What would happen if infantry could one shot vehicles

[Beerbeer]

Like in the real world, vehicles are indeed powerful. Able to quickly project their power over a wide area. But one aspect is missing, infantry today have tools that dispatch unprotected vehicles very easily.

One man with a launcher can wreak havoc on vehicles if they are not guarded.

In this game, the chips lie completely with vehicles, they can one or two shot infantry, they can move with speed, they soak a lot of damage.

What would happen if one infantry missile could take down an aircraft? One infantry missile could blow up a tank? Just like those that like to draw real world comparisons and state that vehicles should able to quickly dispatch infantry, well that's only half the story, infantry can do just the same, only not here.

Would more infantry be needed to clear out infantry to protect those vehicles?

[Tooterfish]

To answer your question, SOE would probably go bankrupt, and Planetside 2 would go down as the worst game ever made.

[Jaybonaut]

Sometimes your topics make me shake my head man.

[MaxDamage]

One dumbfire rocket does take down an ESF.
Two take a heavy tank from behind.

[Strategy]

It would become an infantry zerg-based mediocre shooter.

[moosepoop]

they need to bring back vintage max like in your sig, maxdamage. it looks so kewl.

[Beerbeer]

I remember people saying (here mind you)--in their justification of one-shotting vehicles--that, "well in real life (lol) vehicles are powerful." This was a while ago, not sure if they are still around.

Well in real life, an infantry with a shoulder mounted launcher can one-shot them. Double-standard?

[Sturmhardt]

The solution to the tankspam and ESF spam does not lie in an infantry buff, but in better base design where infantry can play a role.

[Beerbeer]

Okay, let me rephrase: why should vehicles one-shot infantry?

[Ruffdog]

Tanks do damage. Lost of damage. That's what they do.
Infantry on the other hand have versatility. They do some damage and they can capture territory.

I don't have a problem with tanks one shotting infantry so long as its MBTs and its the gunner spot, not driver spot.
Infantry one shotting tanks is idiotic. You are not John Rambo. This is Planetside.

[belch]

Shoulder launched rockets do not "one shot" every vehicle in real life. There are weapons, like the Javelin, that increase that chance greatly. But the RPG or AT-4? Not so much. Of course, a Javelin is much more expensive...and a much bigger, and heavier, munition. A Javelin gunner is not carrying 2 Javelins...believe me.

Of course, none of that should have bearing in game. They aren't working with the tech we have today...there should be advances in the munitions available to the ground pounder. As I can't see the point in nerfing vehicle firepower against infantry, I have to agree, what would be so disastrous about boosting the damage of HA rockets against tanks? Not one shotting them per se, but at least damaging them to the point that the tanker has to dismount or seriously risk being destroyed with the vehicle. As it stands now, there is no such risk unless the tank is seriously outnumbered by HA infantry.

[Sledgecrushr]

I remember people saying (here mind you)--in their justification of one-shotting vehicles--that, "well in real life (lol) vehicles are powerful." This was a while ago, not sure if they are still around.

Well in real life, an infantry with a shoulder mounted launcher can one-shot them. Double-standard?

Missiles cant one shot modern day tanks. The best anti tank round against a tank that has reactive armor would be a dpu round. Those old soviet era tanks in the mid east are not good comparisons to make.

[Beerbeer]

Lol, okay. Getting really technical.

While I'm no military expert by any means, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I mean that from the sense that you're looking at this from an "us" versus "them" mentality, NATO vs the Warsaw Pact.

Remove yourself from that thought and now imagine any rocket, from any country used against any tank.

NATO anti-tank weapons, which I would imagine being superior and designed to one-hit kill heavy armor, against their own tanks. You see my point? This isn't drawn against ideological lines.

[bpostal]

I would imagine there's some kind of technology that can, once the reactive armor is breached, bounce around inside the crew area and make like rather unpleasant for the crew.
Really what we ought to do is ask them to implement mobility kills.

