PDA

View Full Version : A Taste of the Tiger...



CPangracs
13 Nov 03, 20:04
Here is a little taste of what the unit pieces will look like in Raging Tiger.

http://www.pangracs.com/RagingTiger/Vehicles/Teaser.htm

The units represented are NOT the final, and may or may not be in the final release.

Feel free to comment here on them.

Curt Pangracs
Project Lead
Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War

John Osborne
13 Nov 03, 20:43
Here is a little taste of what the unit pieces will look like in Raging Tiger.

http://www.pangracs.com/RagingTiger/Vehicles/Teaser.htm

The units represented are NOT the final, and may or may not be in the final release.

Feel free to comment here on them.

Curt Pangracs
Project Lead
Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War
Excellent :D

Will there be UN units and vehicles for the Raging Tiger? I'm assuming that there will be also South Korean vehicles?

Will the LCAC Hovercraft actually hold vehicles and transport them across large bodys of water?

KG_Norad
13 Nov 03, 20:58
Salivary glands salivating...stomach twisting and churning with hunger pangs...mmmm Tiger...

:love:
Michael

Deltapooh
13 Nov 03, 23:29
Will the LCAC Hovercraft actually hold vehicles and transport them across large bodys of water?

This is can be done in ATF. All you have to do is assign the Dismount attribute to your tank. The problem is making the carrier vehicle recognize the difference between a vehicle and infantry. For example: by assigning the dismount attribute to the M1A2 Abrams, three of these vehicles can be carried on an UH-60 Black Hawk, or two tanks in a M2 IFV!

So the question really is, will Raging Tiger's engine recognize the difference between vehicles and dismounts in reference to how many, if any, can be carried by a carrier vehicle? This feature is likely to be included in AATF, when it's released in 200?.

A realistic OOB is interesting, but I would like to know how the war will proceed. Has North Korea gone off the deep end and invaded the South? Is the development team following some of the political changes occuring within the South Korean-American alliance, which should place a greater burden on South Korean forces. Are you reviewing North Korean tactics, and basing skills on the amount of training the force is doing. North Korea is really having economic troubles, which are likely to increase. Will our forces cross the DMZ into North Korea?

KG_Norad
13 Nov 03, 23:58
A realistic OOB is interesting, but I would like to know how the war will proceed. Has North Korea gone off the deep end and invaded the South? Is the development team following some of the political changes occuring within the South Korean-American alliance, which should place a greater burden on South Korean forces. Are you reviewing North Korean tactics, and basing skills on the amount of training the force is doing. North Korea is really having economic troubles, which are likely to increase. Will our forces cross the DMZ into North Korea?

Delta here is some info at Shrapnels Forum...

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=73;t=000013

:D
Michael

Pat Proctor
14 Nov 03, 00:09
There are a LOT of engine changes in store for the ATF Engine for Raging Tiger. And there are a lot MORE in store for Thunder & Lightning. And there are even more... wait... you don't know about those yet. Never mind ;)

Stay tuned.

Pat Proctor
14 Nov 03, 00:10
And, by the way, all of your ATF scenarios will continue to work on Raging Tiger, Thunder and Lightning, and any other ATF engine releases. So all that work will not be in vain.

CPangracs
14 Nov 03, 00:27
This is can be done in ATF. All you have to do is assign the Dismount attribute to your tank. The problem is making the carrier vehicle recognize the difference between a vehicle and infantry. For example: by assigning the dismount attribute to the M1A2 Abrams, three of these vehicles can be carried on an UH-60 Black Hawk, or two tanks in a M2 IFV!

So the question really is, will Raging Tiger's engine recognize the difference between vehicles and dismounts in reference to how many, if any, can be carried by a carrier vehicle? This feature is likely to be included in AATF, when it's released in 200?.

A realistic OOB is interesting, but I would like to know how the war will proceed. Has North Korea gone off the deep end and invaded the South? Is the development team following some of the political changes occuring within the South Korean-American alliance, which should place a greater burden on South Korean forces. Are you reviewing North Korean tactics, and basing skills on the amount of training the force is doing. North Korea is really having economic troubles, which are likely to increase. Will our forces cross the DMZ into North Korea?

All great questions, and all I can say is yes to some, no to others, and quite possible to the rest! :D

I am following closely all happenings in Korea AND around the world which may impact on RT: TSKW (hehehe, like that?). In addition, the units will be modeled as closely to real as possible. There may even be some units currently nothing but plans, ideas, and dreams.

Seriously though, since this is about 6 years in the future, the OB's will be as "correct" as I can make them, and will be based on NK's current "friendly" nation.

