Let's discuss Combined Arms as a concept.

There is a divide whenever this subject is discussed. I've noticed people have 3 different definitions of "combined arms":

1. Food chain: Once the top predators have settled things amongst themselves, the victors are free to farm those lower on the food chain. Pre-CAI, it was definitely Aircraft > Ground Vehicles > Infantry. This is flawed design, as it's pretty much taking turns getting helplessly destroyed based on whether your top predators win against the enemy top predators. It still exists to a small degree in infantry play with Heavy Assaults on top.

2. Rock-paper-scissors: Exists IRL and in mil-sims like Arma, it's a hard-counter meta in which you need a certain unit present in order for another to operate. So for example, AV tank takes out the enemy Skyguard so that allied Air can take out high-elevation AV infantry that the tank can't respond to. As Adam and I agree, this is a flawed design simply due to the way this game works; counters don't stay down long in large fights, and counters aren't present enough in small fights. Dissatisfaction all around.

3. I don't know what to call this but let's just say Ideal Combined Arms because I think it's the way to go: The idea is that every unit can respond in some capacity in most situations, but a mixed force will still be the most powerful. This was the intention behind the Combined Arms Initiative but mostly fell short in the execution.


It was mostly a success with tank shells; every type can reasonably respond to vehicles and infantry, but one will have a slight advantage in one task over another.

AP is best equipped for AV and AA, HEAT has the best raw DPS and can reasonably engage groups of infantry, and HESH is the best versus infantry, and they can all trade almost evenly with each other. Pre-CAI, the situation was the 1st version of combined arms, as HE tanks needed AP tanks to protect them from other AP tanks, while AP tanks didn't need protecting from infantry.


Another factor of this design is how different unit types interact with each other. The ideal scenario is that different unit types should be the most lethal to each other and same types have long/inconvenient engagements, which encourages having a mixed force. For example: Tanks and Aircraft have relatively long TTK versus themselves, while infantry have an instant-kill option versus tanks, a Kobalt will easily mow down several infantry, etc. The best counter to something should never be itself.


One of the most important factors when designing macro balance is versatility and effectiveness in its intended role(s):

The Walker is a great example; it is intended for and is effective at AA, but can participate in AV and AI if needed. The Ranger is terrible in multiple ways, but the focus here is that it uses its overspecialization as justification for excessive power and uptime. Overspecialized weapons are also unfun for the user, as you're useless once your intended target leaves/is defeated (read: Burster MAX).

Weapons/units that completely shut down another role are referred to as "off-switch counters" whether it be through power or deterrence, and they're not fun for those on the receiving end.

It's also important that weapons are not deterrents. The main offender here, flak, is terrible for everyone involved. AA should be a lethal medium-skill threat that can be engaged, not an unavoidable and unending stream of damage that discourages even approaching. In my opinion, the only proper AA currently in the game are the Striker and the Walker. Everything else lacks the burst DPS, versatility, or skill requirement to be fun and rewarding.


(This post has gotten long enough. I'll write up my Flak & Launcher overhaul somewhere else.)

Plenty of moving parts to keep in mind here. Discuss!

Overall, I definitely think your correct here. I also definitely like how CAI changed tanks overall, even if I do have the occasional specific gripe.

While I do think that there is a time and a place for ultra specialized things ( including the ranger, and to a lesser extent, the skyguard), I do admit that there does need to be more done to encourage specialized versatility. Specialized versatility meaning that something is good at one thing, but bad in others. It remains feasibly usable in its unintended roles, but remains poor at them none the less.

Again, I definitely would say you are correct in this.

I suppose I subscribe to "definition" three.

The main issue with combined arms in multiplayer videogames is that not every aspect carries the same intensity in its purpose. Support roles are often vital to combined arms but time and time again most players will forgo teamwork to be the guy who pulls the trigger. Everything has a role and every role has a purpose, but only some roles are seen as desirable even if their purpose isn't as significant to the overall cause.

