Rules Of Engagement 2.0 by B. Stienstra/W. Moes (SP Demo)

Mapping & modding Fallout Tactics and reviewing maps thereof.
Post Reply
User avatar
requiem_for_a_starfury
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:13 am

Rules Of Engagement 2.0 by B. Stienstra/W. Moes (SP Demo)

Post by requiem_for_a_starfury »

I am so glad that I didn't follow the installation instructions and that I set this up in a new directory and used the -path command instead. To have installed this as instructed would of meant having to either delete my Fallout directory or do a uninstall and reinstall to get rid of it, either way would have taken longer than to play through this demo twice. Please use the -path setup in future guys if you are going to change existing files.
Gameplay is much more complicated. It's much harder to slip into enemy territory. Using different tactics & movements during combat now becomes a necessity In order to complete your objectives. In real life it's not like people can just walk into an open field without being seen by the enemy... You will need to use rocks, tree's, vehicles & obstacles to use cover. using team members is essential to winning a gun fight.
When I read this I was quite looking forward to playing this map, unfortunately the prefab supplied has stats of 10,9,10,8,10,10 and 9, 4 traits and a dozen perks despite the fact he's only level 3. He also has a backpack that allows him to carry virtually an unlimited amount (helps to make the display name the same as the one used in the item text, since the backpack didn't have a description I double clicked on it to see what it did, and totally crashed my pc) and an uber weapon which has more range than any other in the mission and does twice the damage. This allowed him to virtually walk through the mission unaided in normal play. I played this on normal in TB mode and on hard in CTB. CTB was more of a challenge, mainly because I couldn't remember the keyboard controls. : )

I would of liked to have seen some original tile work, instead of adding a few boulders and sandbags/barracades to an existing Special encounter map. Otherwise I liked the used of some of the available renders to replace the existing wait screens, they made a nice change.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
User avatar
Max-Violence
Wandering Hero
Wandering Hero
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:15 am
Location: In my own personal vault
Contact:

Post by Max-Violence »

I just opened up the zip file, looked at the path the creators used and became... rather discouraged. As a user, I don't want to have to replace everything for an entire campaign, let alone a demo.

BTW, Snake-D, you know you included a BUNCH of files that you didn't need to, right? i.e. badwords.txt, gui_text.txt, trait.txt, the list goes on. Anything you didn't change (for this demo) doesn't need to be distributed. Oh, and what's with the .chr files? Why aren't the characters .ent's?

I'm "against" using the -path function for single maps, but for campaigns (and demos thereof) the -path function is pretty much required.

And if Req's somewhat dismal review is anything to go on, spending X amount of time tinkering with my FOT installation folders and such doesn't seem worth it, and I have mapping/modding experience! Think about the guy/girl who doesn't know thier way around FOT's structure. The headaches they'd have...

Hey Req: exactly what'd you do to set up the map with the -path function? I ask for two reasons: lack of time to do it myself, and... OK so it was only one reason. Sue me! *grin*

A tip for the team behind Rules of Engagement: Rework everything to jive with -path, then resubmit the map to the public. In the meantime, I'm gonna try and finish up my own map...
Closing our eyes forces us to look
At the darkness inside.
Our emotions always find us
Regardless of where we hide.

maxviolence@hotmail.com
http://mvmaphub.duckandcover.cx <--- Updated July 10th, 2006
User avatar
requiem_for_a_starfury
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:13 am

Post by requiem_for_a_starfury »

Max-Violence wrote: Hey Req: exactly what'd you do to set up the map with the -path function? I ask for two reasons: lack of time to do it myself, and... OK so it was only one reason. Sue me! *grin*

A tip for the team behind Rules of Engagement: Rework everything to jive with -path, then resubmit the map to the public. In the meantime, I'm gonna try and finish up my own map...
As I said elsewhere I use Pakscape to look at, edit and unpack zip files. Using Pakscape I was able to rename the core directory in the zip to ROE so that when I extracted everything to my FOT folder it created a new folder and didn't overwrite anything. My run command is practically hardcoded to start FOT using paths these days: ) so all I needed to do was to change it to "C:\Program Files\14 Degrees East\Fallout Tactics\BOS.exe" -path ROE. If you don't have Pakscape then you would need to extract it to another folder instead of FOT rename the core folder and then move the renamed core folder into the FOT folder.

