Ultimate Vehicle Thread- "Vehicles kind of suck to play; We should change that" [+Base Overhaul]

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by MrNature72, Jun 26, 2014.

  1. MrNature72

    I see your opinion. The Magrider should probably get 2000 or 2500 shields in that case; good point. However, no, the game shouldn't revolve around infantry. This is a combined arms game. If it revolved around infantry, vehicles shouldn't be an option.

    A game with vehicles should be just as fun in vehicles as it is on foot. Right now, most people would tell you the opposite of what you're saying. The game is currently massively pro-infantry, save for a few vehicle weapons. I mean, lock-ons, dual-burster MAX's, and so forth.

    Also, you didn't take into consideration the other changes. For one, all ranges would be increased, and the Magrider would have no-drop cannons, so it could use that to its advantage. Also, I said greatly increase the speed, to just below the prowler post this change. So you'd probably be strafing in the 50kmh+ range; which would be a HUGE advantage, and combine that with a magburner that provides directional thrust in the direction you're moving, and you got yourself a mean vehicle.

    And no, I don't like to accept that idea. You don't decide what this game is about, and honestly neither do I. But myself, and plenty of others, want to see the vehicle meta-game overhauled. I respect your opinion about infantry, however. That is sincerely what you think the game should be. And while I think it's wrong, and I can try to change your opinion, I can't go saying you don't have a right to say that.

    You also see a bunch of threads complaining about vehicle nerfs. I mean seriously, look at the new lib: 70% ammo nerf. That's not a nerf, it's a destruction of part of the game. Did it deserve it? Yes. Did it deserve it that harshly? Probably not.

    Also, if you wait a while, I'll be creating a thread similar to this about infantry. I was just more passionate about vehicles at the time, so I decided to take on the vehicle revamp first.

    This whole think is part of a massive series of inter-connecting suggestions that all work in tandem. I recommend reading the others, if you have the time.

    TL;DR, I don't think the game should revolve around infantry. I don't see the point of having vehicles at all if you're not going to put equal effort into their meta and functionality as infantry. You want an infantry game? Make it pure infantry. But I appreciate you challenging the whole post; That's pretty awesome of you. Seriously.
    • Up x 7
  2. Einharjar

    Sweet thread of courese.

    I love this one for the details focusing on one particular facet of the game: Armor and CAS.

    What you're attempting to establish is true vehicle roles. Right now, I agree. A tank is basically an Infantrymen with GOBS of HP, Resistance and bigger guns to take out OTHER uber infantry. They don't seem to fill much else besides some level of suppression.

    So, we ask ourselves... what roles do vehicles really provide?

    Tanks - In the olden days, there were several types of Tanks. Light, Medium, Heavy and Anti-Tank (the Tank Destroyers). These classes gave way to IFV, well rounded APCs and the MBT.
    So what are they really used for?
    The first tanks in WW1 were actually meant for Bunker Busting. Meaning, your idea of having tanks obliterate a fortification is actually well within the line of use. That is something we still see today. Instead of risking Marines, they'll call on an Abrams to blow the 'eff out've a structure with hostiles camping it (snipers nest and all). We kind've get this in PS2. I'd much rather have Prowlers in the Platoon take out a base's turrets than any of the Infantry. Its far more efficient.
    Tanks also perform a Calvary role. They lead the charge so that the APCs and IFV can reach the Hot Zone without the risk of interception. Once you've closed in on a base, city or other wise fortified area; tanks lose their effectiveness and the Footies take over. But this doesn't mean they are left out.
    As footies hop from building to building, others control the chokes (in other words, the streets themselves). How do they do it? With a tank providing mobile cover and fire support. Tanks are supposed to absorb as much small arms as possible for their fellow infantrymen. However in PS2 there is one small problem. Everyone has C4, the magic tank killer candy.
    You'll find it hard to give ANY ground vehicle class a true role if they are all hard countered by any mere infantryman. Hard counters are good, but not when it's generalist or too common.