As for who's invading whom, well,...we'll just have to see!:devil:

kbluck
14 Nov 03, 17:00
Gave up on finding decent overhead shots, did we? ;)

How am I supposed to develop a properly omnipotent commander's ego without the "God's Eye View?" :violin:

--- Kevin

kbluck
14 Nov 03, 17:20
And, by the way, all of your ATF scenarios will continue to work on Raging Tiger, Thunder and Lightning, and any other ATF engine releases. So all that work will not be in vain.

I have to admit, I'm a little curious as to why this is a priority. Although Raging Tiger is based on the ATF engine, you're marketing it as a completely new game with new capabilities, not as an "expansion pack." Why would anybody want to run vanilla ATF scenarios in Raging Tiger, which is clearly going to be optimized to suit its own set of highly topical scenarios? Most likely they already own ATF anyway, and if they don't, is Raging Tiger going to have the necessary "stock" items like maps and databases and other files that most third-party scenarios are based upon, don't include in their distribution, and won't run without?

To offer an industry analogy, Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale were both based on the same Bioware engine, but no attempt was made to make Icewind Dale load Baldur's Gate savegames or scenarios. Who would want to, anyway? They bought Icewind to play *that* campaign, not to rehash Baldur's. By contrast, Tales of the Sword Coast *was* marketed as an expansion to Baldur's Gate, and accordingly installed directly into an existing installation of Baldur's Gate, which it wouldn't work without.

It seems to me that attempting to maintain "backward compatibility" unnecessarily limits your design options for very little real benefit. If people want to run scenarios designed for ATF, they ought to own ATF. If they want custom scenarios for Raging Tiger, compatibility won't be an issue anyway.

--- Kevin

Pat Proctor
14 Nov 03, 18:17
The main issue is one of community. Baldur's Gate at Icewind Dale are going to pull in tens, if not hundreds of thousands of customers per release. That means that each version will have its own healthy, budding mod/scenario builder community, independent of that for the previous version.

This is not the case with wargame titles like Armored Task Force. It is a niche within a niche within a niche product (hyper-realistic, modern war, wargame). If we do not have backwards compatibility, one of two things will happen.

1. ATF players will not migrate to the old system because they have invested too much time into mods for ATF.
*or*
2. ATF players will abandon ATF modding and the older game will die.

The market for this product just is not big enough to support two (or more) separate games that address essentially the same niche but are not interoperable.

Your premise, however, is flawed. You contend that, by maintaining backwards compatibility, we are forgoing features that we would otherwise be able to add. This is not the case. Rather, we are building the new features with a desire to maintain backwards compatibility in mind. That means that we have to take a little more time on each feature, think through how we are going to make the ATF scenarios coexist with the new features, and build the additional, neccessary code to make the ATF scenario run in the upgraded game environment.

It takes a little more time, but what you gain is that, in addition to buying Raging Tiger, Thunder & Lightning, or any other, future releases, you are also getting all of the collective mod efforts of all of the players of previous games that came before it (with the interface benefits of the latest version of the engine).

We think that is worth the extra work.

KG_Norad
14 Nov 03, 23:30
I like your thinking Captain...That way all those great scenarios the "people" invested their time creating, won't fall by the wayside. Lets face it, building scenarios for ATF while not impossibly hard, is still a labor of love that takes more then a quick clicking finger on your "mouse" hand.

The up side to that though is that the scenarios that are produced tend to be of a higher caliber then the easier cookie cutter editors. Look at the quality of scenarios that the TOAW community produces, and the size of their following. That games editor is not a cake walk either.

I appreciate the captains appreciation of the modding community and the close contact he maintains with said community. That is the major factor that has kept me coming back to the various BCT/ATF forums and pages. Without this, this game would still be on my hard drive but I doubt I would be here, talking about it. ;)

Thanks for your hard work and your devotion to your fans Captain! Don't forget about us when you break into the XBOX couch potato market;)

Which by the way my wife is soooo close to giving in on, and getting :D.

Michael

kbluck
14 Nov 03, 23:34
The death of ATF is inevitable. AATF will kill it as surely as ATF killed BCT. Two years is a pretty good run for any piece of software, and especially for a game. I predict that "classic" ATF as such won't have long to live by the time Raging Tiger comes out anyway.

As for backward compatibility not foregoing new features, well, maybe not literally. But the extra hours you spend on backwarding has an opportunity cost, measured in new features that could have been implemented otherwise.

