AV base turrets too effective against infantry

Ah, very well then....

Yeah, phalanx having 2x the damage would be overkill for sure given how fast they can shoot with a linked Amp station.

They don't need to be nerfed either like requested in OP.

I'd say they're just fine.

Only Infantry/Vehicle range balance needs looking at in general... and as to that, just bring back 300m render range and limit AV weapons to 300m (tweaking balance as needed for lancer/etc)

Nooo! Don't you touch my Spartan Laser!

Sorry, needs to happen.

They're broken when utilized properly en masse.

They should be individually stronger (or faster charge) but range capped.

Still be useful for hitting tanks at max range (when you render to them) without allowing for smoke countermeasures, or giving lockon warning.

I think decreasing charge time, while increasing duration charge can be held (cause holding a max charge longer only lowers your DPS...) would be a worthy tradeoff for giving up the finger of god range.

This would actually want me to fight the VS more often. Can't tell you how much I choose to switch over to NC/TR fights because of Lancer and to a lesser extent Vortex Max abuse beyond render range.

Leave the turrets alone. If anything they could do with a slight buff to their survivability.

I still wonder why the devs didn't went straight away with the idea of render-to-render combat ranges between units.
I mean, if infantry doesn't render until 300m, it shouldn't have any impact on anything outside that range either.

You can see the enemy tank column coming, you prepare for it.
Set up defense and then rain hell on it, when it also can fight back.
You can still mine the damn road for "long range" counter

Back on topic :

For the Phalanx, I still believe that they should make them indestructible, being a part of the structure they are built/placed on.
Put a shield like the AI-Mana turret on them, with better coverage of course. The shield has a good HP pool. Engie tool replenishes the shield. When shield's down or you shot at an unshielded portion, you damage the user and if killed the turret is disabled for X seconds. Still hackable of course. Even becoming a serious Priority targets for Infils now!

I want to +1 your post for the first part...

but the second part... hells no!

Durability buff them a little bit maybe... but no more than that.

You can't see me right now but I am crying tears of blood...

The issue is with combined arms.
If tanks are standing 700m away from each other, shelling each other, infantry would need to leave the tanks behind for 400m to fire at enemy tanks. At which point, they're not really being combined arms.

For AA, the prospect becomes even more laughable, as air is well capable of attacking sundies from outside 300m, whilst the heavies with lockons try to swim upwards I suppose.

I think it is actually a good thing that the "squishy" side (infantry) has slightly longer range; as that range is often (certainly vs air) achieved by lockons, which need time to lock, and give a warning too.
However, the range difference shouldn't be big for ground especially..
--> Nerf Ravens at 400m? OF COURSE. Nerf Ravens at 350m? Maybe; if render range vehicle-max is always 300-ish meters. If vehicle render range is longer however, no. Nerf Ravens to 200m? WTF

Infantry can avoid these turrets all together or destroy them beyond render distance with the turrets being defenceless. Btw, they were already nerfed, if anything they need to bring back the old splash.

I kind of know I exaggerated the idea. But it's just an idea.
I don't know the numbers that should be used and I can see it toned down /diluted for balance's sake.

I'm actually of the opposite opinion, that infantry should almost always be outranged by vehicles. Infantry should be the soft, short-ranged option that is only viable against vehicles in cases of ambush.

Consider that ATGMs like the much-vaunted Javelin have an effective range of 2,500m and cap out at under 5,000m. Whereas the 120mm tank cannon that we have today have effective ranges of 4,000m and maximum ranges of 8,000m.

This is simply because vehicles can carry more weight than infantry, which in turn means that the bigger and more powerful weapons of vehicles generally out-range infantry weapons. Sure there are some long-range ATGMs (we have extended-range ones that have a maximum, not effective, range of 8,000m), but even then you could easily put a bigger version of that on a vehicle, make it satellite-guided, and give it a huge HE warhead. Vehicles are simply better than infantry in every way except for concealment and cost.

