Some basics of tactical warefare.

[bboyle]

Originally posted by yurch:

Yes, there are circumstances where the jets are neccesary or preferable (mid-air grenade shots are quite doable) but many of you are firing those jets off every time. Player's mindsets and behaviors will change the moment they think infantry is nearby. Hide the rest of your squad or stick them on hold-fire, and consider yourself a slow-motion hermes. I've followed whole groups of enemy tanks around for minutes at a time waiting for that shot. While you're walking, you can at least give your team uncomfortably detailed information about whatever the enemy is doing.

If this sounds too slow or too boring, perhaps you should reconsider deploying infantry at all.

Excellent point...from where I sit one of the joys of playing infantry is the slow stalk. I have also found recently that you can get much closer than you'd imagine simply by walking in to the target...even without foliage. My goal is usually to work my way in to where I think the fulcrum of the battle will be.

An additional quirk with the 20mm hmg specialist is that his rounds are fantastic for putting vehicle turrets out of action. From the top, sides and back everything from the Thor on down can quickly be rendered pretty harmless and at a much greater distance than required for an outright kill. And as you said...get in a low spot and wait for those tanks to come downhill to you...the tops are like paper.

[TankHunter]

Originally posted by yllamana:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The idea about not being seen is this

He doesn’t know where you are. If he doesn’t know where you are, he cannot react to what you are doing. He also has to worry about where you are and what you are doing.

A couple of vehicles waiting in the vicinity of an ion tower isn't the same as broadcasting to your enemy the location of your entire army. I'd argue that you can even use it as a tactical tool, far from people yelling about "noobs" and whatnot - if the enemy is forced to attack your position then you, again, can gain the upper hand by exploiting that.

</font>

[Dark_au]

Yllamana, I'm talking about tactical manaeouver warfare. Your talking about static defences. The 2 have very little relevance to each other. No you can't hide an ION tower. But players don't drive ion towers either.

You say its not a true rule cos its only applicable now and not in the games time.. What crap. If you have a "tank" then its for the role of a tank. The role of the tank is tactical manaeouver warfare in irregular, broken or otherwise difficult terrain. If there is no need for tactical manaeouver then you don't need a tank. If you aren't expecting it to get out in the wilds and move then you'd design it differently. If what you seem to want to play is it then the tank is useless. You would be better off with some 8 wheeled Haul-pac sized vehicle with a massive gun and its own AAD.

[adzling]

well the oger variant is meant to be coming soon

[yllamana]

TankHunter:

Why does staying fixed in position help you? Yes you have an advantage at first that the opposition is forced to advance on you, but they have the advantage, a much greater one at that, of being able to dictate the time and place of the engagement.

Why are you assuming that my entire force is in my castle? I don't have to completely surrender the initiative and all information by sitting in there. I just need a unit or two there to benefit from it.

The ion tower is a very powerful structure. What sense is there in not making use of it?

Dark_au:

Yllamana, I'm talking about tactical manaeouver warfare. Your talking about static defences. The 2 have very little relevance to each other. No you can't hide an ION tower. But players don't drive ion towers either. The role of the tank is tactical manaeouver warfare in irregular, broken or otherwise difficult terrain. If there is no need for tactical manaeouver then you don't need a tank. You say its not a true rule cos its only applicable now and not in the games time.. What crap. If you have a "tank" then its for the role of a tank.

Why are you dictating the tank's role to me? Why does the tank having mobility mean that I have to reposition it constantly? What vehicle do you suggest I use to cover the tower in place of one?

Surely the tank's role is what I make it. If I want to deploy it in defence of a fortification I don't see why I need to send it wheeling all around the countryside if it's more effective staying there. As far as I can tell, your argument amounts to, "it can move, therefore it must move, even if it is more effective staying put."

Is that an incorrect reading of it?

[Dark_au]

Why are you dictating the tank's role to me? Why does the tank having mobility mean that I have to reposition it constantly? What vehicle do you suggest I use to cover the tower in place of one?

