keepcarrot

(Um, I don't know why your post triggered me into writing this pitch for a wishlist game. Maybe the minecraft with guns bit? idk, I got excited) (repost, as this is enough crap for its on top level post)

I have this pitch for a builder game where you're a military procurement/engineering firm. The LoD would be about what Stormworks has (25cm blocks, or maybe 20 or 10 cm), you spend time fiddling around with air fuel ratios and RADAR etc. You'd be able to fiddle with various war nerd numbers on vehicles you create, but there wouldn't be much for you to do with the vehicles directly. Instead, you teach bots how to use the vehicle (some sort of waypointing system, some vehicle tests like turning, acceleration etc etc). After that, your vehicle and usage data is compiled and a little war goes on in the background. Hypothetically, this war would be happening on another screen or you could refer to it. Because the vehicle is compiled into this RTS mode and not run as a physics simulation (or at least, would be run as a very cut down simulation), that section would be quite light. Possibly multiple layers to examine (strategic, operational, tactical). Your vehicles would have logistical strain (e.g. fuel, maintenance/wear, damage from fire etc). You'd probably want to define a few other variables on how its used (e.g. This is a TANK, GENERAL PURPOSE, SWARM or something). I don't think it would be possible for an AI to account for all ways people would design vehicles and use-cases, but the basic classes are pretty standard nowadays, and people could request things that feel plausible to the dev.

A few reasons for doing it this way:

• Having it so that the vehicle is tested by itself on multiple predictable scenarios means the physics simulation (e.g. denting, beams bending etc) can be more detailed, and allows for more complicated vehicles.
• Once its "compiled" so that the bots can use it, it will run quite light (this is sort of explored in From The Depths, but not to its fullest extent). This couldn't take into account everything possible, but hopefully the bots would use things intelligently (e.g. using cover, grouping tanks, screening etc)

You'd watch combat and take notes on what works well and what does, and work on new designs as the war gets under way. Your new designs that you produce and test would percolate through the logistics system and slowly start appearing on the front.

There'd also be a little thing where you could define your squads that the AI uses in the war (e.g. 12 dudes, 1 command, 2 fireteams, each fireteam has a LAW and 5 assault rifles, command has 1 commander and 2 machine guns etc), with some reference to real world stuff. This would obviously be important for transport vehicles and logistics.

There'd be a mode where you'd have to do it "in real time" (i.e. no pausing for designing), a more freeform creative mode where you can design and save freely without worrying about wars and launch battles with your vehicle instantly, and a thing where you could compile all of your designs into a faction. Presumably, the game would ship with a few real world referenced factions, people could mod in their own ones. And people could also mod in maps that the AI will fight wars on, and opponent factions (of varying degrees of fairness). Tutorial mode, build a truck that carries a squad. It's an electric truck so you don't have to program a gearbox.

It's probably a bit beyond me as a coder (maybe, idk, the primary time I was trying to learn coding was when I had pretty severe depression), but maybe as a fresh godot project if applicable? I think it would absolutely kill amongst a certain sort of war nerd.

Um, comments, I guess. Obviously extremely ambitious on my end, it will probably be another half-started project in my collection :(

One of the first cards is planting corn.

I didn't make it. We made it.

And the ridiculous hull down position:

Just bouncing ideas around based on the rumours and speculation on the T14, but also pulled some influence from post-war French vehicles.

Features: The recoil/loading space behind the gun, the gun, and the "mantle" all move as one. This allows for very extreme gun depression (and elevation), though gun pitch is slowed as a result. This was an odd turret design from France. Because I wanted a secondary commander turret, the rear part of the turret remains with the turret ring so that the commander's view isn't wobbling about.

Commander turret on a little elevator. At its highest, it gives the commander a full 360 degree view a meter higher than normal.

The auto-loader runs vertically through the turret. This means that the turret can be extremely narrow, pretty much the width of two slabs of armour and the gun. The autoloader can also handle extreme gun depression and elevation. The concessions made does reduce loading speed compared to other designs though. The narrow turret reduces the width of the heaviest armour section (the front of the turret), significantly reducing weight.

