Nice work ... only a Magrider can get there.. Lightning, Prowler, Vanguard would have fallen to their deaths.... Also shows that air support is mostly lacking in PS2.. by they time they showed up, you had already killed half the enemy. Thx for sharing.
FBVanu, they only showed up BECAUSE half the enemy were dead, lol. I don't know what the air guys are doing, but in my experience, most of the time its the tanks that have to get rid of AV nest in stupid spots like that. It seems magriders can get to the same places without flipping and prowlers can deploy far away and shell them, but I don't know what vanguards can do since they will flip and don't have the dps and range of a deployed prowler. Great job, Calisai. Sweet, sweet revenge.
a group like that always has at least one Burster MAX and 1 or 2 lock on heavies. anything more than that, even just a walker or basilisk, or one more AV MAX switching to AA for a minute, is enough to keep air from getting in and doing any real damage. also in that location it depends on who controls the techplant and how many unrelated skyguards/sniping AP tanks are around, because that can affect air play for at least one if not two hexes in any given direction. in high pop, with a nest like that active, air is entering a painfield at 1000m and generally only able to approach low and pop up to shell for maybe 5 seconds. it's easy for a lot of the air haters on these boards to say that air is OP when you're lonewolfing your tank in the open or just running dumbly out of a supressed spawn as infantry, because that's air playing to it's own clear advantage. the same as an MBT plays advantage against a skyguard, or a heavy plays advantage against an infiltrator. what you see in this video in regards to "no air support" is what most realistic people report seeing in high pop battles, deterred (or destroyed) air units due to a handful of capable AA units as part of a coordinated group. that having been said, this was a fun video to watch. i just thought i could answer that one question from my own experience before the five or six airnerf campaigners come in one after the other to groundsplain it some more.
Thanks. Twas fun to film. In regards to the friendly air not taking them down... the situation was this. VS was pushing Tawrich tower, the TR were the ones in the SE gate. So it was a TR-VS fight mostly. (As witnessed by the fact my Mag was taken out by a Mossie with rocket pods). So this NC PITA Op had a distracted air force (both VS and TR air were fighting each other as well as the AA) overhead. Eventually, after I broke them up a bit, the TR air started strafing them as well (Most of the time when I was using AV turret), since they were actually on the TR side of things more so than the VS and we had successfully capped the tower by then.
Granted, not in the situation where the enemy only pops into existence at this range. Excellent video.
The problem with that is while infantry AV is in its current state the side with high ground or the defensive position can pretty much just spam rockets indefinitely and the other faction can't do anything about it to move forward,if they pull air to bomb the enemy they'll never survive the lock-on's while any approaching ground units just get farmed. Sure this guy did this once but all those infantry just spawned right back again. The bottom line is infantry AV is too powerful with too much range,people shouldn't want to do this in the first place infantry AV should only be capable of light damage against vehicle at close range with a resource cost added for rockets. We need more ongoing vehicle fights instead right now players know that vehicles don't stand a chance against them and are willing to run straight at vehicles as infantry since they are free and there are naturally way more infantry at fights and you can't contain all of them.
the problem with what? i'm just not understanding where you think we disagree, or if i'm misunderstanding. i think you're describing the situation accurately, and to further clarify your point i would add that it also has a lot to do with risk vs reward - which is what i think you meant by "infantry is free." that is to say that there are no consequences for dying as infantry, wasting resources with failed explosives, spamming rockets, deployable turrets, and base turrets. while i don't think there is any simple, magical solution to balancing these issues in a way that creates satisfactory counterplay for all, i think the overall design has heavily favored infantry units for so long that it creates a definite sense of privilege (maybe entitlement is a better word) among infantry focused players. and i think that is unhealthy for the game, since we really need all types of players (and the freedom for players to focus primarily on infantry, ground vehicles or air) for it to be the most fun.
In any other type of game (I'm thinking RTS), what would be the counter if the enemy massed squishy long-ranged infantry out in the open? Something like this: Because slow-moving, weakly armored infantry are incredibly weak to artillery. Since at least WWI (if not before), the vast majority of infantry casualties and deaths in conventional warfare have been at the hands of artillery. Small arms... not so much. Artillery is the natural counter to massed infantry formations, particularly when infantry formations make the dumb mistake of standing out of cover in one spot. PS2, on the other hand, embraces a combat model that is absolutely medieval in nature. Instead of a very dynamic form of warfare, PS2 embraces static warfare that revolves around indestructible fortifications. It's mind-boggling how horrible and grindy this gets, where advanced tactics like flanking and maneuvering go kaput because the enemy can afford to lose a few square kilometers so long as they can hold one arbitrary shack. Add artillery to the game, change capture points to a matter of eliminating the enemy in a sector, throw in destructible buildings, and PS2 gameplay would become infinitely more enjoyable than the meatgrinders we currently have.
