poesel

(edit: both Clay and Dark overtook me with their respective last messages) Ummh dark, did you read that bit about 'unjammable'? The Hermes will only stop the easy arty kill on the Bacchus. This tactic will also bind two humans to a mere defensive role (which is, sadly, in my experience 50-100% of available humans). And since the Bacchus will share the speed of the Hermes it will soon fall prey of a 76mm, Ion or even a 120mm Apollo. Easy prey I have to say I'm not very afraid or disturbed by AA in this game. This is different to darks opinion/experience. Taking out AA turrets is part of the job and easily done early in the game. Taking over stationary AA is hard and if accomplished will mostly win you the scenario if its the one in the enemies base. PD is another thing but mostly AP will go through. The coax/HEAT combo takes care of other situations. So, really, I'm not concerned.

There are already some self made scenarios out there. Making scenarios is not that difficult and you can use freely available software to do it. Still a special editor would be nice and is AFAIK in the works. OTOH I never play single player. The bots are quite good (compared to other games) and good sparring partners. The Real Thing is multiplayer. If you get your butt kicked the first time you will know Thinking about it: shouldn't we have a central repository for scenarios, vehicles and such? I can provide the space if needed.

I have to say I don't like that too. If only because if mines can only be dropped during deployment phase then everyone will feel obliged to use them all because you can't use them later. So the area will be littered with mines everywhere and that would simply be annoying. So mines are visible ground area denying devices like AA is a visible airspace denying device. Why not treat them the same? Show them on the tacmap as small red circles. Their signature can be jammed as (nearly) everything. Mines can only be attacked by artillery and HE. Mines already have a hit probabilty when you enter their area. Each hit reduces this probability and if <0% the minefield is gone. It would be nice if mines would look different from debris. As long as mines do not have a friend or foe detecting ability they should show as red for both sides. Maybe mines placed during deployment have that friend or foe ability but mines dropped later not?

Another problem: for those of us with weak computers turning foliage on slows things down a lot. And, as yurch said, the bots see through foliage. This is especially annoying if you drive over a rim with foliage and have a bot on the other side. So maybe a question for Clay: is it possible for the game engine to heighten the areas with foliage about a meter for line of sight calculations? This way turning of foliage wouldn't give you an advantage. It would look strange sometimes as units pop into existence as you clear the gras that you can't see but I could live with that.

Problem is that going through the download link and entering my license key I just get a download button to load the game to my home computer. The actual link is hidden. The server is remote and I don't have physical access to it. Uploading per DSL takes forever. What I need would be a link that I can use per wget or similar.

I wanted to install DT on a remote server which has currently v0.9.91. I guess I have to get a new v1.0 from the download link. But how do I do the licensing thing? The server has no X. Is it even necessary to license a server only version? AFAIK we can run as many servers as we like? Btw, does one get the current version or v1.0 from the download link? Depending on above answers will there be a server only download version?

I'm taking words verbatim from this forum for the wiki. I hope noone minds that I'm not citing...

Second that. If the wrecks don't smoke or burn it shouldn't be to hard for the processor. It would be the reason to buy a new machine though

yurch: IIRC the waypoints text is not visible in 3D, just its number. What I meant though, was the way waypoints are created.

Could the colour of the waypoint font please not be white? Its mostly unreadable on hills let alone on ice. Could there be a method to create waypoints from the vehicle or gunpoint view? Just point, press a key and then get the waypoint naming dialog? Its hard to get the exact location from the minimap. Could the names in the messages please be in team colour? I don't always know whos on whoms side (especially the bots). That would help getting a better feel if you are currently winning or loosing. A marker on the team list to show that a player has loaded the scenario and can read/hear messages (after clicking OK on the objective dialog). Without that you don't know if you talk to someone or not. And finally: please let me know that I died from a mine. The mine exploding sound is the same as a hit (IIRC) and there is no death message like 'poesel06 was killed by a mine'. thanks

Yes tankibanki, thats what I meant.

Me too. Some small tweaks would do: a smoke trail when coming down. Coming down faster. Do the 'jet effect' dustcloud on the ground like the dropship. Hit the ground hard like a HE round. Here I would make a difference between deployables and infantry. Deployables: the Pod shatters completly into debris while making a small crater (artillery round). That leaves the deployable in a nice hull down position but makes its position more obvious (debris and crater). Infantry: same smoke effect but no crater (softer landing). The pod transforms into a small platform or similar (no need to animate that - its hidden in the smoke ) Maybe some debris. The pod for the deployables should be smaller but same model.

And clearing minefields (with 120mm). Which is IMHO the only real use it has. I usually do Shrikes with the coax - no wait for weapon switching.

Sorry to repeat myself: Has anyone got his own model into DT yet (and play)? If so, how did you do it?

A wiki lives through the people that write it. There is no need for lenghty essays. A few lines here and there help to fill it with information. If there are questions how to use it feel free to ask.

