Air Superiority

[The Janitor]

There seems to be a whole lot of gunships this time around on Auraxis. We've got single-seat aircraft(any of them with a ground attack loadout), 3-person mini-Gal Gunships(Liberators), and then the actual Gal Gunships that may or may not have the same amount of seats/guns per aircraft.

Now, I love gunships as much as the next person, (especially the GG's, they're just yummy), but the core of this is that there are just so many ways to rain death down on the ground that it might get a bit crowded up there. I know they're not going away, and that's fine, I very much want them in the game; I just want to give the ones on my side a clear sky in which to do their job. I understand that we're not in beta yet, and that we have no idea how this is all going to pan out, but what we do know is that there are going to be a lot more people this time around in the battles. Not only that, as stated above, gunships are fun. And we all know a guy who says "I wish they had AC-130's in (insert any given popular multiplayer shooter)." This thread is designed to discuss our favorite ways to deal with this.

So, assuming what the audience is going to be like, and knowing how many of these people are going to love playing point-and-click games from attack aircraft(me included at times, I'm sure) and watching their kill count rise, what method would everyone prefer to clean the skies of these tasty, multi-person targets? Err, vehicles.


Air superiority fighters: Dogfighting! Guns, missiles, and a good ol' joystick. Kenny Loggins is optional.

Anti-air vehicles/MAXs: Mobile platforms with flak cannons, missiles, lasers, all of which can sit comfortably in the middle of a friendly force or base to provide cover against air units.

Personal anti-air weapons: Shoulder-mounted AA weapons, usually missiles. Easily carried on the back of each and every front-line grunt.

Turrets: Whether in a base or deployed in the field, these immobile(or at least difficult to relocate) platforms will really bring the pain. Maybe even jack some of them up to the size of an 88 mm Flak cannon for added awesome.


Personally, I'd love me some good loudouts for fighters. Air superiority is going to be a necessity in this game, so that means we gotta have some Battle of Britain-style fights in the sky. :D What about the rest of you?

[ringring]

I don't see a reason not to have all of the above but perhaps the flight ceiling should be above the reach of ground based AA.

Regards B of B fighting. It would be nice to have patrolling aircraft in a 'finger four' formation looking to 'bounce' enemy aircraft. Perhaps if air isn't as durable this time around a 'bounce' will be a viable tactic.

[Canaris]

in planetside 1 I'd never venture out and about without my striker

[Hamma]

There is also a whole lot more AA in this game aside from just the MAX's, you can even equip AA gun's on Vanguards and Prowlers.

[Xyntech]

It should certainly be a mix of all of the above, but as far as what I prefer, it falls into two categories.

My personal preference for how I will help clear the skies is with air superiority fighters. I plan to spend a lot of time flying a Scythe, and I'd like to split that time pretty evenly between tank hunting and shooting down enemy aircraft.

However my preference for what should be the most effective units for keeping the skies safe for other units are AA vehicles and MAXes. Infantry should be able to scare off a stray fighter, but shouldn't be the ones really clearing the skies, and while turrets and deployables can and should be effective against aircraft, I think some of their inherent limitations will prevent them from being the final word in air defense.

So my votes go to Air Superiority Fighters and Anti-air vehicles/MAXs

[Mechzz]

With the new hex capture system handicapping caps where you don't yet control the adjecent hexes, I think air-power will be a key factor in pushing into enemy territory. i.e. use aircraft to prevent resupply coming from hexes adjacent to the one you're trying to cap until the target is captured.

I expect we will see loads of aircraft in PS2 and all of the options will be needed to fulfill their different roles.

[Badjuju]

I don't think the variety matters as long as there is good balance between air vs. ground units. If they find that sweet spot then the factions should keep each others numbers in check.

Edit. Clarification, I don't think *allot of variety will be damaging*

[The Janitor]

I don't think the variety matters as long as there is good balance between air vs. ground units. If they find that sweet spot then the factions should keep each others numbers in check.

Variety is the spice of life for Planetside. Many different ways to bring glorious, burning death to the enemy. I certainly intend to try out everything before really focusing on any one thing, but flying was always my favorite thing to do in any game.

[Badjuju]

I'm with Xyn though infantry should have a limited role in AA.

[Badjuju]

Variety is the spice of life for Planetside. Many different ways to bring glorious, burning death to the enemy. I certainly intend to try out everything before really focusing on any one thing, but flying was always my favorite thing to do in any game.