[Sledgecrushr]

A depleted uranium round (dpu) has a solid core of uranium. When this uranium hits armor at the appropriate speed there is a chemicl reaction as it melts through armor. Once the dpu round enters an airspace inside the tank it rapidly expands into a fireball with fragmentation. This is a pretty advanced round and not available to most countries worldwide.

[Beerbeer]

Personally, allowing infantry to one-shot vehicles would eliminate these vehicles from being "vessels of the lone wolfer." These vehicles really don't require any teamwork to do their deeds against infantry. Yet people counter argue that teamwork is exactly what's needed for infantry to shine. Isn't that weird?

You want to bring that power into battle? You better be sure you bring it along with infantry (you know teamwork) to protect you while you one-shot away.

Either that or eliminate vehicles' ability to one-shot.

[Aurmanite]

1. Pick up the decimator.
2. Find a friend with a decimator.
3. Get behind the vehicle.
4. ????
5. Profit.

If you're in an area that is vehicle camped...why are you in an area that is vehicle camped?

[bpostal]

...If you're in an area that is vehicle camped...why are you in an area that is vehicle camped?

Name three areas(besides biolabs) that can not be camped, in at least some part, by vehicles.

[Beerbeer]

I'm not, never am.

In fact I think yesterday was the first person I killed with my infantry gun in over two weeks.


But, spawn camping isn't the issue I'm trying to discuss. It's nice that you would assume that.

[Aurmanite]

Name three areas(besides biolabs) that can not be camped, in at least some part, by vehicles.

Whether or not an area can be camped is irrelevant. What is relevant is if the area is currently camped, and why the hell are you there? Get out of there, man.


In fact I think yesterday was the first person I killed with my infantry gun in over two weeks.


There's something wrong with the way you're playing.

[bpostal]

Whether or not an area can be camped is irrelevant. What is relevant is if the area is currently camped, and why the hell are you there? Get out of there, man.


It is relevant. If it can be camped it will be camped.
Get out of there? No shit.

But you can no longer complain about bases being empty and mostly devoid of defense if you think it's irrelevant. It's (it being base layout) is the main (but not only) reason most fights are stupidly one sided. Terrible base layout = terrible fights.

[Beerbeer]

There's something wrong with the way you're playing.


Man, finally someone who gets it. Amen to that. Thank you

[Aurmanite]

It is relevant. If it can be camped it will be camped.
Get out of there? No shit.

But you can no longer complain about bases being empty and mostly devoid of defense if you think it's irrelevant. It's (it being base layout) is the main (but not only) reason most fights are stupidly one sided. Terrible base layout = terrible fights.

I don't even know what you're talking about. We're talking about killing vehicles here.

If you don't want to be camped, don't be camped.

[bpostal]

I don't even know what you're talking about. We're talking about killing vehicles here.

If you don't want to be camped, don't be camped.

My point is that everywhere is, or can be, camped.
You can't kill vehicles if you can't get outside to get at them.
The fact that they're right outside the spawns is because of shitty base design.

Adding back in OS or a weapon that one shots vehicles would help with this problem, but not solve it.

[Aurmanite]

My point is that everywhere is, or can be, camped.
You can't kill vehicles if you can't get outside to get at them.
The fact that they're right outside the spawns is because of shitty base design.

Adding back in OS or a weapon that one shots vehicles would help with this problem, but not solve it.

Ah, I see what your problem is. You're building a fantasy a battle field that suits your argument. In the game that I play every night, when a base gets camped I just spawn somewhere else. That place usually isn't camped because there's no one there. From there I carry on doing my own thing.

[bpostal]

Ah, I see what your problem is. You're building a fantasy a battle field that suits your argument. In the game that I play every night, when a base gets camped I just spawn somewhere else. That place usually isn't camped because there's no one there. From there I carry on doing my own thing.

Continue to be satisfied by these poorly designed bases if you want, that's fine. I'm going to try to make the game better for everyone by arguing my point.
Fun gameplay and engaging battles don't come from quitting, which is the preferred tactic, they come from being forced from the field.

[AThreatToYou]

You can already one-shot vehicles. It's called tank mines.\

I remember people saying (here mind you)--in their justification of one-shotting vehicles--that, "well in real life (lol) vehicles are powerful." This was a while ago, not sure if they are still around.