In PS2 infantry should have to either rely on stealth and ambushes to destroy vehicles at relatively close range, and their defense against longer-ranged vehicles ought to be not being seen or taking cover. Thus if infantry can trick vehicles into coming in close by hiding, then they should stand a chance. But if vehicles are aware of an infantry position, vehicles should be able to shell/bombard those infantry to pieces because the infantry failed at stealth.

Thats
Literally what ive been saying so you cant abuse the AV turrets at 500+ meters out. Maybe even just get rid of splash damage and leave its damage as is because seriously theyre not AI cannons theyre AV cannons, splash seems unneeded for their intended use.

I suppose for ground, that is a valid opinion. I don't think it can really work for air however, as there is very little cover against air, and the cover there is (like trees), makes AA even more difficult.

One issue I have with "ground vehicles outrange infantry" is the many bases where vehicles can simply spawncamp; shelling at the spawnroom or areas inside the base, from outside.
IMO shelling inside a base at least, should require the vehicle to move inside the base, otherwise the base simply is poorly designed.

Areas where ranged balance vehicles/infantry is perhaps most visible screwed are a few open areas on esamir and indar.
As a heavy, I simply bring an annihilator, and start locking on whilst moving; any enemy tank that actually closes into range to shoot back needs to hit me from 250 ish meters directly with an AP round. Happens often enough, but hey, I can respawn & repeat.
On those particular areas, yes, vehicles should dominate.
Because the areas are "open", plains, vehicles that commit can't really roll back into cover; this means you can just lock-on, launch, and unless they have smoke it'll hit. Infantry is of course much easier to find some cover for.
But I'm not really willing to give up on lock-on range.. certainly not before bases are more "vehicle proof".. on Hossin there are some construction sites where attackers can put a sundy in the room on the point. Blockade armor, dual fury or fury+kobalt.. also, since people are inside, squadspawn, sundy gets repairs, etc.
I would much rather give tanks the ability to mix ammo types; so an AP prowler seeing infantry dots running around can switch to HE. That may make HEAT obsolete beyond current.. allow AP to also bring some HEAT rounds, and the same for HE loadout? Heat is the default..
Also buff mbt front armor; this makes outflanking with infantry more important etc.

But that's how warfare works. It's also why bases and fortifications are irrelevant to modern warfare... and have been since WWI for sure and probably as early as the widespread adoption of gunpowder artillery. Bases are not meant to be protection in warfare... they are deathtraps. Modern warfare stresses maneuver and mobility above trying to entrench in a static position, because digging in simply means that the enemy will have an easier time dropping a ton of explosives on your head.

And that's how it should be. Not just from the standpoint of realism, but also because graceful high-mobility warfare is infinitely more entertaining than turtling in rooms.

If infantry don't want to be shelled from beyond their effective range, then they should make use of cover and concealment just as how infantry today must act if they're up against enemy armor, air, or artillery. They should pretend that the base is empty so as to draw vehicles in. Then when vehicles are vulnerable to ambush, only then should infantry AV be used against armor.

Wargame offers a pretty good example of a balanced role between infantry and vehicles. Vehicles of all types will generally kill infantry in most situations, but infantry have several advantages:
1) cheap
2) easy to hide
3) can be dangerous up-close

Well the basic problem with Base turrets is that there is an anti-air turret, an anti-ground turret and an anti-getting-kills turret

arent they going to cut down AV range to 200meters? and buff armor tanks? so just grab a tank and take out the turret

Can I help it if I like being able to use a reeeeallly big sniper rifle?

I think I should point out, infantry don't even render when you're shelling from the next base over. The only thing you can hit at that distance are tanks anyway.

So the entire premise of this thread is false in the first place. Spear turrets are already completely harmless to infantry at the range being whined about.

If you get hit at long range by these turrets, it's just artillery doing their job. And that gunner must be pretty skilled too, considering that their splash is so little.