Using tanks as artillery? 0.o

[Sandtaco]

Yeah well there's this topic going on at the official forums about using tanks as artillery. I doubt the tanks fire in arcs though, so it might not be possible. But it could be a problem. They cuold use stealth as spotters. If they're standing still, then they're almost invsible... So it would be hard as hell to take out the spotter.

[Doobz]

how is this a problem?

i think it would be great

[�io]

Well i kinda hope tanks fire in arcs.

1- Makes aiming harder, more challenging.

2-Also it would allow other empires to use the same advantage the TR MAX(AV mode) will have.

[Sandtaco]

The main Vanu gun shouldn't fire in arcs, it's energy... so it should fire straight...

[Zatrais]

Might fire a ball/sphere of energy Sandtaco and not a beam.. *shrug* damnit i want info on the VS heavy tank

[Navaron]

I brought this up a long while back, and I got shut down pretty well. I guess popular sentiment is that they do not fire in arcs. I think they should, which would help keep tanks from camping on hills way far from bases. The spotter idea is great because not only is it a highly lucrative tactic, but it requires MAJOR teamwork. I like it.

[Warborn]

They don't fire in arcs. Or, at least, they didn't a little while ago. That may have changed.

[Sandtaco]

Artillery is an incredibly crappy idea...

[Camping Carl]

I believe the only tank that fires in arcs is the magrider. It's lower gun can only move up and down, so it makes sense that it lobs some sort of energy grenades or something.

[Doobz]

and why would arty be an incredibly crappy idea? if it works, then it's not crappy

[Camping Carl]

Artillery would be good if you had a single, deployable artillery vehical designed for that only.

[Sandtaco]

Artillery is crappy because you will have carpet bombing, which takes away from the game.

[Camping Carl]

Carpet bombing of what, bases? They can't be destroyed.

And besides reavers = dead artillery.

[Dragoon412]

Scenario 1:

Attacking team uses tanks and a spotter to saturate a target base with fire. Everyone standing outside dies, but respawns inside - now they know they're being attacked. They charge out of the base, towards the tanks. Battle starts a ways away from the base.

Scenario 2:

Attacking team uses tanks and a spotter to saturate a target base with fire. Everyone standing outside dies, but respawns inside - now they know they're being attacked. They run back outside, milling about, and the next barrage of artillery wipes them out like the smacktards they are.

Scenario 3:

Attacking team uses tanks and a spotter to saturate a target base with fire. Everyone standing outside dies, but respawns inside - now they know they're being attacked. The defenders pull back inside the base, and get ready for combat inside, and since its their base, they have the advantage of being able to re-equip to facilitate indoor combat. Meanwhile, the tanks sit there, picking their noses for a few minutes, then realize there's no one left to kill outside, and charge the base, where their vehicles are largely useless.

Scenario 4:

A group of tanks try to play artillery while infantry and other ground troops from both sides are engaged -- inflict heavy losses on the enemy, who respawns and comes right back, and heavy losses on their own team, who respawn a helluva lot farther away, and aren't too happy with the tanks, whose crew now has lotsa grief points.

I don't think those scenarios would necessarily ruin gameplay... I think artillery would be good, in certain situations, such as suppressing an enemy force, but with buildings being non-destructable, artillery isn't going to be a huge factor, one way or another. Either charge and kill the tanks or hide from 'em... personally, though, I think allowing an attacking team to use artillery against an enemy base could really help contribute to some vicious indoor fighting, which I'd love to see.

[Camping Carl]

Yeah, artillery probably wouldn't ruin gameplay. Also they have interesting possiblities for base defense. Such as taking out an enemy AMS (if it's close enough) or hitting attackers from safely behind the base walls.

[Vimp]

The awnser is out there...actually its right here now.
The Lightning can be used as artillery.

Watch either Movie number 10 or the movie interview with Kevin McCann or the movie interview with Kevin and Dave G and the pres and you'll notice in all 3 of them it shows the Lightning shots falling to the ground in an arc.

[Sputty]

I think the TR and NC should fire in arcs. It would be way to easy if they didn't and would be unrealistic. The Vanu should too, but not wure how'd they explain it.

[Cyan8313]

Originally posted by Sputty
I think the TR and NC should fire in arcs. It would be way to easy if they didn't and would be unrealistic. The Vanu should too, but not wure how'd they explain it.
1. Plasma.. Plasma is still matter and still weigh something.
2. They dont have to.. It�s just a game... :rolleyes: :D



:love:

C

[Sputty]

Originally posted by Cyan8313

2. They dont have to.. It�s just a game... :rolleyes: :D

C
Yeah, that's true

[Camping Carl]

Watch either Movie number 10 or the movie interview with Kevin McCann or the movie interview with Kevin and Dave G and the pres and you'll notice in all 3 of them it shows the Lightning shots falling to the ground in an arc.

Movie 10 is gamespot movie #10, right? I'm to cheap to pay to watch that. What about the other two, where can those be found?

[Toimu]

Each shot can have a life and an arc without being artillery. You shot them up, and they disapear before hitting the ground.