    Fighters - What are they? Well technically they are gun ships. Even Cobras and Apaches today can carry AtA missiles for countering any hostile CAS, can recon, go anti armor or go anti-infantry. The fighters in PS2 are the perfect Marine styled VTOL strike CAS platform. They can perform gunship roles, recon, interceptor/air superiority and strike roles. In order to specialize the fighters, you'll need to reduce their gunship status and have the Liberator spawn into ESGs (Empire specific gunships) and handle the hard ground attack roles. This would allow the ESFs to mainly be Strike and Interception/Recon. They are either HARD Anti Air, or they are Strike (a one trick pony; fly over and deliver a HUGE blow but only once.) They'd also need to fly faster. All of them. Seriously. A huge part of the reason why most fighter fights turn into the VTOL Face Grind is because the fighters are so effing slow that they cannot climb, dive or perform any form of ACM to take advantage of their opponent. Making fighters fly up to 400kph at least would help this by allowing a jumped fighter to Disengage from his/her VTOL scenario and gather foward movement (allowing for "momentum/energy conservation tactics) that would create the more epic dog fights. Since fighters will beable to break away from their VTOL with good speed, the enemy has to chase. You're now setup to have common moves involving things like "Displacement Rolls".
    Don't get me wrong; I've seen actual dog fights at the 200 KPH speed but it's often because the one guy is just running while the either is basically shooting a fish in a barrel. They are so slow that it's super hard to Lag an opposing fight. You're either Pure or Leading them. Just like infantry, if you turn your back and run? You'll die. It's best to be aggressive and face the enemy head on. By giving fighters some good speed? Defensive options open up.
    Naturally, we need to balance their pay loads to keep their power in check at such speeds; of course. However, judging by your "Base Defense must be scary!"... maybe not...

    Bases - The idea of having more support stations or towers would be nice. The idea of making bases is even better.
    Again, a true role in reality is the use of FOBs (Forward Operation Bases). These are temporary bases setup to provide a supply, rearming and deployment points near a Battle Front. Hard Bases (ones that are permanent) should be tweaked when a new resource system is applied but having the option to create temporary bases (like FOBs) to act as a staging area would seriously add to the level of engagement.
    The one thing however about making bases such Oasises of support and defense? Is that they are now capable assets with increased importance. In order to keep that importance; bases must also be entirely removed. There are way too many. Players should create their own "FOBs" instead and still be limited at that (one FOB per territory for example).

    Recon - Now, I've noticed that you really want a lot of Radar.
    One of the things I hate about the games current design direction is that everything is being whined about and balanced for 1v1 scenarios. This is so bloody wrong it's horrible. 1v1 works for Arena FPSs or even Battle Field styled FPSs; but PS2s scale breaks those limits. Hard Counters are the name of the game. It's controversial. It pisses people off. But it promotes team work.
    Those Radars? They can have a very cool weakness (IE, hard counter).
    Have a weapon that tracks "Radar". We use them today and have been for decades. They are called "ARMs" (anti-radiation missiles). Information is SUPER STRONG in Warfare. The more intelligence you can gather, the better off you are. If we make Recon super effective and rewarding? No platoon will be without a Sundy, Harasser or some sort of Galaxy performing surveillance and recon. As a result, we create a new type of threat that has some level of commonality. Since we expect any major attack to have Recon? We will have weapons made specifically to kill them. We introduce ARMs; a Weapon specific to that new revamped, high speed Fighter that only does AtA or Strike. An ARM will be a "Strike Weapon" class.

    Please note that I'm not asking for realism here. However, due to Planet Side's scale? Using reality as a foundation for creating it's Meta-game is valuable. Remember, people deny it all the time but Planet Side has very much in common with your typical RTS. It has a Macro and Micro game (or the potential for one). No standard FPS has that. Not by a long shot. Creating hard counters and specialized roles is standard in reality and this remains true in RTSs as well. If everything was a generalist, designed for 1v1? We'd have no game at all. Just a glorious gun filled game of "Go Fish"...
    • Up x 3
  3. MrNature72

    One, going to shamelessly bump this.

