend that base. I use it also just to bolster enemy ranks and make them more intimidating, like in O3V1, both the Atreides and Harkonnen sides receive occasional starport deliveries with some advanced units in them.

If my goal is to bolster enemy ranks or adjust attacks, it may be a better idea to have a side base for the enemy team that'll send smaller stuff at the player periodically on its own, rather than reinforcements for the main team. Don't want too much 'clutter' in terms of triggers, you know? Not too much free stuff. And, making a weak AI is a nice way to provide reinforcements naturally.

[Cm_blast]

 

3 hours ago, FedaYkin said:

Do I have missions with less than 20 events? Maybe the old ones, but War of Assassins should have more than that on average  For me it really depends on the type of mission, for example the Sandstorm expansion mission 4 of all 3 houses has plenty of events IIRC because it is more like a cinematic mission (and as Fey mentioned, cinematic stuff requires many events, but it's worth it since it looks good), while missions where it's just a normal battle without any secondary/optional objectives or without plot changes in-game can take, indeed, less than 20 events for me :D. 

Yes Feda, I was about to said mainly in the olds where the "Harverster remplacement" is not present. A mission with 4 players is already 16 events just with this, so add the mission win/loose and "side annihilated" and you have more than 20 with the more basic.

Of course. This very campaign mission 5 have like 30 y mission 6 only 22. I did it on purpose for those 2 maps (which are simple without any extra objetive).

10 hours ago, Fey said:

I like some narrow spaces, but I like them to be strategically placed. Large, open spaces are, I believe, a necessary part of map-making because without open spaces, you fight in really cramped areas, which messes with unit pathing, chokes masses of units

 

3 hours ago, FedaYkin said:

The huge open space was always an issue of mine, probably because of playing online and being haunted by sonics jamming entrances of pretty narrow maps. However, narrow maps, especially for campaign maps, could be better in many situations, and they certainly look better. It really depends, for example if I'm making a mission that takes place in the Funeral Plains, I won't make it narrow, since it's a plain, it should have a lot of open space. I sometimes make the AI bases one-entrance only, which some people like a lot and some people dislike a lot (based on feedback). This is because the AI can easily be exploited, since it's kinda stupid, and by having 2 or more entrances you can easily create diversions and the AI will use the units in a very ineffective way. Yes, this is strategic, and if the player realizes it's good for him, but when I want a mission to be harder I want to force the player to show he has better unit control and production than the AI and that he can't use the backdoor to beat them. It works pretty well, the mission gets harder that way, and that is what people who like this approach love about it: it's more difficult. This is only to the main bases of the factions, if the faction has more than one base, the secondary bases will always have more entrances, or if single, a big one.

Technically one can do the mission as hard as he wants with 2 entrances or more. place together 2 bases together, one occupying 1 entrance and the other enemy the other entrance, so you can't create a diversion since you will attrack only one enemy but not the other.

Also I could attack their harversters and dragging them out of the base, so there is always a way to create a diversion.

Anyway, still to this day I couldn't win your old Atreides mission 9 nor sandworm expansion Atreides mission 6 XD.

I try to create a bit of narrow for reasons. One because I have the need to fill everything (a bit Psychotic? XD) other because the original game usually feels more detailed with all those rifts and stuff. Also because sometimes I feel that if the map is just 95% open area is boring to explore. Five maps with an very open area and the map is almost the same, maybe change where the player/enemy appears, but the rest is all the same.

But anyway, this very campaign have 1 mission like that, mission 6 is all a big open area full of spice.

On the other hand, my Frank Herbert mission 14 use a very narrow area, but that was on purpose, so if the player try to just group tons of units that wouldn't be efficient at all.

But also, you said that mission with only 1 entrance are harder because there is no backdoor. Well, Need to say just because you create 2 entrances that doesn't means that player really need to use them. I mean, "I like that mission, was harder to win, I love that". <-- this guy is not going to use the backdoor trick to beat your levels; no because he can't, but because he don't want.

3 hours ago, FedaYkin said:

I usually don't count a lot on reinforcements, and that is a big problem of mine: i'm being lazy when it comes to adding reinforcements to the AI to make them attack more. I usually focus on editing the AI segments to make them be strong by production instead of reinforcements, but sometimes the reinforcement approach can serve better. Again, situational things.

I usually use the reinforcements as a way to do early attacks until the AI starts the regular attacks, but the AI itself have a low production, so after all the "all in attack" ends is when the player can start to retaliate.
Having several AIs with high production I feel like I don't make any progress: I Build 30 units, I lost 29, I build 20 more, I lost 15, I build 20 more, I lost 30.... I am at the same spot as 15 minutes ago, and usually that makes me quit.
Also I don't like when a mission last for 2 hours (I can admit if the map are mission 8 and 9, but not before). That's the reason I play Dunes, C&C and barely play Age of Empires or Empire Eart (of course, this is just me).