Roomy in crew compartment. Just because of the positioning of seats and the shape of the cavity between the treads and the turret, there is a bunch of extra space. It's slowly being filled with stuff. The commander can directly see the screens of the driver and gunner and can tap them on the shoulder to yell at them.

Bads: To service the autoloader and load ammunition, someone has to be outside the tank. Could not think of a way to armour the separation between the magazine and crew without massively increasing size. There is a camera inside the magazine and will be manual controls for the gunner to try to unstick ammunition.

Poor hatch open ability. You are very reliant on equipment. The driver and gunner have some ability to open hatches and ride head out, but the commander doesn't due to the turret's bulk preventing them from having a top hatch.

Ammunition cook off is pretty catastrophic, but crew survivable. Ammunition armour and various cook off measures are not perfect, but are there.

Things I'd do differently given Stormwork's minimum working dimensions of 250 mm blocks and other game things: The tank would probably be smaller, especially in height. The top and bottom of the tank probably does not need 250 mm of composites each, and the turret ring doesn't need to be half a meter. I might also make the crew lie down more.

Have not figured out how to make a good looking working ADS. It's pretty cramped in there.

I could do a lot more with the electronics. The 250 mm connectors mean you can't have that many inputs and outputs.

The engine would probably be extremely different. I'm hitting about 50 km/h usually and can probably get more out of the engine atm, but it's two T-17 diesel engines. Not sure about the power to weight advantages of turbines, but unfortunately the turbines in game are enormous. The logistical advantage makes more sense to me.

Turret got a bit too cramped for the coaxial, but it would be there as well.

The engine deck would be openable. Is hard to do in Stormworks.

I'd probably do some sort of fabric seal for when the gun is at extreme depression or elevation? Maybe telescoping sheets? idk, something like that.

idek if 7zip is better than winrar anymore assuming both are being updated constantly, but like... My memory is that pretty much every tech oriented person on windows uses 7zip.

News thread IFV project, made in stormworks. Not wholly functional, but enough so that it's going to look the same regardless.

Role: Transport, Medevac, amphibious, anti-air, anti-drone, fire support

Features/design choices:

• Fast on both land and calm waters. This vehicle is more on the "truck" end of IFV rather than "tank". The vehicle spends most of its time ferrying troops around. Can stop small-arms, light munitions, and shrapnel, with armour focused on the crew/passenger compartment.
• Twin 40-mm autocannons, loaded with fragmentation rounds. Can be loaded with AP rounds, but is primarily there for knocking missiles, planes, and drones out. Obviously infantry are going to be threatened by two autocannons as well.
• Side doors. This means that troops can dismount if the vehicle is moving in a column and parks end-to-end. The doors open up, giving cover to evacuating troops. There is a small window for troops to look out of before trying to disembark. This can be a safety issue if hydraulics fail.
• 8 Wheel design is substantially cheaper, faster on roads, and is mildly bouyant. This does mean that the vehicle's cross-country performance suffers, especially in thick mud and other extreme adverse conditions. As a general purpose vehicle to improve infantry's mobility in most conditions, the 8 wheel design was chosen over tracks. It also allows the bulge in the middle, increasing transport capacity.
• 2-frequency RADAR tracking. The vehicle can track aerial targets, and the turret can lock on to a specific target. The gunner can then trim the RADAR output to lead appropriately. I'd code something here, but I'm lazy.
• Turret actually poorly armoured. This helps with balance in water. The primary purpose of this vehicle is to transport them. All the ammunition for the turret is separated by armour, meaning that if the ammo cooks off the passengers and crew are safe. Locating the bulk of the ammo in the turret means there is enough additional space to include light medical facilities.
• Exhaust is dumped behind the rear wheels, which spreads out the exhaust and makes it harder to lock on to with heat-seeker weapons.

