cool breeze

I think it would be great if the small he rounds still did a minimal amount of shaking. I imagine that 75mm he would shake any tank of the future enough that it will miss at over...3k when hit immediately before or during firing. Id like it ifd the same were ttrue for 20mm for turret hits but maybe at 4 k range ior something. Maybe both should be only for turret hits. It would give light weapons something extra thats fun while approaching and I like shots flyng through the air so more is better. I used to regularly shoot HE at long range with small caliber for shakes, I was quite dissapointed to read it didnt work.

Me too.

what are you talking about? I have not idea, you give no clues. Only a insult at the forum which sticks to no one, since no one know what you are talking about. ok, this is too curious, I want to guess. Are you saying you Adzling must be lieing by saying he kicked your whining funny butt because you didnt even drop a vehicle that game? You sat on one teams side, removing one of your teams bots from play, so you could complain about "loopholes" or... What was an example of how stupid the average DT player is? What problem? The person doing the ass kicking probably doesnt see a problem only a bad opponent. So explan what was wrong or... we dont know what you are whining about other than not being good enough. It sound like you are simply being a sore losser until you say what s bothering you. What are these loopholes and exploits and gamey tactics which bother you so;. maybe if you tell every one what really bugs you they will kindly not do it when playing against you? maybe when we know what you are complaing about we can figure out how to change the game so it is better and you like it. If you have told us what these problems are in another thread that I didnt read or dont remember please quote your self. If you offered some possible solutions or partial solutions to these problems in another thread, please quote because I dont remember or missed them. If you cant quote either then I hope you see that so far you have not helped this forum adress your grievances. If you cant quote please fix the problem and write a post where you say what these loop holes and other problems are and hopefuly offer some suggestions. please try to avoid generalities because I dont know what the generality means to you. I think most players of this game arnt students of war history so historical analogies wont help very much. I (and many others)havent played SB so references to it wont help me. Thanks if you help clear this up. [ August 27, 2006, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: cool breeze ]

Ive had this problem too and am for the temp fix of making bottom hits hit all subsystems or somesuch super damage until problem is fixed.

Your right about us needing to cool it. But I think when Squidlord called dark Au's complaints unreasoned he meant unexplained. Dark has generally made the most extreme comments about this game, expressing views apprerently not widely held, while doing very little explaining. It seems he thinks most people on this forum think along his lines than I certainly tdo. I usually cant guess where he is comming from and he makes no effort to explain. Dark, because you make very cool good suggestions pretty often I do think you are probably prettty smart. But until you start explaining yourself more explicitly I wont know what you are hoping your complaint posts might do. I have no idea what you want and little idea what you dont like , other than the game in general or the way people play. If you try and include at least one suggestion in your complaints Ill start... not being baffled and maybe start voting for your suggestions (once I am back on a dropteam capable comp and can see for myself). [ August 27, 2006, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: cool breeze ]

Great Changes!! I second poesel71 and I would have the inf pod have some extra ammo too. I dont second him on smaller pods for deployables, but i dont dislike it. Stuff coming off the pods would be great. Thanks!

YEAH! Cool~!

I think it would be really cool if the brakes sometimes worked, sometimes not when engine totalled. simulate the emergincy brake compressed air thing being punchured sometimes or something. Cant wait to play, no time yet, moving today.

For me vpretty large areas would be almost as good as small ones. Ide even be happy with just three segments for the ssides and 2 halves for the front. But if its easy for everyone to have small areas im all for it. I had been trying to hit the same 2 square feet or so, which is too hard for the amount of damage it currently does. I think that if we get many pieces of armor there needs to be an ion damage texture so we dont have to keep track. and the smaller the segment the more damage we should do. I bet you knew all this. Thanks!

For the time being it sounds like when you and and enemy inf are both runnning at the same building but him closer, run away. i imagine many a squad will get chewwed up when ambushed. UI bet this willl make bases quite a bit easier to defend. Cant wait to try it. Will there be a structural integrity bar for the inf in the building to read?

Sounds Really Great!

Have you ever had success wih the light mortar indirectly? I have so far used it exclusively for lLOS firing becasue of the small blast. is it sometimes effective ctrl-m? light mortar is almost the only mortar I use. I love making dust! I am very interested in any new mortar features you want to add!