Not only that, but when I create a mission more frenetic the mission usualy is shorter. A game (game in general, not only Dune) with a very fast pace lasting 10 minutes is enough to feel fulfilled, while playing an RPG type of game 1 hour seems too little.

My Frank Herbert mission 5 only last 16 minutes (real time). But since the continues attacks is making the player never stop doing things. In fact, I don't feel the mission short at all, and the time seems to pass very very slowly, like a neverending attack.

3 hours ago, FedaYkin said:

It's nice to see how other people think when they are making their missions, and it's good to see there is enough creativity, after spotting these differences between our styles of mapping I really wish there were more people making missions, since whenever u get home tired and u feel like playing some dune and you don't want to sweat your shirt playing online and want to just rape the AI, you go play some missions or skirmish.

Yeah, the diversity. That's when I rearrange those old campaigns (your include) I just let the mission stay the way was created. Didn't want to use my own criteria to change something I can consider a "flaw".

 

49 minutes ago, Fey said:

They have three Barracks right next to each-other, but each one belongs to a different team. So, rather than faster production, they have more production. And... it adds up!! At least only one of them pumps out Grenadiers.

Maybe you don't know about the proportions. By default the AI always build a porportion of 1:1 unit. This means if you place with the editor 10 infantry of Harkonnen, them they are going to train 10 troopers first, and from there he will build 1 infantry - 1 trooper - 1 infantry - 1 trooper.

You can use this to make the AI training what you want, or changing in the AI Tab, there is a "unitbuildpriority" so you can make the AI to train 4 troopers for every infantry... or you can even make 1 player only train infantry and the other player only train trooper, and the third player only train grenadier. How about that?

1 hour ago, Fey said:

destroying one computer AI's base will cause the units defending the other one's base to come for you, and for replacement reinforcements to arrive to defend that base. I use it also just to bolster enemy ranks and make them more intimidating, like in O3V1, both the Atreides and Harkonnen sides receive occasional starport deliveries with some advanced units in them.

I use this type of thing sometimes. Like placing units around one/two bases and when the player do something they go berseker, exposing the base they were protecting.

 

[Fey]

9 minutes ago, Cm_blast said:

Maybe you don't know about the proportions. By default the AI always build a porportion of 1:1 unit. This means if you place with the editor 10 infantry of Harkonnen, them they are going to train 10 troopers first, and from there he will build 1 infantry - 1 trooper - 1 infantry - 1 trooper.

You can use this to make the AI training what you want, or changing in the AI Tab, there is a "unitbuildpriority" so you can make the AI to train 4 troopers for every infantry... or you can even make 1 player only train infantry and the other player only train trooper, and the third player only train grenadier. How about that?

I use this type of thing sometimes. Like placing units around one/two bases and when the player do something they go berseker, exposing the base they were protecting.

I've been playing around with the proportions, but what I meant was that only one of them has the tech capable of pumping out grenadiers - an outpost, in addition to the barracks. I'll definitely be playing around with unit build priorities.

Yeah, exactly. That's the way it happened in O2V2. I had two enemy sides: 1 and 3. Side 1's stationary defender units are located in side 3's base, and side 3's stationary defender units are located in side 1's, so... when one side berserked, it seemed as though the other side retaliated.

[Dark Wesker]

I like yours campaigns but they are very difficult (even dune 2 campaign finale mission) . The mission 7 is very hard and a lot hassle. I skip this mission.  And maybe I skip other campaigns (Butlerian Jihad Mission 7...). I'm just playing badly but I played better in the past. It's too long I didn't play this game and others (red alert, C&C, Generals...).

But yours campaigns is really interesting and good, I enjoy it.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Dark Wesker

[Cm_blast]

1 hour ago, Dark Wesker said:

I like yours campaigns but they are very difficult (even dune 2 campaign finale mission) . The mission 7 is very hard and a lot hassle. I skip this mission.  And maybe I skip other campaigns (Butlerian Jihad Mission 7...). I'm just playing badly but I played better in the past. It's too long I didn't play this game and others (red alert, C&C, Generals...).

But yours campaigns is really interesting and good, I like playing.

Thank for playing them.

Yes, I think the only two campaigns that are easy (comparing to the rest) are the "a new house" and "the emperor return" (and a couple of single missions).

In general, with a Barrack after 1 or 2 refs (depending of the initial units and money given) and placing turrets around the base that help a lot to beat most of my maps. Even the gun turrets are more good than it looks. A few of my maps become more accesible just by having 4 or 5 gun turrets.

[Dark Wesker]

You say my missions are very difficult/Hard?  But yours is much harder...The finale mission is insane.

