Openra: RA campaigns polish + unifying

[HenrytheSlav]

I feel that there are several issues with current missions, that are easy to change, but I think a disscussion is needed before undertaking them.

Now, there are several issues that are not easy to fix, especially general passivity compared to skirmish, because AI doesn't build/produce much on some maps, relying on reinforcements instead. Also other issues that are shared with general gameplay, like bogus dogs that make Soviet03 a gamble, or engies that change the balance on some missions where you have to capture stuff.

The issues I would like to adress/resolve now are:

• [ ] Original tech tree vs. tech tree equivalent to skirmishes, unifying the experience and making things less confusing to new players. This would also need some rebalancing and altering the gameplay. Would flak trucks be allowed for Soviets? What about rocket soldiers for soviet side?

• [ ] Undeploying the MCV is making things extremely easy for player, since the maps are usually made in such way that player has actively fight AI to gain control of new ore fields, while ATM he can basepush with small army group and cut off enemy, like in Soviet 05, where the central orefield is the only one for both AI and player.

• [x] I heard something about colors being slighty different, and about changing them a bit. We should agree on one color scheme and follow it from now on.

Now for some specific issues:

• [ ] Pending feedback from players, I think the sub activity in Allied06 is a bit..extreme, bordering ridiculous. You can just build wall of turrets or rocketsoldiers to deal with enemy. Maybe have AI patrol in several areas, and put a limit on subs, around 20ish at once on whole map?

• [x] Allied05, allowing Tanya to bomb half of enemy base including the only available ConYard is also a bit comical, but it was possible in original, too. Maybe release a pack of dogs/a tank on Tanya to make her retreat when she goes rampage on other things than SAMs?

Please, feel free to post about any other issue, balance or polish-wise you have with the campaign.

Pinging the main campaign contributors: @abcdefg30, @abc013, @Biofreak1987.

EDIT: Please note that also forum entry was opened.

[SoScared]

As a RA95 nostalgia tripper I've always hoped for OpenRA to include the RA campaign as close to original as possible. Although no experience in code/scripting I can imagine the tediousness of forcing the ora engine to work flawlessly with original mechanics that in many ways made the missions to what they are.

OP sounds like a big refresher and I guess a ton of possibilities. If called upon I'll gladly do play-through/feedback until I'm blue in the face.

[pchote]

I feel quite strongly the opposite: it doesn't make sense for our singleplayer campaigns to have fundamentally different gameplay/balance to the MP (e.g. Tanya C4ing vehicles, different engineer behaviour on some missions but not others, conyard undeploy).

If people want to build a completely authentic campaign, then that is best implemented in a "ra classic" mod that includes the same classic balancing in MP too. Having to maintain both rulesets in the RA mod would be a nightmare. We are also lacking authentic implementations of many classic features, so it would be very difficult to do direct gameplay ports of the missions in any case.

IMO this is best achieved by a combination of mission rebalancing (e.g. replacing soviet hinds with yaks, adjusting enemy unit forces to provide an appropriate difficulty level with the new balance, tweaking map design wrt base areas and ore fields) and tweaking our RA MP gameplay to better fit with SP requirements (e.g. adding a "MCV redeploy" checkbox so that disabling it in SP isn't out of place, keeping external engineer capture but make them be consumed after capturing, and so on).

[AoAGeneral]

One of the problems is the AI functionality. The AI is really dumb right now. (It builds 2-3 power plants right at the start for example.) So the AI itself needs a lot of work. Doing this would bring longevity in both MP vs bot games and SP. This would also make the campaigns more challenging.

Having the original RA classic with its tech trees and units wouldn't be as fun because artillery ranges would be terrible in one example. Giving the units the same mechanics as the MP counter part teaches the new players what the unit can and can't do. But this as mentioned is hampered due to the limitations of the AI.

[abc013]

Undeploying the mcv in Allies06 is required to take control of the shore and to build a shipyard. In the original game, you captured the radar dome and used its building radius.

The sub activity in Allies06 is indeed extreme, I already work on that issue.

[HenrytheSlav]

Thank you for that mention, I was thinking about doing PR on that. The radius is certainly an issue here. I don't know how I feel about allowing redeployment on some missions and not on others. Plus, it is extremely easy to fortify the two beaches then with like 10 pillboxes/turrets each, but turtling is okay with rules I guess. Just not very good for preparing people for MP.

I also like the backside attack that drops paratroopers in your "old" base there. One question though, I don't know where from do the Badgers come in, but it would be probably more fair to end them from allied side than directly from your back, since that just makes player AA useles (for this case).

[pchote]

In the original game, you captured the radar dome and used its building radius.

Could you change it to capturing a conyard instead?

[HenrytheSlav]

There is none in allied06, soviet minibase on your island has only Barracks and a Radar Dome.

