Sunderer - Ranger or Walker for AA?

Last year in the PS2 sale, I picked up Skyguard for 99SC (or was it 1SC?), but never touched it at the time. Thanks to Wrel's very good recent skyguard video, I started playing this. My problem is that I tend to get tunnel vision on what is in the air, and end up getting C4d quite often.

As I don't tend to move too much, a better choice might be to set up a Sunderer to allow allies to depoy, along with repair/ammo for allied armour. I am running a Basilisk on the front, and am quite happy with that, but on the rear, I specifically want to run an anti-air gun rather than an all-round-general-purpose gun.

I have trialled the Ranger, and while it `feels` a lot more like Skyguard (but weaker, understandably), 90% of the chat says its complete crap and I should stick to a Walker. Is it really as bad as people say or is it just the usual "if its not the OP flavour of the month, it sucks" type thing?

Thanks

Which one is just 2 pipes sticking out that fires some slower moving crap that looks like Flak, but does like way more damage than normal flak? Furies are pretty good too, there's a youtube video floating around of a fury sundy wrecking TONS of aricrafts, esp Libs

Let me put it like this.

At 400m the Walker deals its lowest damage. Yet at that range it still deals roughly 50% more damage per second then the Ranger against ESF (against other aircraft it is even more due to resistances), has a much tighter cone of fire and higher velocity which more then make up for the Rangers proximity fuses and have larger magazines plus a faster reload speed.
If you are closer then 400m then the Walker becomes even better in comparison.

The only thing the Ranger has going for itself is that it sounds cool and may frighten a few unexperienced pilots because its "flak".

The walker is pretty much a straight upgrade. Dual walkers can output more damage than a skyguard, and has the highest projectile velocity in the game, making them great at even extreme range.

Walker is the one you want. As opposed to the slow flak of the Ranger, it gives you the reach to really tell aircraft what they can go do with themselves.

Are you sure on the math for that one? Don't get me wrong, I still think the Walker is better. I just don't think the damage difference is quite that high, especially when you take COF differences into account.

^^^ This ^^^

It's no contest, really. The Walker is WAY better at AA. And as a bonus it makes a pretty good AI weapon too - almost as good as the Kobalt if you have a good angle (Walkers can't point down very far). And they can do some damage to tanks too (Ranges don't do anything).

My 'Chuck Norris' loadout uses a Walker, in the front, and a Ranger, in the back. Works well enough. A little aa variety.

I use 1.75x zoom optics for both guns.

Rangers are bad and I think the Devs have forgotten they exist. It is sad because since it has come out there hasn't been a single other ground based pure AA weapons added to the game.

walker, just do it

I've always used this Mantra when you look at the Ranger or Walker.

Ranger is used to Scare the Air.

Walker is used to Kill the Air.

Choose what your want to do and there is your choice.

Dual walkers can be devastating, they shred enemy ESFs in an instant and can tear liberators a new one.

You have crappy 5 yesr old gunners on 12 fps? -> Ranger

Mediocre to Good gunners? -> Walker

Walker deals 55 damage to ESF at 400m (85 damage at a 35% damage resist). That is 33000 damage per minute, very roughly.
Ranger deals 80 damage per explosion to ESF at all ranges (50 damage with a 60% damage boost). That is 26400 damage per minute, again very roughly.

Those are ignoring the time you spend reloading, which I think would not make much difference in the percentages. Ranger has slightly more then half the RPM but a slightly smaller magazine and the Walker only has two thirds the reload time (uncerted).

That means the Ranger deals around 80% the damage of the Walker at maximum range instead of the 65% I've had floating around in my head, so I stand corrected on that point. Might have been the figures for one of the other aircraft.

Close range (under 50m) the Walker would have 50700 damage per minute to the Rangers unchanged 26400. Which means, since many pilots attack themselves from such a range, that a single Walker would almost equal two Rangers on short range point defense (with a competent gunner who can hit with a direct fire weapon, of course).


Disclaimer:
I'm at work so I can't load up the game and see the damage values ingame, so I'm doing it with the wiki values (which I guess are correct).

No worries, that's what I got too. Just sanity checking.

I'd add that the COF on the Walker gets pretty big. At the 400m range I don't even expect to land all my shots on a Galaxy due to COF. The Ranger mitigates this with proximity detonation, so on paper at least the damage difference would get even smaller, but there's no way you're going to be able to lead a target at 400m (>1s lead time) which is moving erratically at 175kph.

Thanks all,

I didn't realise it was such a night-and-day difference between the two, rather than a personal preference thing which most people came down on one side of.

Looks like Walker it is then.

In my personal experience, the walker is by far superior. High RoF, high velocity (actually got a buff here fairly recently), can also damage ground vehicles including MBTs, and is adequate for defense against any infantry in its field of fire.

The only advantage the ranger has is as a deterrent (flak in general is not pleasant from a pilots point of view), and a temporary one at that. I remember one time while running with some fellow tankers, one guy tried the ranger out. When a mossie came by, he managed to fend it off. But to our horror the mossie realized what exactly had hit him (and how little damage it did) and began doing dive bomb runs constantly, completely unconcerned by the ranger.

The walker is much better than the ranger, but I actually prefer the basilisk (stock weapons). They still hit aircraft fairly hard but can also do decent damage to ground vehicles and infantry as well.

This

it seems to be Flak is for "fluff". It seems to be in the game just so they can say it's in the game.

Though I am sure in huge battles if people pull dedicated AA sundies with walkers AND rangers.. (and call themselves Texas ) THey will most likely get a lot of air kills.

I just spent some of my 10000 certs to make a derpy AA sunderer with 2 walkers.

Yeah it's amazing how many people offhandedly discount the Basilisk as a secondary gunner option. It's really quite versatile and can be quite deadly in numbers.

I generally choose the Walker over the Basilisk as my secondary when solo Magging tho. I find them to both be about equally good at AI and AV. Their AV and AI DPs seem pretty comparable, but the Walker's COF is tighter and its velocity is about twice that of the Basilisk, so it's effective range is a longer, esp vs infantry and fast-moving vehicles like Harassers. And of course it's clearly better at AA.

The big downside is as you know its lack of downward firing angle - which can be remedied in a Mag by propping your butt up against a rock or firing from a slight decline. The Basilisk is as bit more consistent tho and generally better at close range AI due to its lower firing angle so you can keep moving and be effective regardless of terrain..

So really it's a matter of better AA and longer range (Walker) vs more consistent and better close range ability due to a better firing angle (Basilisk).

I guess it's just a bug that only I have where pouring 2 whole clips of a walker into an ESF's doesn't even get it smoking for me. It happens even more often as a Lib tailgunner. A full clip of ghost shots at close range...pilot meanwhile doesn't even act like he's taking damage. Oh but when I've been in and ESF being hit by one, damn does my health drop fast. I just don't get it

Then our Lib pilot's screaming at me "You had one Job!...... ONE, JOB,"