Suffice to say, killing is more fun/rewarding/recognized than a hardcore full-time support unit. Thus, the food-chain perpetuates itself. I'd personally prefer either RPS or an "idealized" combined arms approach than "go X or go home."

The problem with any concept of combined arms is simply that force multipliers don't really have a reason to exist in the game... and if there's no point in force multipliers, then it makes the most sense to go with the least expensive and most flexible force: infantry.

What's the point of a force multiplier? Well most would say that it gives increased power to a smaller/better organised force against a larger/less organised one. As such, the smaller/organised force can still prevail over the other one; namely by inflicting more losses against the enemy than it sustains.

Of course the concept of force multipliers assumes there is such a thing as attrition, that you can wear the enemy down by destroying their men and equipment. So because the smaller force takes fewer losses in relation to those it inflicts, eventually the enemy will be cut down and will also lose their numerical advantage.

And the problem with PS2 should be obvious: the enemy never dies so long as they play infantry.

You can kill infantry over and over again with your "force multiplier", but it's tactically ineffective. They just keep coming back, no weaker than before. And if you are indeed using a so-called "force multiplier", then you're the one who will actually come back weaker if you die because unlike infantry "force multipliers" in PS2 cost resources.

That's why PS2 is so backwards. Instead of inflicting actual damage on the enemy, PS2's "force multipliers" actually only damage the user. Hence it makes sense to use infantry most of the time, because infantry carries no disadvantage in death or deployment.

The only solution is to make it so that killing enemies with force multipliers renders them weaker somehow. Ideas could include:
1) Making most infantry classes cost nanites to spawn, leaving default "riflemen" as the free class. Killing enemy specialists with force multipliers would weaken them because eventually you would be left dealing with weaker riflemen, who lack AV/AA capabilities altogether.
2) Implement actual spawn logistics. Limit Sunderer spawns to 12 at a time, with that number slowly recharging. In that way Sunderers could be "exhausted" if their dismounting infantry is quickly killed (which makes sense, as they aren't clown cars). Do the same for bases, with the only option to resupply the bases with ANTs. This means that force multipliers could exhaust enemy logistics so long as they prevent physical reinforcements (Sunderers or ANTs) from arriving.
3) Specialise vehicles. Tanks should feature near-impervious frontal armour (to infantry weapons at least), but weaker rear and top armour. This allows infantry to play to its advantage in close quarters ambush tactics (which is the proper role for foot infantry), but leaves the field open for face-to-face tank engagements. The same should be true for Liberators and Valkyries (more vulnerable to ESFs and AA, but more dangerous to ground vehicles and infantry).
4) Improve infantry communication. Even infantry players who are not in squads and platoons should be able to call on nearby tanks and aircraft to deal with threats that they cannot. Q-spotting an enemy tank or aircraft that has killed a number of infantry should create a mini-mission for nearby friendly tanks or aircraft to engage and remove the threat. If there are no friendly tanks or aircraft nearby, then that is the fault of the infantry for failing to move as a combined arms group.

To me, the ideal combined arms game is like an RTS; sometimes you will fail because you have the wrong unit assortment. Firebats against Mutalisks. Archers against cavalry. Static castles against long-ranged artillery. Losing because of having an inadequate mix of units ought to be a thing; otherwise the mix of units quickly becomes irrelevant.

Well said. Definitely better constructed than my drunken rants.

The trick is to keep support roles engaged, which is where flak fails and the Walker succeeds. Plenty of people are happy to play medic or bring a rep Sundy.

Keeping a player engaged can only go so far if they don't feel like they're rewarded, or at least not as much as they could be doing something else.

There certainly are plenty of players whom play support roles, but there will always be many more that choose to play as heavies or HE lightnings for personal and more recognizable gain. PS2 favours killing more than objectives in a number of ways, such as weapon medals and directives. I'm not saying kills shouldn't be rewarded, but they shouldn't have been made the focus if proper cooperation and teamplay was the intent.

