Some basics of tactical warefare.

[yurch]

In a universe where everything is depositied by aircraft, you'd better be contemplating air defense.

Without their various air defense towers, defenders are the same as attackers, just with some extra turrets. Operationally, they're really no different. Same armanents, same numbers, same rate of reinforcement. This is why the point advantage almost always works out very well for the "attackers" when towers aren't involved.

With the towers, it's different. This game is extremely fluid, and the only practical way to limit reinforcement rates (through driving time) is through anti-air coverage. With the superior coverage of the towers, attackers now become the slower-reinforcing team, (for all practical purposes) and the objective point advantage in theory offsets that. I don't quite think this dynamic is quite right yet, but that's how things are currently working. Our air defense in general is kind of goofy, and shifts from outright guessing game to complete nonthreat with a single jammer. I've suggested messing with it before.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the strength of the various antiprojectile point defenses, which appears to be the main complaint lately. I ask that people stop refering to the use of point-defense-anti-projectile stations in combat as just "AAD". It's confusing the issue.

The current ion towers don't bother me that much. It shouldn't be that much of an abstraction for a wargamer to consider it a circle of units with very well chosen hull-down positions or something. This circle doesn't move.

I can definitely see people having problems with the mobile versions. If there's a problem with the galaxy, then focus on the galaxy. If there's a problem with the hermes, it would be best to think about that. This generalized nonsense gets nowhere.

[ClaytoniousRex]

There are already a few changes in 1.1.3 that are relevant to this (1.1.3 will be released this week).

</font>

• Scenario authors can simply turn resupply off for their scenario (and of course a scenario author is already perfectly able to not put any ion towers in the scenario if he doesn't want them)</font>
• Reinforcement zones are now working. You can drive onto the battlefield via these zones without dropping (the scenario author specifies where and how many of these zones exist for each team - they are usually on a map edge)</font>
• Each team has a limited number of dropships (specified by the scenario author - can go all the way down to zero for one or both teams at his discretion)</font>
• Infantry and deployable items are delivered via disposable drop pods (drop pods are unlimited).</font>
• Bots can be told not to drop until ordered to do so</font>
• Dropships maneuver much more aggressively, taking evasive action and burning into the drop zone as quickly as possible</font>

There are some really important repurcussions to that last one. Dropships that streak toward the drop zone have to burn hard in order to decelerate before dropping their payload. They do this last phase of deceleration at nap of earth, but it takes several seconds to counter all of that momentum and slow down enough to drop. This means dropships are far more difficult to hit at long range than before, but in some cases are even easier to hit up close than before. This means that dropping right on top of enemy units is nearly suicidal unless done in numbers or with some kind of cover, etc. Dropping in a safe drop zone at long range from the enemy, however, is far safer than before. There's more to say about this in another thread when 1.1.3 is ready.

The reinforcement zones make some initial recon and probing by the attacker much more doable. You might well want to drive in under jammer cover and carve out a drop zone or two before using dropships. You might even want to send in your best 1 or 2 players before anyone else deploys and units at all.

Most importantly to this thread, the scenario author is now capable of having no point defense at all if that's his wish. As in my earlier post, we're still looking at changing point defense to only be effective against lower velocity, larger rounds (artillery and ATGM's), but since it's hard to tune that in a way that makes it still possible to roll it back, that won't happen in time for 1.1.3.

There's plenty of other stuff in 1.1.3, but those are the main changes that are relevant here.

[ClaytoniousRex]

The prime example to me is Dead Gulch, Frankly this is a ridiculous strategic concept. You have the ability to drop anywhere and you are fighting for a bridge because it is strategic HOW exactly?

The idea of scenarios like that is that you are taking control of the indigineous infrastructure. You go the expense, risk, and effort of using dropships in combat but the long term goal is often to pacify and take control of an area for longer term use. Having control of the planetside infrastructure allows you to use it once you've conquered the area. Once combat is settled, it's cheaper and better to use trucks rather than dropships.

Chess, checkers, etc.

