MAX's have strong headgear.

Trees so OP, no matter how much ordnance dropped into that tree, or how many harassers that get stuck on it or tanks that bump into it or esfs and galaxies that crash into it. It is still standing.

Jus goes to show realism would not be good for ps2 or atleast too much of it.

Yo I got this. The MAX pilots head is not actually in the head area of the MAX (MAXes are taller than normal people). Its more in the chest area something like a mech and the head area is just a visual sensory area that they shaped like a head.

There you go and my face is /

Its a shame such few people are getting the humor.

When you regularly post topics like this, often times seeming serious about it, it's really difficult to tell whether you're trolling, adamant, or facetious.

That and we've all seen the "lol I was just trolling/joking" defense when a topic gets brutally shut down. It's really just better to own up to it.

Actually there are good field reports of an M1 tank trying to use 120mm rounds to destroy another abandoned M1 tank... and failing to do so effectively. In tank warfare it comes down to hit angle and location. Some might OHK... but other times tanks can resist a surprising number of shells.

I have actually been a proponent of beefing up A2G damage... so long as AA damage is also beefed up to be lethal to aircraft. Aircraft should be the hard counter to tanks... but that only works if AA is also a hard counter to aircraft.

Essentially, this is what the game should look like:

Actually as I've explained before, Javelins are short-ranged weapons that can be easily outgunned by modern tanks (with what you might call "hacks"). Tank technology is almost at a point where the tank can autoshoot at a ATGM team... before that ATGM opens fire!

And even if the missile does manage to fly, it can always be shot down by active defense systems or neutralized by reactive armor. Battle testing in Israel shows that advanced ATGMs have a decent rate of failure against modern MBTs.

I actually completely agree with you that tanks IRL and in PS2 should have powerful counters. These are mostly air and artillery units, and tanks have next to no ways to fight back against these targets (except maybe low-flying helicopters).

The problem is that infantry plays such a prominent role in PS2, not only compared against tanks, but also against aircraft to boot. In modern (and probably futuristic warfare), infantry is largely a supporting role for air, armor, and artillery elements. It acts as stealthy scouts. Or sits on land to keep the enemy from easily moving in. But there's no way that since the World Wars infantry action has been the leading cause of enemy destruction.

In PS2 it should be that infantry moves in behind armor elements, or in conjunction with air strikes or artillery barrages. Instead however really you could just play the entire game with infantry and ESFs, as the Server Smashes show. For PS2 to be a true combined arms game, that needs to change.

In the latest Battlefield game, you actually can knock down some trees and such.

When I'm in an AA vehicle, I have to spend some time "preparing" an area with a wide field of view by knocking down trees around me.

PS2 could greatly benefit if every tree, wall, and building could be reduced to rubble by enough explosions.

I shudder to think of the code change that would require to manage that in the current engine.

They'd almost be better to develop Planetside 3 at that point.

I was mixing humor with facts.

Yep, buddy of mine is explosives in military. It's his story. But the difference between 150 and 120 MM round is quite a lot. The mass difference is huge. That said...the difference between failing to destroy it and and disabling it are two different things. I'm reasonably sure the tank would not have been drivable, but the crew may have lived with the 120mm anyway. Over all the mass ratio of a 150 mm shell over a 120 would be quite dramatic. Basically the difference in mass would be roughly equal to the difference of a .38 to a .50 cal round. The damage done by a 50 is just catastrophic over a .38.

So it was exactly like every single one of your over 5k posts? Gotcha ^.^

Why does the number of posts I have matter to the discussion?

In my opinion though almost everything in PS2 has gotten "bigger"... including of course tank armor.

For example, the 12.7mm Kobalt is considered an LMG. But in the 21st century 12.7mm is HMG, not LMG caliber.

Meanwhile our 12.7mm HMGs are now 20mm Basilisks in PS2. Again, this suggests that because of advances in armour, weapons have had to be "beefed" up to remain in the same roles.

A medium "autocannon" like a 25mm or 30mm one found on many IFVs has become the Lightning's 75mm Viper.

So it stands to reason that PS2's 150mm cannon plays roughly the same role as 21st century 125mm cannon... because it's not like 29th century tanks should be running around with 21st century armour!

There are a few things that haven't changed much and as a result seem out of place. 40mm grenades and 60mm mortars, for example, should be much weaker than what they currently are. As should be the 30mm Vulcan and Tank Busters (which are really really small when compared to the A-10's 30mm cannon):



C4 is not an anti-tank weapon but a general purpose demolition tool, so it makes no sense at all that it can damage, much less destroy, tanks.

They really should have hired an outside consultant to even work on naming and describing their weapons. Heck, I would have done it for free!

It's not hard for tanks to kill a MAX... WTF are you on about this time???

2 hit kill to that massive, slow moving, body will take out a MAX.

I'd be a bit surprised if a MAX died as easily to tanks as infantry do honestly. THAT would be lack of common sense.

Why should a unit that has the same nanite cost as that tank of yours (or Lib) die to a single shot?

And FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS UNHOLY WILL EVERYONE WHO EVER BRINGS UP A REALISM ARGUMENT JUST SHOVE A SOCK IN THEIR MOUTH AND CHOKE TO DEATH ALREADY!?? (had to add the last bit cause a sock in the mouth doesn't stop you from typing)

This was never about realism.

"Latest Battlefield game?" I've seen trees falling down - albeit unrealistically - from being run over by vehicles in ARMA II.

Max armor isn't really armor (as in sheets of heavy metal all around), it's kind of a mix between shield and armor (usual explanation.... nanites). That's why they don't have health/shield separation. It's distributed evenly, even on the head.

last bit itself wasn't in reply to you (Chingles) everything up to that was of course.

Or you can say it almost costs more to get a max then vehicle. One max or a sundereer... Just saying.one is cheaper. One does a lot more dmg.

This would be great. Imagine pesky tower bases like indar ex or even the crown reduced to rubble if enough ordnance was dropped on it. New styles of play introduced, new tactics.