I can't see many people buying Raging Tiger who are not specifically interested in gaming a new war in Korea. As for supporting die-hard ATFers, I think you'd be putting them in a bit of a position. They have to buy a whole new game, the premise of which may not interest them, in order to access a few new features which are mostly of interest only for a Korea campaign. Once they avail themselves of any of those features in their own mods, there you go --- they can't go back to ATF, because their new stuff breaks the old game. Ding-dong, ATF's dead.

Then you release Thunder and Lightning, with its own set of nifty new features that aren't cross-compatible with Raging Tiger. Now, they have a Hobson's choice. They have to choose between the new work they did in RT vs. the new work they want to do with T&L. Unless, of course, you're also talking about making Thunder & Lightning backward compatible to Raging Tiger, and ad infinitum.

It seems to me a better course would be to not worry about Raging Tiger et al. being able to load ATF mods and scenarios, but rather to consolidate the code changes that aren't so concept-specific that they would be pointless elsewhere into a update to ATF. That way your die-hards aren't left behind, you don't force people to buy a game that doesn't interest them just to get one or two neato new features that will trap them into that particular game if they actually use them, and you retain the option to do radically different stuff that would break generic ATF --- simply don't put those into the ATF update. As a side benefit, you can use the new games as a laboratory try out some "experimental" stuff that you might want to use later for AATF or whatever. If it doesn't work out quite as you expected, you're not in the position of "nerfing" parts of the main product line, since each concept game is more or less a dead end anyway.

Backward compatibility would make more sense with regard to AATF than to Raging Tiger, since AATF is the future direction of the entire ProSim line, and it would be nice if ATF gurus could port their stuff forward without too much hassle. Raging Tiger and Thunder & Lightning are merely interesting variations that aren't likely to lead into entirely new lines. Yet, I suspect AATF isn't going to be able to load ATF stuff transparently; I expect that what can be saved will probably involve a conversion process, much like how ATF can import BCT maps. If you're worried about saving ATF, why not make sure ATF keeps up with the sideline projects instead of tying back the sidelines to suit ATF's present limitations?

--- Kevin

KG_Norad
14 Nov 03, 23:41
If you're worried about saving ATF, why not make sure ATF keeps up with the sideline projects instead of tying back the sidelines to suit ATF's present limitations?


Not a bad idea...maybe not right away but say after the new products have run their course a bit you could revist ATF with v1.04 patch;)

Michael

Pat Proctor
15 Nov 03, 00:13
Actually, all of the ATF Engine Projects, including AATF (which will be the "capstone" project) are projected to be backwards compatible.

The idea is that you can actually install Raging Tiger OVER ATF. You will, essentially, upgrade ATF to the Raging Tiger version of the engine. All of your old ATF scenarios, plus all of the Raging Tiger scenarios, will run on Raging Tiger, complete with its upgrades.

Then, when you get Thunder and Lightning, you can actually install that OVER Raging Tiger. You will then get all of the ATF scenarios PLUS all of the Raging Tiger scenarios, PLUS all of the Thunder & Lightning Scenarios.

This will continue will all future ATF engine projects (the existence of which I can neither confirm nor deny ;)) up to and including AATF.

(you can also install them separately and cut and paste scenarios to the different builds, if you prefer, without penalty.)

While some of the engine upgrades are game specific to Raging Tiger, the vast majority apply to any game in the modern combat genre (e.g. amphibious vehicles, vehicle carriers). Each game in the ATF Engine series is not a branch, but a sequel to the previous version, so each game will possess all of the features of the previous release. So, if you are not interested in Raging Tiger (shame on you ;)) you can wait for Thunder & Lightning. You will get all of the features from Raging Tiger PLUS the feauters for Thunder and Lightning (except for the Raging Tiger campaign and scenarios, of course).

Your argument about diminished features because of the extra time required to add backwards compatibility is a valid one. But then that is the benefit of not doing this for a living. I don't have to rush products out the door.

kbluck
15 Nov 03, 00:50
Well, there's the missing data in this argument. So, essentially what you're saying is that for all practical purposes Raging Tiger will be ATF v.1.1 with a new set of scenarios, Thunder & Lightning ATF v.1.2, etc. If so, that certainly casts things in a different light.

--- Kevin

Dr Zaius
15 Nov 03, 11:36
Your premise, however, is flawed. You contend that, by maintaining backwards compatibility, we are forgoing features that we would otherwise be able to add. This is not the case. Rather, we are building the new features with a desire to maintain backwards compatibility in mind. That means that we have to take a little more time on each feature, think through how we are going to make the ATF scenarios coexist with the new features, and build the additional, neccessary code to make the ATF scenario run in the upgraded game environment.