Surely the tank's role is what I make it. If I want to deploy it in defence of a fortification I don't see why I need to send it wheeling all around the countryside if it's more effective staying there. As far as I can tell, your argument amounts to, "it can move, therefore it must move, even if it is more effective staying put."

Is that an incorrect reading of it?

The role is reflected by the design. A tank thats not designed to move is called a bunker. If its a tank then its role is that of a tank, if that is not its role then it isn't a tank. If its not designed to manaeouver in rough, broken, uneven terrain then it doesn't need tracks. If it isn't supposed to engage targets with fire superiority at long range it wouldn't need a turret with a huge gun in it. If its no longer required for this role then why is most of the firepower in the game in the form of Thors and Appollos. That like a modern army equiping its forces with Trebuchets. If its no longer of value in its intended role then you wouldn't spend so many "resources" on it.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

A tank thats not designed to move is called a bunker.

Actually, a tank not designed to move is called an AT Gun, and when deploying, say, Apollos or even Thors under an Ion umbrella, that's exactly what you have. The Ion helps compensate for the fact the terrain isn't designed to keyhole, as the ground breaks and tree / foliage coverage just don't work well at all for it. The ion, then, helps keep the number of inbound fires off your gun as you plink away at the inbounds.

AT guns with treads have a long history. Deploying them in essentially static positions, equally so.

The reason the DT-verse puts static defensive units on high-speed treads is because the units the Space Vikings have to work with aren't theirs to design and have to be as flexible in deployment and use as possible. The Liveships have very scattered, not-always-tactically-brilliant neural networks that have to be cajoled and manipulated into creating units with any chahnges at all. In short, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want."

So, you have a remnant handfull of leftover, decayed-tech and outdated-design units which are what the Vikings are using to run their raids. They are not optimal designs, pointedly not for a rain-and-run kind of strategy. Thors are too slow and Apollos have lousy turret layout for using terrain for anything (clearly a remnant design that originally had more active engaging defenses in exchange for thinner armour; the AAD-for-everyone bits got lost, but the frame survives).

In the end, it comes down to understanding why the backstory formulates things as it does. Now, I'd love to see some of the elements changed so that they were a bit more balanced in regards to one another or simply more fun to use (which is why I'd like to see coax MG or ions on everything, shooting is fun), but its kind of silly to complain that the evolutionary use of the elements given the environment we have isn't "right."

It is as it is. If using Thors under Ions is tactically effective, its right. Right and wrong is defined by what works and what doesn't given the setting and capabilities, not some abstracted universal application. Applying Sun Tzu naively to modern tank warfare will get your turret waxed in no time, too. So it goes trying to extrapolate that interpretation to future technological situations.

[Dark_au]

Er No.... AT guns don't have armour (significant to battle other armoured units). A tank in a purely static role is a mobile bunker... Ask the french circa 1940.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

Er No.... AT guns don't have armour (significant to battle other armoured units).

Didn't say it was armour sufficient to block any decent shell ripping through. Some folks in this thread would suggest the Apollo and Paladin don't have enough armour to be considered tanks in any reasonable sense of the word, as is.

[Dark_au]

Fine OK I give up.

Mods please delete this thread or if that isn't possible just lock it and let it die.

This is purile and inane. I feel like Albert Einstein trying to explain basic relativity to Kindergarten kids when I'm not even Albert Einstein. If you guys are so against any concept of tactical warfare why the hell did you buy this game. I will point you to the Overview page:-DT Overview

DropTeam™ is a multiplayer capable, real-time, tactical simulation of armored ground combat in the far future.

HE and ICM artillery support munitions are also modeled accurately, causing specific damage effects on targets that are hit by their fragmentation and munitions. Units on the terrain such as the SP Mortar unit can perform indirect fire, ranging to their targets with the help of team mates who can act as forward observers, or automated orbital artillery support can be called in, including HE and smoke fire missions.

