Some basics of tactical warefare.

[Dark_au]

I often mention things like tactical manaeouver in my posts. I thought I'd put down some of the basics in a post for discussion.

Before I start I don't want to give the impression that I consider myself a peerless authority on this topic. If any of you are steel beasts players read posts by Gary Owen,Hellhound, Archangel, Shermanswar etc. These are people I still learn things from. These are guys who have had real armour/military experience or are currently serving. Me I've just been playing tank sims for a very long time and been wargaming for longer. I'm not paticularily good with grand strategy but I'm a pretty good from the hip tactician in small unit tactics.

Rule number 1... Don't be seen. If you don't want to be killed at long range don't be seen at long range. This is a lot easier than you may think. Firstly it means not running around everywhere at high speeds like a looney. Speed will save you sometimes if you get seen and shot at at long range. However not been seen will save you every time. also our eyes spot faster moving items in chaotic environments ( like a landscape) easier than we can spot a slow moving object. When you are moving from one place to another don't just head in a straight line. Pick your route to give you maximum concealment from the most directions. Ever wondered what all those lovelly little ditches are for in maps like Raid?. Well thats it. If you do get spotted and fired at, displace. Find some cover at least to minimise the target exposure to your enemy. The simplest example of this is the use of a hull down position.

choose your own encounter parameters. Sun Tzu talks about this when he says "How do you garauntee meeting your enemy while he is tired and you are fresh. Make the journey his". If you spot a target that is dangerous for you to take on then manaeouver in such a way that they move into your kill zone in such a way that their reaction is limited. The best example of this is a back ambush, find a nice concealed hollow that hides you from their approach until they have passed you. If you've done it right you get a free shot at them in their softest regions.

The best form of defence is attack. I think people learn the wrong lessons from how the bots defend. The best way to defend an area is to stop the enemy getting to it in the first place rather than plugging the holes when they do. Active patrolling defences will give you the opportunity to use the rule above. Especially if the attacker is totally fixed on the objective and not looking for moving patrols.

Situational Awareness. This is the hardest thing to explain but the most important of all. Scan in all directions. Use the different views to see what is around and react to it. This gives you the ability to do the first 2.

OK I've typed enough for now. I will add stuff as I think of it.

[TankHunter]

Well, a better way to define SA is this. Know what is going on around you. If you dont, you will be surprised at the worst time. You are liable to be attacked from one of the flanks, or by a greatly superior force, etc. In other words if you don’t have good SA, you will know what is going on at a time in which you cannot react to the threat in time, and you will lose.

[dan/california]

I really do believ that it will get much better with more players on the servers, especially more good players. I have not noticed any one living very long in Yurch's line of sight. The tools are there once people get the hang of it.

[konstantine]

Hull down is great in theory, but it doesn't work that well in-game. There is too much clear ground, in general, even if height varies, and no heavy trees or foliage.

Frankly, there is too little variation in foliage. I've noticed this in dropping turrets--I drop "turret farms" in hollows and little valleys adjacent to the flag (far away enough to hopefully withstand artillery); along with sensor jammers, but in every case a bot or human player (or conversely if I am attacking; I myself) can find the means to destroy them "manually" without reprisal--turrets are obviously susceptible to hulldown positions.

So, as a defensive player, there are very few ideal hidden spots to exploit defensively unless you drop as infantry (who are truly tougher to spot). If you look at CMBB/CMAK, keyholing is easy and a prerequisite for SPGs and ATGs, and also it is possible in every environment including desert, because of the variation in foliage and terrain (and to be fair, also due to the limits of the units available at that time--but lets focus on say the terrain in eastern Europe as opposed to north Africa ). Any hulldown position in Drop Team is rendered relatively ineffective by dropships and the lack of "tall" foliage. Dropships I can accept, they are obviously necessary and a great part of the game...but the lack of heavy foliage to obscure ambushes and counter-attacks is a little hard to swallow without some explanation as to the lack of tall trees and obstruction of LOS.

Also, I read Dark_au's thoughts about constant movement. However, defensively, movement is necessary only after exploiting a good hiding spot--you kill enemies until it's dangerous, and retire to a different spot; better yet no one spots you. The only vehicles that subscribe to this mentality are the ATGM carriers, which can lock, target, kill and withdraw. Anything else is easily spotted and possibly killed.

The Apollo would be ideal for hulldown ambushes if the spots existed--but even if you can find a good kill spot the enemy can drop nearby and waste you--which they couldn't necessarily always do, right away, with proper cover (I.E. heavier foliage obscuring LOS). In Drop Team, you have to move constantly, pretty much no matter what. Now, I understand that the game is sci-fi and necessarily subject to non-real life and RTS parameters...but, more foliage--even basically rendered--would improve general realism in my opinion. I guess I find it hard to believe that all of these worlds lack heavy trees, thick bush and grass and tall grass or crops. That said, the game is without question a lot of fun just as it is.