[Vimp]

All 3 movies are found at gamespot. Possibly somewhere else too but I don't know where.

You shot them up, and they disapear before hitting the ground.

In the videos they do make an impact when they hit the ground. However when I said they have artillery all I meant by it was that they have artillery-like things. Not actual dedicated artillery units.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by Vimp
In the videos they do make an impact when they hit the ground. However when I said they have artillery all I meant by it was that they have artillery-like things. Not actual dedicated artillery units.

I was just saying PS could be like other games I've played that didn't want artillery. Of course the shots should arc, we don't want laser bullets. That's Vanu stuff.

[Duritz]

Personally, I would like to have artillery, because it gives commanders (offensive and defensive) more options. I guess that dedicated artillery may be too much. but just the lightning would be fine with me. However, if the NC's and TR's tanks can be used as artillery, then the Vanu would have a serious disadvantage, so I severly doubt (or at least hope for gameplay's sake) that they will be able to be used that way.

[SandTrout]

The Vanu tank could have a fireing arc. It could fire plasma, which has mass.

As long as you actualy need a spoter to tell you how to ajust your aim, useing tanks as artilery would be a fine addition to the game. Dedicated artilery units would just be spamfest 2003.

[Doobz]

what else would it fire?
lasers are light, and einstien proved that light is matter too, and all matter has mass, so no matter what it fires, it's going to have mass

[Duritz]

So what if it has mass? Everything has mass. And some things float. Especially plasma. Plasma is simply superheated material than has broken down into its core components, so it is extremely light. Far lighter than air.

[Navaron]

Ummmm no. Plasmas are conductive assemblies of charged
particles, neutrals and fields that exhibit collective effects. Further, plasmas carry electrical currents and generate magnetic fields. Plasmas are the most common form of matter, comprising more than 99% of the visible universe.

Plasma temperatures and densities range from relatively cool and tenuous (like aurora) to very hot and dense (like the central core of a star). Ordinary solids, liquids, and gases are both electrically neutral and too cool or dense to be in a plasma state.

I should've gone to bed. Point is, that it can be anything. From Ice rays to frikkin laser beams. Some of it would evaporate and dissapate, while the rest would create perpetual motion and continue through the target and planet. I'm a dork. Good night.;)

[SandTrout]

my point was that while light has mass, it moves so fast that the effect of a planets gravity would not be enough to make it usefull for artilery. Maybe if we were on a black hole we could use artilery, but everything would be squishy if we were.

[Navaron]

Umm, trout, I'm gonna let it go, but that totally isn't how it works. Black holes are most likely made of plasma, as it's the only form of matter that volitile. My point was that they can justify it as artillery and say it is in the state where it has a solid weight enough to have the trajectory neccesary for artillery. Or if they don't want that, then it is in the higher more volitile forms where it is directed in a straight line. This stuff is really neat, and if you're mildly interesting the net has a multitude of info. If you were joking, then I just didn't get it and should go to sleep.

[Dragoon412]

*scratches his head*

I last took my theoretical physics course 2 years ago, so I may be a little behind the times, but aren't black holes just gravity wells? They aren't really <I>made</I> of anything...

Anyway, beam weapons wouldn't be convincing as artillery, but energy spheres could be; plasma in particular. Hell, you could even say the energy spheres are actually created by firing a mechanical object that just emits the energy.

*blink*

I need sleep.

*waves and stumbles off to bed*

[SandTrout]

why did my last post dissapear?

[SleightOfHand]

UP FIFTY, RIGHT TWO HUNDRED! FIRE FOR EFFECT!

Yeah, I want artillery. I want a dedicated artillery vehicle.

[Navaron]

You know, I don't want to, but I agree. Artillery is slow and frakkin vunerable. One good strafe by a airborn vehicle and it's gone. I'd like that I think. I'd also get pissed when I got spammed.

[Sputty]

If they put in artillery they would ahve to make it vulnerable, you're right. I think a grenade or two should destroy it.

[SandTrout]

Dedicated artilery units woudl be the main target of defenceive stealthers as they could mark them for defenceive artilery, or blow them up with a boomer or grenades.

[Moloch]

It would be good for keeping infantry holed up inside the base, if 20 or more artillery units had shells constantly pounding inside the walls. Alzo, if the were powerful enough, you could soften up the automated and deployed turrets. Finally, if vehicle pads were destroyable like in T2, you could remove their vehicle abilities, unless it was sheltered. If someone went out to fix it, they would have to wait for the artillery to stop, which would only happen when the enemy invasion force starts pouring in. Problem is, it could end up being "Which is more accurate, defensive or offensive artillery?" I doubt this would happen, cuz you still need a ground invasion force.

[Guardian AngeL]

it would suck so bad if they just kept shelling the spawn point cause then you would spawn they blow up from the artillery shells

[Tzeen]

Tanks can currently not be used as artillery, it might be something for the future though, certainly something to think about.

And Guardian Angel, bind camping like that is not possible as you always have at least two different spots to pick from to spawn at, usually three.