Note no mention of the overpowering AAD.

DropTeam™ models large playing areas ranging from 100 to 900 square kilometers: areas large enough to realistically simulate mobile armored combat.

Note all the Most of the pictures are of tanks in their natural hunting ground. Notice how many tanks there are there to say Herpes and Galaxies and AAD towers. Wonder why someone like myself might consider this a game of tactical armoured warfare with tanks.

Tanks are not a prey animal They are a hunter and a killer.

I've gotten to the point where I can't be bothered making anymore missions. Cornered rats is abandoned as far as i am concerned. Anything I'm going to try and make would have some tactical basis to it. There is no point in that when all you guys are going to do is use loopholes to defeat any tactical concept it had. Anything I can come up with all I can think of is all the ways people will find to destroy the spirit and the tactical idea of it.

[Jalinth]

*Blink* Well, that was a touch insulting. As far as I can tell, most (if not all) of the posters here UNDERSTAND what you are getting at, it's just that some of them (of whom I happen to be one) don't AGREE with you on all points.

Tanks have more then one role. I often see tanks being used for what you describe them as being for. I also see them being used for more fixed defense, as there are not a great deal of other options.

Incidently, I've been paying more attention to other players over the last couple days, and spent some time in the Mercury, just to watch what was happening. Do you know what? I saw plenty of tactical manuvers. People taking cover, sneaking around, trying to get a good angle to get the drop on the foe.

I watched a couple people goto Co-Ax, fill the air with fire and then the teammates dropped some morter fire on the AAD towers, killing a number of targets.

I saw people using arty against targets that were not covered by AAD towers and while they didn't destroy a great number of targets, they DID cause some serious damage to the targets.

Yes, people do sit under a AAD and shoot. But if you are in a position where you are protected from fire, are you really "in the open"?

DropTeam™ is a multiplayer capable, real-time, tactical simulation of armored ground combat in the far future.

The bolded phrase implies to me that there have been some changes to how things work. If you try the tactics of one age with the equipment of another, you are going to have some problems. Yes the basic concepts remain the same, and you see that in action. However the details change. AAD is one of them. Your tactics are dictated by the equipment you have and the equipment your foe has. A bayonet charge is perfectly sound if your foe has slow loading muskets. Versus a Maxium Machine Gun? Not so much.

It takes a few shots, but I have managed to get HEAT rounds through to a Galaxy and taken it out, no problem. All you need is to hose it down with the Co-Ax.

[ August 11, 2006, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Jalinth ]

[CrimsonDestiny]

Originally posted by Dark_au:

Note no mention of the overpowering AAD.

I assume this is in reference to the Galaxy, and the wonderous usages of it.

I can understand being frustrated, angry, pissed off, and tired of people using AAD to their twisted advantages, but what have you been doing, tactically, to stop it?

For instance, earlier, when your anger at AAD spiked in game. My ATGM Paladin showed goose egg (0) on my round count, so I reloaded with the galaxy and started attacking you and your team. You responded by firing 120mm rounds from your MBT in my direction. I killed your MBT with an ATGM.

Did you hop in a CMD and bombard my position with a fire mission or EMP?

Did you hop in a Hermes and completely eliminate me and my Galaxy?

Did you organize with your team to put down a massive amount of fire on my position?

Did you drop a Galaxy of your own to protect yourself?

Did you wait behind cover for the Galaxy to leave and then blast me?

You did not. You got another MBT and moved down the exact same line of advance and got blasted by another ATGM.

Bigweez went with the last option and showed me he was the Supreme Being/The Boss/An Instant Badass with the 76mm (I mean it, dude, you got me totally off guard :cool: ).

We hear what you're saying, but you're not listening to us. These tactics that you preach are relevant and good, but you have to develop new ones to counter what your foes chuck at you.

[Dark_au]

if all you want to do is play games of AAD superiority and supression then all you are doing is turning DT into this Missile Command. The difference being that MC requires some skill on the players part to perform AAD.