Combined arms is an illusion so long defenders can spawn indefinitely forever in their safe spawn box.
Until this is changed, vehicles or "force multiplier" are nothing but glorified classes.

You're a little bit off. While you can't kill infantry and keep them down, force multipliers allow a smaller force to put more pressure on a point than a larger force, and pressure on points is all that matters.

I don't agree. Support roles are just as important as the score board leaders, and those who play to lock continents are often happy to be that role in a team. This game is also very well balanced in that you can have 8 heavies in a squad of 12 and be in good shape, so most people can go ahead and play their stat-padder and be happy.

This is true. Not to mention that in many larger fights, the support classes can often earn more per life then their kill based counter parts.

Oh, don't get me wrong, support roles are generally very important. But to most players what matters is competitive aspect and not the cooperative one. It's better for an individual to pull HE lightnings all day than it is to sit in a repair sundy and follow allies around even if the extra durability meant the allied players were more successful.

This is what causes the food-chain, in my opinion. Most players will always flock to what is most powerful, which simply does not coincide with combined arms. The path of least resistance over personal sacrifices for a broader goal.

so basicaly this is AGAIN about the flakweapons

just buff skyguard, burster and ranger to deal accepable damage to heavy ground armor so it has general use against vehicles
they should perform poorly against infantry as that area is covered by the walker already

The problem with Combined Arms (CA) is that most people have a terrible idea of what it means.

Most people have this idea of "first AV elements move in and take out AA, then aircraft can swoop in and finish something else so you can capture the base".
This is a terrible design. Before the AA is taken down the aircraft are basically sidelined. AA itself is also sitting on it's hands because as long as they are there, aircraft won't come near or will **** when engaged, netting them practically zero enjoyment. Then when AA is destroyed the aircraft have free reign to do what they want. Not a good design.

The best way to use CA is to do it closer to real life.
A scout helicopter that tells an attack helicopter or a bomber when to strike is just cooperating with his own arms unit.
A scout helicopter that tells artillery, tanks or infantry what to strike is suddenly CA, even though it's the exact same thing but for another arm of the military.

But then, you also have infantry that can scout, or vehicles, or small aircraft, or a modified cargoplane... And the thing is, each of these units has their own way of performing the role they were designed for. And that's the key: Every unit should be able to counter as many other units as possible in the game, but the execution of that role should differ.

A Valkyrie can perform a transport role and very light gunship role. You could expand it with giving it a helicopter role by changing out the rumble-seats with weapons the pilot can use. You can also give the Valkyrie an A2A role if you equip it with the right weapons, giving it a unique A2A combat role compared to the faster ESF or the slower but less maneuverable Liberator, or the Galaxy which is just an A2A fortress designed to hang in the middle of the air and hope it's guns can ward off enemies. You can even give it a light gunship role where the rumble-seats are replaced by 2 side-mounted turrets allowing the Valkyrie to strafe a target while it's turret fire.

The best case scenario makes each attack role a hard counter, but makes sure each attack role has at least one other unit type it can soft counter. For example, a Skyguard that can perform AI duty when aircraft aren't near.

Flak is the worst offender, but most top guns and aircraft weapons suffer from this as well. This game has great infantry gameplay, and part of that is because you're never in a situation in an infantry fight where you can't fight back or can't kill your target. Of course SMGs are better up close than battle rifles, but both can work outside of their niche. Shotguns and Snipers are at the extreme ends of the spectrum, but those guys still have plenty of targets and are never completely screwed, unlike a Harasser with a Kobalt or Ranger. Top guns pre-CAI felt much better, and much of that was due to overlap.

That approach could work in another game, but that's simulator territory, basically Arma.

This is pretty much real life though. How often are SAM sites not sitting on their hands? The area is a no-go zone for air until they're taken out, basically what we have now. Real life just doesn't mesh with PS2.

speaking about scouting personaly i would love for at least one more class to have access to scoutdarts or beacons (i think medic maybe)

crossbow-scoutdarts are just not worth it for the loss of a damaging secondary and the extreme short range and low scoutperiod it offers ...
the only other option would be vehicleradar ...

so yea i personally would like to have infantryscouting and intel a bit expanded

No that's copying vehicle loadouts and firepower into a game and creating a milsim.

