Dark_au

Whats in the box under the turret?. If it is empty maybe fill it with extra ammo and set the turrets to fire HE if they can't penetrate.

especially when they can select low trajectory.

I think it was me mistaking this problem with another problem:- The shaddow sort of mirrors the movement. There had been a dead tank there and there was a shadow still there when it disappeared. I think maybe it was just coincidence and there was a dead tank in the same position on the bridge.

in the 3d world view

after a while a dead vehicle disappears which I was calling despawning. It appeared to me that there were shadows left on the ground where dead vehicles had been. This may have been the bridge shadow thing though as there were dead vehicles on the bridge. This was before I spotted the bridge problem

i'm wondering if the dead vehicles (that have despawned) lleaving shadows might not have been the same thing as the dead gulch bridge.

The new turrets appear to be based on the paladin turrets. How much work would be involved in making a turret equivalent to each paladin type ( IC, Mortar, 20mm, ATGM ). What do the devs feel about a way to interface and manually control turrets. Partly this will be a step towards AT guns for the planned WW2 mod and it would increase the danger posed by them. Maybe have a way that a Command team or a Mercury can access them remotely and that the cutter or a infantry man can manually control them (by bieng right next to them). This would be especially good for the Infantry as it would make the turrets like a form of deployed heavy weapons.

Observe view:- If using a mouse to look around a vehicle in observe mode when you have turned past a certain point ( which appears to be the mouse hitting the screen edge) it automatically kicks you into unlock view. Dead vehicles appear to be leaving shadows Vehicles on the bridge at Dead gulch have a shadow which is on the southern bank (south of the bridge entry) LOS problem with shrikes where they dissapear completely even though their Missile rack should be in sight.

sounds like stalingrad

actually my math was suspect in those numbers. Thought it was a bit high, I'm mis-named my drag coefficient and it was not bieng included

Wouldn't the concussion effect crew stunning, delicate instruments / gyros etc with the shockwave?. How about a temporary dammage like emp (with say a 2-3 second fix per item) to portray the "fuse bank" popping?. [ August 18, 2006, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Dark_au ]

Ahhhhhh ok yes... My mistake. I built it into a base I'd written for missile flight calculation where the mass does have an effect.

Roger, I realise that its a "plasma" mortar but it must have some mass / air resistance or why would it comedown at all.

My main interest was in the distance / time of flight equation. With a quick bit of code doing ballistic math, based on 1G world and a 4kg shell at 400m/s at earth normal air density:- 75 degrees distance 8075m Time of Flight 78 seconds 45 degrees Dist 16,122m TOF 57 sec 15 degrees Dist 8114m TOF 21 sec

This is not intended as an inflamatory post. I would like to ask the rational of the firing angles of the Mortar carriers. I would have thought they would be more usefull / efficient in a semi-indirect mode firing in angles up to 45 degrees (for optimum distance to height). This would give them a much shorter flight time and allow them more chance to pierce AAD-PD in a coordinated attack. Edit:- I can understand the rational of not wanting them to be used in a direct fire mode like the Hurricane, which I consider more of an assualt gun than artillery. However limiting the firing angle to say 15 - 45 degrees would achieve similar. [ August 18, 2006, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Dark_au ]

Yurch, that is exacly what i was saying about the hermes originally. If it is broadcasting a AAD-PD signal then it can't be jammed and if its active jamming then that should be able to be passively detected.

Cool, Recon screen and combat force will only be a defence. Sorry I probably missed out a major point in my description. The layers of defence both static and mobile give you a tightening screen. As the enemy pushes further in the defender withdraws his forces and thus concentrates the defence. This requires the attacker to get creative about feinting at a point and drawing the defenders to an apparent threat while moving the real threat into an assualt position un-observed. This then leads to interesting battles of recon and counter recon, Posturing and feinting over the objective. BTW there is an offencive version of DID. Read about soviet motorised concepts in the cold war. They knew that a concentration of force nessecary to accomplish a break through would be an easy target for a tactical nuke. They therefore developed a concept of force concentration in the time domain. That is the forces were far enough spread to not be a choice target while at the same time allowing them to concentrate required force if anything should stop the flow of waves. Imagine ripples in a pond. Where it passes a rock the ripples bunch and reflect into each other.

Sorry missed the last question... A fix. well the easy one would be to allow say the cutter or the Mercury to be able to manually control turrets. This way the hermes would not be a guaranteed negation, Its invisibility would only protect it from the automated side and not the static defences per se.

I was refering to the latter because turrets and Bot units won't engage it. This means it can by-pass the defences and hit them from the rear before you can bring up units to defend them. Therefore it is of no value to place the static defences, without the nessecary force size to gaurd every static defence with a human defender.