Tac notes:

• This is designed to be used as part of a general mechanisation program, not specifically for specialist troops. The idea is to have so many light-air defence systems in a battle space that opposing aircraft, drones, and cruise/tactical missiles will be unable to operate.
• In a pinch, the twin 40s can rip up urban fortifications. However, this is not their primary role. Certainly they shouldn't be used as a preliminary bombardment tool, rather one used for emergencies or particularly good targets.
• Remember that side doors need about an extra meter of clearance to open, so tight streets should be avoided especially for dismounting.
• This vehicle wound up being fairly short. While this makes the vehicle harder to detect, the presence of drones makes this less important. However, lower height makes the vehicle more stable in hilly terrain or in the water. It also means cover against direct-fire weapons (esp. HEAT missiles, which can be tripped by brick walls etc) is easier to find.
• Doctrinally, this is a truck with armour, amphibious capability, and firepower. However, it is likely to be able to defeat most other transport vehicles other than heavy IFVs. A single one of these is capable of extremely disrupting supply lines.

Room for future features:

• Drone launching platforms can be mounted on the front-side slanted armour, with opening hatches like the rear ammunition storage bins.
• There is enough space in the vehicle for a small command centre.
• Missiles could be mounted on the turret pretty easily. Small AA missiles or ATGMs.
• Multiple outlets for exhaust could be used for different situations. For instance, an exhaust outlet underneath the hull to reduce detection chances, and an exhaust above the hull for amphibious operations.
• More electronic warfare options.

Things I had to work around because the game only has 25 cm blocks

• The turret would be a lot flatter IRL. The combination of having to have 25 cm blocks for armour and 25 cm blocks for mechanics means the whole thing is a lot taller. The same goes for all the camera systems.
• I'd probably fit more med-beds in the crew compartment. While they're not in use, troops can dump bags and stuff on them (and just have more leg room).
• With a lot of the space savings from having a maximum of 50 mm RHA instead of 250 mm, I'd probably include a commanders section.

Thoughts:

• So, one of the reasons the Bradley IFV is so big while only transporting 4-ish soldiers is that their turret basket extends the whole height of the vehicle, creating a big space in the middle which I assume is for ammunition storage or a gunner. Obviously, if it's moving around, passengers can't sit there.
• Yes, it looks sort of like a stryker or BTR. How many different shapes could an IFV/APC possibly have?
• The Germans claim the Puma (I think) can stop 125 mm rounds from the front, which sounds optimistic. I didn't bother with that capability.

Anyway, this was a fun exercise.

Some random thoughts, because my brain is like that.