Mmmm ... I've decided not to get drawn into this after all. Suffice it to say that you can now make scenarios that feel more like chess to you. They might feel more like checkers to someone else (after all, they now have fewer options instead of more), but that's perfectly fine. The scenario author should have the power to realize his vision of what is fun and tactically interesting and with 1.1.3 he will have more tools for doing so.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

Thanks, Clay. I, for one, am really appreciative of your effort and your response to the turbulance of your fanbase.

For me, the big one is that Bots can be told not to drop until you say so; that alone will improve the ability to coordinate a dozen times o'er.

[aittam]

these are all good news clay!

[yurch]

Originally posted by ClaytoniousRex:

</font>

• Infantry and deployable items are delivered via disposable drop pods (drop pods are unlimited).</font>
• Dropships maneuver much more aggressively, taking evasive action and burning into the drop zone as quickly as possible</font>

I'm terrified.

Are these quicker dropships still going to sport 75 armour ratings? Can the old air defenses even keep up with them? Can the pods be shot down at all?

[Dark_au]

The idea of scenarios like that is that you are taking control of the indigineous infrastructure. You go the expense, risk, and effort of using dropships in combat but the long term goal is often to pacify and take control of an area for longer term use. Having control of the planetside infrastructure allows you to use it once you've conquered the area. Once combat is settled, it's cheaper and better to use trucks rather than dropships.

OK let me try an explain how I've seen that mission beaten. It was a low count human game so both sides have mainly bots. The attacking sides player set all of his sides bots off to be a pain trying to capure the AAD. this so far is a fairly sound concept. The player then dropped a hermes at the map edge. Got down into the gulch and sat under the bridge. Scoring points even though the majority of the defenders are still also present in the zone. At the end of 30 minutes you're saying that because someone sat 1 vehicle under a bridge without clearing the defence that the attacker can cross his trucks with impunity. Have I missed something is this the spirit with which the game was intended?.

Still the basic problem remains is that if people aren't willing to accept any parts of current tactical consideration "because the game is sci-fi". If they are no contemporary or historical analogies which scenario designers can rely on then how can we come up with anything. Thats like expecting someone to just come up with a perpetual motion engine.

Anyway I said I admit defeat you are all right, I am wrong. I should have paid more attention to the overview and the line that mentions space vikings. Instead of reading the numerous comments on Tactical Armored warfare and looking at the pictures of tanks. If vikings are the historical analogy then all the scenarios will be based on one tactical concept. Run up the hill screaming with a mad look on your face, Stark naked, With an axe in one hand and your erect penis in the other.

[cool breeze]

Great news ClaytoniousRex! Thank you more than I can type.

Dark_au, it really bothers me that you keep implying that you were misled about the nature of this game before you bought it. I think I remember seeing you in the beta? If not there is still a demo to try before you buy. You had ample oppertunity to find out everything important about this game except what the new maps and infantry would be like. Since none of your long term complaining has been about either of those unknown factors please stop suggesting you didnt get what you thought you were paying for. if you were to impatient to find out what the game was like before you bought it please stop whining publicly about it and regret the "wasted" 40 bucks in silence. I am not asking you to get off the forum, just to try to convince people you are right instead complaining that Dropteam isnt what you thought it would be.

[Dark_au]

Cool,

what I was implying was that other people hadn't read the overview or if they had they concentrated on the Space viking line instead of the tactical armored warfare parts. This was refering to people who will argue the toss about the first post in this thread, or about the role of a tank.

I played the demo with a group of guys from SB, we played it as a fun tactical armored warfare game as we understood it and enjoyed it. The standard method of play in the servers cannot be described in this manner.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

I played the demo with a group of guys from SB, we played it as a fun tactical armored warfare game as we understood it and enjoyed it. The standard method of play in the servers cannot be described in this manner.

Damn those other people, who have the horrible tendency to play things in ways you don't. So much would be better about life if it weren't for other people, don't you agree?