Good question. I have been supposing it is to shoot bigger without rolling, but I fully agree it should be an option. I hope it shoots up down to near 45, maybe only forward and backwards like 120mm apollo, and down to 45 with lower power shells in any way, plus delay fuse option. That is my dream mortar for drop team. Id love to try it anyway, soe if it is fun for all. 45 might look a little to steep for the model, I would like to see.

Cool description of russian attack in depth. Itll be really cool in the future when massive virtual battles are organized.

But where else to put those features? I wont use either stand alone and to make a force use two 20mm vehicles to get both effectsis.. too much. at least thats what I thikn till I see it. Im not saying there isnt a great way to keep them seperate, but I like having powerful support units, so I dont see a reason to change it. but no harm in talking possibilities. on the level of reasonableness of having them together... seems to me two very advanced digital vidio camaras are all that would be neccesary for a chaingun PD to work and it would be very low electronic signature... but it might be reasonable to make it work at only one direction at a time if most people think Hermes too powerful. Im not saying at all that I am against some kind of rough sensor jammer signal or any other of Yurch's ideas. I want to try things those ways. and a vehicle being able to manual control turrets woud be cool if not too much work. Great to hear about anti jammed unit improvements Clay! and the others!

I changed my mind about moving thread, ill change the name.

It seems to me a reccon screen in front of the turrets would stop this. Make the turrets on the main combat line instead of front line. Not that I have ever seen this done, but it will when big teams start talking. If the turrets become easier to drop later they can easilly (instead of currently possible but difficult) be part of a mobile combat force behind the screen.

Thanks Dark_au for replying. I am happy to hear you weren't insulted. I wonder which two fundamentals of defense in depth you think are destroyed by the Hermes? Id be my bottom dollar that defense in depth will work in most senerios in drop team. It will probably be just two levels, reccon screen and combat force. Someone should start a DT tactics thread where we make plans to try and write what we have found. Probably also a thread per senerio, maybe even two, one attack, one defense. I dont have time to write a good beginning for any of those because I am moving very soon to Arcadia CA. Plus I am still in college so relatively inexperienced. Better coverage for AA (or easier placement) would make defense in depth easier because it would make controlling territory much easier. After the next 3 post max I want this dialog to move to a new thread please.

OK. I re read most of text and all of yours and the ones you responded to. It seemed like you walked out because in the BTW (basics of tactical warfare) thread you felt you were alone and everyone on the thread felt very different than you about what this game is/should be about. However, I dont think that is really what that thread shows. I think the confusion came in because you were insufficiently specific and we didnt clear it up. You started by telling us how to do tactical warfare. You didn't say if you were saying what works in real life or if you are saying "this is how you will be the most effective in Dropteam" or "this is what should be most effective in dropteam once the gameplay is as it should be". I wasnt sure when I read it but assumed you probably meant this is what is most effective in dropteam. I assumed this because it was the start of a discussion of tactics in dropteam forum, but the word warfare implied otherwise, so I should have asked. I now think you meant "these are the rules which will make players in dropteam most effective when the gameplay is as it should be". I think this because it seems this was a make or break argument for you. I believe that most of the posters on that thread assumed incorrectly as I did and I think this missundersatnding had very much to do with mutual frustration. am I correct? Since no proposals were made within that thread about how the game should be changed I thought we were only discussing how the game is, not how the game should be, or about how modern warfare is. My impression is most other posters were of the same mindset. The people who upset you by posting counter arguments to what you said, cutting off the oversatements of your possitions, were clearly talking about how dropteam is now. They were not using generalities because there is no need for them in a discussion about the current gameplay, we can go and check the facts. I dont think these problems will arise when all know more speciffically what we are discussing. I think if you come back with a list of proposals for changes to make the game how it should be we can have a very useful discussion/debate. we could also have a discussion on which general direction to take the game in (maybe, Im not clever enough to thikn of how to get that discusion moving). Or we can do a specific aspect that is "broken" but then it needs to be a no holds bar debate about both if it is broken and the pros cons of the solutions. (I cant think of anything "broken" except too few players and boring ions) One confussing thing about that the BTW thread is I am not alwayts sure what is being written of because of the simple reference to AAD. we have 8 effective very different versions of AAD. AA turets or AAT PD towers or PDT, Galaxys or Gys lol, Hermes, 120mm, ATGM, AAGM towers or AAGM, or two ions, all under 7 letters, lets be specific please. Arguments/debate/discussions dont work when we dont know what eachother are saying. I really think keeping arguments specific so all counterarguments can be adressed and we have real right wrong kind of answers when discussion is done will make all discussions more useful understandable and lower stress. I dont mean it must all be fact based not theoretical hypothetical, about wishes and desires and opinions, but lets keep those things seperate and be explicit about which kind of argument/debate/discussion we are having. right?