• Someone please suggest a name.
• This wargame is designed to sorta simulate what we're seeing in Ukraine atm, and what a future war might look like. A single game of GAME_NAME represents a few weeks and should take most of a day. While there are some experiments wrt game systems, it's also supposed to represent something.
• The system is hex-based. One of my friends got an enormous printer from a warehouse sale so we want to use that for stuff. Using hexes also gets rid of a lot of time wasted on minor adjustments in range and inter-player arguments, while not having the weirdness associated with squares. Also you can do scatter with d6s.
• Each day there are two day turns and one night turn. During night turns, firepower and detection ranges are reduced.
• I'm using count-up systems for a few things. This is one of those game design experiments. Think, like, Super Smash Brothers damage system. The simplest one is probably Fatigue. Units have levels of fatigue, which they can gain to do special actions (e.g. ignore suppression). All attacks roll against Fatigue. e.g. An infantry platoon has 5 Strength and 1 Firepower, let's say has 4 Fatigue. That means it rolls 5 d6, and each 4 or more counts as a success (6s count as 2 successes). As the unit does things and takes casualties, it gets worse and worse. Fatigue can be alleviated by supply units.
• I'm trying to track as many things on the miniature as possible. Attrition, Fatigue, and EM emissions are pips placed around the edge of the base. In the centre is the unit type (infantry, artillery, tank). This is a hypothetical assuming I can be bothered cracking out the pin vice and 3D printer.
• If you align with "The West", certain high profile victories can net you "Advanced Support", a supply of higher tech weapons and equipment. This isn't solely the purview of The West, but they have more points of it. Advanced weapons have high damage output, but have low endurance and high EM emissions.
• If you align with more heavy industrial nations, you get more legacy vehicles and artillery. Anything with an engine, heavy cannons etc. Once again, not entirely the purview of heavy industrial nations, The West has them too. These have decent damage output and endurance.
• Grabbing towns with aligned importance (I guess the example is playing Russia and taking a Russian aligned city) gets you more manpower. Manpower is low damage, but cheap and has very high endurance. Use this for controlling large portions of the battlefield.
• How alignment works I haven't really figured out. Maybe something with cards and a hand.
• Aircraft aren't really represented on the board, they're just support powers you bring in. AA creates bubbles of either denial or forces the enemy to sacrifice their air support card after use. idk. Helicopters allow you to plonk down troops a distance from the enemy.
• EM emissions (RADAR, drone control/video feed, smart-weapons etc) gain you EM pips, which can be used by opponents to activate other abilities. The most basic common interaction is an infantry platoon uses drones to scout out a nearby forest. They reveal some enemies, but also gain some EM pips. An enemy uses an EM kit to reveal the first unit with a bonus to detection range depending on the EM pips gained. Those same EM pips can be used to launch a medium tactical strike with a bonus number of dice equal to those EM pips. The OG unit loses its EM pips at the start of its next activation.
• The vast majority of a unit's variation in toughness comes from terrain around it. Toughness is directly the number of successes an enemy needs to get to cause a point of attrition. Cover, distance, and smoke add to toughness.
• Using my wonky initiative system. Units close to enemies go first. Works well enough and promotes aggression. Given how entrenching, cover, and retreating work, this is good. Don't want two armies just sitting there.
• Haven't really thought much about deployment systems. Trying to get basic unit interactions out of the way first.
• Roads make go fast. Forests and marshes make go slow.
• There is a basic unit detection system. At the start of the game, all units are hidden. Both players can see the Fatigue and EM emissions of hidden units because it would be too annoying to manage that separate to the model. Hidden units can't be attacked, and can be spotted by getting close to an opponent, or certain drones or army support abilities. Units can't re-hide. Also, using weapons reveals you.

So, in my circles of friends, I am the most terminally online person. I remember being a soc-demmy kinda person (who called themselves socialist) when I joined r/cth when it hit 69,420 members.

Now here I am with opinions like "Stalin and the USSR weren't so bad" and "The tanks rolling into Hungary in 1956 were correct, actually". I feel like the community here on hexbear has kinda shifted in the same way. That said, we've steered clear of the patsoc menace, who aesthetically venerate AES while following the most regressive social/nationalist opinions of what they think of as the working class.

This has somewhat put me at odds with a lot of my RL friends, who are anarchists or trots of varying degrees. I'm generally not down with getting into spats with said RL friends, so I keep a lot of my opinions to myself. This is especially onerous with opinions about the Ukraine war.

How did I end up here? How did we..? I remember back on r/cth the line "This is enough to turn me into a tankie", or some such thing, as though being a tankie was just socialism + willingness to use violence to achieve it.

I can remember online anarchists posting fairly high profile Ls that I think split actual anarchists and left-liberals who just liked to call themselves anarchists (and now online anarchists who really like NATO? idk). But those events had a lot of people shy away from the anarchist label and kinda mull about their own beliefs. The main ones off the top of my head were CHAZ, Vaush audience watchers, and the anti-work breakdown. Certainly, I remember r/cth being a lot more awash with anarchist rhetoric and population (claimed or otherwise) than hexbear currently is.

I don't want this to be a sectarian rant session, but more a reflection of political journeys from r/cth's medicare for all socdem position to the current vibes of hexbear, both personal and pontifications of why this shift occurred.

This isn't the be-all and end-all of my thoughts of my own political evolution. I'll comment some more as I think of them (in between cleaning for rent inspection)

Aw, dang it