[pchote]

emphasis on the word change :smile:

[HenrytheSlav]

1) That would openup the soviet techtree to player, and that is quite a change, I think.
2) Considering that player starts against a small base with MCV, turning this base to a bigger one on such small space is problematic, and adding only conyard there looks weird and doesn't provide "realistic" playthrough.

idea 1) Adding a hijacker to player and a parked MCV to soviets? (Is hijacker soviet or allied unit?).
idea 2) Start with a bigger force (add like two medium tanks) to cover flame towers and give player MCV only after radar is captured (player starting with engineer).

[MustaphaTR]

I think way to fix that mission if we remove CYard undeploy is allowing that Radar to give some build area similar to CYard's. Maybe just that radar but maybe ours too so we can still base push to shore if soviet radar gets killed.

[HenrytheSlav]

We don't want to make gameplay too different to MP, this goes right against that idea same way as current implementation does, unfortunatelly.

[abc013]

1) adding a hijacker to the player is a bad idea, it is a soviet unit, and a parked mcv would still unlock the soviet techtree.
2) i think we want to make the missions like the original ones. So starting with a bigger force or just placing a mcv in the soviet minibase is a bad idea.

We should just give the radar a build radius or just let the mcv undeploy.

[HenrytheSlav]

I agree with hijacker if it's soviet unit.

But, I think it is better to change mission slightly to make it follow our global OpenRA rules (exception here is the redeployment issue, which completely breaks balance in missions).

Giving the build radius to a Radar Dome has no precedens in OpenRA, and would give wrong idea to players (why in this mission only, why only radar dome and not other structures, why is that not in description?)

On the other hand, many missions are handled in original by starting a base at once and turtling up until you have big enough force.

We could use this mission to showcase other flavors of missions, where with giving player one to two armored units (2 med. tanks/ med tank+apc) and engineer, we would change the beginning to an assault. You have limited forces, you are not ovberly stronger than enemy base, they have barracks, so you need to eliminate that before you are overwhelmed, they have some tanks/defensive structures, so you need to use cover of armored forces for your strongest force (rocket soldiers) to take them down.

After eliminating the enemy, MCV could be provided, either from north or to give this more of a plausability, from southeast sea. Then the mission follows original tracks.

I know the change is not small, but it teaches player how to organize forces well and use them tactivally. Throwing the starting force on enemy should result in likely defeat.

Please, consider this, and possibly join us on irc too for discussion. :)

[HenrytheSlav]

Ragerding different colors, I have made a scheme reflecting colors used so far in the original campaign missions + shellmap.

FE1100 Soviet Red - all the maps use this hex for Soviets, except a5a and a6a, that uses #FF1400 (very close)

ABB7E4 Allied Blue nr. 1 - a1, a2, shellmap,

A1EF8C English Green - a1

5CC1A3 French Green - a2, s1 - note: I checked the original a2 - the trucks were English Green there

E2E6F5 Allied Blue nr. 2 - a3a, a3b, a4, a5a, a6a, s2a, s2b, s3, s4a, s4b, s5, s6a, s6b, s7 - note: Radar Dome in s5 was English Green, owned by different player than those two, probably to make it clear that it is an objective.

505050 gray - s1 (barrels only?, I am guessing for minimap, idk)

To help you out, I (well, my friend) created this chart of colors.

[MustaphaTR]

About the colors, i wanna say something about the colors of D2K sides. I think it might have be better to be in a seperate issue but:

In D2K right half of palette file are remaps as seen below. A new RemapColors: trait could allow us to perfectly remake those colors. This should be a list of remap colors in palette file and its name can be used as a color of a side instead of actually setting a color value.

There are colors of all 7 side and sandworm/Ixian light brown.

[HenrytheSlav]

I guess there was some reason to change the colors in RA a bit, no idea what :) The issue is they are not unified. And which one to choose.

[HenrytheSlav]

More color comparsion, this time in action:

[pchote]

In D2K right half of palette file are remaps as seen below. A new RemapColors: trait could allow us to perfectly remake those colors. This should be a list of remap colors in palette file and its name can be used as a color of a side instead of actually setting a color value.

This already exists, it is the IndexedPlayerPalette. We use it in TD, but the other mods have not adopted it yet.

[AoAGeneral]

@pchote I think my only issue with changing the radar dome to conyard would conflict with the video mission briefings in which it says to infiltrate the base. Part of its objective was to use a spy and head into the radar dome to uncover pieces of the enemies base.

Alternatively, you could use the spy and once the "Building, infiltrated!" sounds off you could do a "Reinforcements have arrived!" and by sea could drop off an allied conyard.

[HenrytheSlav]

I have created an alternative start to allies-06a. Please, playtest it and let me know how do you view these changes. Yoou can find it on this branch.

Main changes - varying starting force depending on difficulty, starting without mcv, so you have to get radar to get it. Us armor as cover for your strong units (rocketmen). On easy you get arty to make it..easy.