Sorry, I ment to say that that I support the diversity and I don't think that allot of diversity will be damaging as long as they the put effort into balancing. Gota love variety, I agree.

[Figment]

The most important consideration for me is that a air camping situation can be turned around and air superiority can be undone efficiently.

Meaning from all sorts of playstyles. Having to rely on air to deal with an air superiority situation would be stupid: they got air superiority!


Especially important is the indoor -> outdoor camped situation.

[BigBossMonkey]

I know I'll be rolling out an AA Lightning ASAP, and my trusty old Burster MAX

[Captain1nsaneo]

I like being a threat and having a choice in how I prosecute my targets. All of them are valid. Lock-On, Flack, and Direct Fire are all unique in where they are best employed. Likewise what they are mounted on. They are all tools in a player's toolbox and will be noticed if they are absent.

[Geist]

Well, I'm definitely going to prefer Anti-Superiority fighters over anything else just because I have more fun in fighters than ground vehicles, but I hope that flak is still only a TR MAX thing. I believe it was mentioned that they sill weren't sure if Flak was going to be CP or ES right?

Message to Devs: FLAK IS TR!!!!

[Shlomoshun]

I think they should provide options for all four, just with different purposes and effectiveness.
Bases should be strong attack, with the downside being limited mobility (good against A2G, weak against faster scouts/Air Superiority) Infantry should be effective agasint Scout Aircraft, but not so much against anythign else.

One thing I'd really like to see actually would be to create a triangle of effectiveness between A2A, A2G, and G2A. This would result in not having an air superiority fighter be all that effective against other air superority fighters....What, you say???? Here's what I'm thinking.
Air superority would be highly mobile, with fairly slow but hard hitting weapons. Thus, they would be a nightmare for A2G vehicles, but not so much for the faster A2A jets. A2G would obviously be strong against ground, weaker against air. Lastly, ground based vehicles/MAX would have fast but somewhat weaker weapons, making them the bane of A2A, but not so much for A2G. That way you'd have a triangular A2A>A2G>G2A>A2A setup. Each with a hard counter and a weak defense, just not what you'd normally see...

With traditional A2A being true Air superiority, you end up with an arms race to first own the sky by massing Air Superiority (which are usually too fast to be hurt by Ground based attacks). Once they've got the edge there, they then can mass A2G and thus owning the ground as well. ANd the game evolves to an air game where whomever has the more air units wins. This is true for real life, but not the most 'fun' way to set it up IMO.

[Warborn]

I've been saying since PS1's beta that the solution to all the world's ills resides on air-to-air fighters. Dealing with tons of ground-to-air AA sucks as a pilot. Shitty dogfighting like in PS1 and like what we've seen so far in PS2 where people just float around and shoot each other down also sucks. Making a nice, fun flight model that emulates popular arcade-style fighter plane games, like Red Skies or HAWX or something, and placing the bulk of the AA in the hands of fighter pilots, is a better solution. Keep ground-based AA as a deterrent and make ground units rely on friendly fighter pilots to keep themselves safe from enemy air.

Honestly the lack of any fun air combat on account of the "fighters" being shitty helicopters isn't going to do the game any favours. We've already played Planetside 1. We don't need to rehash the same stuff in PS2.

[Figment]

If you get camped, you're doing it wrong.

Camping happens. You should always be able to fight back though without having to physically leave the place en mass like you would if you would have to rely on air power alone.

Fighting back from an indoor situaiton should be possible with local Anti-Air. Otherwise air units would be too competitive and would mean a precarious stalemate situation would always go to the attacker, since the defender can't get out. Defenders should be able to fight their way back out and beat off an enemy through smart play, if the only way to beat of air is by leaving and bringing in a large contingent of air yourself, then AA is broken.

[Roy Awesome]

In the end, Aircraft cannot capture territory. If you are being camped in by aircraft, you are still winning because you still hold your territory.

[Figment]

In the end, Aircraft cannot capture territory. If you are being camped in by aircraft, you are still winning because you still hold your territory.

Unless you lose the base because of not being able to bring in ANTs to keep the base running, if NTU ever returns into the game. Otherwise, if we're thinking PS1 Tech/Interlink/DSC bases, yes, a stalemate would be possible. However, we're not.

