Cybertank for TripleA – beta is live

My first TripleA game is mostly ready.

It’s call cybertank.  Loosely based on a variety of AI driven super tank games and books.  There are few things I can’t yet do using the TripleA engine… and my map isn’t pretty, but it’s an interesting game.

It’s actually surprising how tight things can get, even given the rather large production and lots of units running around.

Here’s the download file.  Cybertank.zip

Just copy the .zip  file into the TripleA maps folder.  You don’t even have to unpack it.

A few notes.

As I said, the graphics are not the best.  That’s on the book for upgrading… at least to color code the units rather than every countries units being black, with a flag under them.

The AI is not very good at this.  But I have not played multiplayer yet, beyond myself at least.  It appears that in the early game NorAm has a big disadvantage, both in vulnerable victory locations and low unit count.  Expert players should take NorAm.

Europe has a distinct advantage mid game, there’s only one land route to attack it, and the country is huge.  Weaker players may want to start there.

Feedback is greatly appreciated.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Cybertank for TripleA – beta is live

  1. Eugen says:

    Ogre
    you posted on UD. Why did you list all those 0s and 1s? I didn’t get the point.

    I posted to ask you but they delay me for hours or days sometimes.

    BTW interesting about the game you created.

  2. OgreMkV says:

    The point is (as we all saw) was that ID principles cannot be used to determine if a sequence of anything is random or designed. That sequence is either designed (by me) or a random data set generated by atmospheric white noise at random.org. If ID proponents can’t determine which it is, then how can they expect to tell a thing that is purposefully designed from one that is designed by environmental pressure and random mutation of the genome?

    People like JoeG claim that evolution is random. ID claims to be able to determine design.

    Therefore my test is directly relevant to the claims of ID proponents. Either their claim is wrong or ID is totally useless (or, most likely, both).

  3. Eugen says:

    OK I see. random.org is absolutely cool, I didn’t even know about it.

    As for evolution, it should work in cycles of random variation and then what ever survives gets to reproduce? Good for them.

    I do like enzymes, they remind me of nano machines.

    http://www.zeitnews.org/nanotechnology/smallest-electric-engine-could-power-nanomachines.html

  4. OgreMkV says:

    BTW: A friend clued me in on a paper you might find interesting. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/10/1115323109.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes

    Experimental evidence of the FAST evolution of multicellularity (60 days).

  5. Eugen says:

    Cool, I’ll read it. At quick look reminds me of swarm robots

    http://www.physorg.com/news91372110.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s