Edit

About the only noticable change to the tile work is the addition of fortifications (Okay it's been a while since I looked at the Mir special encounter so I can't remember if it had any boulders or not) only trouble is there is no real plot reason given for the raiders to set up fortifications, and the fortifications themselves are all set up for an attack from one direction, the direction the player has to come from.

As it is the map is too small to take advantage of this error on the raiders part, you don't really have enough room to out flank them. If you are going to leave the fortifications as they are then you need to suggest a reason why the raiders believe their rear doesn't need protecting such as having 3 sides of the map blocked off by mountains. Other wise the fortifications should be revamped either turning them around so that their backs are to the Mir crash site or by extending the walls of the fortifications into squares so that the raiders have protection from attacks from all sides. Also you might want to set up 'never leave zones' for the raiders AI to use, so that the majority of them stay behind the fortifications. One reason I managed to finish so quick was that once I was spotted the majority of the raiders came running towards me and were mown down by Snake with his modified Steyr loaded with JHP ammo. That saved me having to attack the fortifications.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
User avatar
OnTheBounce
TANSTAAFL
TANSTAAFL
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Grafenwoehr, Oberpfalz, Bayern, Deutschland
Contact:

Post by OnTheBounce »

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:Also you might want to set up 'never leave zones' for the raiders AI to use, so that the majority of them stay behind the fortifications.
Although Ed Orman mentions in the FoT Editor ReadMe that the "Never Leave Zone" order can lead to some strange AI behavior such as an enemy refusing to take the last two steps to punch a player, I have had mixed results w/this feature. In my very first mission I wanted to set up people that wouldn't leave their bunkers to come charging out at the PCs, and even when set to "Never Leave Zone" they often would.

A good way to keep people where they are is to set their "Nature" to "Default" -- "Agressors" are more likely to charge, and never run away -- and their "Tactic" to "Hold". Couple this with a low "Agression" setting for the Player Index (4 or 5) and you have people that will hold their terrain, steady as rocks, while blazing away at the characters.

The "Aggression" setting for a Player Index is very important here, since what it does is control the probability that characters in that Index will move to engage an enemy that they have sighted. While high settings are good for roving patrols, you may very well have the AI send a banzai wave of lemmings at the player as the enemy abandons their fixed positions in favor of WWII Soviet-style massed infantry attacks.

Another thing that can be done in addition to what I mentioned above is to have enemies w/different Tactic settings. This depends largely on terrain, but try to set up situations that will lead to an incautious player getting caught in pincer movements and crossfires. Once you've done that, the mark of a good mapper is to have the whole thing look believable, and not simply like a "combat playground" that was set up by someone simply to make things hard on the player. (That is the hard part, BTW.)

Since this thread might seem a little scathing at first glance, I will add the following: Note that these are constructive criticisms. We are very much willing to help you -- and you will note that all of the noted problems are accompanied by suggestions and solutions. We are not here to flame you or anything juvenile like that.

Cheers,

OTB
"On the bounce, you apes! Do you wanna live forever?!"
User avatar
requiem_for_a_starfury
Hero of the Wastes
Hero of the Wastes
Posts: 1820
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:13 am

Post by requiem_for_a_starfury »

Yeah, the last thing I'd want to do is discourage anyone from map making, I'm not as expressive when it comes to the written word as I am vocally, so don't be offended.

Another simpler solution to keeping people in their place, is to simply make it impossible for them to leave their fortifications, fencing them in on all four sides, and perhaps using some destroyable barracades so that once you've killed them you can get in to loot their bodies.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Guest

Post by Guest »

I guys, I could use some help.
I tried to rename the core files, but couldn't find a way to do so.
Can you do it with winzip, or do you need something else?
Also, any chance you could tell me how to make Rules Of Engagement work, step by step?
Post Reply