[Sandtaco]

how do you know?...

[Navaron]

"it would suck so bad if they just kept shelling the spawn point cause then you would spawn they blow up from the artillery shells"

U spawn indoors and the buildings aren't destructable so it's cool.

[SleightOfHand]

If we do get artillery vehicles, we need to have the fabric-ripping sound as the shells pass overhead.

[Moloch]

Whistly noise!=get the fuck indoors
Louder whistling noise!=you better be close to that door
REALLY LOUD WHISTLY NOISE=any last words

Maybe if walls were destructable, but main structures wern't. No that would suck, you'd need to have people able to repair walls. Artillery should be included.

[Sputty]

How does Tzeen know that tanks can't be sued as artillery?

[Moloch]

maybe he is the one, or maybe he took both pills, and is in a quasi matrixy state.

blah blah useless post: Moloch's blah blah blah

[Moloch]

maybe he's a lawyer, and can sue anything :)


blahdity blah

[Tzeen]

Lets just say, I know.

And about sounds on artillery, it's actually only sounding until it gets within a certain distance from you, then it goes quiet for some reason (physics, learned that in the army, don't ask me for details though). So when the artillery shell all of a sudden go quiet, you know your in trouble..hehe.

[Sputty]

Originally posted by Tzeen
Lets just say, I know.


How do you know then? I, and I think everyone else who's read this thread, are probably assuming you're lying or joking. How do you knwo that tanks don't fire in arcs? We have more evidence that it can as seeing lightning have an arc in a video.

[Moloch]

yeah, so when it gets loud, you have the little quiet time to pray? see? read the post? And why should we assume you actually were in the army, or know about the tanks? IF THE GODDAMN VIDEO SHOW AN ARC, IT FIRES IN AN ARC!!!!

[Tzeen]

I never said that it doesn't fire in a arc, I said it can't be used as artillery.

[Sputty]

Why can't it b sued as artillery then. If it fires in an arc it can be used as artillery.

[Moloch]

That, my friend, is contradictory, unless it airburst after a certain range. OR the base can somehow shoot it out of the sky...right...otherwise, if it arcs, you can shoo over things. If you can shoot over things, it's artillery. were you in the beta? Or do you know some deadly secret, that if told, Sony will send assassin ninjas after you? How do you know, eh?

[Tzeen]

The reason you can't use it as artillery is that it doesn't arc enough and you just cant get the arc to get over base walls or all the obstacles on the maps and still be able to hit something.

[Sputty]

You can if you can aim well.

[The Prudential]

Guys I'm going to have to side with no artillery stance here. Even if the tank rounds did arc like artillery is supposed to, it would be hard as crap to hit anything. Modern day artillery is fired using advanced mathematics, long-range spotters, a thorough knowledge of the local area, and sometimes even satellites. I don't see how it would be easy to hit something you can't see in an FPS with a basically point & click interface. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, because it could, I just don't think the designers would have put it in there. A lot of gamers wouldn't want to be killed by explosions falling from the sky. It is realistic, but not a lot of fun for some people. Of course, I'm the exact opposite. I hope there is loads of artillery with map projections and resupply vehicles, but I doubt it'll happen.

[Sputty]

Stop comparing everything to real life! If that made a good game then they'd have made a bunch of super realistic shooters and other games. Just because something is realistic doesn't make it a good game.

[The Prudential]

Sputty, don't read half my post, read all of it. First I mentioned what artillery requires in real life. Then I said they could make it into a game very easily, but I don't see where they have done that.

Let me break it down for you. If you are in a tank that is designed, by the devs, to fire at other tanks, you don't need any sort of computer-aided targeting system. Firing in arcs from long distances behind intervening terrain at forces you cannot see is another story entirely. That was the point I was trying to make. Unless the devs wrote in an artillery spotter program like they have in Bf1942 then artillery will not be as useful in PS as it could be. What...are you going to put the gun up into the air and hope you hit something?

[Vimp]

As far as tanks are concerned I imagine if they have any arc that it is very minimel considering how they are to be used. However the Lightening isn't something based on modern day vehicles.

The Lightening Vehicle appears to me to be simelar to a grenade launcher but with alot more force thus the arc isn't that great but its great enough that if you had a flat field full of tanks and people the Lightening could very easily shoot a target that is on the other side by shooting over everything in between as is evidenced in the videos. How easy it would be to aim like that is another matter. If the target is completly obscured due to the fray in between then you can't hope to hit with any acuracy.

But if artillery is defined by there being an arc then the Lightening can be used as artillery for low arc situations. In other words not for shooting over mountains or high buildings or anything like that. Intentionally shooting over trees would probably be difficult for that matter.

[Zatrais]

Tzeen do us all a favour and don't post facts unless you better answer than i know. If you do that it just makes it seem like you've pulled something out of thin air, or the wery least post your theory on why you think it's like that.

And well, depending on what kinds of shells the tanks get and how far the shots go and howmuch the turret can be aimed upwards they might be useable for artillery if they get HE shells... wish we would get some facts out on tanks