Well in real life, an infantry with a shoulder mounted launcher can one-shot them. Double-standard?

In real life, the proposition of damaging a vehicle by a hitpoint-based system is completely false.

In real life, if a vehicle is hit by an anti-vehicle weapon, it is either critically damaged, or completely unharmed. There are no hitpoints. More often than not, if you take out an Abrams, the crew will survive. Moreover, it is possible to bore a hole right through a vehicle in the right spot and it be completely unharmed.

If you want to conjure up "in real-life", ask for a better damage model. Play World of Tanks. Suffer through the extremely limited amount of realism that game offers (the realism is however front and center), and then tell me how infantry would fit in there. Your rockets might bounce off, the tank mine might do absolutely nothing because it blew up a tread, and so forth.

Imagine explaining that to a new player. "Why did my anti-tank rocket do absolutely nothing when I fired it at the tank?!" ... "Because it hit at a 70 degree angle."

Then imagine the newbie tank driver. "Why did some lone infantry, who has spend no resources on his suit or launcher, blow up my tank in one shot after I spent all of 3 minutes driving it to the fight?!"
... "Because he hit your ammo rack."


Simply put, if infantry could one-shot vehicles from a distance, the game would be absolutely ruined. It doesn't belong in PlanetSide.

/e: Oh, you're free to call me a hypocrite when you mention how a dumbfire missile and 1HK an ESF. That should stay, because it's an aircraft being hit by a dumbfire projectile that moves too slow to fly realistically.

[Aurmanite]

Continue to be satisfied by these poorly designed bases if you want, that's fine. I'm going to try to make the game better for everyone by arguing my point.
Fun gameplay and engaging battles don't come from quitting, which is the preferred tactic, they come from being forced from the field.

You're doing a fantastic job of making the game better for everyone. We are in your debt.

I'm not a fan of current base designs. Thanks for asking.

[bpostal]

You're doing a fantastic job of making the game better for everyone. We are in your debt.

I'm not a fan of current base designs. Thanks for asking.

You're welcome.

[Beerbeer]

True, but that's a little situational, and unless they are already planted, it's not easy approaching an mbt with an active driver who can just run you over. Mine guard? I can completely counter it anyways. That engineer can't counter me.

And as a tanker/engineer, I can plant bouncing betties just as easily around my tank if I wanted to camp. I've already seen people planting them around sunderers.

[belch]

You can already one-shot vehicles. It's called tank mines.\



In real life, the proposition of damaging a vehicle by a hitpoint-based system is completely false.

In real life, if a vehicle is hit by an anti-vehicle weapon, it is either critically damaged, or completely unharmed. There are no hitpoints. More often than not, if you take out an Abrams, the crew will survive. Moreover, it is possible to bore a hole right through a vehicle in the right spot and it be completely unharmed.

If you want to conjure up "in real-life", ask for a better damage model. Play World of Tanks. Suffer through the extremely limited amount of realism that game offers (the realism is however front and center), and then tell me how infantry would fit in there. Your rockets might bounce off, the tank mine might do absolutely nothing because it blew up a tread, and so forth.

Imagine explaining that to a new player. "Why did my anti-tank rocket do absolutely nothing when I fired it at the tank?!" ... "Because it hit at a 70 degree angle."

Then imagine the newbie tank driver. "Why did some lone infantry, who has spend no resources on his suit or launcher, blow up my tank in one shot after I spent all of 3 minutes driving it to the fight?!"
... "Because he hit your ammo rack."


Simply put, if infantry could one-shot vehicles from a distance, the game would be absolutely ruined. It doesn't belong in PlanetSide.

/e: Oh, you're free to call me a hypocrite when you mention how a dumbfire missile and 1HK an ESF. That should stay, because it's an aircraft being hit by a dumbfire projectile that moves too slow to fly realistically.

Anti-tank mines ave their place. I don't think anyone is arguing that. But theit actual tactical usage is limited. We don't have the ability to lay mine fields...at best, you can set down a couple of nasty surprises per engie, and that's it.

