[Guide] You have now PSA, giv us back old PS2 XD

ya littel bit true

but a littel bit more realism, get a littel bit more skill, and more skill you need is = littel bit more fun.

like c4 or rockets, if you take it, you runn slower, so you need some brain ans skill for get tanks, more fun for tankplayer and for me as infplayer too.

To time gameplay is like | oh i see a tank, get c4 with ambush jetpack and drop c4 drown. all times the same gameplay.
Take LA, Jetpacks and drop c4. every time evry time.....

wold be nice if they change it to. | oh i see a tank, on open field LA is useless, so have to thinking what i should do for get this Tank, do i take a other tank? take i air? or call i people.




also a big problem is the tank was made after the mechanics in ww2, but the infantery has mechnaik from the year 4000
Jetpacks, no delay in weight, can change the class in 1 second and setup.
Have cover everywhere that you can not destroy ..
The infaterie in PS2 is designed as an absolute fighter against everything simple.
How often do you see that 1 LA chases a lighning with its rocklets and the lighning has to go back to avoid being killed
With the jetpack from the year 4000 this is of course possible against a WW2 tank.
The tank has no target detection or any other defense systems but he needs to arrive against a jetpack

and i dunno, what people got vs Napalm, we allready have orbital strike.

No you misunderstand.

Infantry's AT weapons are free. But unlike real life a hit of a full ATGM will not kill or disable the tank in any way. This is for balance reasons, as it wouldnt be fun to operate a tank and require thousands of dollars in nanite to repair the tank each time infantry hit something, and it would be even less fun to have a multi-million dollar tank with another million or more worth of ammo to be destroyed by a 50.000 dollar weapon.

So PS2 made life easier for tanks. Theres no giant supply lines required to keep them running, you dont need to pay the equivalent of 6+ million dollars to get one and arm it, they cant be disabled by a single low cost shot nor can they be OHK'd from range by a single 50.000 dollar ATGM.

Now with all those things stacked in favor of tanks by REMOVING THEIR REALISM when it comes to their downsides, do you really think it a good idea to keep the upsides as well? After all, infantry had their weappns neutered against vehicles, while vehicles got cheaper and less crew-intensive to boot! Just like it isnt fun for vehicles to be OHK'd by infantry or mobile infantry with ATGM's from range, its also not fun for infantry to be annihilated simply because a tank got within several meters with it's chassis or shots.

So you give infantry and tanks the same treatment. Vehicles got cheaper, less vulnerable and less intensive to build and maintain? Well infantry should get that as well! Why shouldnt they?

this is the wrong point, yep if you hit a tank yes i have to repair it but i still alive and my tank too.
but if i hit your corner or you with my tankshells, you out of the war and die, you can`t repair yourself.


they don`t make it for a tank easy, they maked it for inf easy

you talk only for 1 gun, but an inf need more than only a rocketlauncher.
if you carry a rocketlauncher in rl, you need 2 people.
in PS2 you carry all with 1
In RL a inf unit kost 140.000, there is no rocketlauncher includet.
you change the class in 1 second without cost of Nanites, a Vihecles need all times for new setup Nanites

you see, this game is for inf and not for combined arm

and this i allready wride.

also a big problem is the tank was made after the mechanics in ww2, but the infantery has mechnaik from the year 4000
Jetpacks, no delay in weight, can change the class in 1 second and setup.
Have cover everywhere that you can not destroy ..
The infaterie in PS2 is designed as an absolute fighter against everything simple.
How often do you see that 1 LA chases a lighning with its rocklets and the lighning has to go back to avoid being killed
With the jetpack from the year 4000 this is of course possible against a WW2 tank.
The tank has no target detection or any other defense systems but he needs to arrive against a jetpack


i know rl is hard and

Infantry is now only cannon fodder these days, but in ps2 the absolute fighter agains all

Ah yes, "a little more fun"... By making the life of infantry harder and vehicles require virtually no skill at all. Under your rules, tanks have automated turrets that kill without the driver needing any more skill than driving close to now slowed enemies. They require less skill to hit with large AOE's and require less hits. They have radar that detects infantry and require less skill detecting them (radar for infantey is realism?) they have flares against the lock-ons so they require less skill to operate, thermals that remove skill seeing anything in the open...

So you are basically a philantropist! Giving infantry all that skill and fun while vehicles get their fun reduced as they can Slaughter infantry left and right without care nor worry, and no one will ever enjoy the mass slaughtering of helpless infantry so much that they would do it until people leave the game AmIRight?

