Galaxy Gunship

[Peacemaker]

So they wanna make this come back to the game. I really would like to see all the guns facing only left with limited firing arcs. The PS1 version could swat aircraft like crazy and a gunship should be a.... Gunship. It should be very vulnerable to enemy aircraft and require escort or air superiority. 3 gun slots all on the left plz.

[Zekeen]

So they wanna make this come back to the game. I really would like to see all the guns facing only left with limited firing arcs. The PS1 version could swat aircraft like crazy and a gunship should be a.... Gunship. It should be very vulnerable to enemy aircraft and require escort or air superiority. 3 gun slots all on the left plz.

Really, I think it should be able to fire everywhere, but just remove the damn mortar gun. I rather see lots of hot lead firing rather than a Galaxy pretending it's the new Liberator. It's better suited to supporting infantry engagement and keeping aircraft at bay. I'm not fond of the AC-130 style. I want to see those gatling gun systems planting all around it.

[Greeniegriz]

Really, I think it should be able to fire everywhere, but just remove the damn mortar gun. I rather see lots of hot lead firing rather than a Galaxy pretending it's the new Liberator. It's better suited to supporting infantry engagement and keeping aircraft at bay. I'm not fond of the AC-130 style. I want to see those gatling gun systems planting all around it.

Making it more like a AC-47 with the capability for some flak maybe? I'd be good with just straight anti-infantry weaponry on it. I agree that it shouldn't be able to match the loadout of the liberator.

Having the ability to have different Galaxy setups would be nice. If you choose to make it a gunship then you'll have less seating etc etc

Cheers,

GG

[Blackwolf]

I like the OP's idea the best. A strong dedicated ground pounder with a wide situational use would be better for the game then a flying fortress.

The only thing I would consider adding is maybe guns on both sides, but only 3 gunners total. Gunners would have to switch sides but it would make the Galaxy a bit more flexible.

[Zekeen]

I like the OP's idea the best. A strong dedicated ground pounder with a wide situational use would be better for the game then a flying fortress.

The only thing I would consider adding is maybe guns on both sides, but only 3 gunners total. Gunners would have to switch sides but it would make the Galaxy a bit more flexible.

Well yeah, if it HAS to have a ground pounder, have it almost fixed, with a limited movement, to require a skilled pilot pointing the correct side at the target and flying in a way to give a good shot.

[Toppopia]

I like the OP's idea the best. A strong dedicated ground pounder with a wide situational use would be better for the game then a flying fortress.

The only thing I would consider adding is maybe guns on both sides, but only 3 gunners total. Gunners would have to switch sides but it would make the Galaxy a bit more flexible.

Or maybe only make the guns on 1 side, then only 1 gun on the other side, because its quite boring being in a gunner seat, then not seeing the action because the enemy is on the other side.

[Zulthus]

I'd say give the GG three BIG guns on one side of the aircraft. one 150mm cannon, very slow fire rate, a 40mm anti-aircraft autocannon, and a 20mm minigun for the softer targets. It'd look something like this:

http://www.airforceworld.com/attacker/gfx/ac130/ac130_3.jpg

[Blackwolf]

Or maybe only make the guns on 1 side, then only 1 gun on the other side, because its quite boring being in a gunner seat, then not seeing the action because the enemy is on the other side.

Which is why I suggested 3 guns to a side, but only 3 gunners total. Each seat would control a gun on both sides but the gunner would have to switch from side to side.

Example gunner 1 would have access to 30mm rotary guns on both left and right, but could only "man" one gun at a time and could switch from left to right.

Gunner 2 would have access to a 75mm cannon on either side with the same deal, switch from right to left and back as the situation demands it.

Gunner 3 would have a another pair of rotary cannons, or be facing backwards with a 30mm rotary gun as a tail gunner that could sweep in a 180 degree bubble aimed mostly downward.

[Toppopia]

Which is why I suggested 3 guns to a side, but only 3 gunners total. Each seat would control a gun on both sides but the gunner would have to switch from side to side.

Example gunner 1 would have access to 30mm rotary guns on both left and right, but could only "man" one gun at a time and could switch from left to right.

Gunner 2 would have access to a 75mm cannon on either side with the same deal, switch from right to left and back as the situation demands it.

Gunner 3 would have a another pair of rotary cannons, or be facing backwards with a 30mm rotary gun as a tail gunner that could sweep in a 180 degree bubble aimed mostly downward.