Hey Dark_au, Sorry I told you off so hard. I lost my temper. I hope you come back to this game and forum. I hope and dont think me telling you off was the reason you left so I am trying to figure out why you did so that perhaps we can adress yor grievances.. I will post more once I have reread the basics of tactical warfare thread. Sorry y'all for making a thread for an email kind of message. [ August 18, 2006, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: cool breeze ]

I think it is cool to have something that cant be rolled back by 14mm but wont shoot AP or heat. I dont like to die from arty and atgm too much and the hermes is easy enough to blow up if not in a hole. But once more people play at a time we should try it both ways to see whats better. Ill certainly be happy with whatever is choosen whenever, Its not a big deal to me one way or the other. Games super good and overall keeps getting alot better.

Ok, that work fine for me.

I hope they make it so Hermes doesnt target 14mm coax. I dont know about gameplay reasons, but it doesnt sit right with me to shoot AP machinegun bullets out of the air with AP machinegun. If you want a sillyly obvious technical reason, read this: I imagine the intercept rate would be quite bad. hitting 14mm one in 4 times with a similar sized object seems kinda rediculously good. It seems like a waste of ammo compared to what else it shoots at. Id design the vehicle so it shot down more of hevier stuff than any of that and Id deffinately try and make it so it shot at whatever was shooting 14mm instead of at the rounds. that chain gun seems to have quite high penetration since it can blow galaxies so if 14m is a serious threat to the hermes I imagine the chain gun will be a more serious threat to the 14mm shooter. maybe an ooption to slave the chain gun to the 20mm when not firing to low? [ August 16, 2006, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: cool breeze ]

Yeah! My thought on mortars has been there should be some delay fuse mortars. maybe just one or a couple per mortar (plus light mortar on some thors and cutters). the delay fuse would be great for digging holes of course, but also: kicks up much more dirt and dust for blocking LOS. Also, it would allow mortars to take out Thors without truly direct hits but still with very hard aim. you could flip them, maybe even with the light mortar ( I hope) of course make the range for that believable as in pretty short. Maybe it would even do extra damage to buildings. But even more important to me is Yurches suggestion of a lower trajectory shortish range shell, especially for light mortar. If you make delay lower traj mortar, make it less effective than regular. i dont think there is much reason for it though. If the delay fuse mortar is the anti mine mortar (makes sense to me) then it would be cool, but likely unfun and hard, if it didnt detonate the mines but send them very scattered. I probably would stop liking it as soon as I blew up randomly. oh, I know what would be cool. If it sent mines flying far, but they explode on landing. I don't think this would ever get old. And the cuter should def have more horse power even if it doesnt have much more top speed. I would LOVE if you could select which digging to auto do. Place am like in an rts,choose rotation, and it auto drives and digs. and you can do it for bots! and there shoulod be a "defend this dug possition" order for bots where they smartishly move around in but not out of dug area [ August 16, 2006, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: cool breeze ]

Yeah! And topographical lines. Normal mono color would be great but done like TAspring would probably be even better (rainbow colored stripes which turn on off with fkey). Dwhen issuing hull down orders do you click where you want them to be hull down to? as in a bot is approaching a ridge. enemies are on top of next ridge. you click move hull down to the next ridge. it stops before top of current ridge when turret can see top of next ridge? will they move off of exactly ordered path to find better/closer hull down, like a crater in a field that is say 15 degrees off the exact ordered path? Group ordering and selecting through the non tac map would be extremely helpful, especially before topo map. Thanks!