Not to mention...why are there no ATGs in this game? That would be cool!

[Dark_au]

Hull down has little to do with concealment and a lot to do with cover. Your enemy can't hit bits he can't see. The apollo is an obvious candidate for Hull down because the most heavilly armoured part is the turret and its a tiny little target. The thor its usefull for too to keep something other than thin air between an enemy and that weak spot over your battery.

[Mace]

it's spelt warfare. *makes a smartarse response*

btw, I'd like to add that effective communication between team members is a key to a successful outcome.

[aittam]

good tactic is diversion: attack from one side to attract attention and then jump out from the other and fire at their backs but also attract the enemy toward a chocke point and fill it with artillery

hull down is better achieved in collaboration with cutters that can actually dig holes

ATGM are the best for a contained defense, where you slow down the enemy advace to give time to set up a well done defensive perimeter, once the enemy is advancing in a defined position infantry could be brought along the axis and get a lot of kills

[B0nes]

Actually, I find that vegetation often prevents me from getting a good hull down position. If you pop your turret just over the crest of a hill all you can see are Red arrows (assuming no jammers) and tall grass. The bots can see you though.

I usually try to pick a spot with no vegetation when I'm trying to get hull down.

[Dark_au]

LOL Mace... which fine print did you read that said i could spell for nuts

[yllamana]

Rule number 1... Don't be seen. If you don't want to be killed at long range don't be seen at long range.

I'm a little confused about this one. It sounds to me like more of a basic of modern tactical warfare than a general rule. Castles and other fortifications, for example, were very visible, yet viable (in their time) due to their defensive strength.

I bring this up because it seems very relevant to your grand pet hate of DT's point defence. That is, as far as I know, founded in this "basic rule" that seems to me to be flawed.

[DrWoood]

Jammers and the Hermes are the best way of not getting seen in this game, both in offence, and offensive defence. To see where the enemy is, why not take the Viper for a ride?

[Dark_au]

Yllamana... Castles don't move. Its not like you can hide their presence...

It strikes me that if I am the only way that thinks this way the terrain in this game is wasted. Might as well have a big flat map with **** loads of AAD and hermes and engage in tactic-less long range sniping at tanks which are stationary under AAD towers. Whilst of course sitting stationary under your own AAD.. Ohh apart from the hermes backstabbing the dumb bots. I thought maybe this thread might be a good idea obviously i was wrong on multiple levels.

[aittam]

cover and coop are the key to success -> here come into the equation the player, if somebody just joins a server for a shoot out its team is already weakined by the cat that it cannot count on him: he's gonna keep that position? where is gonna drop next?

i think sometimes it's worth to spend a few moment talking or typing to figure out a strategy and then drop

[Hub]

[ October 21, 2006, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Hub ]

[Dark_au]

Aittam, diversion is truly one of the finest arts of warfare. I can't remember how Sun Tzu phrased it but I always refer to it as the "Look at the monkey.... Slap" technique. The beauty of it is that it works both directions. If the enemy expects the slap hit him with the monkey.

[dan/california]

I, i say again, i am the worst speller in existence. Dark is a minorleager by comparison.

[aittam]

Originally posted by Dark_au:

Aittam, diversion is truly one of the finest arts of warfare. I can't remember how Sun Tzu phrased it but I always refer to it as the "Look at the monkey.... Slap" technique. The beauty of it is that it works both directions. If the enemy expects the slap hit him with the monkey.

for the time being i haven't really see somebody pick up a feint knowing what it was and kick back, i remember some very well coordinate attack with poesel :cool:

discuss tactics here was also the purpose of my topic on twin peaks, of course you never know with who you are gonna teamed up but at least let everybody know what would be shortly discussed during deployment

[TankHunter]

Originally posted by yllamana:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Rule number 1... Don't be seen. If you don't want to be killed at long range don't be seen at long range.

I'm a little confused about this one. It sounds to me like more of a basic of modern tactical warfare than a general rule. Castles and other fortifications, for example, were very visible, yet viable (in their time) due to their defensive strength.

I bring this up because it seems very relevant to your grand pet hate of DT's point defence. That is, as far as I know, founded in this "basic rule" that seems to me to be flawed. </font>

[yurch]

The best defense I've witnessed involves the ions attacking the sides of valleys. Some guy lights up units 6k+ away on the other side of the objective - screened by the objective's point defense - giving the enemy advance of that area little choice but to die from ions or roll downhill recklessly into the infantry controlled base ahead. It's delightfully effective and I like the panic it causes. Attackers have to waste valuable time chasing down the ion carriers through the AA guessing game that jammed turrets provide.