I'm not that fickle that I was insulted. The whole point of that thread was to start a discussion on the basics of tactical warfare. I didn't stipulate any genre because I was under the impression that the basics would remain true. If there is no direct analogy between real world and DT tactics at the base level then it is not possible to have a tactical doctorine to fall back on for scenario design. Without that all you can do is repeat the same basic strategic concepts. For there to be longevity of scenario design there needs to be a broad and complex base of strategic possibilities. If there isn't then To ME it becomes like a game of checkers which is too far down the strategic ladder for complexity. For example if you look at warfare for the last 3000 years one concept which comes through again and again is Defence in Depth. WW2 soviet tactics demonstrate this perfectly. You have layers of static and mobile defences intermingled with the whole point bieng to Find the attacker, Fix him and slow him down. So that while the attacker is engaged with static defences you counter attack with mobile defences. If the attacker is engaged with the mobile defences then you either counter attack with mobile forces or enfilade him with static defences. Part of this is the 4f's of mobile warfare. Find, Fix, Flank and Finish. In DT the Herpes destroys 2 fundaments of Defence in Depth, The bots and turrets inability to target infantry also makes them susceptible. If something as basic as defence in depth doesn't work then the only way we can have scenarios with strategic complexity to them is if someone writes the DT doctrine. This is of course impossible, because as I tried to say before, Doctrine is an evolutionary thing. You can't just make it up, it is the product of military hindsight. [ August 18, 2006, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Dark_au ]

Negative Energy... Wow that really takes the cake. Yeah so much negative energy that I produced 2 utilities to try and help people create scenarios. Who else in the community produced 5 scenarios, 3 of which are probably still on the rotation. Well they can come off too now, wouldn't want my "negative energy" ruining peoples fun. I notice too that those who like to percieve insults that aren't there are the first to actually throw insults around. Why because I voice an oppinion which is very apparent to myself and several other tactically minded people who I was trying to convince to become customers. You've got Yurch who is treated like a hero because he opens up the game files looking for cheap weaknesses to employ and then puts pictures up of them. To me this is reprehensible but no I'm the one with negative energy. Or Adzling and ObankofAmerica who predominantly play on opposite teams yet are sitting next to each other looking over each others shoulders and listening to both sides team chat... and I get villified because I spot a weakness in the tactical structure... PLEASE... Notice that those arguing against me in that thread have produced NO scenarios yet are so willing to argue the toss with someone who has demonstrated tactical knowledge. Having made said scenaros for this game I think I'm in a better position to have an oppinion than those who haven't on the base strategies and tactics which are applicable.

Mcoyote If you are a player of tactical games like SB give up now. This is not a game of mobile tactical armoured warfare. What it is, because of the way people play it online, is a purile first person shooter in the guise of tanks. It does nothing but promote dumb "bunny hopping" based play, and the sum tactical possibility for missions is endless itterations of King of the Hill. Even the landscape doesn't count because people don't want to embrace even the basics of mobile warfare.

I will refer to all of it as AAD as that is the heading it comes under. Automated Air Defence. PD is a facet of AAD. Just like anything which fires a projectile under ballistic principals at an aircraft is AAA. Maybe the word powerful was wrong but the concept is true. It is all Important. If its not why do you always rush in to icefield quickly to kill the AAD tower?. This conversation is again going pointless because of inane, pedantic arguments. Well done, not only am I through with this but this thread has lost potential customers I was trying to bring in. I showed this thread to people and they found it hilarious that you guys would argue with basic principals. Clay please remove QF, tiler and any of my work from this site. I no longer wish to support or encourage this game.

according to concensus several thousand years of military theory don't apply. Yurch you missed the main point. The tactics as used have a very finite set of possibilities. This severly hampers its long term playability and the ability of people to make base strategic scenarios outside the rules I set down here:-

How the crimson sort of mentality makes this game checkers. Take the example as given in that post. as the attacker you have 2 choices attack en-masse to maximize the fire-power against the objective (this was my chosen approach in this case) or spread out to maximise the angles. If you group your forces en masse:- if:- Defender drops his galaxy in your flank at close range. you have to drop yours to defend against the 2 lots of fire. His galaxy is a ground target, yours is an air target and gets shot down. White wins. Defender Drops his galaxy in flank at long range. You have to drop yours. Defender can roll back your aad from 2 directions whilst you have to split your fire between 2. WHite wins You drop your galaxy first to protect you. Defender waits till it leaves calls his own and has a free reign. White wins. Defender Drops galaxy to flank at either range. You emp them, they emp you. You are impobilised whilst one of the 2 defenders still hammers you. White wins IF you spread your forces out:- if:- Defender drops galaxy to rear. You call galaxy to protect you. Defenders kill all the unprotected units. White wins Defender drops galaxy anywhere. You emp them, they emp you. Stalemate