Simple Question

[ghost018]

Before I ask what I intended to, I think I should tell you what I'm expecting from this thread. If you can't answer my question, don't respond with something off-topic. If you want to bring something else up, please do so in another thread. I'm hoping at least one person can give me an inteligent repsonse, so here it goes. Why exactly would an Anti-Vehicular weapon be so affective against infantry that it can be used as a Sniper rifle (Vanu Lancer)? I've asked myself this question over and over in my head, but I can't come up with any real excuse. I've even talked with Vanu players about it, but none of them could think of a reason either. So, if you've pondered this and actually made some sense out of it, please share your thoughts.

ghost

[Madcow]

Anything able to punch through armor should be able to punch through a soldier pretty good. What the Lancer has going for it is the accuracy over distance, the sniping that you describe. It has it's drawbacks but I don't think anybody can argue that accuracy is one of them. So you have a beam designed to help punch holes in tanks, which is amazingly accurate and can also be used to punch holes in armor/flesh.
Think about it with the more conventional AV weapons. If I fired a rocket at you in a hallway, you'd probably be lucky to have your shoes left on the ground. Sure, they're designed to take out MAXs and vehicles, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective against people.

[ghost018]

I started off thinking that way too, but then I went to VR and used the Striker against infantry. Takes about 5 rockets (dead on) to kill one target. Not sure about the Phoenix, but I remember from my NC days that it was about the same.

ghost

[MilitantB0B]

Hmmmm, that is true, in a world based on the physics we enjoy every day. :D Indeed, anything powerfull enough to go through tank armor shou;ld got through a human head like a plump grape, the only problem with that is this is a game, and balance is more important then realism. If realism where paramount in PS, I wouldn't be able to shoot a reinforced grunt 3 times with a decimator. Like you said, one shot and he would be luckly to have shoes left. Now if you are asking the game balance reason on why it can chew up infantry so well, I think the official Vanu approved responce is that since it is so weak against vehicles (compared to the other empires AV weapons) it has a boosted AI capacity. I personally see that as kinda fishy, but I am not too upset about it.

[Madcow]

I agree that the Phoenix and Striker aren't that effective against infantry (actually I think it's 3 Phoenix, same as Lancer shots against reinforced). What you asked was why an AV weapon would be effective, and that's what I answered. They can't make the damage completely realistic because we'd have one shot kills everywhere, but that's why an AV weapon would work so well against infantry. Personally, I think the Striker and the Phoenix are both easier to use than the Lancer, and I'm more effective with them. If the Lancer happens to be easier to use on infantry than the others it's because they're trading off their effectiveness with vehicles to be more effective in other ways.

[00AgentDuck]

The reason why I think the lancer is good against infuntry is because the phoenix you can pilot and it has good damage with it, the striker locks on and is good against air, and the lancer can take down infuntry and snipe, which is good because since it has to charge and it can't be piloted or lock on it's not good against air or moving vechicles.. They all have there strong parts to them

:trrocks: :ncrocks: :vsrocks: