Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nmenth

Limitations of an armory

Recommended Posts

Anyone that has created an Armory=yes will be aware that infantry become "stuck" inside and are difficult to manually remove, including the inability to drag-select them. This makes them rather annoying as other infantry may not enter the armory until those ahead of them properly leave first... So what can be done about this, what are the limitations of an Armory?

 

:bullet:If a normal Armory is created (Armory=yes)

Infantry do not exit the building and become partially "stuck" inside

Infantry are difficult to select and cannot be drag selected

A rally point cannot be set

Other infantry-in-wait will not enter on their own until the "blocking" infantry is manually moved

 

This is what I learned about using Armory=yes from other people and tutorials:

 

:bullet:If an Armory/Barracks hybrid is created (Armory=yes Factory=InfantryType)

A rally point can be set

This causes Cloning=yes to create free duplicates with every promotion

If the AI use it, it may mess with their protocols in a very bad way *

As it is a second Barracks, if AI own it, they will produce twice as many infantry

If an infantry is created and one promoted simultaneously, you will get an IE

 

Through my own experimentation, this is what I have learned about using Armory=yes.

 

:bullet:If a Special Armory/Barracks hybrid is created (Armory=yes Factory=InfantryType Owner=Special)

A rally point can be set

Infantry cannot be created from the Armory, so a simultaneous IE is not possible

This does not cause the AI protocol problem *

This causes Cloning=yes to create free duplicates with every promotion

As it is a second Barracks, if AI own it, they will produce twice as many infantry

 

:bullet:If an incomplete, one cell large (Ammo Crate is good), Armory/Barracks hybrid is created (Armory=yes XBarracks=yes**)

Infantry will emerge outside of the building and can be selected very easily and even drag selected

This is not considered a factory, so the Cloning bug will not occur

As it is not a factory, AI do not produce twice as many infantry

This does not cause the AI protocol problem *

Infantry cannot be created from the Armory, so a simultaneous IE is not possible

A rally point cannot be set

Other infantry-in-wait will not enter on their own until the "blocking" infantry is manually moved

It is restricted to 1 cell in size to work properly

** X represents GDI, NOD, or Yuri.

 

:bullet:If a flat Armory is created (Armory=yes NumberImpassableRows=0)

This is not considered a factory, so the Cloning bug will not occur

As it is not a factory, AI do not produce twice as many infantry

This does not cause the AI protocol problem *

Infantry cannot be created from the Armory, so a simultaneous IE is not possible

Infantry are easier to manually select, but cannot be drag selected

Infantry do not exit the building and become partially "stuck" inside

A rally point cannot be set

Other infantry-in-wait will not enter on their own until the "blocking" infantry is manually moved

 

* The AI protocol glitch: If the AI has an Armory/Barracks hybrid, it will cause them to exclusively and endlessly construct one unit. Note that this glitch only occurs when the normal barracks is turning into an Armory, not if a new Armory that is also a Barracks is added. In this way, making a Special Armory/Barracks hybrid "fixes" this problem simply because it prevents you from making it from the normal Barracks.

 

I'd like to expand on this list to increase my understanding of just how far Armory can be pushed... If you have more info, do tell.

 

Note that this topic is only discussing the limitations of using Armory=yes, it is not regarding the general function of an Armory.

Share this post


Link to post

If you put Hospital=yes or Armory=yes on any Factory=InfantryType structure the AI owns, it will endlessly train the basic infantry in the vain hope of using it. GDIBarracks/NodBarracks/ThirdBarracks doesn't have much of an effect on anything since it does not actually define the structure as a production facility; it's mainly for AI targeting purposes so it can flag it as a barracks.

 

There is really no way around any of this without negative side effects. This is why Armories are rarely seen and cumbersome to use, but that's the downside for immediate infantry promotion.

Share this post


Link to post
GDIBarracks/NodBarracks/ThirdBarracks doesn't have much of an effect on anything since it does not actually define the structure as a production facility; it's mainly for AI targeting purposes so it can flag it as a barracks.

Which is why it is interesting that it has the effect that it does on the Armory. It makes it almost work adequately.

 

 

I have further tested the AI protocol thing and updated it accordingly. It would seem both of my experiments solve the AI glitch.

Share this post


Link to post

Experiments have revealed another option with NumberImpassableRows and I have added it to the list. It can also be used in combination with GDIBarracks=yes to change the position the infantry emerge from if using a building that is larger than 1 cell. If using a 1 cell building, NumberImpassableRows is pointless and it is best to stick with just GDIBarracks=yes.

 

However, although it is better than just Armory=yes, the only advantages this presents over the other options is that it does not cause any bugs like Factory and can be bigger than 1 cell.

Share this post


Link to post

You'll get close, but it will never be perfect due to limitations on the engine. But since the XBarracks tags do not alter the game, this is a Factory, you'll never see the desired result. In order to have an exit queue, you need a Factory tag or Cloning=yes set. Neither of your conditions fulfill that requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
You'll get close, but it will never be perfect due to limitations on the engine.