I'm pretty sure that something like a top-attack Javelin will permanently disable the tank, if not destroy it outright. Even if it doesnt the repaurs aren't going to be done in the field by one or two people with a repairgun but will require towing and extensive facilities, alongside a hefty pricetag for repairs.

And if infantry is going to need teams to carry ATGM's, then tanks are going to need 4-man crews and the extensive supply and maintenance facilities that real life has as well, it's unfair to only say "infantry need nerfing because realism and we'll not buff them when realism would demand it but tanks are going to get only the buffs of realism".

yes you shuld use tanks weapon like locks for inf. no skill just klick. why only inf schuld have easy locks vs Vihecles?
why only inf should have a good life?
i don`t unterstand this point in a combined arm game, why inf don`t need skill, but as vihecle driver you need skill.

and that is exactly what should be the other way around

As Infantery you should have much skill for get a tankkill, as tank you don`t need skill, exactly for this they devloper the tank.

so you wanna say me Inf. on Field don`t need ammo? supplies, eating, drinking????

do you know, if you go in rl in the war

that you only have 3 magazines?

you can`t carry more at your body...
Equipment for inf without guns, wight more than 40 kilos.
But this should not behind the inf?

All what you say, what the Tank need in open fiel, the Inf unit need it too....
however, the service life of a tank is several days. The infantry lasts a maximum of 16 hours

If you Carry a Rocketlauncher, you carry 11 rockets too, with 1 guy....
Try this in _RL, for get 11 rockets in frontline + inf + rocketlauncher, you need much support and more than 2 or 4 people.
+ as Inf you need a big Logistic, Vihecles to bring it fast to frontline, Airforce for clean the area , and after this the inf go in field.

You never will see, 1 inf unit from some country in enemy territory wo run alone with his rocketlauncher and shoot tanks, like PS2.

we don`t need infatery superior class, it`s a combined arm game, and inf is the weakest class in a Combined Arm

i write it befor
How often do you see that 1 LA chases a lighning with its rocklets and the lighning has to go back to avoid being killed
With the jetpack from the year 4000 this is of course possible against a WW2 tank.

this should never be happen in a combined arm game

you can`t giv inf. equipment from year 4000 and tank from year 1940 and say it`s balanced.
Inf has locks , laser
Locks in WW2 wasn`t aviable, lasers tooo , c4 was verry heavy at this time. but all this aspekts, wo balanced the war in WW2 are not implentet in PS2, only the Tankmechanik of WW2....
and if we finish this thread i make new one for airforce XD

I see the problem of this thread.
You wanna make Inf to a superior class, and push it to GODLIKE.

You want to kill all vihecles without skill, brain, special setup and only with that 1 LA class.

this isn`t combined arm.
Inf is the weakest class in a combined arm and nothing will chance it.

Your point of view, puts the inf the middel point where she does not belong.

Vihecles are the middel of combined arm and this is my point of view.

ah vorgett, when you carry a MG in RL, you need 2 people too, 1 for the MG 1 for the Ammo pack.
MG unit allways 2 people.
Sniper same, Sniper never go alone, they alltimes 2 people.

Logistic for Infaterie ist much harder than for Tanks.
For follow the Frontline , Infaterie need Vihecles too.
tropp ship , need same logistic like a tank, oil Electro and repairs

I'm going to try to explain it once more, in simple language.

You want VEHICLES to get the advantages of PS2 (low cost, cant be disabled, no maintenance, little to no crew required), but with the firepower of realism.

You want INFANTRY to get all the disadvantages of PS2 (incapable of OHK with ATGM's, cant disable pieces of the tank, easily detectable by radar+spotting+3rd person mode) while having the disadvantages of realism (need multiple people to carry ATGM's, die to hits and close hits of tankshells, encumbered when carrying a lot of stuff).

Cant you see the unfairness of picking and choosing where you want to apply the advantages and disadvantages of realism and gameplay in order to make vehicles OP?

Also claiming I want infantry to be godlike is childish. I just pointed out to you that any gameplay/realism advantage you apply to tanks should also apply to infantry. This is simply fair, and not aimed at making either infantry or tanks better.

Demian you are pintless, and bring alltimes same arguments , what i allready countred.

