konstantine

I vote for the "fictional with minimal story". More units=more fun, especially with the red on red, blue on blue option.

Why not just wait for the WWII mod?

It's in Razorback Island, or maybe that's just the name of a place in the scenario. It's hard to explain so I'll just post a screenshot. The game doesn't crash, it just plays very slowly.

Yes to platoons/bot wrangling. I rarely play 1 on 1 online because I suck so bad at this. Making it easier would be good. I like the idea of being able to build defenses without cutters during setup. Naturally as said limit the depth of any setup trenches (say to 3 cutter passes, unless you are actually using a cutter) but have the trench tool only employable on the space bar map, so that it can be used quickly but that would also make it hard to micromanage it to exploit terrain quirks in a gamey fashion. Last, roadblocks. A limited number available only during setup that can only be destroyed by HE. These could be in the form of stacked trees or building debris. Although they could be used to block off the flag...

I agree. Having a unit collect points by achieving an objective makes sense, but it's too much like Combat Mission, where a depleted squad hiding with no ammo can contest a flag when there are multiple AFVs adjacent. Maybe it could be based on ratios of units present, or a minimum of three units or something. Also, it would be cool to see points allocated differently. On point to kill infantry is ok I guess, but one point to kill a turret = one point to kill a Thor...? How about 3 points for Thors and Hurricanes, 2 for all other AFVs, and one for everything else. And maybe 1 point for killing the turret of an enemy AFV. This could make Shrikes a more viable option. I was thinking this because last night I dropped in on a game about half way in and I killed two bot Thors with two amazing shots (leading shots at a great distance, both one shot kills). But the game ended and I only had two points.

Awesome, thanks. What's "Jones"--soda status?

I like it, and complete with humorous backstory. The raised turret seems a natural choice to me, although it doesn't look as nice.

Ok, now I remember reading about this. Thanks for the replies. One more question--I realize that the CM series can often be highly abstracted. But what is this supposed to represent? EVERY time LOS is obscured your artillery drops 500 meters away? "Battalion, I need a fire mission, latitude x, longitude y, over" "Copy, on it's way" ... "Oh noes it's dusty drop 500 meters to the west STAT!!"

Not as far as I could tell. I re-targetted multiple times with blue and green lines to the target. If this is because smoke or dust obscured, momentarily, LOS during the count-down...that would be pretty silly, especially if LOS was established prior to and after dust obscured the target.

What's this "hammer slammer" everyone's talking about? Is it like the Nahverteidigungswaffe? Otherwise I agree with Poesel. And with regards to the Thor versus infantry...main battle tanks have been close assaulted by infantry since WWII. Granted perhaps more often in an urban setting, but that's why we have jet packs, ATGs and various support weapons types. Iraq is both a bad and good comparison. Abrams have been KO'd by close assault, just not that many--either way they're not indestructible by any means, and that's versus a very low-tech insurgency. Hizbollah didn't seem to have any trouble with the Merkava. Take something like the Kornet: fast forward a couple hundred years, and I can imagine a hand held version employable at close range. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no modern battle tank that isn't killable by an infantry deployed weapon. And as far as the MBT psychological issue...according to the backstory we are deploying "elite military units", "fearsome soldiers" who fight with "audacity". Basically it comes down to employing an integrated defense (this is why few Abrams have been toasted in Iraq): MBTs can easily be supported by 20mm Paladins and infantry. When Thors are easily killed they are most often bots sunning themselves far from any proper support. But I agree that the Thor should be faster (so should the Apollo) and should kill the Shrike with one HE/HEAT shot. Keep in mind however...the Shrike is pretty big. Stand an infantry next to it: it's not the same size as a Cherokee or a Hummer.

This is the second time this has happened to me. An artillery unit (in this case, a regular American 81mm spotter) has perfect LOS for a fire mission. The delay counts down and the rounds fall far off target. I cancel the mission, make doubly sure of LOS and try again. They fall in the exact same place--way off target. And again. Two scenarios, two different types of spotters (the first time it was an Axis 105mm spotter), many attempts to hit the target, the rounds always fall in the exact same spot, far off target, after consistent attempts to correct the fire mission. Any explanation? According to the CMBB manual (did CMAK even come with a manual? I can't remember) artillery can drop off target. But to do so repeatedly, with numerous attempts to rectify? By the way, the only way I could get artillery to fall on target was to "mirror target" the fire mission. Here's a picture, by the way:

Claytonius' words, from this thread: Oberon scenario thread Let's hope I didn't take it out of context or misinterpret Mr. Rex!

Bot uber-ness has bothered me too. For example, attacking bots drop instantly when an objective game begins and at all times right after they die, while humans wait for the pick list, scroll through the pick list, choose a unit and wait for the drop-ship. Bots aim better in general (as noted above). But I thought back to IL-2 and how hard it was to keep up with a bot squadron in that game. That pissed me off, but my conclusion then was that it is worth living with if it makes the overall gameplay better, and in my opinion it did then and the same applies to Drop Team.

I was fooling around with infantry and discovered the following regarding Thors: from the side, two ATG hull penetrations will kill a bot; two turret penetrations on the right side will kill the turret; left side four (iirc--and I think it's because of where the ammo is stored). Five from the rear. However, it is very easy to miss in combat, especially if you are downhill from the bot or on uneven ground, even while firing prone. The 20mm HMG squads are great versus Paladins.