That's why this topic is titled Limitations of an armory. :P

 

But since the XBarracks tags do not alter the game

Er... I might be taking this the wrong way, but are you trying to claim that using XBarracks=yes tags doesn't do anything? Because I've posted these here after my own testing and I can assure you that they do make a difference on the armory, specifically a 1 cell big armory (Actually, I haven't tested NODBarracks=yes or YuriBarracks=yes, but I'm assuming they work the same way).

 

Edit:

Now they have been tested, they do not work the same way, they change the location the displacement occurs.

Share this post


Link to post

The XBarracks tags are meant for AI targeting purposes so it knows that it's a barracks. They're not meant to be used for other purposes and this will invariably confuse the AI in some fashion since you're putting GDIBarracks on a different structure. Same with NODBarracks and YuriBarracks. In truth, neither of those tags have any real effect in-game short of the AI's targeting systems.

Share this post


Link to post
The XBarracks tags are meant for AI targeting purposes so it knows that it's a barracks. They're not meant to be used for other purposes and this will invariably confuse the AI in some fashion since you're putting GDIBarracks on a different structure.

I imagine it will have some sort of an effect on the AI, but from what I've seen, it isn't significant.

So what if they target the armory as if it were a barracks? If find that to be a good thing.

 

In truth, neither of those tags have any real effect in-game short of the AI's targeting systems.

Apparently they also decide where infantry exit the building from...

 

I present exhibits A-D:

(AB)

(CD)

These four shots are of the exact same structure, on the exact same map, with the exact same GIs, all taken just after they emerged from the Ammo Crate Armory with their promotions.

tmp-54.jpg

The only differences in code is this:

Exhibit A: GDIBarracks=no NODBarracks=no YuriBarracks=no

Exhibit B: GDIBarracks=yes NODBarracks=no YuriBarracks=no

Exhibit C: GDIBarracks=no NODBarracks=yes YuriBarracks=no

Exhibit D: GDIBarracks=no NODBarracks=no YuriBarracks=yes

 

When the unit is stuck inside the crates in exhibit A, he is very difficult to select and cannot even be drag selected.

When the unit appears outside the crates as in exhibits B-D, he is very easy to select and can be drag selected.

 

Strangely enough... the direction they appear from are the very same as seen from GAPILE, NAHAND, and YABRCK.

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a thought, but you can't have GDIBarracks=yes and YuriBarracks=yes or something of the like can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Just a thought, but you can't have GDIBarracks=yes and YuriBarracks=yes or something of the like can you?

Not sure what you mean... you'll have to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Strangely enough... the direction they appear from are the very same as seen from GAPILE, NAHAND, and YABRCK.

I rest my case.

At least I know what those tags actually do. They influence exit coordinates but do not actually count the structure as a production facility. Given that nearly Armories are usually 2x2 or 3x3, this code is actually quite useless. There really is no way around this, even with this.

Share this post


Link to post
They influence exit coordinates but do not actually count the structure as a production facility.

Luckily, it doesn't need to be, as counting as a production facility is what leads to the cloning bug.

 

 

Given that nearly Armories are usually 2x2 or 3x3, this code is actually quite useless.

If people want a 2x2 or 3x3 Armory that sucks, they are welcome. If they want one that almost works, but is restricted to 1x1, that is also their choice (I find Ammo Crates to be a very logical choice for an Armory if it has to be 1x1).

Personally, I choose neither. Armories are imbalanced in my opinion, akin to cheating or nooby mods unless used as a limited Ammo civilian tech building.

 

The purpose of this topic was to experiment with the Armory, which I did, for the purpose of finding alternate solutions, which I did, and to solve some of the bugs of the only suggested viability of rally points that resulted in numerous problems, which I did. Now I have added three methods of using the Armory that I have not found anyone else ever present before.

 

I count this as a success.

 

You, on the other hand... I don't even know what point you were trying to make throughout this... Were you against experimentation? Do you just want to be annoying? Do you think making a hybrid that causes the cloning bug, the protocol bug, and the simultaneous exit IE is the only right way? Were you actually trying to be helpful in some very obscure and subtle way?

 

I hope that if some modder wants to make an Armory, but is barred by the limitations, they find my list beneficial. If no one ever does, I don't care either, I think pushing the limits can be a good experience. Where would modding be today if everyone just stayed within the comfort zone?

Share this post


Link to post

I meant having both the GDIBarracks=yes and YuriBarracks=yes tags at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
I meant having both the GDIBarracks=yes and YuriBarracks=yes tags at the same time.

It won't crash, but I'm not sure why you would want two tags...

Share this post


Link to post
Luckily, it doesn't need to be, as counting as a production facility is what leads to the cloning bug.

It's also what allows rally points and proper exiting.