    Two, made an appropriate copy on the Vehicle discussion forum HERE
  4. 1NieMamPomyslu1

    I'm too lazy to read all the stat changes and stuff but I love the Idea of vehicle only objectives
    although I'm playing nearly only as a Infantry, so I am the one who is getting farmed, I see that vehicles don't matter much in a game
    I would love to see also some aircraft only objectives, (though the aircraft already feels important on the battlefield)
  5. Goliath Mk2

    I don't like the faction specific certs
  6. MrNature72

    You have any ideas?

    I'm all ears. Community input is a HUGE deal for me!
    • Up x 1
  7. MrNature72

    God, why did it take me so long to see this sh*t? You're totally right. Having an ARM-loaded aircraft option would be fantastic. Something that would generally be inneffective against non-radar vehicles: No lock, missile swerves to the side, and you're pretty much not hitting sh*t with it. But a radar equipped vehicle? It would lock onto it in a second, go fast as a m*therf*cker once you pull the trigger, and generally be fire-and-forget. Not to mention it would hit like an angry bull; One payload would destroy weaker radar-equipped vehicles and highly damage others. It would also have a terrifying effective range; easily around 250-300 meters. Finally, radar equipped vehicles would immediately be tagged and visible for ARM-equipped aircraft.

    To add onto this, why not add something like a SEAD system? Suppression of Enemy Air Defense. Add a combined radar option for AA platforms, like the Dual-Burster MAX and Skyguard, that gives them increased fire rate, increased damage, increased accuracy, and a half-decent radar that only detects aircraft. However, you show up to ARM equipped aircraft like a big target sign, so while you're much better at killing things, you're also easily picked off by a SEAD aircraft.

    Maybe even add ECM system (Electronic Countermeasures) that reduces time marked, gives a % chance of missiles launched at you going off target, and makes radar detect you slower, including MAX and Skyguard radar systems.
  8. DatVanuMan

    More amazing ideas! OH YEAH! I still don't see SOE throwing their wallets at you, though...
    Get the Lashers, we're paying them a visit:cool:
    • Up x 1
  9. Tcsisek

    ill bring 150mm of freedom to help
  10. Goliath Mk2

    I would have provided idea's if i had them (I think my idea's up on the spot), and I was tired at the time but now that i'm here now why not.

    Harasser - Twin Rumble Seats
    (sure i can see that)

    Prowler - MBT Carrier System
    (are we talkin' six EXTRA infantry?, or a driver a gunner and 4 guys in tow?)
    (i think MBT's are getting a third seat eventually, not sure, but i'd say having 3 in the tank and two on rumble seats at the back maybe?)

    Mosquito - Rumble Seat
    (the mozzie for me is a scout with high speed and detection capabilities and moderate stealth)
    (the "REAVER" seems more like the type of vehicle to have rumble seats WITH the use of other weapons at a reload penalty?)

    Flash - Lightweight Systems
    (i feel this is more of a "VANU" thing, but alright)

    Liberator - Target Acquisition
    (i don't want the lib pilots to have any more of an advantage than they already do, at this point in time)
    even if they're on my team

    Galaxy - Fast Drop Systems

    Sunderer - Firing Ports
    (you mean like a halftrack? that would be AWESOME!)

    Harasser - Rear Shield
    (yeah, ok fair enough)
    (if the harasser was still able to be shot in the rear armour should be fine)

    Vanguard - Landcruiser Systems
    (baby stebs)

    Reaver - High Altitude Bombing Equipmen

    Flash - Safety Harness
    (YEP! no idea what you mean by this!)

    Liberator - Tail Harnesses
    (i guess i'm biased because the lib is annoying at the moment, so no to this as well)

    Galaxy - Double-Decker Capacity
    (i think switching TR and NC ability around should be considered)

    Sunderer - Automated Defense Systems
    (i dont think automated defenses will be put into this game that can be employed in large quantities)

    Harasser - Hover Systems

    Magrider - Magjump
    (oh YES!)

    Scythe - Rapid Gyro Unit
    (this would be the scariest thing in the game)

    Flash - Magnetic Wheels
    (what no hoverbikes?)

