16! That seems a little limiting

Real time World War II combat simulation
User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:27 pm

I could increase the number of squads but there's another limit of only up to 255 things per side and since there are up to 12 men per squad that would make a limit of 21 squads.

The new version I'm working on has 65% larger maps (3600x3600 pixles instead of 2800 x 2800 pixels). The problem is that the whole world has to be stored in a bitmap to make it scroll quickly and that requires a lot of memory, especially if your screen is set to 32 bit colour which XP is by default. I've separated all the graphics out into .bmp files now instead of being built in to the .exe file and Windows seems to be happier with that so that's why I can have bigger maps now.

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Post by Andy » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:25 pm

with 48 squads, surely this would allow for promotions - for the first few you micro-manage a squad, then control 1/3 of the battle, following orders from an AI, and then controlling the lot*, or just increasing the amount of units you control as you progress thru ranks.

*you in your proper HQ, with links to 3 other HQs, possible multiplayer links here but i think im getting a bit carried away with how much time sean has to spend on one game :roll:
________
health store
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:08 pm

Hey, I'm running this game on a beast of a machine, and two years from now computers will make mine now look like a joke. Provide the options and I'll find where my computer chokes. Technology moves faster than patches :)

I assume all these limits are artificial to stop the machine choking. As I said, make them all defaults, pop-up warnings if people try to change them, but open the options for us. There's simply no way of knowing what hardware someone is running this on, and options are the only real future-proofing you have.

Why BMP? Why not PNG?

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:49 am

Quitch wrote:Hey, I'm running this game on a beast of a machine, and two years from now computers will make mine now look like a joke. Provide the options and I'll find where my computer chokes. Technology moves faster than patches :)


I hear what you're saying but if I make the game map too large it will just take ages to find the enemy, and if there are too many units I think the game will become less playable as they become hard to keep track of. I'll increase the max number of squads though to 20 and see how that works.

Quitch wrote:Why BMP? Why not PNG?


Mostly because I've no experience of PNG files and I'd have to figure out how to make Windows load one! BMPs are uncompressed so no information is lost. What's the advantage of a PNG?

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:25 pm

I could increase the number of squads but there's another limit of only up to 255 things per side and since there are up to 12 men per squad that would make a limit of 21 squads.

That just kind of made me remember my earlier comment: if you had the player advance in rank and therefore have him command a battalion instead of a company lateron, you could have him move platoons around as he can move squads now. Maybe it would work out to have squads move like single men are now then, so actual gameplay wouldn't be too different. Anyway, if gameplay didn't change at all, the whole thing might also be called senseless, though.

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:33 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:
Quitch wrote:Hey, I'm running this game on a beast of a machine, and two years from now computers will make mine now look like a joke. Provide the options and I'll find where my computer chokes. Technology moves faster than patches :)


I hear what you're saying but if I make the game map too large it will just take ages to find the enemy, and if there are too many units I think the game will become less playable as they become hard to keep track of. I'll increase the max number of squads though to 20 and see how that works.


But that's my point, by providing options you set the defaults to how you think the game should be played and that' Firefight, but by providing those options you allow me to try other ways of enjoying it. Sure, a huge firefight will be less managable... perhaps that's half the fun? Just like in battle events overwhelm you. It also makes it highly scable, and if it doesn't work then you can just reset the options to default.

Since everything in games tends to be generated by algorithms there's really no such thing as a ceiling, it's the machine itself that's the limit. Add in an HQ and objective flag per number of squads and you've got yourself a highly scable game.

Think of game mods. Everyone tweaks a game to match their own personal tastes and nothing sucks more (no offence) than an option removed, not because it couldn't be there, but because it doesn't make sense to the developer.

Sean O'Connor wrote:
Quitch wrote:Why BMP? Why not PNG?


Mostly because I've no experience of PNG files and I'd have to figure out how to make Windows load one! BMPs are uncompressed so no information is lost. What's the advantage of a PNG?


PNG gives you the quality of BMP but with no loss of quality. Think of it like a ZIP file. You've still got the original files, but compressed, taking less space. PNGs are actually a bit more than that, but they take up less space (now whether that's true once opened an in memory...)[/list]

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:15 am

PNG gives you the quality of BMP but with no loss of quality. Think of it like a ZIP file. You've still got the original files, but compressed, taking less space. PNGs are actually a bit more than that, but they take up less space (now whether that's true once opened an in memory...


Once Windows has loaded the .PNG file it will take up as much memory as any other graphics files as Windows GDI handles everything as .BMP style bitmaps.

Also, the installer program that I use compresses everything anyway so the install .exe file will be about he same size whether I use .BMPs or .PNGs

The only difference will be in the amount of hard disk space taken up by the game when it is installed on your computer. That's only 17MB at the moment so I don't think it's worth me learning how to load a .PNG file and converting everything as I'm sure most people have got GBs worth of space.

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:54 pm

Nah, not worth it then, you're right, BMP all the way.

wst50

Post by wst50 » Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:19 pm

Also, the 16 slots means that the CPU doesn't have to loop to do other stuff too much, as it still has 16 bits left over, unless you have a 64 bit monster :)
Anyway, if you have a force of over 255, it would make the game too easy :) Just get loads of your favourite type :) Lol i like smileys...

Post Reply