In this game, it's very hard to fight downhill, making valley objectives rather tough. Getting a shot on your current target usually means giving a top shot to some other guy 5k away you don't know about yet. This is the mistake most people make when trying to 'hull down' - they pick a hill, and then try to 'hull down' to some guy well below it by inching forwards. The Apollo is actually particularly bad for this, with it's rear mounted turret and subsequently poor downwards traversal. Reversing against something that tips your tail high enough to overlook cover up ahead is usually a better idea if you're looking to take a quick shot.

The key part of the phrase 'hull down' is the down part. Try to stay somewhat level with your target. There are advantages to height or depth, but they are very circumstantial. Try to use a jammer too, that is, if Jung hasn't 'misplaced' them all already.

It's also not enough to merely have your turret being the only thing exposed to the enemy. Depending on how close the enemy is, and how close your cover is, arcing HEAT rounds can be a problem. I've gotten many a kill by rangefinding off Apollo turrets that have worn out thier position's welcome.

The Apollo is of particular interest, because it's got a 150 front armor rating and HEAT rounds do 240. Even with the sloping of the armor, that HEAT round is getting through. If you're stuck there, maximize the angling in whatever way you can, turning/tipping the front sideways, upwards, anything that doesn't expose the rest of the tank accidentally. Just remember you'll never really be safe versus this type of ammunition (and many others). The side armor of the Apollo is only 50 less. When the fecal matter hits the electic blowing device and you've got hermes or mortars or ions on top of you, move. Forget about trying to orient your front armor, because it certainly won't save you.

[cool breeze]

Thakns again Yurch. Thanks yllamana for bringing up castles, they seem the perfect analogy for ion turrets. The real #1 rule of combat, if it is the #1 rule would be "dont be seen when not not in a castle or under an ion tower" it is often better that the thors under ion tower are seen to keep attackers somewhat pinned and very destracted. those circleing for the kill while out of the umberella should be sneaky for suprise. In all player aimed shooting games i have played an eaqually good #1 rule is to always have overwhelming fire power. In drop team this is hard until more human play at a time but stilt works. I virtually never see groups of three or more vehicles sticking together in this game, but when they do I dont think they need to stay hidden most of the time. Unless the enemy is similarly well coordinated i believe that the group will beat any dribled on attack against it and quickly "repair" damage. Because of point defense and weaker than modern arty/airpower the main modern reason to avoid large compact groups is gone. infact it is additionally encouraged because it allows more safe heavy weapons for the same amount hermes coverage. With a big group you will be throwing around so much fire that galaxies bases and hermes are all mostly ineffective because they will be overwhelmed or destroyed.

Dark-au,you say point defenses encourage people sniping at long range under AAD? I only half agree, so i strongle dissagree with your point. only the ion tower is worth sitting under in the open for long range sniping. If both teams practice long range snipping in equal ammounts (same numbers of players? with attackers snipping for hull down with hermes and galaxys and defender sinping from hull down in base with galaxy when ion is overwhelmed the attackers will lose because no aad is as good as the ion tower. It shoots more and last much longer than the occasional galaxy. the tactics of using the terrain while moving is not at all made not worthwhile by aad, I dont believe it even lessens its effectiveness. I think the ion tower and galaxies 120mm shooting primarilly makes it so the attacker cannot win through long range firepower on the base. to me this is a good thing. To take that base defended by hull down thors under an ion tower I believe you will need use cover to close assault it with mostly 20mm units and inf. otherwise it seems to me defenders and attackers are playing basically the same game.

Having castle like ion towers gives noobs something to be successful with. most internet game players have not played a game so realistic. the bases give these players an area where they can mostly simply move into LOS and practice gunnery while significantly helping their team and somewhat forcing the enemy to use more interesting tactics and more thorough coordination.

And as I said before but noone responded, games like this need stationary objectives. right? If this was a deathmatch or team deathmatch it wouldne make sense or be much fun and i wouldnt play. without stationary objectives a battlefield doesnt make sense. why would people fight over a civilian town or wilderness. If the stationary objectives dont have as good a defense as a mobile unit 9as in if it was anti arty/missle only but without sensor jammers then nobody would stay in that base. stationary objectives need to have defenders very near them for them to be fun to take. the castle like ion tower gives a good reason to stay where the enemy know approximately where you are. and if the maps ever get nearly as big as the engine allows (1000 sq km) we need stationary objectives to focus fighting and i want the stationary defenses to be manned, not simply a game of tag with a stationary tag zone (like it would be without ion shooting 120mm, people would caprute facilitie and leave to where it is safer, cap again if enemy takes it back).

