adzling

yeah i use formz and sketchup and export.... i'll check out blender and see how useful the osx version is... currently working on a tank destroyer with a 120mm cannon and severely sloped front glacis plates and very low silouhette. mainly cause it's the kind of vehicle i would like to use in-game (i like sitting off the attacker's flank and shooting from a mostly static position, at least until i get spotted

aww now we've upset him so much by not agreeing that darky quit and took his toys home....maybe a little juice-box and some quiet time will help? it's a pity i really enjoyed hearing him whine while i sat under my AAD and shot his butt off cause he couldnt figure out how to switch to his coax and overwhelm it...... I joke, I joke! really, sorry to hear you won't let the game evolve 'cause i think as it gains complexity you'll feel a lot happier.

yeah it would be super nice to have preprogrammed entrenchements that you could either execute yourself or order the bot in control of the cutter to dig. that single improvment would in and of itself make it an immensely more valuable vehicle. add to the some limited ammo reloading capability, slightly faster engine, more STABLE design and it would be a very useful addition to a defending force (or for holding that rear-area map-edge reinforcement zone). 1.1.4 clay?

i like the emplaced camo option it would differ from a the cloaking ability that the hermes offers. 1). it would not only mask the anti-matter signature but also visually conceal the afv from the enemy (at least until they get within 1000-2000 meters, the main gun fires or the afv moves. 2). alternately scratch the anti-matter signature cloaking and just as visual concealment with the above caveats. While not as useful it would still be a good trick as you could place a bot or two (or three) nearby and in the heat of battle there's a good chance your enemy would confuse your sig with the nearby bots giving you the chance to trap em in an ambush of a force more powerful than they expected.. of course either option would take time to setup and as such would probably only be available to the defender..

counter measures would be the key to implementing an atgm painting squad. it would require afv's to incorporate some or all of the below elements to retain play balance: 1). laser-painting detectors (to indicate both when they are being painted and roughly where the laser is coming from...left side of tank, right side of tank etc.) 2). chaff dispensers 3). close range active atgm defenses (claymore-type?) 4). active laser jamming 5). passive laser refracting/ confusing surfaces

so i picked up a couple of hammer slammers books this weekend (i had only read a couple of drake's short stories previously). without getting into a dissection of his writing skills and style i will say this: his universe is a lot like drop team in that artillery and air units are mostly redundant as long as the units' point defence aad/aa is up an running. however, like dropteam, those point defenses (calliopes/tribarrels) can be rolled back or even ignored and the units in question attacked with very different tactics than those used in our current day and age. the tactics are different but they still consist of fire and movement to achieve the objective and the defenders that sit still under their aad/aa umbrella and don't react/ take the initiative end up hamburger. which is pretty similar to the drop-team universe in that there are many counters to the aad/aa (especially now with the coax guns) and that a team simply sitting around in the base will eventually get winnowed out by attackers (that's my experience). to successfully defend most maps (especially against decent players) requires an active defense with hunter/killer teams on the periphery of the map sneaking up and whacking the flanks of the attackers while they are focussed on the objective. you might object to getting whacked by a unit sitting under aad/aa but you're still dead and they won that engagement. if you had picked a better suited vehicle, attack angle or used your coax to bring down that aad/aa first you might have survived. it's not a finite group of options a la checkers but more about realizing the tactics that work and successfully employing them rather than trying to engage the enemy with a ww2 armored warfare mindset. more complexity will help drive up the number of options available to the players and hopefully mean tactical engagements will involve more than fighting over the aad/aa. end of story

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

and what happens if that attacker uses a bunch of dropships dropping turrets as a feint to cover the establishment of drop zone somewhere else on the map....the aggressive defender goes roaring out to counter the fake drop-zone while the real one is quietly being established on the other side of the map by a slow dribble of dropships. what if a tiny percentage of drop-ships have the ability to cloak themselves a la the hermes? what if those indig forces drive combustion engine vehicles that don't give off an anti-matter signatures (and consequently don't show up on the map as red-pippers?). crikey why don't the dang liveships build a few combustion engine vehicles to throw into the mix? ooh i can feel the tactical complexity multiplying like little rabbits....

