ww2 mod anyone ?

[Monkwarrior]

Gents,

I have read in the blogs that the team has planned some sort of ww2 mod for dropteam. Is this true and if so, care to elaborate on that ?

Is there anyone in this community who has similar plans ? I would really love to play with these old tanks

Greetingz, Monk.

[aittam]

I could throw in ideas nothing more

[Dark_au]

WOW.... Hell yes.... First thing i said when I played drop team was this would be a great basis for a ww2 mod. Especially the way the grass looks it would be excellent for a Kursk battle.

[Junglist]

Kursk! Kursk! Kursk!

[Dark_au]

Got to keep the map scales though. What would be best about this engine is that you would be able to see the enemy far outside of your effective shot range. This would mean you'd have to out manaeouver him.

[Monkwarrior]

It would depend on the map itself of course. Line of sight must be blocked a bit on those ww2 maps to provide interesting gameplay for this mod.

No answer from the devs on my question, Claytonius ?

[Gen. Lee Annoying]

Just imagine thoses WW2 era dropships.......

;OP

[aittam]

Originally posted by Gen. Lee Annoying:

Just imagine thoses WW2 era dropships.......

;OP

Ok this is the real problem, how do we overcame it?

Ideas:

1) fixed spawn/drop point; that's the entry point/s of each team; problem --> reduction of capacity manouver capability

[ClaytoniousRex]

No answer from the devs on my question, Claytonius ?

Yes, Monk, it's definitely on the horizon. We're still knee-deep in enhancements to DropTeam (such as infantry, changes to beam weapons, multiple weapon systems, commander interface improvements, etc.) and will be for a month or two at least. After that, we're very interested in a WW2 mod, among others. Depending on how active you guys in the mod community are, this will either mean providing the additional features to the core game that you need in order to make a high quality ww2 mod, or doing it entirely ourselves. We'll just have to see how it goes!

[aittam]

I did some thinking (rare) and I realized that all WWII games use fixed spawn point (ok some BF map have mobile ones)

So back to the idea mentioned on the sensor post by Yurch, what about to introduce spawn point with a very limited radius along the maps that need to be conquered in order to be used, simulatin a renforcement following an advancing army?

[Monkwarrior]

At the moment one of the best ww2 tankbattle games is called Red Orchestra. Some maps are so huge you spent several minutes driving to the enemy frontline. I'm still not sure which advantages this dropteam-engine would have in comparison to the UT2004-engine, but maybe somebody else in here can shed some light on that.

I suggest a very different set of gamerules when creating a ww2 mod with this engine.

The most easy one first.

There is a deployment phase but both sides can only deploy on their own side of the map. After that it's a battle until the last unit is destroyed.

The second one.

When infantry is involved I could imagine spawning on the squad-leader like in BF2. This will be a sort of "drop-ship" like idea.

Fortunatly the ww2 had enough different vehicles to provide a variety in gameplay with different roles for each player.

So the main question still is: "What would be the most important selling point to use this engine for a ww2-mod ?"

[aittam]

like in the best BF maps I would like to propose an exclusion zone around each team major spaw to allow deployment without sloughter even when outnumbered on the field

conquerable spaw points are better to me: they simulate the end point of a supply line but offer some kind of direction for the enemy attack, better if the maps are pushing mode (spawn point have to be conquered in an ordered fashion)

infantry: actually the discussion shiuld be refined when their actually carachteristics will be known but what about para? just a matter to change the flight profile of the DS (dont' know how easy this will be) to simulate a plane or a glider

[poesel]

Someone has already mentioned that the most probable thing we could achieve would be a WWII simulation from the DropTeam time of point (so a simulation of a simulation).

The 'real thing' would be another game (which I would instantly buy btw )

Limiting the drop zone after deployment time seems an easy way to simulate entry areas. Combine that with some AA and laser towers and that zone is (nearly) unspammable.

Conquerable drop zones would be a very nice addition.

Viewing distance regarding the tac map can be circumvented by giving every single vehicle a jammer like the Hermes has.

Getting the vehicles right in terms of armor, ammo and such is - well maybe not easy in terms of game balance, but easy in the sense of changing numbers.

Getting the outlook and bounding boxes right seems rather hard, though (or is there some commonly available program for that?)

[Drusus]

Well, I think the best way would be to have reinforcement points, preferrably in the edges of the map. And then have conquerable zones which wouldn't need to be in the same spot as the reinforcement spot is. That is you could have tactically very important hilltops and by conquering them you can control where your enemy can deploy his troops. Realistic and fun. And should be easy to program into the engine.

[aittam]

wellcome back drusus!

so it seems that the major features about how a map should look are the same for everybody

another major point introduced by poesel: realism or balance?

[Alfa-142]

Realism always wins in the long run. You can alter balance through other means such as reducing ammunition, equipment numbers and so on.

I have always liked the games of Battlefront because of their realism. Heck, even Drop Team "feels" realistic due to it's very cool ballistics engine.