In PS2, it appears the majority of nodes seem to be outside and even on the outskirts of bases. Meaning if you get camped in a spawn room (which apparently connects to the outside like a Redoubt now and thus may be a very likely scenario), then I fully disagree and it will happen, quite a lot, supported by ground troops, ofc.

Do not assume that air superiority comes without ground forces. Any attempt at clearing air includes having to clear a courtyard full of enemy ground forces.

[RSphil]

id say all of the above but i prefer air superiority aircraft. while the ground forces are fighting the air should be as contested. we have seen in wars that air superiority is a must and i cant see it being any different in PS 2.

a well organized attack and defense will make for some epic battles. imagine a slight lull in the ground fighting and you take the chance to look up and you see the dog fights goin on. it will be awesome.

[LegioX]

On a side note. RSphil, do you or the squad you in only fly? Might be the type of group for me.

[SKYeXile]

air should be mainly countered by air, but if the aircraft are low flying or hovering then dedicated AA(lightning AA) should make reasonably short work of them.

[RSphil]

On a side note. RSphil, do you or the squad you in only fly? Might be the type of group for me.

not in a squad as yet. never played planetside. played all the battlefields and flew spits in Aces high which was really fun with massive air battles. titanic Tuesdays where the best when they opend up the one server to alot of people. think the max was 800.

i think im going to play for the NC in planetside 2 on a euro server. not sure what im gona do yet either. if i like the aircraft then i might be a pilot most of the time.

im a plane geek so i love to fly lol.

[SgtMAD]

the AA that I prefer is FRIENDLY AA

did we need a poll for that?

[LegioX]

not in a squad as yet. never played planetside. played all the battlefields and flew spits in Aces high which was really fun with massive air battles. titanic Tuesdays where the best when they opend up the one server to alot of people. think the max was 800.

i think im going to play for the NC in planetside 2 on a euro server. not sure what im gona do yet either. if i like the aircraft then i might be a pilot most of the time.

im a plane geek so i love to fly lol.


Know the feeling. Will have my PPL license next month after 7 months of training:)

[KTNApollo]

air should be mainly countered by air, but if the aircraft are low flying or hovering then dedicated AA(lightning AA) should make reasonably short work of them.

This. Air superiority fighters are the most specialized (you can't shoot a tank with AtA lock-on missiles, you can shoot a tank with flak even if it is shitty damage), and therefore should be the best counter to air.

[Sledgecrushr]

not in a squad as yet. never played planetside. played all the battlefields and flew spits in Aces high which was really fun with massive air battles. titanic Tuesdays where the best when they opend up the one server to alot of people. think the max was 800.

i think im going to play for the NC in planetside 2 on a euro server. not sure what im gona do yet either. if i like the aircraft then i might be a pilot most of the time.

im a plane geek so i love to fly lol.

Hey check out the Devil Dogs. They are a combined arms NC, NA outfit and I believe they will have a need for 24/7 pilots.

[Figment]

This. Air superiority fighters are the most specialized (you can't shoot a tank with AtA lock-on missiles, you can shoot a tank with flak even if it is shitty damage), and therefore should be the best counter to air.

A2A has the benefit it can fly after aircraft.

Normal AA should create no fly zones.

[Brusi]

I think that each type of AA should be more efficient than others at different altitudes

for example: Infantry AA simply cannot hit anything above 120m, where as ammo from flack cannons mounted on MAX units or MBT's will not explode under 50m, requiring a direct hit to do any damage.

This would allow different types of AA loadouts and create more tactical use of the 3rd dimension for pilots..

[LegioX]

How high is the ceiling in PS 1? Its not overly stupid like bf 3 where if you go up to 1,000 ft the plane hit an imaginary wall......

[Figment]

How high is the ceiling in PS 1? Its not overly stupid like bf 3 where if you go up to 1,000 ft the plane hit an imaginary wall......

400m.

Most of the time terrain had a sky of around 390-250m above it, save a few places on Searhus (Vulcano map). Rest hardly had mountains worth fighting over.


Highest point in game was Mt. Cyssor at around 573m iirc and the only place you could have an infantry battle without interferences from aircav (getting AMSes up there was a pain but possible). There was absolutely no tactical value to fighting on the mountain though.