I'm talking about taking how we use roles in real-life, and copying those roles into the game.
A Valkyrie in a helicopter role would be nothing like the real-life helicopters. The way the weapons work, the damage it deals, the way it flies are all different. But it would absolutely improve the game.
Additionally, while helicopters can carry A2A missiles, they don't really perform well in an A2A role in real-life (then again, A2A aircraft need to identify it as a helicopter and use special tactics to engage it properly or their miss rate goes through the roof even with modern missiles). But PS2 isn't hampered by such problems. A Valkyrie could easily be equipped for an A2A fight with reticule-guided missiles or rows of ESF noseguns on the sides (just as an exaggeration, I'm not asking for a Valkyrie with 4 Noseguns strapped to the side).

This would be absolutely unlike a milsim, but it would help improve the game by giving each unit a unique way to perform an AV/AI/AA role and additional secondary roles to perform so they aren't helpless against other targets.

Real life does mesh with PS2, as long as we don't copy the exact firepower and mechanics from real-life into the game.

A good G2A system would allow aircraft to attack, just like tanks can still operate when there's AV infantry/tanks around or infantry can operate when there's AI weapons around (although mostly because the developers have changed base layout to protect infantry against a lot of it). Having to deal with your counter should be par of the course anywhere. You attack a small 1-12 player base, you should expect to find AA, AV and AI in there.

It would be slick to have a PS1ish mix and match system. Not as powerful as the primary classes, but customization for some specific task, like a medic with a jet pack.

in an infantryfight yes, but when it comes to infantry vs vehicles i am still in favor for all classes having some range of AV options ..

the way combined arms in PS 2 should be imo is that infantry should not be excluded out of vehiclecombat ..
indeed vehicles can be supported by infantry (not just be repaired by engineers) as infantry can be suported by vehicles
currently combatmedics and infils have it the worst in that area .. at least the former should have some way of supporting/defending AV fire were the latter has more of a spec-opsstyle option for AV

I would also prefer a loadout system over rigid classes. If I could carry an Archer and a medgun, I would never run anything else.

Without some anchors or common ground we may go in circles.

Taking the basic/real life rock-paper-scissors ArmA model as starting point (no need to reinvent the wheel) what would be an alternative model?

We must set some variable in place, for example:

-do we want teletransport in the picture? Ok then forget all the logistics and strip it from the model.

-do we want to have landing pads? If so all aircrafts are VTOL with all the consequences.

-do we want to have a basic weight/armor/speed/weapons/ammo check&balance or not? If yes, forget the Harasser as it is today, should be far less resistent or less armed or less fast. Same goes for ESFs.

- do we want real bases (that is, an enemy tank cannot park in front of the spawn room...) or not?

And so on. When I think to Ps2 it always seem to me as a game suffering of bipolar disorder: not enough MilSim and not enough Sci-fi either.

But that "pressure" must be continuous in order for it to produce any tactical effect.

Say you have a few tanks that come barging in an clear the point with HESH. Okay, so temporarily there is pressure on the point as the enemy infantry defending it are temporarily dead.

But in a few moments they come back as strong as ever, and sweep the smaller attacking infantry force off the point with their superior numbers. One might say that they might even be stronger than before, as this time around they are aware of and equipped to deal with the threat.

At that point, what was the effect of "pressure" then? It produced no lasting, tangible effect. At best for the combined arms force it's a back-and-forth, at worst (which is how it usually plays out) the attacking force will be weakened when they lose their vehicles.

Essentially what it boils down to is that a 100% infantry force is more effective for attacking or defending a point than a 50-50% vehicle-infantry force. That completely negates the point of combined arms, and explains why infantry are the most common way to play the game by far.