Sorry adzling I know nothing about that stuff. If it's easy and you can point me in the right direction I could try...but I don't know anything about scripting or texture editing nor do I have any graphics or 3-D modelling installed. :/

Are you saying there is an upcoming scenario editor that doesn't require working with code??? That would be awesome...especially if you could load existing scenarios and play with them.

I disagree, but in a good way. I don't think that you can extrapolate bot-vehicle AIs from a Liveship AI. The Liveships are a completely different animal from a previous (and technologically, largely forgotten) era. Any AI is incredibly complex, particularly one that needs to control numerous things at once, more particularly one that not only involves a brain, but a body, as well as complex biomechanical functions. A Liveship does not have to control a body (incredibly complex even relative to a space-ship, which would have sub-AIs to monitor shields, engines and weapons systems operating in relative autonomy, while a body has only one brain but similar complexity)... ...and as it appears to be established that the vehicles have crews and infantry are clearly bipedal and hominid-esque, if not human. What those crews and infantry actually are remains to be seen (other than the "Space Vikings" meme which could mean anything). I think that clones are the best explanation. As far as the intricate lattice armor/neural network corollary...I just don't see it. Today we build monocoque structures, armor and airplanes out of very technologically advanced materiel, like carbon fiber--but I can't see how one would extrapolate neural networks from that technology. I guess what I'm saying is...cloning is the simplest answer to the issue. Building an AI is a massive undertaking. One with biomechanical functions, one able to simultaneously think and act for itself in even a limited fashion, in a combat environment, one that would need to manipulate multiple controls simultaneously and interact with other crew-members all doing the same thing...would require a massive investment and a intense technological depth--which DT is particularly lacking, coming out of a bit of a sci-fi Dark Ages so to speak. Cloning on the other hand is kind of a simple back alley shortcut (it's 20th century technology) to getting the same thing without having to do any of the work. All you need to figure out is how to manipulate the clone's brain with implants or bio-engineering of another sort so that it simply doesn't do what you don't want it to do. Otherwise it is the perfect tool for the job. The fact that humans can control "bots" then can be explained by a rudimentary brain implant that could allow the few remaining "real" humans circling in orbit to jump in and out of bot brains, a la Case riding shotgun in Molly's head. Whee, I'm a nerd. This is fun.

I get this a lot too. Having a key that would lock in the gunsight (I know, it's been mentioned before) would make things a lot easier.

The reasoning behind this is admittedly simple (but I'm an Occam's razor kind of guy): the technology for cloning was left behind. But it makes sense for a few reasons: cloning, once it is perfected and de-legislated (say in 100 years or so...), will be relatively simple: all you need is are host cells/DNA and say, some biosludge, and an aseptic vat or something. Second, cloning is better than an AI, since instead of building an AI to the extremely complex and cumbersome point to where it is effective in battle, you can simply engineer a clone to only develop certain parts of its brain, or limit others so that it can be easily controlled. Technically it's a simpler solution if it exists, since you don't need to know why or how a brain works like it does, you just need to know what controls what. With AI, you have to build it from the ground up. So squishies will always be a vital part of the battlefield, in my opinion. Also, cloning would be much cheaper than trying to find the resources necessary for building highly complex AI after AI to replace those destroyed in battle. In Drop Team, you could plug in the religious or Clan function of clones fairly easily. Introduce the Space Viking mythos: what you actually have are a group of single-minded, idiot savant warriors, all identical, with nothing more than battle on the brain. :cool: And of course a bunch of nerds like me to try and herd them.

Yeah, I put some ideas in that thread too. How can I play with the 6-wheel? I haven't imported new vehicles into the game before. Or are you talking about looking at the 3-d model...? p.s. Squidlord--the ice camo is my favorite too.

To me the answer is simple: clones. The bots are "regular" clones: farmed human crews with limited intelligence--limited because to give them too much intelligence is dangerous. "You" respawning are actually a human being in orbit with the capacity to manipulate one unit directly at a time; obviously you can give orders to other units. Logistically then, your consciousness would either be extended to control of a chosen bot, or downloaded and uploaded with every drop and death. The reason every unit isn't indirectly controlled by a human is because technological limitations restrict the amount of humans that can control bots at any given time--or maybe there just aren't enough humans...

One thing that strikes me is how massive the Paladin's wheels are. I wonder if there is any way to make a multi wheeled vehicle, say with 6 or 8 wheels (like a LAV). If it were as wide as the Paladin it would be just as stable, maybe a bit slower but tire damage wouldn't be as effective. If I knew anything about 3-d modelling I would be dabbling with this myself. Sorry I can't contribute anything other than ideas.

I agree, this is a good idea. A turretless 150mm or bigger would be cool, something that is a guaranteed one-shot kill against a Thor unless it hits the turret front. I'm guessing good frontal armor, long reload times, not too slow though (would need to shoot and scoot a lot). Someone build this ASAP please.

Yeah but who is the "we" in any computer game? In any FPS, for example, you respawn continuously with zero metaphysical or theological ramifications. The only difference in Drop Team is that there are vehicles with crews respawning instead of individuals. But that difference between the two is just an abstraction. I would say it's merely a matter of suspension of disbelief (due to the fact that Drop Team is a combination of FPS and RTS, with FPS re-spawning), unless the complex explanations you guys are discussing (which are very interesting by the way) were actually the intention of the game designers. edit: spelling.

A tracked vehicle, the same size or smaller as the Shrike, just as or nearly as fast, mounting a 20mm or 76mm? That would be fun.