simonmaxhill Posted Feb 10, 2014, 12:08 am	My humble opinion: Indirect fire weapons from moving vehicles at moving vehicles is 1. silly 2. bypasses terrain, the skillful use of which is fundamental to dogfighting 3. pretty unrealistic Either ditch em, make them so wildly inaccurate that even in the hands of the most skilled ballistics gunner, they'd be worthless except against packs of opponents. And get rid of the paint ones, because those are 10x silly. Like 80's movie hairspray flamethrower silly.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 11, 2014, 2:46 pm	agreed
Bolt Thrower Posted Feb 11, 2014, 7:52 pm	I agree penalties for shooting ballistics from moving platform are too low, but I don't think they should be wiped. I think there should be some terrain bypassing weapons. Plus they are useful against mountain top snipers. While I like paint guns, the ballistics ones are are probably a little silly. But having grown up playing Autoduel, I would be very sad is paint was excluded from the game.
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 12, 2014, 1:05 am	simonmaxhill said: My humble opinion: Indirect fire weapons from moving vehicles at moving vehicles is 1. silly 2. bypasses terrain, the skillful use of which is fundamental to dogfighting 3. pretty unrealistic Either ditch em, make them so wildly inaccurate that even in the hands of the most skilled ballistics gunner, they'd be worthless except against packs of opponents. And get rid of the paint ones, because those are 10x silly. Like 80's movie hairspray flamethrower silly. Actually Indirect fire is Very common from a Moving Vehicle. Example:  M1A1 Abrams Tank. Any fire beyond what is Classified as POINT BLANK RANGE (Defined as the range at which the trajectory is flat and ballistics properties do not matter) is in fact Indirect. Once again you have suggested something that takes DW farther away from a simulation of vehicular combat and closer to being a Twitch and Click Arcade Shooter game. You might want to try Spy Hunter if that's your type of game.  As for myself I prefer something believable at least to a small degree. (since DW does not calculate deflection of shells which strike at extreme obliquities.  It isnstead figures a 90 degree obliquity and a 15 degree obliquity to inflict the same penetration damage.  oh well.)
JS Posted Feb 12, 2014, 1:58 am	simonmaxhill said: My humble opinion: Indirect fire weapons from moving vehicles at moving vehicles is 1. silly 2. bypasses terrain, the skillful use of which is fundamental to dogfighting 3. pretty unrealistic Either ditch em, make them so wildly inaccurate that even in the hands of the most skilled ballistics gunner, they'd be worthless except against packs of opponents. And get rid of the paint ones, because those are 10x silly. Like 80's movie hairspray flamethrower silly. No They are interesting and add a different dimension.  Removing interesting bits is stupid.
*Boonwolf* Posted Feb 12, 2014, 3:15 am	I think rockets are dumb blah blah blah 9x retarded blah blah and don't get me started in on that 15 shot spooky thing.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 12, 2014, 8:32 am	I do sometimes wonder if people realise this is the dw2 forum... Making suggestions for a faster game with appeal to mass market. Nobody is suggesting removing things as there are no things in it as yet.
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 12, 2014, 10:50 pm	Where this leads:  I think we should remove shooting.  Guns on cars is unrealistic, silly, yada yada yada. Personally I'd rather wait to see what Sam puts in the game before saying what should be left out.  I'd rather see MORE put into it that is later removed due to it being unappealing, than people being upset that their style of play isn't supported by the game. Oh...  and... simonmaxhill said: Like 80's movie hairspray flamethrower silly Hairspray?  I don't know if that works but I used to use WD-40 Spray Lubricant as a flamethrower to kill wasps when I was a teenager.  Not silly.  Effective.  You cant swat them because they dodge and sting you?  WD-40 Flamethrower takes their wings off in mid-air.  then step on the buggers
*goat starer* Posted Feb 13, 2014, 12:26 am	Well I think you will be disappointed. The object of dw2 is to make a successful game... Not to replicate dw1. That will mean prioritising gameplay over realism, simplifying the mechanics and making the turn sequence faster. Anyone with an autistic desire for realism over gameplay is probably going to be saddened by it... It is not intended to be an updated and improved version of dw1. Dw1 will remain and may be database linked allowing you to play characters in both games. dw2 will be a very different game... And it will certainly lose lots of things from dw1 whilst gaining many others.