OK let me try an explain how I've seen that mission beaten. It was a low count human game so both sides have mainly bots. The attacking sides player set all of his sides bots off to be a pain trying to capure the AAD. this so far is a fairly sound concept. The player then dropped a hermes at the map edge. Got down into the gulch and sat under the bridge. Scoring points even though the majority of the defenders are still also present in the zone. At the end of 30 minutes you're saying that because someone sat 1 vehicle under a bridge without clearing the defence that the attacker can cross his trucks with impunity. Have I missed something is this the spirit with which the game was intended?.

What he might be saying is that if one of the few humans on the defender side didn't notice the points going up and sent an element out to recon, then perhaps the defenders weren't exactly being as tactically aware as they should have been. There are few enough places a Hermes can hide on the map. Making a quick patrol of them in a Paladin or even a Viper should be easy. Hiding under the bridge is annoying, but its also obvious and makes the thing a great target for top shots where the armour is even weaker than usual. (In fact, I usually put a couple ground turrets on the bottom of the trench just to catch folks at it.)

Is it a kind of gamey tactic? Only in the sense that the idea of accruing points for simply being in the radius is "gamey." But plenty of others, including most of the active posters on this thread have been discussing ways to improve it or at least allow scenario creators to adjust it for their scenarios.

But, pointedly, and I think this deserves reiteration and strong note, you are not being helpful. You are not saying, "OK, yes, I understand what you're trying to do here and possibly this is a better method of achieving it." You're not even saying, "Guys, this is kind of a crocked scenario as written, can we pull it from rotation until we find a solution? I suggest ..."

You're whining. Repeatedly. And being insulting to folks who are actually trying to engage with you to look for mutually satisfying solutions, including Clay.

That just don't seem right bright, t'me.

Yes, other people play DropTeam in ways that folks gorged on modern tactical warfare would not attempt to. Sometimes, that works better either because of game conditions or because modern tactical understanding is simply wrong when it comes to describing the DT battlefield environment. If you can't deal with that, please, do withdraw from the field. But for Hell's sake, if you're going to keep engaging in discussion (if what you're doing can be called discussion), have the decency to grant the other disputants might be engaging in a good faith effort. That's common curtesy.

[Dark_au]

I'm sorry... what part of my posts have been insulting, especially to Clay, What is questioning someones argument position insulting?. Point out whining. I think you are putting your own conclusions on it. As far as I was concernerd I'd tried to start a discussion which had turned purile because people were arguing the toss.

[adzling]

Nice one clay!

I tell you watching dropteam evolve in front my eyes week-by-week is one of the coolest things i've witnessed

[ClaytoniousRex]

Are these quicker dropships still going to sport 75 armour ratings? Can the old air defenses even keep up with them? Can the pods be shot down at all?

Yes, still 75.

No, which is only part of why the ridiculous plasma turrets (both AA and ground) have *finally* been replaced with sensible objects with real components and weapons (no more plasma bolts).

Yes, pods are not jammed and are less evasive than dropships. They're completely vulnerable to AA fire. Their only advantages are that they are unlimited, small, and complete a drop faster than a dropship (and allow infantry to reload ammo, but that's not related here).

[dan/california]

Clay you guys are amazing.

Now that I have told you what a great guy you are again, can I bring up those better bot handling tools. I saw the part about better drop control, but better formations would be great too. Also, if a player is leading a platoon of bots could you set it up to switch between vehicles like it works now with infantry. it would allow a player to deal with his worst problem without clicking through several screens and commands.

Infantry drop pods will change tactics a lot. Knocking out AA defenses so that you can call infantry down on the base will become tactic #1. It should be great fun. Likewise it will make AA defenses a more strategic asset and should give a focus to game-play.

Someone tell me how to shoot anti tank grenade in mid JJ burn, please?

[yurch]

Originally posted by dan/california:

can I bring up those better bot handling tools.

The term is wrangling. Gotta let the bots know thier place, otherwise they get all uppity.

Someone tell me how to shoot anti tank grenade in mid JJ burn, please?

Pull trigger. Optionally, aim. You can get some good extra range out of it, just bear in mind the nade will be coming down at a very hard angle and your target surface area will be diminished.

