New weapon suggestion: ww2 era such as m1 garand Thomson mp42 etc. Adjust weapon stat for balance purpose. According to planetside 2 lore, the TR are the good guys so give the TR Allied weapons and the NC and VS German weapon.
didn't even think of another nationality for the 3rd faction pretty accurate satire of americans. 8/10
Our tanks are pretty much WWI-WWII interwar tanks given that: 1) They can be damaged by HMGs and light explosives. 2) Their splash damage for explosive shells is laughably small. 3) They lack any of the more modern features found on modern tanks, including advanced optics and stabilizers. 4) An obvious lack of design experience, as seen from obvious flaws like no coaxial weapons. I mean in many ways the Skyguard is far worse than any WWII flak vehicle worth its salt! So if you ever want to relive the days of the Great War, just hop in a tank!
i for one see it as a coldwar-age early (experimental) variant of a Shilka mobile anti-aircraft gun: see? not ww2 anymore
To be fair, even the earliest ZSU-23s came with radar (not seen in that picture of yours for whatever reason). And 50x4 belts. And a 2.5km effective range (3km maximum range). And a 1,000 RPM RoF. And a 950-1,200m/s muzzle velocity. And only a few shots would down any aircraft... things like an A-10 might need a little more help. And that it was highly effective against infantry and light targets. Not to mention that the "newer" (since the 1990s) ZSU-23-4M4s get SAMs in addition to their formidable 23mm autocannons: So yea... I'd really like a Shilka please. Tons better than the silly Skyguards that we have now! I mean even the WWII 20mm German flak cannon had an 1,800 RPM RoF, a 900m/s muzzle velocity, and an effective range of about 2km. I'd even take one of those over a Skyguard. Take one of those WWII relics, toss it on a ancient tank chassis, and you'd still have something more effective against air and ground targets than a Skyguard:
sheeeeeell velocity Seriously, the vanguard, which I think has the fastest unmodified AP velocity, still has a slower shell velocity than a WW2 Panther... I'm pretty sure the tanks in planetside 2 (with AP) have about the same velocity as low-velocity howitzers back in World War 2, which is a little bit sad..
I think a few AA weapons from "back in the day" were also effective at anti-tank due to the fact that the very high rate of fire and the extreme velocity of the rounds fatigued the metal and destroyed the tank rather quickly.
PS2 tank guns have velocities lower than early Panzer IVs (with the short barrel 75mm), which achieved 385m/s with its AP round. For comparison: Vanguard AP: 275m/s Prowler AP w/ lockdown: 325m/s 75mm KwK 37 (AP): 385m/s (Panzer IV D, StuG III A, Panzer III N) 75mm M3 (AP): 619m/s (M4 Sherman) 75mm KwK 40 L/48 (AP): 790m/s (Panzer IV H, StuG III G) 76mm M1 (HVAP): 1,036m/s (M4 Sherman) 75mm KwK 42 (APCR): 1,120m/s (Panther) 88mm KwK 43 (APCR): 1,130m/s (Tiger II) Royal Ordnance L7 105mm L/52 (APFSDS): 1,490m/s (Almost every Cold War NATO tank until Leopard 2 and M1A1) Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 (APFSDS, DM53): 1,750m/s (Leopard 2A6) 2A46 125mm L/48 (APFSDS, 3VBM19): 1,750m/s (Every Soviet MBT since T-64) And no, I don't want 120mm L/55 level velocities since engagement ranges are short in PS2. I'll settle with KwK 37 level velocities for the fastest guns.
Well if you think about it this way: The TR's TRAC-5 carbine gets a muzzle velocity of 490m/s. The US's M4 carbine gets a muzzle velocity of 880m/s. This means that infantry weapons have a velocity reduction of about 44%. Which is fine, because of the range compression issues. The TR's Prowler AP cannon gets a muzzle velocity of 250m/s. The US's M1A2 AP round gets a muzzle velocity of 1,750m/s. This means that tank weapons have a velocity reduction of about 86%. Which is absolutely bonkers, because infantry weapons only get a 44% reduction in velocity. If tank shells got the same treatment as infantry (as both are being range-compressed in the same battlefield), a Prowler's AP shell ought to travel 980m/s at the very least. And yes, that means that tank shells ought to travel faster than bullets. Because it's a bloody tank.