*Jagged Monkey* Posted Feb 13, 2014, 1:45 am	Good point. Well said.
JS Posted Feb 13, 2014, 11:03 am	goat starer said: Well I think you will be disappointed. The object of dw2 is to make a successful game... Not to replicate dw1. That will mean prioritising gameplay over realism, simplifying the mechanics and making the turn sequence faster. Anyone with an autistic desire for realism over gameplay is probably going to be saddened by it... It is not intended to be an updated and improved version of dw1. Dw1 will remain and may be database linked allowing you to play characters in both games. dw2 will be a very different game... And it will certainly lose lots of things from dw1 whilst gaining many others. Wow, I was unaware you were producing this game.  Good luck with it, I'm sure you'll knock it dead in the free market.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 13, 2014, 11:24 am	JS said: goat starer said: Well I think you will be disappointed. The object of dw2 is to make a successful game... Not to replicate dw1. That will mean prioritising gameplay over realism, simplifying the mechanics and making the turn sequence faster. Anyone with an autistic desire for realism over gameplay is probably going to be saddened by it... It is not intended to be an updated and improved version of dw1. Dw1 will remain and may be database linked allowing you to play characters in both games. dw2 will be a very different game... And it will certainly lose lots of things from dw1 whilst gaining many others. Wow, I was unaware you were producing this game.  Good luck with it, I'm sure you'll knock it dead in the free market. I'm not Sam is contrary too popular opinion I'm not an Alt account for Sam
fleau Posted Feb 13, 2014, 12:00 pm
*goat starer* Posted Feb 13, 2014, 12:52 pm	if that picture is correct i might be an alt for Sam... that pretty much reflects his race performance.
*Rev. V* Posted Feb 13, 2014, 4:05 pm	Don't forget....
*goat starer* Posted Feb 13, 2014, 10:31 pm	What you don't see is that smile broadening when he wrongs my neck in the next frame
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 14, 2014, 7:18 am	goat starer said: making the turn sequence faster You may have missed this part Goat... DW2 is supposedly going to be Real-Time.  No Turn sequence at all!  Cant get faster than that.
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 14, 2014, 7:23 am	goat starer said: gameplay over realism, simplifying the mechanics Amusing that this mindset in game design is exactly what lead to the death of wargaming as a hobby and wargame design as an industry. Simplified mechanics of play and "Playability" over "realisim" led to the bankruptcy of many once profitable game companies such as Avalon Hill, Games Design Workshop, West End Games, Victory Games...  etc...
*goat starer* Posted Feb 14, 2014, 3:00 pm	StCrispin said: goat starer said: gameplay over realism, simplifying the mechanics Amusing that this mindset in game design is exactly what lead to the death of wargaming as a hobby and wargame design as an industry. Simplified mechanics of play and "Playability" over "realisim" led to the bankruptcy of many once profitable game companies such as Avalon Hill, Games Design Workshop, West End Games, Victory Games...  etc... What a bizare statement... There are more people wargaming today than at any point in history. The conferences are full.. there are thousands if thriving indie manufacturers.... The internet has allowed a revival of old games... It's a thriving industry and a thriving hobby. You are only talking about a small number of companies who could not compete with the games workshop behemoth. The fallacious assumption that because lots of wargames are now on computers if has somehow died is just misinformed. Walk into any youth centre in the UK and you will still find tabletop games being played. Wargaming is very much alive... When I was a young wargamer independent wargames exhibitions were held at community centres... Today they take exhibition space at excel.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 14, 2014, 3:00 pm	StCrispin said: goat starer said: making the turn sequence faster You may have missed this part Goat... DW2 is supposedly going to be Real-Time.  No Turn sequence at all!  Cant get faster than that. No it isnt
Grimm Sykes Posted Feb 14, 2014, 6:00 pm	train wreck
Fozzie Posted Feb 14, 2014, 8:25 pm	StCrispin said: goat starer said: making the turn sequence faster You may have missed this part Goat... DW2 is supposedly going to be Real-Time.  No Turn sequence at all!  Cant get faster than that. Thankfully that appears to be incorrect. From Sam's latest post: *sam* said: Thanks for the thoughts :-) Regarding DW2: things are happening :-) Not exactly along the lines of what we were discussing here, though. I do appreciate your comments about DW's uniqueness in terms of turn-based vehicular combat. I very much think this myself, and it's the core experience that I want to build DW2 around.