    Liberator - Bombing Systems
    (ok now, this one is interesting i would like to test this on PTS)

    Galaxy - Ambush Launcher Unit
    (do you mean catapulting them across the map?)
    (another thing to consider is cloaking the galaxy with heavy distortion that reduces top speed)

    Sunderer - Stealth Unit
    (perhaps a deployable upward shield to protect against airstrikes and LIBS)
    Overall I would say that the "COMMON POOL" vehicles get their own abilities and the factions get their own varients with their own abilities.
    such as LIBS, Lightnings, Harassers
    Faction specific varients would be strong in terms of combat ability but weak in terms of cost and availability. Where they can only be bought at specific bases, instead of right now where they can be spammed anywhere... anytime.

    GALs and Sundays
    Faction specific varients would be less effective at "Transporting" and be better at "Surviving" or be more "Damaging" than other commonpool vehicles.
    • Up x 1
  11. MrNature72

    "Automated Defense Systems" are just the title. I got the idea while playing XCOM: ENEMY UNKNOWN.

    All it does is make it so while undeployed, the Sunderer has decreased armor. But WHILE deployed, it has MORE armor. No actual automatic turrets or anything. Just a name. That sounded cool.

    Thought I'd clear that up.

    Yes, I MEANT six. However, if six was OP even with the decreased armor, yes, 4 could be the number.

    None of the numbers I say are set in stone. Just base concepts.

    I had to give the TR SOMETHING wacky and fun.

    That's one big baby.


    What, no comment? This was one of my favorites. :(

    I mean the driver gains resistances while driving. Like, makes it harder to straight up kill the driver.


    I just see the TR as having more professional deployment system, but the NC being all gung-ho and shoving people in there clown-car style. Like hot-seating in the real US military, where you shove ALL THE PEOPLE into a bradley. Six-person capacity my sweet *ss.

    Oh my god what was I thinking.


    More like a human mortar, where the driver can precision-launch people to locations. Not across the map though.
  12. Goliath Mk2

    Thankyou for the clarifications and as for the REAVER I have no idea what happened there I definitley commented saying

    (does this increase the muzzle velocity of something like the rocket pods when flying straight down at a certain speed?)

    No idea why that was left out.
  13. MrNature72

    Yes it likely would.


    I made a VERY IMPORTANT THING and you should all be part of it!
    • Up x 1
  14. FireclawX

    Bumpidy bump.
  15. GaBeRock

    The fact that the game is only about infantry is a flaw. The game has two roles- FPS an MMO. The FPS part is too catered to, while the MMO part is slowly languishing and dying. You're obviously the kind of person that wants vehicles to be totally useless, so why don't you go play one of the numerous TDM games where they are? COD, BF4, Counterstrike, you're not lacking in variety.
  16. Thesweet

    I like some of your ideas like the increase of time as you pile on weapons or the decrease in speed as mass is put on.

    I also like the idea of aircraft being only able to do a quick powerful bombing run.

    I also have some ideas that give vehicles the role of supporting infantry but also map changes that give the role of vehicles as items you need to dominate more open spaces to cap resource points.

    Here they are:-

    **command improvements**

    -Command points only awarded to people in a squad leader role or higher. Battalion commanders offered the position by highest command level with most time played in battalion command(BC). If it is not accepted then it rolls on down the line for PUGs. If it is an outfit group then BC is offered to the highest ranking individual of the outfit. Battalions can be designated an outfit or pug battalion on the creation of a squad.

    -Command structure for infantry only, up to 12 squad leaders, 3 platoon leaders, 2 company leaders and one battalion commander with second in command.

    -command structure for air and tank squadrons only. 4 pilots per wing, 2-3 wings per squadron and one squadron commander with second in command.

    -The higher command the more resources and firepower available. Maybe even have 3-4 generals per side based on command time played to co-ordinate between battalions and squadrons.

    -battalion/squadron commanders and 2ic get the command module option for gal, sundy or mbt.

    -modules could have things like AWACS for long range radar guided missile accuracy within the AWACS operational range, thermal imaging or UAV launch and control for the commander to get intel or view battles.

    -squad leaders could have access to smaller airstrikes on targets where as BC could order in a gal bombing run, so more resources are made available to higher command. Squad leader can request higher lever strikes off higher commanders to approve.