Agreed. I wish I could talk John Tiller into believing this theory. I have long wished that he would combine his HPS games into a single system. By dividing them up into separate games it kills the collective mod community and makes the work of scenario designers so much more difficult.

Compatibility is a good thing whenever it is practicle to implement it. At some point, of course, it does become necessary to move on to the next generation, but figuring out when exactly to do that is not easy for a developer.

Pat Proctor
15 Nov 03, 15:08
The Raging Tiger version of the ATF Engine is ATF v 1.1 in the sense that Windows XP is Windows NT v 5.0. They are distinctly different in design and XP has a great number of features that Windows NT lacks.

But this is where the similarity ends. The ATF Engine is being heavily overhauled so that it can be customized to create very different games. Every generation will make that more the case. The idea is to give the engine the flexibility to drive very different games, with very different scales, very different rules and unit interactions, and very different looks and feels.

The real "differentness" (is that a word?) of the games will come from the game and scenario designs from the team leads.

Ivan Rapkinov
15 Nov 03, 19:32
Agreed. I wish I could talk John Tiller into believing this theory. I have long wished that he would combine his HPS games into a single system. By dividing them up into separate games it kills the collective mod community and makes the work of scenario designers so much more difficult.


Amen to that - even as a scn designer for the Squad Battles games; I had jsut as much trouble as anyone trying to get some cross compatibility - I love the games, but it'd be nice if I didn't need 8 CDs to do the job of one.

which is why ATF is so nice :)

Deltapooh
15 Nov 03, 20:27
Amen to that - even as a scn designer for the Squad Battles games; I had jsut as much trouble as anyone trying to get some cross compatibility - I love the games, but it'd be nice if I didn't need 8 CDs to do the job of one.

which is why ATF is so nice :)

:hail: Ivan Rapkinov. Nice you see you're still around.

I enjoy modding for ATF. However, I really don't want to make new vehicle pieces for each game using the ATF engine. Compatability would be excellent.

Of course, the challenge for ProSim is making certain this compatability between different games doesn't de-evolve the new game to a mere upgrade of it's predecessor.

Dr Zaius
16 Nov 03, 18:27
Amen to that - even as a scn designer for the Squad Battles games; I had jsut as much trouble as anyone trying to get some cross compatibility - I love the games, but it'd be nice if I didn't need 8 CDs to do the job of one.


John is of the opinion that the Panzer Campaigns series will be more successful (bring in more money) by releasing the series one battle at a time. The OoB options are pretty good, but John refuses to consider a map editor of any kind. I have said from the beginning this was a huge mistake.

Wargames thrive on third party scenarios and battles. They always have and they probably always will. John has purposely hamstrung the system and by doing so killed 80% of the replay value. John has a right to do what he thinks is best in order to make a profit, but I absolutely believe this approach is counterproductive. Releasing each CD as a separate battle ensures that the series will remain a niche within a niche. Talonsoft's Campaign Series represented the best approach IMHO. I really wish John would change his philosophy and release Panzer Campains: Eastern Front Battles (or something similar) complete with map and OoB editor. The same could then be done for the Western Front, and eventually the Pacific and even modern era. I'm certain the system would bloom and have a much more loyal following. Same goes for the Squad Battles series.

I do own a couple of the PC titles and I like them. Having said that, I'm witholding my money until HPS/John Tiller change their marketing strategy. I'm not alone in this. I have talked to numerous wargamers who feel exactly the same way. I've even heard people use the term "HPS game of the week" to describe it.

Ivan Rapkinov
17 Nov 03, 19:07
Panzertruppen/Don: yeah, we whipped out 4 games in about 8 months - that was when Wild Bill was around, and he basically really was the engine room. I haven't really been involved since he left, but the games are starting to strain the limits of the engine; and when that happens - something has to be added, otherwise it becomes, same-old same old.

DP: yup, still lurking - btw, my uncle (Digger from the SWAT forums) mentioned you'd gone from there, and it's a "damned shame to miss out on [your] insight". Tried to get him to pop in here, but he's just got back from Cyprus; think he's heading Gulf-wards next. BTW your ATF vehicles are great :D - I'm working on a bunch of ADF vehicles to add; hopefully the'll look as good as yours :)

Deltapooh
18 Nov 03, 06:03
DP: yup, still lurking - btw, my uncle (Digger from the SWAT forums) mentioned you'd gone from there, and it's a "damned shame to miss out on [your] insight". Tried to get him to pop in here, but he's just got back from Cyprus; think he's heading Gulf-wards next. BTW your ATF vehicles are great :D - I'm working on a bunch of ADF vehicles to add; hopefully the'll look as good as yours :)

Tell your uncle I said hi. Looking forward to your work.