Ahh. Then yes, that sounds good. I would like to see an AC-130 style Galaxy.

[SpcFarlen]

Considering they arent adding in mobile artillery (yet..). Id like to see a Galaxy with a 3 gun set up that way in terms of a C-130, it would fill that role. Though i feel it would be a good Cert option, so the option for all around coverage is there for a troop transport. Dont forget with their cert system there are miles of customization to do.

Cert option:
Move 3 guns to one side of the craft.
Limits number of passengers to 3 (one for each gun)
Can now use larger ordinance (since the whole craft is now only supporting these guns)

Something along those lines.

[Greeniegriz]

Kind of like this blackwolf?

*decreased passengers or no passengers*

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ztfsew.png

Cheers,

GG

[Blackwolf]

Kind of like this blackwolf?

*decreased passengers or no passengers*

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ztfsew.png

Cheers,

GG

Yeah something like that. Passengers don't have much to do on a gunship but it would be nice to include 2 or 4 slots for ground based fire support. Maybe 2 infantry and 2 MAX spots, the passengers could drop and serve as AA deterrents if the thing came under attack from air or AA.

[Greeniegriz]

Maybe 2 infantry and 2 MAX spots, the passengers could drop and serve as AA deterrents if the thing came under attack from air or AA.

Was my thinking as well. Though the ability to carry two maxes might be a bit much. Maybe just a 4-man squad to either drop for support, or drop at the main engagement then the Galaxy proceeds to pummel the ground.

Give the Gal some options but not take the place of the Liberator as far as AvG.

Cheers,

GG

[Blackwolf]

I don't think 2 MAX suits would be bad honestly, they are limited to 2 weapons a piece I think, and would supply a 4 man squad with the heavy fire power it would likely need if the team had to take their assault in doors away from the GGs support fire.

Of course I'm basing this assumption on the relative strength of infantry based AA and on MAX suits not having an auto run feature.

Just thoughts.

[Pepsi]

I don't like the idea of all the GG's guns pointing in one direction because I can see a good VS Scythe pilot being able to stay in the Galaxy's blind spot and be able to win a 1 on 1 against a 12(?) man ship.

Maybe others don't share my ideals about the Galaxy but I don't think one Scythe should be able to take on a fully loaded GG. The Scythe (as well as all the other air supremacy fighters) already have the speed and maneuverability advantage over the Galaxy or the GG. it should take a combined effort to down a loaded GG or Galaxy.

[SpcFarlen]

I don't like the idea of all the GG's guns pointing in one direction because I can see a good VS Scythe pilot being able to stay in the Galaxy's blind spot and be able to win a 1 on 1 against a 12(?) man ship.

Maybe others don't share my ideals about the Galaxy but I don't think one Scythe should be able to take on a fully loaded GG. The Scythe (as well as all the other air supremacy fighters) already have the speed and maneuverability advantage over the Galaxy or the GG. it should take a combined effort to down a loaded GG or Galaxy.

Not every craft should be able to counter every other, at least in my thinking though it looks that wont be the case. Its the trade off in the design. Thats why i said have it be a cert option so it can become a very focused fire based platform. Where yes, that is its weakness. So it should not be used on its own but with support along with it.

[Blackwolf]

I don't like the idea of all the GG's guns pointing in one direction because I can see a good VS Scythe pilot being able to stay in the Galaxy's blind spot and be able to win a 1 on 1 against a 12(?) man ship.

Maybe others don't share my ideals about the Galaxy but I don't think one Scythe should be able to take on a fully loaded GG. The Scythe (as well as all the other air supremacy fighters) already have the speed and maneuverability advantage over the Galaxy or the GG. it should take a combined effort to down a loaded GG or Galaxy.

See I have to disagree. I think it should depend on what the vehicle is geared for, not it's man power. The same argument doesn't hold much water compared to, say, a WWII air craft carrier. All it really takes is a good hit from a 1 man fighter plane on the right spot and you can sink a floating city. These kinds of hits happened even against aircraft supported by other ships with heavy armament.

A galaxy gun ship geared towards ground combat should have difficulties when facing even 1 air superiority fighter.

I will agree that it shouldn't be as easy as flanking the right side.