    -if a mortar/air strike is approved by a BC then it is passed on to the nearest air/tank command for the highest ranking officer to assign a ESF, lib, gal, tank or lighting to strike the position. The air/armour wing command gets a small view of the strike area on a map with a target, he can choose how many aircraft to send. Squadron 2ic can also mark out any AA in the area if it has been spotted recently. This small map mission overview is given to pilots assigned to the mission. If the commander does not have the air/armour available then they decline the mission, it then gets passed onto the next commander further away.

    -solo pilots/tanks get mission offers when targets are made but only from CUDS, laser locks are only available to air commanders.

    -if the air/armour squadron has a squadron leader the can also pass on vital information collected by the battalions recon on things like AA or AT emplacements.

    -The target is assigned to the pilot/armour, they have a certain amount of time given to complete the strike.

    -targets can be given by recon laser spot or by a leader using a command uplink device (CUD) to give co-ordinates. This then activates a bombing/arty request to commander further up to approve.

    **counters for targeting or dumb fire missiles**

    -counters for laser targeting are, own teams recon using jamming UAV to stop Laser target information getting back to their commanders.

    -tank laser defence system. Detects enemy laser acquisition, then fires a missile at the location destroying the recon if he does not move. (Only 37% accurate)

    -laser detection warning with the option of releasing IR smoke.

    -ballistic counter measures. Fires a small missile out of the tank with a flat steel nose to intercept projectile. 5 counters before a reload from a ammunition point is needed.(Only works with infantries smaller missiles)

    -laser defence. When activated shoots lasers to intercept infantry missiles. 2 intercepts before it deactivates for re-charging. Does not need to be reapplied with more ammunition.

    -counter for CUD selected targets is that smoke will land on the site to be bombed before the strike occurs giving10-15 seconds to move.

    **changes for vehicles**

    -increase in vehicle spawn times and cost.

    -tanks should receive more armour, HP and weapon and gadget slots. This means they can support and work with infantry better.

    -tanks main guns should do more damage for infantry based weapons, however, their main guns should only have a 90 degree range of movement to their front. The turret rotation should be slowed down meaning they are horrible in built up environments, but dominate in open areas. The gunners should have more damage and accuracy against infantry but smaller magazines meaning more reloads making them better at range but horrid in built up or urban environments.

    -Recon can laser targets for nearby tanks giving a type of target on their huds with a range and bearing to shoot at. Infantry can also designate for tanks main or secondary guns but their range is only 50-100m max.

    -tanks should have the option of two types out of 3 ammunition. They can swap between them with a long unload then reload time.

    -Lightnings guns should be reworked into making them useful. Weapon options could include missile locked AA, mortar system along with 4x30mm AA IR smoke, HE, flack or gas and main cannon with HE or SABOT.

    -gadgets for the lightning could be air radar that allows for a lock on air over the horizon for its AA missiles and extended altitude lock but with only 25% accuracy for both options, jamming system that disables any nearby radar guided missiles up to a range of 3-400m or a radar system that helps detects enemy mortar/artillery fire and uses the mortar or AA missile system for counter fire.

    -harasses should have less armour and HP but have more recon abilities like long range thermal camera, ground/air radar. Maybe a Small air missile system, mortar system etc.

    -air should be revamped with less armour, accuracy and HP but more speed and firepower. They should be utterly useless without ground targeting support unless they are doing counter air.

    -esf should have the option of ground bombing build with high speed AGM with little splash damage but more directed at armour penetration. AA build with speed and radar guided missiles main cannon or satellite guided missiles that works with the AWACS or Lightnings air radar. Lastly, SEAD ESF build with a good top speed but good counter measures with a stealth coating for long lock on times, it has a SEAD missile system that automatically locks onto ground radar based AA locking onto the ESF, does not work on flack or AA cannons.
    All ESF should have the option of radar missiles and main cannon, but choosing between AGM and satellite missile will mean the ESF with the sat missile with have a much better advantage in an air fight.

    -libs should get a variety of load outs jdams, smaller free fall bombs, nose cannon that is controlled by the gunner for a10 like gun runs. The lib should have a pilot and a gunner and the damage from libs should be moderate splash, having the gunner allows for the lib to fly the best path without having to line up a bomb/missile.