In the example you quote there were 4 of us and we were already trying to battle 1 AAD between us. You dropped the galaxy into our flank and start hammering us from under protection too. With that few people its hard enough to supress 1 AAD let alone 2. All I did was swap to a bot that had landed to try and put some pressure on. Whats the option land my own galaxy. Is that what you want to deteriorate it to just who can dominate with a galaxy?. You had the choice not to play in such a manner and maybe play within the spirit of the game but as ALWAYS you are hiding behind the galaxy.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

In the example you quote there were 4 of us and we were already trying to battle 1 AAD between us. You dropped the galaxy into our flank and start hammering us from under protection too. With that few people its hard enough to supress 1 AAD let alone 2. All I did was swap to a bot that had landed to try and put some pressure on. Whats the option land my own galaxy. Is that what you want to deteriorate it to just who can dominate with a galaxy?

Well, let us consider the options ...

You could have swapped the Thor or Apollo with a Hermes, slipped in, and just cut him to pieces. Double points for rolling up on the side blinded by the Galaxy.

You could have swapped to an ion platform and started putting 6km completely uninterceptible bolts into his armour, pushing him out of the Galaxy's reload range and then disecting him.

You could have swapped into an infantry squad, dropped on the blind side, then simply walked up and unloaded at near point blank with ATG and 20mm / 10mm or the 6mm ion, which eats Shrike up like breakfast cereal.

Of course, none of those tactics take skill ... aside from, you know, coming up with them, executing them, and/or actually hitting with the rounds being discussed. Which you seem to be fairly dismissive of, which makes folks, including me, feel rather insulted that you don't give as fair a hearing as you're getting from the vast bulk of the respondents in this thread.

Lately, I keep hearing your voice dubbed by Cartman. "&^$& you guys, I'm going home," which I'm sure is not your intent, and merely the efforts of my perversely cynical mind. But there's a certain static coming off your replies that implies that if its not your way, its wrong, and you can see where that might get up folks' noses.

Basically, your appeals to "the spirit of the game" aren't cutting it. When you talk about modern strategy and modern AFVs, you've got good points, but you just don't seem to be able to turn loose of it and go with what is in DropTeam, which is pointedly not Steel Beasts (though I'd give my left tentacle to have SB's strategic interface and platoon/company/battalion interface). It's just not, and its not intended to. It'd be a shame to have you withdraw your attention from the game, but as it stands you're not being helpful or illuminating, you're being rather insulting and getting in the way of folks listening to the points you have to make.

Give it some thought, maybe give it a day or two break, then come back to the table and actually listen to what we folks are saying, whatever your opinion of it. Nod at the right times and avoid that glazed-eye look we get a lot, and we'll feel a lot more like a dialogue rather than a denouncement is going on.

[CrimsonDestiny]

Originally posted by Dark_au:

In the example you quote there were 4 of us and we were already trying to battle 1 AAD between us. You dropped the galaxy into our flank and start hammering us from under protection too. With that few people its hard enough to supress 1 AAD let alone 2. All I did was swap to a bot that had landed to try and put some pressure on. Whats the option land my own galaxy. Is that what you want to deteriorate it to just who can dominate with a galaxy?. You had the choice not to play in such a manner and maybe play within the spirit of the game but as ALWAYS you are hiding behind the galaxy.

You had the choice to counter the action I took, but you chose not to. Most of all, you could have done it on your own.

Ahem:

Originally posted by ClaytoniousRex:

Killing Galaxies is fun and easy. The easiest way is to roll back their defense with a sufficient amount of fire:

Rollback video

Notice that it really doesn't take very much fire to roll it back. If you can't even get a single member of your team to help you focus fire on the Galaxy then there's a much bigger problem than AAD.

It's also incredibly easy to simply use weapons against which it has no defense:

Long range death video

Some bloody bot ruined the grand finale in that 2nd video, but you get the idea.