and one more thing! The crux of the galaxy problem is that there are infinite numbers of them (same for dropships) and as has been pointed out ad infinitum in other threads (hey i'm doing it again!) in reality they should be pretty expensive and difficult to replace in relation to the AFV's. I think Clay had mentioned that he is considering/ working on a method for restricting the numbers of dropships by implementing some combined method of dropship and map-edge arrival for AFVs. The theory being that you cut a hole in any AAD that is present and secure a dropzone at the edge of the map and then are able to directly drive onto the map from that edge without dropships. This would mean that dropships could be restricted in numbers as they wouldn't be the sole method of deployment. This would also make players think twice before using a dropship to sacrifically drop a close attack AFV on that distant ion Thor......the buy might have thoughtfully set up an AAD turret and whammo you lose a critical drop-ship resource. Hmm...in that case i better drop a little further out and drive in....just to be sure. If this is implemented then it makes sense that the same would go for galaxies. This is very interesting for multiple tactical reasons. 1). Limiting the number of galaxies would change their use from "expendable spear-tips" to "hoarded rear-defense/reloading systems". 2). Attacking/ disrupting and counter-attacking oppo drop-zones would become a real tactical necessity (or option at least). Which is really cool for a number of reasons..... I could see battles developing where the attacker has to establish secure rear-area drop-zones to ensure timely arrival of reinforcements. To do this they would have to use inf (in the drop-pods), dropship delivered AFV's and Galaxies in concert. The galaxies would provide some limited AAD and ammo replenishment (now that a galaxy can reload multiple vehicles at once it would work excellently in this role as a defense force-multiplier). The defender would of course want to dislodge/disrupt the attackers drop-zone (or beach-head your choice). You can see that in this kind of scenario the galaxy would really shine....and at the same time be heavily restricted from it's use as a "spear-tip" as the limited numbers would make this prohibitive. However it wouldn't stop a desperate (or canny) attacker from using the occasional sacrifical galaxy as spear-tip to capture the objective. The nice thing about this whole limited dropship/galaxy implementation is that it introduces some of the tactical complexity onto the battlefield that dark is looking for. Drop-zones become one of the important tactical considerations of the game. Both the establishment, holding, counter-attacking and setting up of new ones to "hop" towards the objective. layer onto that the tactics needed to cope with AAD defended bases, etc. and all of sudden you have the complexity of options/reactions that makes the game more interesting (i agree with dark, as it stands the present AAD/scoring system means that the game diminishes the tactical choices available to the player to establish/counter AAD). I am so excited by this limited dropship/galaxy implementation i can't tell you! What happens if you run out of ammo and you have no galaxy nearby? As it stands your drop one on your current position and who carres if they die? Well if they are limited in number then it may be a better idea to pull-back to the secure drop-zone and reload. And if that drop-zone is long way away? Well then your team screwed up because their supply lines got stretched to far......that damn commander should have setup a forward-hopping drop-zone to support his attacking troops. Or maybe he did and that canny defender counter-attacked that extended stream of attackers dribbling in from the map-edge and disrupted the drop-zone. Oh crap time to establish a new one in a different location.... And hey, the game IS called DROPTEAM right?

um...wow. well...it seems like the consensus is that aad is not all powerful as there are multiple ways to counter it... however there imho dark_au has one very good point. It's all about the AAD. As it stands any objective type map is dominated by the need to capture/ dominate the opponents AAD. The team that does will most often win (although not always fer sure.....i've used ions to massacre oppo in AAD defended situations). I'd be happy to play on maps that had no implaced AAD towers. Galaxies I don't really care about, each team only gets one at a time and as pointed out by EVERYONE else on this thread they are easily countered provided you don't roll up to them firing 120mm constantly (use your coax dark and quit whinging). So if we want variety between maps then we need a reasonable method to allow defender/ attacker balancing without the presence of AAD to help the defenders. IMHO the issue is really the current scoring rate. i.e. defenders score slower and ONLY when the are NO attackers touching the objective while the attackers score FASTER and regardless of whether or not there are defenders on base. So maybe all we need to do is tweak it so that the defenders and attackers score at rates that are closer to one another AND only when NEITHER oppo party is present (or both score regardless of oppo presence). This would mean that scenario designers could build maps with NO implaced AAD towers and the defenders would still have a chance of winning (yeah they would prolly call in galaxies constantly in place of the missing AAD towers but, well, unless your dark you can prolly work out a way to deal with them by picking one of the many good tactics outlined above). As it stands the defenders need those emplaced AAD towers for cover because they score points much slower and are easily stopped from scoring points by the attacker placing a toe on the objective (a really good tactic that should be used more is to WALK an attacking inf unit up to the objective and go prone in a hidden area....stops the defenders scoring ANY points!....i've seen it used in that two hills map and man is that a total pain in the freaking arse). This is why that two hills map goes to the attackers more unless they are total_noobs. If you were to stick an AAD tower on it then it would prolly come out balanced. you folks getting this? does it make sense?