 

If people want a 2x2 or 3x3 Armory that sucks, they are welcome. If they want one that almost works, but is restricted to 1x1, that is also their choice (I find Ammo Crates to be a very logical choice for an Armory if it has to be 1x1).

Personally, I choose neither. Armories are imbalanced in my opinion, akin to cheating or nooby mods unless used as a limited Ammo civilian tech building.

Armories were originally a Tiberian Sun capturable structure. The idea didn't quite make the cut, probably for the reason you mentioned but it had a cap of five instances so it wasn't that bad. However, a lot of this comes down to aesthetics; 2x2 and 3x3 are more visually appealing and actually make some sense in the void of realism in TS and RA2.

 

The purpose of this topic was to experiment with the Armory, which I did, for the purpose of finding alternate solutions, which I did, and to solve some of the bugs of the only suggested viability of rally points that resulted in numerous problems, which I did. Now I have added three methods of using the Armory that I have not found anyone else ever present before.

This has all been tested before, and documented at Eclipse and the original Sleipnir Stuff, and much was probably lost in ancient Deezire threads. And the C&C Guild merged with Origin so a lot of posts were lost. I really hate to break it to you, but this is, sadly, old news. This has been tried, tested and left out because of the issues it creates.

 

You, on the other hand... I don't even know what point you were trying to make throughout this... Were you against experimentation? Do you just want to be annoying? Do you think making a hybrid that causes the cloning bug, the protocol bug, and the simultaneous exit IE is the only right way? Were you actually trying to be helpful in some very obscure and subtle way?

I'm always weary of most experimentation on issues we've tracked before. This is one of those issues that's been tested, changed, retested and experimented with to death. And everyone else concluded the same result - there is no good, proper workaround for the issues Armory=yes and Hospital=yes incur. I've worked with this much myself and never found a good way to implement Armory logic without some serious drawbacks.

 

I hope that if some modder wants to make an Armory, but is barred by the limitations, they find my list beneficial. If no one ever does, I don't care either, I think pushing the limits can be a good experience. Where would modding be today if everyone just stayed within the comfort zone?

It's not that pushing limits is bad. We did quite a lot of that when the games were released. Unfortunately, now, we know the limits. It's a product of seven years of coding and testing. Nothing new or spectacular has come out for RA2 or YR in the last four years without the aid of a patch. Put simply, the game is just about fully documented. However, your experimentation led me to a new conclusion, which I would not have seen before. You had success in one area, just not the one you had intended.

Share this post


Link to post
This has all been tested before, and documented at Eclipse and the original Sleipnir Stuff, and much was probably lost in ancient Deezire threads. And the C&C Guild merged with Origin so a lot of posts were lost. I really hate to break it to you, but this is, sadly, old news. This has been tried, tested and left out because of the issues it creates.

 

I'm always weary of most experimentation on issues we've tracked before. This is one of those issues that's been tested, changed, retested and experimented with to death.

Well I would have liked to have known that. Before I started this topic, I searched all the RA2/YR tutorials I could think of to see what people had discovered about Armories. As I wrote in my first post, there was only one method I found, the basic Barracks/Armory hybrid.

 

I said "If you have more info, do tell." from the start.

 

Of course if all this old information has been lost, then it seems good to me that I have resurfaced it. Even as old as these games are, there are still people new to the modding. I know we even have a few question about Armories buried somewhere in this forum.

 

 

However, your experimentation led me to a new conclusion, which I would not have seen before. You had success in one area, just not the one you had intended.

Any success is good success. What does this new conclusion mean for you/me/modders?

Share this post


Link to post
Well I would have liked to have known that. Before I started this topic, I searched all the RA2/YR tutorials I could think of to see what people had discovered about Armories. As I wrote in my first post, there was only one method I found, the basic Barracks/Armory hybrid.

 

I said "If you have more info, do tell." from the start.

 

Of course if all this old information has been lost, then it seems good to me that I have resurfaced it. Even as old as these games are, there are still people new to the modding. I know we even have a few question about Armories buried somewhere in this forum.

Most of the information has been lost, but that stands to reason since a lot of these places opened in 01 and 02, then merged or changed homes several times. A lot gets lost; however, I think you're the only one who tried NumberImpassableRows now that I think about it. While a nice thought, it kinda left you stuck with the same issues as, say, GDIBarracks.

 

Any success is good success. What does this new conclusion mean for you/me/modders?

In all truth, probably not very much. However, visual proof of certain tags work is always a good thing. I really had no idea what they did, but now I do and understand their function.

Share this post


Link to post
It won't crash, but I'm not sure why you would want two tags...

 

Please excuse, I'm not a modder, just interested in modding/pushing limits etc.

So what is the effect of having both those tags?

Share this post


Link to post
So what is the effect of having both those tags?

Well I haven't tested it to any huge degree, but it appears to ignore one of the tags.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×