/W

[aittam]

ok I prefer realism as well, so we should think about a new unit, lightly armoured or not at all, for ammo resupply; a WWII tank probably on average was carring around 30/40 cases; if we want big maps to drive back to resupply, given that one survives enough to fire all ammo, is not really an option; fixed ammo crates are a possible alternative but won't enhance team play.

what do you think?

[ClaytoniousRex]

I'm still not sure which advantages this dropteam-engine would have in comparison to the UT2004-engine, but maybe somebody else in here can shed some light on that.

I don't want to spend much time with this comparison, but basically the same reasons that make DropTeam a good wargame in the first place are the same ones that make it a good choice for a WW2 mod. With Unreal-based games like RO, the view distances are completely unacceptable. Isn't it just amazing that there's always a wall of impenetrable fog less than 1,000 meters from the camera? How can you simulate a realistic modern battle with these short view distances? Deformable terrain, a real commander's interface, real ballistics and damage modeling, easy moddability without "Unreal editor" type tools, smoke and dust and burning wrecks instead of the "poof - tank blows up and disappears" kind of effects in those shooters, and on and on - like I said, the same things that make DropTeam good in the first place. Unreal is built from the ground up for good graphics over SHORT ranges and fast, less thoughtful gameplay.

Someone has already mentioned that the most probable thing we could achieve would be a WWII simulation from the DropTeam time of point (so a simulation of a simulation).

The 'real thing' would be another game

Our goal is definitely the "real thing". We fully expect to make some changes to the DropTeam engine to accomodate the needs of this mod. When it comes to a WW2 mod, think big. Maybe think of it more as a "total conversion".

Well, I think the best way would be to have reinforcement points, preferrably in the edges of the map. And then have conquerable zones which wouldn't need to be in the same spot as the reinforcement spot is.

All hail the return of Drusus! Yes, we would want to add options like this to the scenario schema. Scenario authors could use these new styles of deployment both in the new mod and in original DropTeam scenarios, too.

realism or balance?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. The answer is "both". Balance is achieved by the scenario author, not enforced by the game engine modelling things inaccurately.

[aittam]

Clay (Got the CD today, btw really well done!) from what you write the original DT is going to do the ww2, am I right?

Do you need any input from us or this will be released at some point in a beta form?

[yurch]

Originally posted by ClaytoniousRex:

easy moddability without "Unreal editor" type tools

To tell you the truth, I totally dig the availibility of those kinda tools (as buggy as they were), especially more powerful stuff like uscript. You could change the very basics and dynamics of weapon "interaction" if you really wanted to.

I'm not sure of what level of ww2 simulation people are looking for, but I think our current gunnery/intelligence/crew coordination/communication is a bit too tight for comfort. I'm sure they would have loved a third person camera, a waypointed hud map, and perfect crew coordination back then.

[Alfa-142]

"a WWII tank probably on average was carring around 30/40 cases"

Rather 100-150 rounds pending on caliber of course. And often tank crews tried to cram in even more...

.w

[ClaytoniousRex]

To tell you the truth, I totally dig the availibility of those kinda tools (as buggy as they were)

We're open to specific suggestions on tools you would like to see.

I'm sure they would have loved a third person camera, a waypointed hud map, and perfect crew coordination back then.

Exactly the kind of thing that needs to be tweaked for such a mod. For example, I was thinking along the lines of only allowing waypoints to be placed during the deployment phase (this would also apply to the new commander visuals). This is the planning and marking of maps before the battle. Once deployment ends they can't be changed. Only players in vehicles with radios or who are physically close to other players are allowed to chat (voice or typing) once play begins.

from what you write the original DT is going to do the ww2, am I right?

Do you need any input from us or this will be released at some point in a beta form?

We're always looking for your input! It's still an open question as to whether a mod like this is a community effort or something done entirely by us. We're willing to make the required changes to the game engine either way.

[Monkwarrior]

Good to hear that a ww2 mod will be there either way. I will describe some things to ponder about. Gameplay elements from RO which might be usefull "to have" in ww2-dropteam.

1) multiple players in each tank

Each has it's own role (gunner, driver, mg) which gives great teamplay opportunities.

2) a local voice channel

For tanks this is very essential, only the guyz in your tank can hear this.

3) opening of hatches => multiple view points.

It really gives you a sense of reality to drive a ww2 tank when your body is outside the tophatch. Same goes for the driver, also he can choose to drive with his head sticking out of the tank. Both will be vulnrable to infantry at those moments of course.

4) binoculairs for tankers.

Spotting is very important, might be integrated with calling in artillery on the marked spot.

5) anti-tank obstacles

A limited number to use in the deployment phase. Of course the deformable terrain will do miracles too.

6) destructable models

It's more a "nice-to-have" , but it would be great if buildings could be destructed when taking some HE shells.

[aittam]

the only point i feel to disagree with you monkeywarrior is the first, for the moment is hard to find more than 6 players on the full version servers so no poin in having them in two tanks

going back to how many shells were store inside a tank, I do agree on numbers and storage conditions, but if possible we should throw in the option more ammo=more vulnerability, let's say a non fatal penetration hits and blows up some ammo......... if that's not possible or easy to do I'll rather stick with the actual levels to force a more tactical use of them