[Cm_blast]

3 minutes ago, Dark Wesker said:

You say my missions are very difficult/Hard?  But yours is much harder...The finale mission is insane

I said that was hard to navigate. The units kept pushing each other while moving and worse when attacking; but overall the map is not that hard, just a bit unexpected (like the enemy having quads and the sudden appear of the sandworm).

Edited July 28, 2017 by Cm_blast

[Dark Wesker]

But still the situation is not easy. It's too difficult for me. Very needed reinforcement but there is not. Enemies too much and plus superweapons used.

I don't get it. I build the first building High tech Factory, but nothing, no reinforcements.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Dark Wesker

[Cm_blast]

49 minutes ago, Dark Wesker said:

I don't get it. I build the first building High tech Factory, but nothing, no reinforcements.

The reinforcements only appears when you destroy at least one of the enemy bases.

Try to defend yourself with several turrets much more than with tanks.

And then check in the map (since there are two areas already reveleaded) to see if the Atreides or the Harkonnen are sending an attack to the other. If you see Harkonnen marching against the Atreides, group your units and attack the same enemy, even if that group it isn't too big.
The attacks happen frequently, so don't rush to attack.

Atreides will have it difficult to protect themselves from two enemies attacking from two different sides at the same time. Once that small base is weakened, your saboteurs can take any building easily (and then, another small attack from you or from the Harkonnen will be enough to take the rest of the base).

After the whole small base is destroyed, then you will start to recieve reinforcements in an endless loop. More bases destroyed = more reinforcements.

Also, there is another trick. Explore the area around you with the Raiders. You can search for an Atreides Harverster, attacking it, and when you see a group of Atreides going to defend it, run to an area near a Harkonnen harverster. The Atreides will kill your unit and, by proximity, attacking the Harkonnen one, so you can force both sides to start a fight between them.

Ps: Once I lost all my units except 2 damaged combat tanks and less than 5 troopers, and I still manage to survive the attacks and recover my self. Took me some time, but thanks to the turrets I didn't needed to reload the game, so with turrets the map is possible to win.

[Dark Wesker]

I did it. Complete this mission. The biggest difficulty is at the beginning and then easy. The only reinforcements needed in the beginning.  The mission itself is interesting. I capture Atreides construction yard and the Harkonnen Heavy factory with construction yard. I became powerful, reinforcements needn't. Only the mission 7 not complete, too hard.

By the way I always used turrets.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Dark Wesker

[Cm_blast]

1 hour ago, Dark Wesker said:

I did it. Complete this mission. The biggest difficulty is at the beginning and then easy. The only reinforcements needed in the beginning.  The mission itself is interesting. I capture Atreides construction yard and the Harkonnen Heavy factory with construction yard. I became powerful, reinforcements needn't. Only the mission 7 not complete, too hard.

The reinforcements is a kind of reward for taking every one of the enemies, since this map is like figthing 6 enemies at the same time. The reinforcements is a bit of help. Once you destroy the four you even recieve Saboteurs as part of the reinforcements, so defeating the two main bases of Atreides and Harkonnen at that point is a piece of cake.

Mission 7 is more about tactics (heh) and abusing the effect of the Deviators: The stronger unit for this scenario.

First, you need to search the enemy harversters, since you really need them to survive.
To the right there is a near mine field. A harverster should be over that place (if there isn't any, it's droping the spice on the ref, so wait a bit for it). To the up-left area there is another spice field, being another harverster over there.

Once you have located the two harversters, send the Deviators as soon as posible and convert them (In any order).
When you convert one of them, send it to mine in the closest spice field possible (the one your initial harverster go by default). Sending manually to this area will be more safe and gives you more control. Do the same with the second harverster.

From there all is about paying attention. Place a couple of deviators in the entrance of your ref, so as soon as a harverster become enemy again, you can deviate again and continue to use it. Depending on the number of deviators you have, place the others in the area where the harversters are mining (and 1 or 2 in the way between the ref and the spice field), so the harversters are under your control all the time.

Just need to check them occasionally, since when they are deviated can loose orders, needing you order them to harverster/retreat again.

Also, the deviator is deadly against the Devastator. By just selecting a couple of them and attacking those slow tanks you can avoid any damage from the devastator, so if you are paying attention those units aren't even a threat.

With the three harverster under you control you are more than ready to do the next step:
Have you plenty of units? start cleaning the right area.
Have you less units? start grouping a few troopers/infantry and do first the other part.

You can do the job in any order, As long as you don't destroy the wrong starport or the MCV you'll be fine. You may save some money so as soon as you new Construction Yard is deployed, you can start with more refineries and forget about deviating more harversters.

 

Yes, it's a bit complicated mission, I badly want to make the deviator usefull :P.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Cm_blast

[Dark Wesker]

I refuse to try again.  Because it takes a lot of time and effort.