Who is with me in wanting ion towers to be more than missle and arty defense? i want a vote.

[ August 11, 2006, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: cool breeze ]

[yurch]

Originally posted by cool breeze:

Who is with me in wanting ion towers to be more than missle and arty defense? i want a vote.

"More than"? Like what?

[cool breeze]

right now they are much more than missle and arty defense because they shoot down longish range direct fire projectiles. I hope they stay similar to or the same as they are now. I am arguing againast dark-au in fear that he is convincing many people or the developers (But i dont think either is the case)

[yllamana]

The idea about not being seen is this

He doesn’t know where you are. If he doesn’t know where you are, he cannot react to what you are doing. He also has to worry about where you are and what you are doing.

A couple of vehicles waiting in the vicinity of an ion tower isn't the same as broadcasting to your enemy the location of your entire army. I'd argue that you can even use it as a tactical tool, far from people yelling about "noobs" and whatnot - if the enemy is forced to attack your position then you, again, can gain the upper hand by exploiting that.

Oh, and:

Yllamana... Castles don't move. Its not like you can hide their presence...

Neither do ion towers - what's your point? They're a fortification. Your rule seems to be based on there being no significant type of fortification available (because the enemy can blow it up with missiles/artillery/airstrikes/etc so actually using it as a defensive tool is counterproductive). That clearly doesn't hold true in Drop Team in that there is no cruise missile/artillery/airstrike that can kill an ion tower.

All I am saying is your rule appears to be wrong in that it's not universally true. It may be true today, yes, but it has not always been true and for all we know it may not be true in the future.

Of course, there's also the argument that you can't depend on ion towers being effective because they're easy to counter, especially with the new coaxial MGs - but since your complaints by and large appear to be based on the premise that they are effective, I guess we can skip over that.

[yurch]

Oh, that. That doesn't particularly bother me all that much as they're stationary, and I know where I can go to avoid those who are hiding by them.

It's the galaxy surprise that really gets me.

Another thing that should probably go in this thread is an emphasis on patience. Yes, we are pressed for time, yes, that AT 'nade kill is cool, and sometimes we're just tired, but a little patience saves a lot of time - and your ass - in the long run. We're all guilty of it, of course, from time to time.

Especially for infantry. Save those jets for when you're not near enemies or for when they've already seen you. The first thing I do in a tank when I see/hear those jets (or other infantry activity) is chamber a HE round and punch the throttle. Even if I don't survive I'm taking half your squad with me.

Yes, there are circumstances where the jets are neccesary or preferable (mid-air grenade shots are quite doable) but many of you are firing those jets off every time. Player's mindsets and behaviors will change the moment they think infantry is nearby. Hide the rest of your squad or stick them on hold-fire, and consider yourself a slow-motion hermes. I've followed whole groups of enemy tanks around for minutes at a time waiting for that shot. While you're walking, you can at least give your team uncomfortably detailed information about whatever the enemy is doing.

If this sounds too slow or too boring, perhaps you should reconsider deploying infantry at all.

Other situations include useage of weapons like the 76mm or the 20mm, and generally every attack weapon that benifits from armor facing (all of them). Players circle the Thor group or base looking for an opening, and eventually end up drawing closer and closer out of impatience... There's no need for this. Wait for a teammate (or berate one into doing so) to serve as another target for thier attention. This could be another 76mm, a friendly Thor, or even an infantry squad. The damage you save yourself from taking means you'll still be nearby later to intercept enemies and enemy drops.

And speaking of intercepting drops, there's no finer way to help your team then that. Sometimes it pays to sit there with a disabled engine next to the flag or objective, just shooting down dropship after dropship. No need to suicide until they're dropping half thier team outside of your effective range with the sole purpose of furiously rooting you out.

[Hub]

I find most games are played at a fairly frenetic pace. While exciting, I wonder how a more deliberate approach would work with regard to use of tactics. Personally, I would like to see games with a longer time frame, tied to limited, and even different, inventories per side.

A seemingly endless stream of cannon fodder raining down from the heavens tends to encourage a more wreckless play style, IMO. If there is a much smaller amount available for use, then it may encourage players to husband their resources. I've almost completed a new scenario that has very heavy cover around the defended zone and much of the map, plus a lot of trails (not roads - don't even think about rat-racing up these) that have both sunken portions (think bocage) and elevated causeways (think Holland). Lots of places for the type of maneuvering that I believe Dark_au is thinking of. I have made a limited, and different inventory for both sides. I'm testing it now. I would be interested to see how people play on it when it is done.