As it stands right now, getting through a Galaxy's umbrella is quite easy to do. The only way you would have trouble is if you weren't coordinating with your team at all. Lots of things are difficult if you're doing them completely alone.

A Galaxy that is also within an ion tower's radius, so the two overlap, starts to become more of a challenge to punch through.

This is in addition to the other counters I put down.

You may hate the thing, you may think it's cheap/lame, but it's part of the game, not to mention effective. We could bicker on till Satan rises out of hell, but the fact remains there are tactical options for situations with AAD, you just refuse to use them.

It's understandable that you don't want to lower yourself to the level of a lamer such as I, but as of now it's the nature of the beast. Until there's another way to reload my ammo, I'm using the Galaxy.

I think we all need to have a group hug.

[Dark_au]

what I am saying without any cheesey cartman voices is that the game you lot seem to want to play is not what I want to play nor what I thought i was buying.

Here is the sum total of strategy as possible by this way of thinking.

1. If there is air defence fight over its possesion because it is all powerful.

2. If there is no fixed AAD then control the map with your own AAD

thats it, that is the sum total of tactics that a scenario designer can plan for, how much playability do you think this really has.

Not what I'm interested in, I graduated to Chess I'm not interested in checkers.

Mods I ask again please delete or lock this thread. I tried to do something creative and it is pointless.

[ August 12, 2006, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Dark_au ]

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

Not what I'm interested in, I graduated to Chess I'm not interested in checkers.

Gee, thanks for that ongoing avoidance of insult. I really feel like you understood exactly what you were trying to say. That's I'm tactically shallow, even though I (and others) have provided you with multiple responses to on-board AAD that don't, pointedly don't, involve dropping your own AAD in every case, that I'm strategically impaired and restricted to only the simplest capabilities, because I disagree with your analysis even though I, and pretty much every poster on the thread, agree with your basic premises.

We just don't get there from here, and for some reason you aren't willing to grant the rest of us the respect that we've provided, either in adressing the counter-points we provide or simple acknowledgement of either the ... No, really, I think we'd settle for simple acknowledgement of our points.

Honestly, arguing about AAD in DT, a resource limited by the presence of defense towers and by the number of Hermes available for drop, both of which have responses in-game which either take (with a Cutter in the case of the towers) or remove (by destruction in the case of Hermes), is vaguely like complaining about the fact that forces in Steel Beasts can call in artillery, because it blows up elements real good if called well and you can't respond by some simple countermeasure. No, you can't. But its a tactical reality of that battlefield, and if that means you don't dare hold an observed position for longer than 2min 25sec (because 2min is the artillery's minimum time for call), or you need to put a dozen MG rounds into the air by the AAD before you can swat it with some HEAT, that's the nature of the beast.

thats it, that is the sum total of tactics that a scenario designer can plan for, how much playability do you think this really has.

Please, now that's just sad. "If there's on-board artillery sources, fight over their possession because its all-powerful, and if not control the map with your own brought artillery-units." Does this restatement sound familliar? It should, because its doctrinal. Is any modern simulator "unplayable" because it has artillery that is "all-powerful?" Stating "no," because you can formulate counters would be poor argument, since there've been at least a dozen counters explored at length in the course of the thread.

Seriously, at this point you've just decended to sniping at the folks legitimately attempting to engage you in dialogue, insulting them, and pretty much slagging off any point they make in the course of discussion. I've seen debate, this isn't it. Debate is creative. What you're doing is, in fact, pointless, but its not a creative act. Let's not pretty it up by suggesting it is, shall we?

Though I think locking the thread would be both poor tactics and bad strategy. There has been a lot of discussion about how and why to roll-back, roll-through, and roll-around AAD in DT, and there's a bit more to be explored by folks like yurch, cool breeze and yllamana. Its that kind of strategic and tactical concerns and discussion that are the reason its worthwhile to come by the fora, and they deserve, even if I don't, the ability to continue that exploration.

[tankibanki]

I've been watching this thread for a while and Im sad to see it turn into this.