[Pepsi]

See I have to disagree. I think it should depend on what the vehicle is geared for, not it's man power. The same argument doesn't hold much water compared to, say, a WWII air craft carrier. All it really takes is a good hit from a 1 man fighter plane on the right spot and you can sink a floating city. These kinds of hits happened even against aircraft supported by other ships with heavy armament.

A galaxy gun ship geared towards ground combat should have difficulties when facing even 1 air superiority fighter.

I will agree that it shouldn't be as easy as flanking the right side.I shudder at a game where one well (or random) placed shot can destroy even the beefiest of targets. There are some things we should take from reality, but I think the "randomness" factor of real life should stay in real life. The rules of gaming should be as consistent as the rules of Chess. There should be no random occurrences like a pawn countering a rook about to capture it.

I suppose I don't have a problem with the #1 ranked pilot being able to down a GG consistently, but I just want to make sure the GG isn't a flying matchbox. In my view a GG should be able to hold its ground against an average Scythe pilot, but soloing a GG should be something only the aces can perform.

[Peacemaker]

The whole idea behind this is that it would require team work to protect a GG. It's supposed to be an ground pounding death machine but it needs a vulnerability, that would be enemy aircraft. The solution is escort aircraft. This mirrors real life. AC 130s have lots of jamming equipment and some flares. They have zero anti air offensive ability. The GG in PS1 was able to shred enemy aircraft, it didn't need escorts. The new one should, that's why I advocate putting the guns on one side.

Also as a side idea, I think the new GG should have a slot for a person to designate targets, and I don't think it would be horrible to give him a tail gun. Coordination of the guns would be cool.

[TeaReks]

If 5 people are needed to crew the GG then 5 air superiority fighters should be able to kill it no problem. Four should have a harder time and so on.

[Sledgecrushr]

I love the idea of a galaxy gunship. And it should maybe have up to three slots for guns. One big gun and a couple of support weapons. This thing is going to eat up your resource pool and it shouldnt be flying naked where any air superiority fighter could take it out.

[Peacemaker]

If 5 people are needed to crew the GG then 5 air superiority fighters should be able to kill it no problem. Four should have a harder time and so on.

2 shouldn't have trouble. Just cause five crew it doesn't mean u need five to kill it. It's rock paper scissors. GG beats ground. Fighters beat GG. AA fire kills fighters. Tanks and infantry beat AA. The GG should be protected by fighters, it shouldn't be able to defend its self. All offense.

[Top Sgt]

Ahh. Then yes, that sounds good. I would like to see an AC-130 style Galaxy.

agreed it would be sweet to see it act as a spookie and left fire and ground pound.

[Zekeen]

If I'm piloting an AC-130 styled Galaxy, with one side pointed arsenal, and a Scythe comes up to my blind side......

I'm clegging the mother huffer. 180 degree spin, upside down flying! I'll take you down first! Then I'll land the Galaxy on its top! If you're getting taken down by aircraft from your blind spot, you're obviously not an insane enough pilot to handle it!

[Fenrys]

Yeah something like that. Passengers don't have much to do on a gunship but it would be nice to include 2 or 4 slots for ground based fire support. Maybe 2 infantry and 2 MAX spots, the passengers could drop and serve as AA deterrents if the thing came under attack from air or AA.

All gal slots will be multi-purpose - max and infantry will be able to use the same seats.

If we can customize the weapons systems of a gal gunship like we can with tanks, I'd load 4 AA MAX and swap all the side miniguns for cannons.

[GhettoPrince]

So, going by what we've seen so far, it seems like the cert tree gives you the option to specialize to an insane degree or cert out lots of weapons and vehicles so you have more options but less impact.

I heard in the interview something about how low level galaxy certs give you fewer seats and you have to parachute out, while high level ones give you extra seats and MAX seats and you get to jump out in a fast armored capsule. Why wouldn't they just do the same thing here?

like maybe low level cert gunships have a few weak guns with limited arcs, high level certs add on cannons and maybe a grenade launcher or mortar? I'm probably wrong, but that's the way I think they are going with it.

[Tikuto]

Re-invention of PS1. This is what we all understood from last year or the year before that, probably since PS2 was discretely announced years ago.

Galaxy is a transport ship.
Galaxy is not a battle ship.

Keep this distinction in-mind and then go here to contribute your idea for something new:
THREAD: A warship to replace 'Galaxy Gunship' (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=720428#post720428)