Still quite fun if you had two groups that just wanted to have a bit back and forth infantry event. Set up a few fights between TR and NC there, till either a TR Cr5 or bypassing VS noticed some people to OS. Always fun to put up a router to the top so you could visit the highest point in PS. :)

[SKYeXile]

i would hope the ceiling would be higher than in PS1...or at least allow you to fly higher than mountains. just make them stall if you go too high...except VS...that off course can go into space. there was major issues on ceryshen as well since the cont was like 250m above sea level.

[Graywolves]

I like being a threat and having a choice in how I prosecute my targets. All of them are valid. Lock-On, Flack, and Direct Fire are all unique in where they are best employed. Likewise what they are mounted on. They are all tools in a player's toolbox and will be noticed if they are absent.

This. If my team and I were without AA anywhere it would feel like we were missing something that we would definitely need soon enough.

[LegioX]

i really wish the devs could answer that question (how high is the ceiling in ps2). Nothing pissed me off more than the ceiling in bf 3. I felt like i was forced to mow the lawn everytime i was flying.

[bpostal]

I've got a burster that will solve this problem

[Zulthus]

I personally think each empire's fighters should be the main ones responsible for taking down other aircraft; however ground vehicles and infantry should get a small AA ability due to the fact that aircraft won't always be focused on other aircraft.

[LegioX]

I would really enjoy high ceilings. Hell make them real high. Nothing pleases me more than bouncing enemy air enroute to a target from above.

[Sledgecrushr]

I was thinking that air superiority doesnt really ever end. Even at the end of a base take over there are still plenty of targets for air to seek and destroy. You have things like mobile spawn points to take out. Counter attacks that need to be blunted and defeated. If you like flying you should never have to come down.

[SKYeXile]

Air deals with air primarily. Not Wasps though, I want homing rockets to be secondary to precision aim weapons.

Second-most effective AA MAX's, third vehicles with AA weapons (which should not be flak or homing rockets), and fourth infantry with AV/AA.

AA-turrets and deployables removed from game forever and buried in the deepest possible hole they can find, trampled and humiliated with all the other bad ideas of the world.

Yea homing rockets can suck a fat one. I think the lighting atleast should be better at AA than a MAX since its a vehicle and can only be used outside, the max can hide inside and get into really germy spots like at the top of a base or tower a lighting has to stick to the ground and be a bigger target.

also the lighting when in AA mode should have far less HP than if its setup as an AI or AV tank.

[Figment]

You two are only looking at the perspective from the pilot. Bad, BAD balancers. Bad.

[Figment]

Unfortunately Elcyco, you'll find that this particular... rebutal of yours won't last long. ;)

But in all seriousness, you can't demand air units to only be efficiently counterable by air2air units, in other words, other air units.

Because in that case, I'll argue using your own terms and say that AA can only be taken out swiftly by other AA.

Vehicles only by vehicles and infantry only by infantry. Aircraft will not be allowed to interfere with ground fights at all, or at most by tickling and in general air would have to ignore as they are ignored. After all, you don't want different types of units to interact, particularly not those that you use 90% of the time yourself.

Now, we got World of Tanks, World of Infantry and World of Aircraft. Just as you want it.

[Figment]

Yea homing rockets can suck a fat one. I think the lighting atleast should be better at AA than a MAX since its a vehicle and can only be used outside, the max can hide inside and get into really germy spots like at the top of a base or tower a lighting has to stick to the ground and be a bigger target.

also the lighting when in AA mode should have far less HP than if its setup as an AI or AV tank.

You forget a couple of things:

1. Why homing missiles? Because AA units that cannot change altitude or chase after you will easily lose line of sight. THUS to fight you, they need to either be able to kill you as long as they have line of sight (which is almost instantly), or they have to have a feature that allows them to go beyond line of sight. ie. lock on and forget.

You ignore also that this time, aircraft have counter measures.

Air to air can re-establish line of sight much easier than other units and should therefore... egads... be WEAKER than ground based AA when fighting AA. They should simply be stronger in aircraft damage than normal aircraft, because anything is an equal counter to itself anyway. So yes, when flying a normal aircraft, you'd lose to an AA aircraft, which itself should lose to AA more easily.

2. A Lightning is not stationary, has more armour, is very mobile, depending on rotation speed might be more easy to get on target and is a larger target than an AA MAX. It does have the benefit of having multiple weapon systems. Hence it should be less powerful than an AA MAX. Agreed. But, the main question is, should it be more or less powerful than the MBT gunner AA? And is this a second, dedicated AA gunner, a gunner with multi-weapon systems or a driver/gunner or a third crew member?