On the one hand I don't like the way the galaxies are used, either. I would have preferred DT to work the same way WWII battles or cold war battles would have worked.

On the other hand I can accept that the galaxy is a reality of DT I have to deal with.

In the end it is just a question of taste. If I designed a scenario thinking of historic or contemporary battles I'd be disappointed if players turned it into something completely different by using "gamey" means. However as a scenario designer I should leave some freedom to those who actually play it instead of trying to force players to cling to the concepts I had in mind while designing it.

Wouldn't a very easy solution be to have the option to turn off galaxies (and maybe even artillery, could be useful in some cases as well) in the scenario file?

Or maybe that feature is already there? After all there are campaign missions in which you don't have all dropship support.

I don't like galaxy abuse, but I can live with it, at least until we have a Cold War mod for DropTeam. Well maybe that's in the "far future", but people like Dark_au and me will be happy when there is a WWII mod.

[aittam]

ok i think there's a flaw here: Dark_au wants to play following modern warfare tactics, and I should admit I'm inclined to do so as well but moderwarfare tactic were developed according to the reality of the battlefield (in theory) and the weapons avaiable and their performances (in theory even more)

here Galaxys and AAD are the reality of these battlefields so we have to adapt as well, nevertheless since Dark_au is one of the more prolific scenario designers I'm sure soon we will see maps whose features will raccomand a modern warfare doctrine rather than a far future one.

[Dark_au]

Squid, you wonder why I lose the plot and want the thread pulled:-

Surely the tank's role is what I make it.

Lets expand apon this to see why maybe i find this an inane comment. If we follow this line of reasoning then ok I'm gonna make my tanks role an air superiority fighter.... oh no wait I don't have wings. Ok I'm gonna make my tanks role to be a babies crib oh no lack of toys and the mean looking warriors hanging out the top just scare the baby.

This is interspersed with comments like oh this doesn't apply cos its FAR FUTURE. Well we are far future to the greeks, does that mean that if I put a greek bireme next to a modern battle ship you can't see past the technology difference and see that for their time and technology their role is the same. Or that you can't compare the role of a tank to the role of hanibals elephants, or greek / roman war chariots?.

Tanki,. Unfortunately it goes deeper than that. All historical analogies fall apart and because we have no foundation in the made up world of DT there is no relevant historical battle to work from. IE we don't live in that world so how can we invent scenarios for it when we have no experience from which to draw except the way it is played. The way it is played limits your 2 starategic tags to the ones I listed.

Aittam, same applies, I won't be making anymore scenarios because all i have to base it on is realistic and real strategic concepts. These don't apply.

[Dark_au]

I meant to add that if you start to analyse it some of the base maps are extremely suspect in their strategic concept. The prime example to me is Dead Gulch, Frankly this is a ridiculous strategic concept. You have the ability to drop anywhere and you are fighting for a bridge because it is strategic HOW exactly?. Especially when the attacker can leave half dead vehicles and troops at the bottom of the gorge which count as "Capturing the zone".

My comment about chess and checker BTW was intended to mean if you guys want people like myself to make scenarios for you give me chess. If all you give me is checkers then I can't come up with anything. Checkers has a sollution which is finite, chess doesn't.

[poesel]

Good thing is that we all can play as we like. I read everything here in this forum and if I find something that I would like to do I try it out and see if it works for me.

I play because I want to have fun. This can be (nearly) any vehicle and in different situations. I most probably do not always play in accordance to some tactical handbook but I'm not in the military either.

Thing is, what is most fun in this game is to have several people and a plan and get a coordinated action TOGETHER. So if any of you will come up with some plan during the game then tell me. I will happily follow it no matter what tactical book you prefer.

And maybe there is a technical solution for this: if clay could allow us to modify the 'recharge' time of each FESR (down to 'never') then dark_au could make scenarios without AAD or galaxies and we can then see what its worth.

[adzling]

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?

[adzling]

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?

[adzling]

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....