    -Gals should get a dalton like gun along with a zephyr on the side with a 3 man crew (ac130). Other options should be available like cluster bombs or 1000kg free fall bombs.

    -free fall bombs still need a target designation for targeting data like when to drop at what altitude and speed on the HUD, where as jdams ect just lock onto the smoke or laser target.

    **Maps and bases reworked**

    -Remove all the smaller bases on the maps and replace them with capture points that provide resources.

    -Make the larger bases more spread out with more smaller buildings for more urban fighting. Have more smaller bases around the main base 4-5 of them.

    -Main base could have a command centre with a UAV/pred(different costs) launcher, emp missile. The range being just outside the smaller bases. battalion commanders and 2ic can use these to help defence or command if their command sundy, mbt or gal is down.

    -Base turrets should be down for 10 mins before they can be repaired due to fire meaning you don't have to sit there and keep hitting them constantly.


    -anti vehicle weapons should have their effective range reduced but the damaged increased meaning they are brutal up to 100m. Heavies can extend their AT range to 300m with a improved locked on rocked that is only at 100m but is extended with recon targeting. The weapon has only 3 rockets and they are reduced to only carrying a pistol. The other option is a Deployable rocket that takes 10-15 seconds of standing still and only has 2 rockets.


    These ideas increase team play. Working together brings greater benefits.

    A reason to have command and platoons.

    co-operation between infantry and vehicles.

    air can no long just sit at a base and farm, they will need to get in and out before since they will be easy to shoot down, yet valuable to the fight for the firepower.

    It would also mean being a higher ranking officer in an outfit would have benefits

    Can spread out over the map more since a squads can be supported with heavy fire support in a timely manner.
  17. Foxirus

    Since you are a special case and all, Allow me to spell it out for you. A vehicle cannot revive a dead player. A vehicle cannot capture a point. A vehicle cannot repair a defensive turret.

    This game is an infantries game, and vehicles are nothing more than force multipliers for... Dare I say it? INFANTRY. If you don't like that fact, Feel free to leave and maybe you go play a game like Top Gun or World of Tanks. Plenty of games that don't have any infantry at all, Just vehicles.

    I am not saying make the vehicles useless, Learn to read. What I am saying is that vehicles do not need to do much more than what they are currently doing.

    As for you saying this game has two roles? MMO is not a role, Its just statement that the game is a Massive Multiplayer Online game. This game is a FPS first and foremost, Your precious vehicles nothing more than spawn points for... Oh gawd.. INFANTRY, And all other vehicles are nothing more than force multipliers for... THATS RIGHT, INFANTRY. Sorry if I seem like a kill joy, But I don't support trying to make this game entirely dependent on vehicles.
  18. GaBeRock

    Let me refresh your memory with a direct quote from you: "This game needs less to do with vehicles, And more to do with infantry..." You were, in fact arguing to make vehicles more useless, and if you want to play infantry, there are plently of games for you to play with infantry only- COD, team fortress, quake, counterstrike. And I understand perfectly that vehicles are basically just force multipliers. You, however, want vehicles to do even less than they already to (not much) in the way of force multiplication. Considering that vehicles, unlike infantry, cost resources to use and, unlike consumables, require skill to use, that's a ridiculous statement. Furthermore, your own argument works against you- even if vehicles were made more powerful, they still couldn't cap points or revive teammates, so the game would still be focused on infantry. Why then, should vehicles not be good at killing infantry?
    • Up x 2
  19. MrNature72

    Both of you, let me help.

    For one, Foxirus is absolutely right. Infantry are the only ones capable of capturing. In most combined-arm games, that role is applied to someone. In this case, it's infantry, instead of a structure or a command vehicle. However, Foxirus, you are also very, very wrong.

    Vehicles are, or very well should be, a key tactical variable. For example, an artillery piece. Easily counterable by counterbattery fire or a well-timed airstrike. But, nonetheless, it's capable of shelling bases from huge distances, and demoralizes the enemy force and forces them to keep their heads down. Such a unit is not in this game: but there should be. Inaccurate barrage artillery, not heavy tube artillery.