Another point I want to show is giving hints about "advanced" gameplay, like disguising spies, turning power down etc.

After you get MCV (and build a spy) the game continues as usual. Enemy attacks are a bit lwoered because they are absurdly strong in original.

[Arular101]

About Allies-06a, I think a good solution is to place a forward command in the Soviet minibase. The forward command gives now a build radius in the current release. Enough space is created by moving the barracks and sandbags 1 tile to the left, and placing the forward command in the middle. The secondary objective should also be changed to: Capture the radar dome and the forward command.

[MustaphaTR]

I heard something about colors being slighty different, and about changing them a bit. We should agree on one color scheme and follow it from now on.

14277 Fixes this.

[abc013]

@Arular101 good idea! I would replace the dome with the forward command and change to objective to: "Capture the forward command."

[Arular101]

I just filed this PR #14328 to give the radar dome a nice function. I think it would be nice to have both buildings which contains their own uses. (If ever the MCV redeploy gets disabled in the campaign.)

[Arular101]

I also filed this PR #14339 to unify the engineer behavior. Bringing the campaign one step closer to the skirmish/multiplayer experience.

[pchote]

IMO we've made good progress here over the last 18 months, and have (or soon will) solved all of the main blockers raised so far:

• I heard something about colors being slighty different, and about changing them a bit

  Fixed by #14277.

  • > adding a "MCV redeploy" checkbox so that disabling it in SP isn't out of place

  Added in #14567.

  • > keeping external engineer capture but make them be consumed after capturing, and so on).

  Changed in #15661 (assuming it lands).

  • > Undeploying the mcv in Allies06 is required to take control of the shore and to build a shipyard. In the original game, you captured the radar dome and used its building radius.

  The radar can now be replaced with a forward command post (#13790).

Are there any more general issues, or are we now just blocked on somebody taking charge of updating the missions?

[abcdefg30]

The radar can now be replaced with a forward command post (#13790).

We remove this special ability as part of #15665. I don't think this is much of a problem anyway, as we allow MCVs to be redeployed.

[pchote]

The context behind that comment/discussion was that the MCV redeploy breaks the campaign and should be disabled.

[abcdefg30]

Yes. I don't think we should disable redeploying. If we wanted to make it like the original we would have to disable the build radius as well. And if we do that, we are kind of back at square zero, imho. Often enough it is not at all difficult to base walk to the same spot you would deploy a MCV on. (It is just more annoying.)

[pchote]

I don't think we should make it exactly like the original (see my first comment right at the start), but instead find a compromise that makes sense and keeps the integrity of the campaigns.

One of the key points in the OP is that MCV redeploy makes some campaign missions too easy and, failing a fundamental map/mission redesign, no-undeploy+radius seems to me as a good fix.

We've already found and fixed (in theory) one blocker to this - are there any others?

[henskelion]

One level in RA that gets ruined somewhat by ORA's mechanics in Soviet mission 9, Investigate Elba Island. In the original mission, you use submarines to destroy Allied transports that try and land on different parts of the island.

The ORA version of this mission makes that strategy totally unviable because of the changes made to transport ship logic. In the original, transports unloaded passengers one by one, meaning after landing, they would sit still and be vulnerable to torpedoes as they slowly offloaded their cargo. But because ORA makes offloading instant, your subs are outright useless in destroying them before they're able to deploy their cargo. And in addition to this, ORA transports move so fast now that will totally outrun the new submarine homing torpedoes.

While this mission is still possible to beat, it requires for of a reliance on heavy tanks and mines to stop the endless reinforcements, which just seems off since the mission intro cutscene and the fact you start off with a big squad of subs implies they're still to be used for defending the coastlines. Plus the fact that mines are still a bit of a pain if you do use them on this mission, since they're just as much of a threat to your harvesters as to enemy forces. You also don't really get a sense of progress with the mission, since in the original building a big fleet of subs and being able to lock off each landing zone one by one and slowly tie the noose around the Allied forces on the island just felt really good, like the way a well-designed RTS mission should. Here it seems more like you simply win through a war of attrition since oftentimes by the end of the mission the map will be totally devoid of resources, and you have to make the final assault on their base with whatever you have left.

I think just changing transport logic for this mission by making them offload cargo in the classic way would go a long way to fixing this, or alternatively slowing the enemy transport speed so that your submarine torpedoes can actually catch up to them.

[Smittytron]

Working on Soviet 09, I realized that because we've changed defenses power over the years for balance, the original allied base on this mission doesn't have enough starting power. It may be worth it to work around this issue if Sov 09 is the only map affected.

Edit: ran into the same with Situation Critical and Soviet 11

Another issue I've noticed, spy planes will trip footprint triggers and did not in the original. This will affect missions like Sov 09 and Sov 13, where the victory objective is more or less determined by a footprint trigger.