Originally posted by ClaytoniousRex:

Yes, still 75.

I ask because of Montard*, he seems to have this overstock of HE he's looking to unload.

Not to push the envelope of overexpectancy or anything, but is there any word on the different ion physics?

[yllamana]

I think the point defence is probably mostly a problem for two bad reasons:

1. Lack of teamwork, partly due to inexperience, partly due to difficulty of coordinating with the current UI

2. Lack of experience with anti-PD tactics

In a hypothetical situation where a coordinated attack force assaulted someone whose only effective cover was PD, I think the attackers would annihilate their enemies. PD is strong when not countered, but when countered I don't think you could rely on it at all, and trying to do so would get you killed almost as well as if you just sat in an open field.

So all other questions aside, I don't think the ion towers/galaxy would be all they're cracked up to be when assaulted by a coordinated team who knows what they're doing. Part of the difficulty is that DT's coordination tools are a bit cumbersome and weak right now, but hopefully that'll be fixed up in future.

[konstantine]

Just a general observation: am I the only one who feels it's much too early to criticize player tactics (not game mechanics--I don't think AAD is an issue given proper coordination)...given the relatively few active on-line players? I think Dark_au that you may have a point, but you're talking about relatively very few people exploiting the game's mechanics. Wait a couple of months and see if the game takes off and multiple players exploit the AAD--if that's even possible. Not to mention, coordinated tactics within teams would address most if not all of the issues you have. At present few are interacting as a team, which seems to be the premise of the on-line game.

edit: also, I think my first observation in this thread has been overlooked. Why is there no heavy foliage in this game? Is this common in RTS/FPS games? It's a bit unrealistic in my opinion.

[ August 13, 2006, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: konstantine ]

[Dark_au]

Konstantine, heavy foliage though disirable might be more problems that is worth. It ups the collision detection calculations if you are going to include them. It would add massively to the LOS and AI spotting routines or it would only effect humans and bots would shoot you through it.

[Dark_au]

Konstantine, i don't think its too early. if the community is going to grow its easier to change when its small. If new players get ingrained to styles of play which will effect any long term playability then the battle is lost.

[Grappler]

The bots will no longer be able to "see" through foliage any better than a human in 1.1.3. They have also lost their ability to see in all directions at once too.

[cool breeze]

I think you would be much more effective in improving the playing of our community by organizing your team and beating the enemy with your superior tactics and coordination. When the tactics you dont like keep lossing people will quickly try new things or imitate you. I dont think asking people to move more smarter and not take advantage of ion towers and galaxies will help or be appreciated. organize your friends so you play at the same time on the same team if possible and really show how its done. game playing style is not a subject wellsuited to writing about, but very well demonstrated. It also eliminate the need for debate about what is tactically sound in the provided arena and lets us focus on issues more suited to debate. Id like to see some organized preplanned battles with presellected team commanders. for example i would very much like to participate in Yurch vs. Dark_au and many others. I would even more like to see two pre-public beta testers to command changing teams of players. Id be happy to command a team if not enough others want to.

[dan/california]

At the risk of putting clay in overload, some tools to make it easier to wind up on your preferred team would be nice. But if Yurch and Crimson are on one side and a bunch of new people are on the other they will never know what hit them.

[Dark_au]

The bots will no longer be able to "see" through foliage any better than a human in 1.1.3. They have also lost their ability to see in all directions at once too.

To me thats not good news. The bots are already hard enough to keep alive, especially with people back stabbing them with Herpes. All this will do is make bot tanks victims to infantry 100% of the time.

[cool breeze]

I missed that part of your post Clay. Great news! id rmuch rather the bots aim be improved to make up for digital intellegence than make them super human. Is there or might there be in the future a thing for the bots that make them know when infantry jet within a certain radius to approximate humans ability to hear the jets. As player numbers increase the bots will be much easier to keep alive. with 3 or 4 players per side and each player babysitting one bot they should be very easilly helpfull.

[Dark_au]

or give tanks defence strips ala Hammers Slammers