    Heavy tanks are the true masters of the battlefield. With secondary machine guns, and heavy kinetic, HEAT, or HE rounds, they are capable of leveling the battlefield. They are absolutely necessary to the battlefield. A force without proper vehicular responses to a heavy vehicular force, such as vehicle-mounted ATGM's or AT gun platforms, will be wiped off the map. And infantry cant capture anything if they can't live.

    And lets be honest. Infantry should never be able to carry systems that are more effective at killing a 70-90 ton tank than a 20-ton, missile toting war machine. Or a 10-gun gun carriage. Or even another tank mounted with a heavy kinetic AT weapon. Infantry, on a unit-per-unit basis, not taking into account other variables such as terrain, cover, optics, visibility, or time of day, will always, always be trumped by a vehicle.

    And it's not because vehicles are "overpowered". It's because an 80-ton, railgun-toting, treaded, all-terrain machine built specifically to murder anything that moves can, will, and always have been simply superior to the rifleman, which is a 80-200 pound organic creature designed to reproduce and survive.

    How do the infantryman react? Cover, maneuverability, and numbers. While you can field one tank, the enemy can field 10 ATGM infantryman. While you might be able to call in a squad of fighters, a proper army can just as easily field a higher number of MANPADS to ruin your airspace.

    And don't forget about the middle-men. Rapid-fire SPAAGS (skyguard), shoot-and-scoot AT units (AT harassers), and other mid-vehicles options. They're not as cheap as infantrymen, but they're not as expensive as tanks or airborne units.

    It's not a simple rock-paper scissors game. One infantry unit might be able to take out tanks. One specific land vehicle might be able to clear the point. Another one would be useful for scouting and marking. The list goes on. It's all about SPECIALIZATION.

    What matters in a combined arms game is the pristine balance between every unit. A tanker squad should massacre a number of infantrymen out in the open. A team of spec-ops soldiers armed for bear in CQC combat will still be taken down by a fair number of longer-ranged riflemen properly garrisoned in buildings. A team of proper ATGM soldiers, with proper recon, will be able to get the jump on much larger tanks, using the range of their missiles to outrange the tank teams, popping them and then scooting around cover. Fighters and bombers will dominate the ground, using ATGM's, bombs, clusters, and direct-fire weaponry in the cases of the liberator and galaxy. However, some well placed SPAAGS and MANPADS (the MANPADS properly garissoned and the SPAAGS in good vehicular cover, of course) will be able to entire lock down airspace.

    In a combine armed games, it's all about bringing to the field what will take the enemy out, and then out-playing him on the battlefield. Not about zerging huge amounts of infantry and tanks. That's the kind of game I'm trying to promote. A finely-tuned, assymetric game where teams must outmaneuver, out-think, and properly assess the enemy with recon and bring to the field what is needed most, without wasting resources.

    Not a game where it's just about having a better K/D ratio and shoving infantrymen onto the point.
    • Up x 5
  20. Foxirus

    Me saying the game needs less to do with vehicles does not mean in the slightest I want the current vehicle setup to be made useless. It means I don't want this game to become nothing more than a sit behind the safety of 10 tanks and do nothing. I was arguing that the vehicles do not need to be able to do MORE, I was not arguing that they need to be made useless, Feel free to quote where I said that I wanted them made useless. You can't, Because I didn't say such. Vehicles are already good at killing infantry. They FARM infantry.

    Infantry cost resources just as vehicles do. The only thing that is free for infantry is the ammunition they use and the respawn. Ammunition for vehicles is free as well. I have to pay resources to use C4, Tank mines, pretty much all consumables. If anything, Over time infantry have MORE of a cost than vehicles do if said vehicle can reach a set time before being destroyed. You pay 450 resources and thats it, You have unlimited reloads, unlimited repairs, unlimited everything. Me? I have to pay every time I drop a block of C4 or throw down my slices of pizza.

    While I do not want the current vehicles to be made useless, I also do not want them to be given more roles than they already have, For I feel that it would be intruding in the roles of infantrymen.

Share This Page