That's deliberate. </font>

I accidentally had a mod selected but could connect. Switching to Base didn't help - had to restart. It took me three hits with an Ion to kill one inf. Is this a 10mm laser pointer or what? If your motor is killed you can't lock the brakes (well you can lock but nothing brakes). Is there a way to LEAVE through a deployment zone without dropship? Dead gulch has such a zone under enemy AA so leavin by dropship is not an option. Could the bots be ordered to NOT use dropships? Current scenarios seem to have enough dropships but there may be others where those are more scarce. Everything else: love it! The dropship movement is great. Following the dropship up and down is a great view. The towers are much better now. The all-seeing-bots are gone. For a sub point update this really a lot!

Keeping the inventory as is would probably be not very good for the gameplay. Since there may be an infinite number of scenarios the game would soon be an infantry battle and the last man standing wins. For starters I'd propose that a scenario should be able to hold the information which scenario follows (and who plays which side) depending on which side wins. A scenario should also be capable to have separate inventorys for each side. Going a bit further would be: modifying the inventory depending on how good you played the previous scenario (normal inventory + % of remaining vehicles with min/max conditions). Persistant battleground if battles recur on a location. Stalemate conditions (battle is repeated on same ground). To give an example with current scenarios I would link: Tough Nut - Raid - Dead Gulch - Raid - Tough Nut Start is Dead Gulch with no one owning the objective. If an attacker wins Tough Nut then he has won the campaign.

I tried to import the light tank chassis into blender and directly exporting it to .cob again. After the import the tracks are enormously out of scale with the rest of the body. I ignored that and proceeded to export and test it in DT. The tank chassis looks ok and in scale but the whole thing is blinking in and out of existence. When 'away' a small white piece of the chassis remains. Has anyone got his own model into DT yet?

'Mantel' in german means 'coat'. Maybe that is where it stems from.

I like that solution as its easy and elegant and can be done without much effort from the scenario creator. I really would like to see that happening. One drawback is that it provides a static linking. There is no way to modify the setup of the next scenario with regards of the outcome of the last. That is, no matter HOW you win or loose, the next scenario will start the same. Dynamic linking would need some more effort from the scenario creator. Done from inside DT we would need some set of rules in a XML file to create the next scenario. This would mainly put the workload on you Clay. This is why I proposed the other solution which would provide some kind of interface for external programs to do just that. Btw I didn't want to restart the server. Just wait for a signal and then continue. The static link would be very interesting none the less and much easier to handle for everyone.

This is in tech support because I would first like to know if its possible and then ask if someone wants it. What I would like to have is a set of connected scenarios where the outcome of the scenario would decide what scenario will be played next and under which circumstances. An example: the old Warhammer rules had such a thing in the back: two sides fighting over a long valley. First over the bridge in the middle, everything even. If for example the left side won, then the next battle would be a bit to the right in the valley. Right side had a farmhouse to defend while left side got some more resources. If Right would win its back to the bridge. If Left won then a battle over a castle follows and if Left won that too its over. Surviving troops would be carried over to the next battle. Back to DT: for that to happen the DT server had to have the ability to stop at the end of a scenario, dump the results (killed and surviving vehicles, buildings taken or destroyed,...) and wait for a signal. After the signal from another process would be given, the server would read the next scenario from a specific location and proceed. The task of the 'other process' would be to read the scenario results and prepare/create the setup for the next scenario. Since DT relies only on text this can be done in the language of choice of the campaign creator. If the communication to the DT server is by UDP for instance than the whole thing is platform independent. The 'process' could mess with the Inventory to add surviving vehicles to the next scenario. Or remove a certain type. Or add some vehicle if a certain building was captured in the scenario before. Or choose a certain scenario. Whatever. So first question goes to Clay: is that possible and would you consider doing it?

Yes its not realistic that a shot to the left weakens the right but this is how ion works currently or am I mistaken? Armour rating is per side too even if in 'reality' the values would differ for different pieces on one side. To be more realistic you had to account for each triangle in the 3D model. This would probably slow the game too much. If it doesn't... It would be useful for long range shooting. Especially against the ion thors that sit far far away. A few dangs on the head with HEAT would make them more cautious.

Getting hit currently works like this: a shell hits your armour somewhere. The projectile will penetrate if its penetration power (depending on remaining speed, angle of attack and ammo type) is greater than the vehicles armour in this place. If not, the shot will explode (HE&HEAT) or deflect (AP) without effect. That means that given the exact same circumstances you could shoot forever at the same spot on a vehicle without hurting it a bit. This may be realistic if the difference in power between attacker and defender is very great (like 10mm vs Thor front) and you have only 20 mins to fire, but shooting a 120mm shell at anything should damage it even if only slightly. So what I would suggest here is that all hits should have an ablation effect like the ion. You could then wear down a target even if you can't kill him directly. This would also help the game balance IMHO since you wouldn't need to be that exact in armour calculation (think ATGM vs Thor turret - if you'd up the top armour just one point there would be no more turret kills (IIRC)). The ablation effect should depend on shell size (120mm &gt 76mm &gt 20mm)(none for &lt 20mm) and type (HE &gt HEAT &gt AP) and of course be smaller than ion generally (although the amount of ammo available would limit it in first place). That would also give the HE round more uses. Thoughts?

I too can't hear people very good. Everyone sounds like speaking from the grave. Another thing: I'm not a native english speaker and it would surely help (not only me) if everyone would speak a little slower and clearer.