You should also consider Galaxy (Gunship) AA, which will be in game, possibly with flak. That should worry you more than an AA MAX.

Also, an AA unit cannot defend itself from other threats already because its firepower is worse and damage taken is not comparable to damage dealt. So even with equal hitpoints to a similar unit of the same class but with a different role, it would already lose. Why then would you then also make its endurance worse? If anything, it would have to be compensated by getting more hitpoints. It sounds to me you just want AA nerfed so you can kill them easily as aircraft, which is the exact opposite of what should be happening: they are called ANTI-AIR. You know, anti-you.

An AA MAX does not benefit from moving inside at all: inside you cannot fire at aircraft and an AA MAX should therefore be balanced for outside purposes. In fact, it faces more threats than anything else outside because it's completely inept against anything else and in order to fight of aircraft, it would have to be able to get outside first to be useful, even in camped situations. Unlike other MAXes, an AA MAX has to get out in the open, especially if it requires line of sight (for example, to obtain visual lock).


In conclusion, the worst options of all AA should be the A2A variant, otherwise it will hurt aircraft combat far more than vehicles and MAXes would as it would dominate the skies. Not just between fighters, but especially against multicrew units like Liberators.

[Sledgecrushr]

An AA MAX does not benefit from moving inside at all: inside you cannot fire at aircraft and an AA MAX should therefore be balanced for outside purposes. In fact, it faces more threats than anything else outside because it's completely inept against anything else and in order to fight of aircraft, it would have to be able to get outside first to be useful, even in camped situations. Unlike other MAXes, an AA MAX has to get out in the open, especially if it requires line of sight (for example, to obtain visual lock).

A max is able to use two weapons at the same time,they both dont have to be aa weapons.

[Figment]

A max is able to use two weapons at the same time,they both dont have to be aa weapons.

No, but then it's weaker by choice, its weapon when dual wielded should not be weaker than other AA by design.

[ZeroOneZero]

Kind of wish the Burster max won't harm any ally air vehicles. It's pretty stupid that you're trying to help a fellow ally, who's being attacked by multiple enemy air vehicles to be taking extra damage from a friendly. He ends up dying by a friendly AA max and then a couple of seconds later, you get this sexy message in all CAPS saying how you fucked up his killing spree or some bullshit.

You can still be great at aiming, but that won't help much when there is a shit loads of planes circling around in the air. Flak weapons should at least do minimal damage to allies or no damage at all. But that's just me....There are others who don't give a damn and end up killing their own allies.

That's why AA maxes for NC and VS pretty much dominated, while the TR had to sit back and make calculated projections, and then open fire. LAME!! :(

[Figment]

That's why AA maxes for NC and VS pretty much dominated, while the TR had to sit back and make calculated projections, and then open fire. LAME!! :(

The opposite is true in caves though, with lock on requirements, you can't do anything in a place where getting a lock on is impossible, let alone firing, let alone the missile not hitting an object, let alone being able to fire from within a doorway and without line of sight (if you happened to camp with air).

Like the Burster.

[ZeroOneZero]

The opposite is true in caves though, with lock on requirements, you can't do anything in a place where getting a lock on is impossible, let alone firing, let alone the missile not hitting an object, let alone being able to fire from within a doorway and without line of sight (if you happened to camp with air).

Like the Burster.

You sir are correct! But!! I usually go in as a AV max, they deal more damage and can hit Air in a cramped areas.

The targeting system does suck with rockets, there should be free fire mode, where you don't need to lock on, like striker missiles. ;)

[Figment]

You sir are correct! But!! I usually go in as a AV max, they deal more damage and can hit Air in a cramped areas.

The targeting system does suck with rockets, there should be free fire mode, where you don't need to lock on, like striker missiles. ;)

There was, but straight line of fire doesn't work with missiles at all. If they had proximity damage, maybe. But that'd be a big buff.

[Marinealver]

Planetside Air combat has always been one thing I think has been lacking. At first the Air combat was more reminicate of WW2 only the planes could stop in mid air. I mean there was no A2A missiles which has become a staple of Air Combat doctrine was for the longest nowhere to be found. The flight ceeling was verry low. The Lib Sguard mini expansion was needed when it was discovered that the Reaver has verry little stopping powere against ground zerg. THe Skyguard just made sure the lib didn't become overpowered, and added some mobile anti aircraft firepower that the MAXs couldn't provide.