*goat starer* Posted Feb 15, 2014, 5:45 pm	Yeah... I find it helps to ask Sam what he is planning rather than just making it up in your head
*Bastille* Posted Feb 15, 2014, 9:31 pm	Don't be silly
*StCrispin* ce.services.mh@gmail.com Posted Feb 16, 2014, 2:00 am	If you notice he says DW is turn based. And he wants DW2 to have the DW as its core idea. He has said repeatedly (despite all of our woe crying about not wanting a real time game) that he wants DW2 to be real time and similar in playstyle to League of Legends. Maybe he has changed his mind. But I have not seen a post indicating that. Not that it matters. What Sam makes is what Sam makes.
*Rev. V* Posted Feb 16, 2014, 7:43 pm	" He has said repeatedly (despite all of our woe crying about not wanting a real time game) that he wants DW2 to be real time" If there's 2 things Sam WILL be sticking with for DW2, it's turn based play, and perma-death.
simonmaxhill Posted Feb 25, 2014, 9:05 pm	Maybe I used the term "indirect fire" incorrectly. I'm interested in seeing mortar and artillery-type weapons removed from the game. My primarily gripe is (as before) that they bypass terrain features, which to me are an important part of making it a tactical game. There's plenty of real time twitch games of cars with guns that are really fun, but I'd definitely prefer Darkwind remain a turn based, squad vehicle combat game. I'm not super familiar with the M1 Abrams, but at what distances does it's fire become "indirect" and not "point blank"?  At what ranges does it lob shells over hills? StCrispin said: simonmaxhill said: My humble opinion: Indirect fire weapons from moving vehicles at moving vehicles is 1. silly 2. bypasses terrain, the skillful use of which is fundamental to dogfighting 3. pretty unrealistic Either ditch em, make them so wildly inaccurate that even in the hands of the most skilled ballistics gunner, they'd be worthless except against packs of opponents. And get rid of the paint ones, because those are 10x silly. Like 80's movie hairspray flamethrower silly. Actually Indirect fire is Very common from a Moving Vehicle. Example:  M1A1 Abrams Tank. Any fire beyond what is Classified as POINT BLANK RANGE (Defined as the range at which the trajectory is flat and ballistics properties do not matter) is in fact Indirect. Once again you have suggested something that takes DW farther away from a simulation of vehicular combat and closer to being a Twitch and Click Arcade Shooter game. You might want to try Spy Hunter if that's your type of game.  As for myself I prefer something believable at least to a small degree. (since DW does not calculate deflection of shells which strike at extreme obliquities.  It isnstead figures a 90 degree obliquity and a 15 degree obliquity to inflict the same penetration damage.  oh well.)
*goat starer* Posted Feb 25, 2014, 11:55 pm	Simon. The thing with the Abrams is that it employs top secret US anti grav muzzle enhancement... Basically the projectile has a temporary gravity nullifying coating applied by imps as if leaves the big tube thing on the tank, allowing the effects of gravity to be counterbalanced for up to 27 feet and 6 inches. It's all very hush hush but luckily we have Crispin to help with his scooper sleuth clearance.