If I remember correctly, wasn't tank velocity nerfed to "push in the range of tank fights"? If so, why the heck would that happen, and then weapons like ravens, vortexes, mana AV turrets, and so on be left in? Some stuff makes no sense...
If tank shells got the same treatment, they'd probably be doing about 30m/s. I think it's been a long time since armor has had the engagement ranges we see in Planetside. Unless there's actually a secret training regimen of "Ram full speed into the enemy's rear side so they can't rotate their armor" I've never heard of.
I mean the way I see it... "Range compression" exists because of two things: 1) Render ranges 2) Artificially small maps Since infantry render range is capped at 300m or so, you need to artificially lower the effective range of small arms in order to differentiate them. I mean IRL assault rifles can be effective up to 300m, which would render sniper rifles obsolete if no targets appeared beyond assault rifle range. The other factor is that bases and maps are absolutely tiny compared to what you would find IRL. This means that giving a tank cannon a 5km range or an infantry assault rifle a 300m range might mean that vehicles and infantry are firing from one base over to the next. So the PS2 Devs threw in crazy innate CoF, unrealistic damage degradation, and absurd bullet drop to try and limit effective small arms ranges. Included in this is the ~44% velocity nerf. And the Devs also threw in insane amounts of tank shell drop, along with the ~86% velocity nerf. Yet tanks and infantry both fit into the new "smaller" world. The distance from one base to the next is the same for a tanker and an infantryman... the world has shrunk by the same ratio no matter who you are. Hence it would be reasonable to expect velocity nerfs to be proportional. The world has been range-compressed equally for vehicles and infantry. In other words if a 44% velocity nerf is appropriate to the mini-world of PS2, then it should be equally appropriate to vehicles as well as infantry, meaning that the Prowler's AP shell ought to travel at 980m/s. But if the tank shell's 86% velocity nerf is more appropriate, then infantry small arms should be nerfed so that the TRAC-5 only shoots bullets that go about 120m/s (20% faster than the current Lasher orbs or fairly close to the default dumbfire rocket launchers). Dumbfire rocket launchers on the other hand would move about 16m/s (an 86% reduction from the RPG-7's 115m/s muzzle velocity, about a quarter of the speed of the current Phoenix rockets).
My point is just that the tank combat is much more compressed than infantry. Rifles might be effective at 300m, but tank cannons are effective out past 2,500m. Range compression in PS2 for vehicles is at a much higher factor than infantry is.
Most MBT's of WW2 are better than PS2. Co-axial mgs, different amo types in the same tank, faster, higher velocity on rounds, separate crew, large amounts of variation, more AI guns. Accurate sights, combat effective beyond 500 meters.
But see WW2 things actually killed infantry. We can't have that in Infantryside 2: Redeployside Phase never 2 edition.
That's a good point. In real major conflicts, infantry small arms only account for a very small percentage of casualties. By far, the biggest killer in wars would be artillery, which we don't have (but which we desperately need). Infantry only should exist to find and fix the enemy in place, whereupon they call on any number of heavier weapons to blow the enemy to smithereens. PS2 is silly because it centers on infantry killing infantry (without the aid of mortars or something) while that should be like the last thing that counts for casualties in combat.
Take a look at WW1 aswell. Artillery was the great equalizer, and the guys in the trenches pushed the lines.
If you manage to get the devs to boost my Sasha's AP cannons' velocity to (reality-44%), you will be my hero, sir.
Only 300m? I'll bet I could do better than 300m with an assault rifle as long as I have the right scope and a sling. Maybe a bipod. 120m/s is about 270mph, right? That would still hurt like hell. Probably do some damage, too, if you get the projectile right (think long, thin, and heavy). That being said, it's still subsonic. *visualizing that in my head* LMAO