well the oger variant is meant to be coming soon

i have to second this thread. AS i have said many other places i have had similar instances where putting multiple 76mm rounds (i.e. over 10!) at close range and into the side center of mass on apollos and paladdins did almost nothing. And I have also experienced firing 120m AP at close range do almost nothing to shrikes. Most often it takes 3 shots to kill these things, so much so that I have STOPPED firing ap at close range into shrilkes and now hit em with coax 20mm if im driving a thor. Perhaps they had slightly damaged drive systems (moving slower) but they werren't burning and were able to maneuver and fire without affect. I don't think either scenario is realistic. Have you seen any of those passenger vehicles in iraq that were hit by abrams in the early part of the invasion? Not a whole lot left. Beyond the penetrating effect of the round itself when it hits anythig substantial in the vehicle (such as an engine) that also turns into a whole lot of flying shrapnel. If you're in a tank that gets penetrated by a 76mm round you're not gonna be returning fire without delay, you're stunned, possibly blinded from smoke and likely out of action while you recover your senses. the clincher for though is that it is easier to knock out a thor at close range than either a shrike or paladin when firing a 76mm andsometimes a 120mmAP. It's gotten to the point that the 76mm are pretty poor combat vehicles, especially when you can take a 20mm variant which is supremely more effective.

the only thing i would change about the current aad towers is not bother to shoot at 10mm rounds same for the aad on the hermes perhaps add an option for mortars to be able to drop multiple/cluster type munitions that pop open well above the aad and rain multiple he bomblets down on target. The aad would get some but not all. They would be too small to injure afv's but unarmored targets would go up like velveeta on a griddle (shrike's, inf, cutters). This would be nice as it would offer the arty obsessed (i.e. dark) something to plink with so they don't get bored well ok it would actually be a really useful round because in addition to taking out unarmored targets it would offer mortars the chance to overwhelm aad so others can shoot on through...

oh nooooo i like it the way it is As it is currently bots drop out as players join. The current numbers just ensure 10 units per side (i think). any less and it'll reduce the tactical effectiveness of any kind of operation and it will be reduced to a first person deathmatch in an AFV.

um ok i just watched that video of clay using his coaxial 14mm to take down the galaxy's aad WHILE his previously fired atgm flies to it and knocks it out. Clay, i never want to play against you....

hey if someone wants to work on the in-game mechanics i'm totally down to do the 3d modelling.......these things are pretty easy to do compared to the detail i normally have to stick into a real designed-for manufature product

I know dark_au is hating the aad but that's only because he likes his artillery WAAAY too much. Like i've said before there are many ways to counter it, the one exception being using only artillery. depending on the map it might be rolling up the defense first, sneaking up with a hermes or infantry or simply driving away from a galaxy and focussing on a weaker area for a while. Basically it quite often means you have to get INSIDE the aad umbrella and run and gun rather than plinking from a distance (well you could do that with an ion and i often do) or grab a 20mm to overhwelm it or a 120mm firing AP which moves so fast with such a flat trajectory that it will most often make it through. If you don't adjust your tactics to the situation on the ground then you're just rehashing tactics of the past...and this is the FAR FUTURE. Dark_au is a really good player, I've had some gripping shoot-outs with him and I know when i face-off with him its most often a toss up as to who's going to come out alive......imho he just has a preoccupation with indirect mortar fire It is a little daft that a laser tower would fire at 10mm rounds, i'll give you that.....

yeah i think this is a pressing issue. thanks for the detail yurch i've plinked upwards of 20 rounds AT A TIME into both paladins and thors AT CLOSE RANGE directly into the lower side armor GETTING PENETRATIONS EACH TIME and still not knocking out the battery or any other internal components to speak of. bah!

wiki it baby

yeah i'm sick of the paladin exploit. where a fast-moving paladin rams a thor and pushes it off the edge of a cliff. I've actually had infantry run into my palading and PUSH IT OVER. come on. + i'd like to be able to run my thor over those crappy shrikes and infantry and squash them like the bugs they are (infantry are currently impervious to attempts to run them over).

yeah i played that game with yurch and you crimson. man that was the most frustrating thing in the world (couldn't you tell?) to have only a bunch of inf and clappy 20 mm appollos left. The ony thing that i could see changing all this entirely (and helping play balance) would be to implement the drop-pods for infantry. find yourself screwed with no place to drop? throw down a few infantry squads to cut open a hole in the aa defenses then drop in the AFV's. wash, rinse, repeat. you'd still have to waste some time but it would be manageable. the other option of course would be to implement "nuke from orbit" by adding a single fire-mission that can be launched from orbit to cut a hole in the AA defenses.