The Wasp which was released turned out to be a verry weak aircraft. The Mossie which was the weakest aircraft had a faster standard speed the longer burn on the after burners helped it catch up with the wasp, and the wasp's low armor ment that the Mossie had way lower TTK against the Wasp thant the Wasp had against the Mossie.

The Flacklet which was the Rocklet with frag grenades(trying to improve this ammo type usefulness) was way too little to scare away a mossie. It took 1 and a half clips to bring one down. Also the rapid discharge only emptied half the clip (it should have been the whole clip). Not to mention forcing a reload.

Upgraded base turrets was a needed adition but the upgraded turrets were only valuible durring a defence action and worthless if no one was there to man it. It should have been able to switch from the default gun to the upgraded gun depending on the target. For example a flack gun will switch to flack when shooting at aircraft and a cannon would switch to shooting the cannon at ground targets. The cerebus turrets were a better base defence than the upgradded wall turrets.

The galaxy gunship is cool however there is no ground counter for it. Sure it s a big target but unless there is a 2 squads of AA MAXs, Sguards, and Anti Vehicle aiming at the air it can rule with little to know fear. They should have made some sort of ground defence that can target slower moving aircraft but doo more damage, however lacks the ability to track the more manuverible faster moving aircraft.

[Mechzz]

Waar heb ik dat geschreven dan?

Die Nederlanders zijn overal te vinden, zelfs op Auraxis lijkt het.

[Figment]

Air deals with air primarily. Not Wasps though, I want homing rockets to be secondary to precision aim weapons.

Second-most effective AA MAX's, third vehicles with AA weapons (which should not be flak or homing rockets), and fourth infantry with AV/AA.

Hierzo.

AA-turrets and deployables removed from game forever and buried in the deepest possible hole they can find, trampled and humiliated with all the other bad ideas of the world.

En dit geeft ook vooral aan dat je anti-anti-air bent. ;)


EDIT: Ik vind dat lock-on geen punt mag zijn als je er mooie ontwijk maneuvres en flares voor terug krijgt. DAN hebben we het pas over skill. Ben het met piloten eens dat de Wasp te makkelijk was, voornamelijk in bereik (lock-on is moeilijker vast te houden op korte afstand bij bewegelijke doelen).

[The Janitor]

Man, how did we ever communicate between different languages before Google translator?

[Figment]

Man, how did we ever communicate between different languages before Google translator?

By sheer force of will. Or learning a secondary, third and fourth language like most Dutch and Belgians do. :x


Or as a Brit friend of mine says whenever us dutch and flemish talk dutch on TS whenever he's away... "OHMAIGOTT TEH FOREIGN! STOP TALKIN' TEH FOREIGN AN' SPIEK AH PROPURR LANGUICH!".

[Immigrant]

I hope will get of those option and all of them should be effective except maybe personal AA which should be used more as a last resort or ambush then 1-on-1 method of engaging aircraft.

I myself personally will however most likely use either stationary or tank mounted AA turrets.

[PoisonTaco]

From the gameplay footage we've seen the air battles seem relatively close to the ground. I'd imagine that Galaxies and Liberators would still be effective at higher altitudes, at which point it would give AA on the ground a harder time.

[VoodooJanus]

Personally, I'm looking for an awesome engineer AA possibility (constructible turret) that provides a clearly marked area that's dangerous to the lighter aircraft and a mild annoyance to the galaxy or liberator, just enough so that sustained presence in the area is ill-advised, but passing through has only little effect. The more the two spheres of combat interact, the better IMO.

GtA Tanks, GtA MAXs and AtA fighters should be the ones doing the actual anti-air combat of course, but the engineer's solution would make for an excellent stopgap until the reinforcements arrive. It'd also be fun to send in the ground forces/ a team of infiltrators to take out the AA turrets so you can bring in the AtG fighter-bombers.

As for my thoughts on the other options:

GtA tanks: should be the be-all end-all in terms of damage to aircraft, simply because they're so much larger than the other options.

GtA MAXs: should be good, but do less damage, because they are more difficult to target and can move through terrain with relative impunity (compared to a tank anyhow.)

AtA fighters: should be the best option not because they do the most damage, but rather because they can follow other air targets with impunity, which the other options can't do, and similarly escape from GtA or AtA threats with relative ease, while tanks and MAX's are SOL if targeted by anti vehicle or anti infantry weapons.