Do you Read, what i wride? or just pik 1 aspekt and wride what you thing?

if you can`t follow the thread, plz don`t wride here.
If you don`t get it what i mean, plz don`t wride here.
There is no place for talk ****, you just blame the other persons , who bring real arguments.

And again for your Question

YES VEHECLES SHOULD HAVE A ADVANTAGE vs. INF
because for that they devloped.


your argument with the costs, I tore in the air.
Then came with Logistic, of course, I also tore it.
now you come with fairness. thats a jocke in a waregame, Want fairness? play mariokart. with 3 different factions, is there anyway no fairness, or can I get the bettelgue as NC? or Vulcan?
what do you want to come next time? with stones on the roadway to prevent the tank?

better read some text and learn about inf. befor you wride here.

Infantery is Canone fooder, weakest class in a combined arm, and this is the point.
We need this point in a Combined arm title too

and plz don`t explain it again, only if you read the Thread..
You don`t need to explain, when you read the thread

Let's not talk about realism, but balance. This is what we are all after hopefully, even if we use "realism" to put more weight on our proposals.

IRL the M1 Abrams should be able to hit, while on the move, a moving enemy tank with a >90% probability even beyond a mile. Its fire computer takes in account even the aging of the barrel based on how many rounds have been fired (and wind, atmospheric pressure and a zillion of other parameters).

However in PS2 the tank guns are modeled to have a 100% hit probability of hitting a man-size target at any distance so sniping planetmen with the gun seems to be the main occupation of PS2 tank drivers.



Personally I can live with Infantry having weak deterrents or counters against MBTs, we do not have location damage so we can't have a tank with a track disabled, what is called a mission kill...

Thus tons of guided/unguided missiles are required to kill them.

However I would also like to have a rather imprecise tank gun, pretty much useless for engaging man-size targets except at extremely close range, and even at close range to hit a man would be a giant stroke a luck.

This not the case nowadays. I wouldn't call unrealistic, but for sure unbalanced.

it's just that, vehicles do not even have a radar or a flare,
but infantry has the ability to jump 50 yards in 1 second.
Call that balanced, but I call that a superfighter
Not even the Air Force is that fast
A small defence is just fair.

hes trolling,in case you haven't already realized it.

I'm not so sure. 90% of the playerbase has similar arguments of "rock-paper-scissors segregation = combined arms!" mentality, and the crowd that thinks vehicles should obliterate infantry "cus realism" without considering the negatives realism would bring is also pretty big. All he did was mix them and not follow his own train of thought. Nothing unusual about that on any forum.

Post four, and several more posts in this thread, is evidence of the forum's inability to grasp combined arms.

Realism isn't possible.

Encouraging players instead of crybabies doesn't pay the bills.

However, something tells me that Sol Tech would welcome a tougher game.

Post 4, my post, isnt even about combined arms. Combine that with all the nonsense one-shot statements you throw around and we might as well have a poll about calling you annoyingomen or trollomen.

Daymmet Booby! Realism?

*pictures* a Harasser running out of gas.

PS2's differences from realism:

Vehicles have no costs for maintenance, repair, fuel and ammo.
Infantry have no costs for food, water, medical care and ammo. This is fair. (although tanks get the good end of the stick as they cost only 9 times more than a frag grenade).

Vehicles have lowered crew requirements to function.
Infantry have lowered crew requirements to function (normally crew-served weapons like MANA turrets only require the engi). This is fair.

Vehicles require far more hits to be destroyed, and can't have parts of them disabled.
Infantry require far more hits to be killed, and can't have parts of them disabled. This is fair.

If you want vehicles to deal realistic damage, then infantry would also need realistic damage against the tank.
If you want infantry to require realistic crew to fire AT weapons, then vehicles require realistic crews to operate their tank.
If vehicles get more realistic costs associated with them, then infantry needs to pay more realistic costs for their equipment (although since tanks already benefit from being much cheaper compared to infantry costs, this would be a good time to make the difference in costs more realistic as well).

Infantry DO tend to get eaten up by vehicles when it's a few against a vehicle. You also have to think of the scenario where infantry will win which is mostly when they ambush said vehicle for sitting still too long or getting too close and kicking the hornet's nest. Hilly terrain also favors infantry.

Realism is a slope best not climbed in a PvP game. There will always be elements that'll drag it all down so that you have to push right back up it again and again. If you're free to choose whatever from a "realistic" standpoint, there's always gonna be one or two things that stand out head and shoulders in a game without hand crafting scenarios to play out a certain way.

In otherwords... plsno