I run this game on my 1.5ghz powerbook g4 (1gig ram) and it runs fine. and it's the only mac game that i know of that has teamspeak (thanks clay). the thing i really like about this game is that i finally have a game that uses REAL ranges and not some dumbed-down fps or rts that has ranges reduced to 500 feet or uses "clever map design" to keep the action up close. It really is neat when you creep up to a ridgeline in hull-down mode and peep you turret over the top and nail some schlebb moving at 30km an hour 5 kilometers away. If you buy it you get both the g4 version + the universal binary so when you upgrade to a new shiny intel mac you won't have to pay again (my mate runs it on his macbook pro which gets better frame rates than mine but i still kill him easily enough). the single player is a waste of time imho, this game is all about the multiplayer. buy it already !

ok maybe im the only one out here who has no problem with the hermes at all. I know dark angelus likes to whine about aad (ooh last night you should have heard him but i simply don't find it a big deal. if there's a laser tower on the map it becomes my prime objective to take first. usually only takes a few minutes work. it was quite entertaing to hear dark au yelling at my mate last night to "come out from behind the laser tower and have a fair fight" while he tooled around on the flats below in his hurricane. now my mate likes that laser tower and spends a lot of time hanging out there shooting the crap out of the enemy, making good use of the battlefield. dark au may not like that in that particular instance he can't use his trusty hurricane to kill him but me i just grab a hermes, drop out of sight and sneak up on the bugger and shoot him in the back at p.b. range while he's in scope. Works almost every time. in fact some of the best coop tactical play i have been involved with has revolved around me + 1 or two other players working together to take a well-defended laser tower. It's hard to do but if you roll-up things in order it works almost every time. First you roll in with a hermes and command track (nice and cloaked) or an inf sqaud and shoot up all the turrets/ sensor jammers around the laser tower. Then while the defender is reacting to your destruction of his turrets one of extracts and drops with a 120mm for close range killing. Use this to knock his afv and then when he try's to re-drop in the same area you'r pal driving the hermes around prevents him from landing. meanwhile your 120mm extracts and you start droppping sensor jammers followed up with anti-air turrets. once you got those placed you drop back in with an engineer and go take the tower while your pal extracts and drops back in with a 120mm (in case the erstwhile defender drives back in from a distant landing seeking revenge). Once you've captured the tower you've turned the tables on the defender. this kind of complicated, multiperson coop play really evolves into a fun tactical ballet that is very gratifying and intense. now perhaps dark au would rather remove all aad from the game so he can tool around at distance and shoot people with his hurricane because he likes the satisfaction of direct-fire kills with his main-gun while on the move. but imho the variety in strategy required to deal with laser tower, hermes and the like is an integral part of the game as far as the hermes goes the only change i would make is have it stop shooting down the faster moving rounds (like 20mm, heat, etc) and ADD anti-jump jet inf targeting. this would restrict it to relatively slower moving, higher parabola targets while enabling it to be knocked out fairly easily by 20mm, 76mm 120mm ap/heat etc. while dark angelus isn't too happy with his arty being disabled by the hermes (or anything else) i'm not too happy with an indrect mortar shot from across the map raining death on a squad of bots....doesn't take any skill and the poor bots haven't a clue what to do their just sitting ducks.....the hermes is a nice counter to this. --------next topic----------- infantry are somewhat effective as is.......it's a lot of fun jumping into close combat and nadeing tank clusters at close range, very disruptive --------moving on----------- atgm's are fine as they are imho, some expendable chaff dispensers for each vehicle would be nice effective solution to them and hermes is a good counter

yeah that worked ok which is fine if it's just the two of us playing as i can assign a static ip to him and have his machine be the ony in the dmz only when he's over. however there is the possibility of three of us playing from the same broadband connection in the future (don't you like how i got two of my friends to buy your game hehe) so if there's a way i can make it work it would be nice tnx clay

yeah i had a couple crashes that happened right after the level loaded last night. however on the second load try it worked both times?@! hehe if you want to see logs let me know how to get them to you and next time it happens i will