Now for the idea that tanks are in 'real life' invulnerable to infantry...not true. I am not talking about one nations systems versus another, although munitions technology certainly plays a role. But if you insist on mentioning current tactical reality, you need to pay attention to how tanks are being utilized in todays wars. Just how effective are tanks in an urban environment? And really, the whole idea that an M1 Abrams, any model, is somehow invulnerable to shoulder launched munitions is just false.

Again, why the reluctance to give HA infantry more powerful weapons? That tank armor affords protection against small arms is understandable. However, the tank has mobility for a reason. He should be feeling some very strong reasons for wanting to put distance between his tank, and the nooks and crannies of any defensible position. As it stands currently, they do not.

It doesn't need to be a one shot kill from a rocket launcher. But it should ring their bell badly...enough so that they decide to pull out, or risk losing the vehicle.

[Beerbeer]

Exactly. Well said.

I'm not a military person, but what I understand is that tanks are there primarily to kill other tanks/vehicles AND SUPPORT infantry.

I use them to farm infantry.

[AThreatToYou]

Now for the idea that tanks are in 'real life' invulnerable to infantry...not true. I am not talking about one nations systems versus another, although munitions technology certainly plays a role. But if you insist on mentioning current tactical reality, you need to pay attention to how tanks are being utilized in todays wars. Just how effective are tanks in an urban environment? And really, the whole idea that an M1 Abrams, any model, is somehow invulnerable to shoulder launched munitions is just false.

Yes, I understand. I agree. I never said they were invulnerable, I guess you could have taken some hints toward that. I digress... tanks are not invulnerable, nor is the Abrams.

Again, why the reluctance to give HA infantry more powerful weapons? That tank armor affords protection against small arms is understandable. However, the tank has mobility for a reason. He should be feeling some very strong reasons for wanting to put distance between his tank, and the nooks and crannies of any defensible position. As it stands currently, they do not.

My point is that one hit kills is definitely NOT the way to go, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING EMPIRE SPECIFICITY.

The biggest problem with HA weapons is that they fire too slow and the projectiles move too slow to fly realistically.

We need shoulder-mounted railguns, bolter cannons, and the Lancer that can deal serious damage accurately with a projectile speed that would be avoidable only by aircraft from a distance. MAX units need to be buffed.

There is a problem with the relationship between infantry/MAX units and vehicles, but it isn't solely based on damage output. It's mostly related to how easy it is to avoid that damage, in my opinion.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Like in the real world, vehicles are indeed powerful. Able to quickly project their power over a wide area. But one aspect is missing, infantry today have tools that dispatch unprotected vehicles very easily.

One man with a launcher can wreak havoc on vehicles if they are not guarded.

In this game, the chips lie completely with vehicles, they can one or two shot infantry, they can move with speed, they soak a lot of damage.

What would happen if one infantry missile could take down an aircraft? One infantry missile could blow up a tank? Just like those that like to draw real world comparisons and state that vehicles should able to quickly dispatch infantry, well that's only half the story, infantry can do just the same, only not here.

Would more infantry be needed to clear out infantry to protect those vehicles?

Yeah, but IRL, no respawns. Also, IRL there's artillery that shoots many KM. In this game, the render distance is what? 150m sometimes? So artillery is pointless.

All or nothing. If you want all, play something from the arma series. Or enlist.

[Beerbeer]

You totally missed the point.

People bring up the real life card every time they defend tanks in this game. I'm trying to show them that they are using a double-standard.

[bpostal]

...shoulder-mounted railguns...

Fuck the rest of the post, I'm sure it's well thought out and all that jazz...but fuck it, just give me god damn railguns!

[maradine]

If you want an infantry weapon that can one-shot a tank, pay 150 yellow for it. I'm fine with that fulcrum.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

mistake post.

[belch]

Yes, I understand. I agree. I never said they were invulnerable, I guess you could have taken some hints toward that. I digress... tanks are not invulnerable, nor is the Abrams.

I just think some folks are mistaken about how our current tanks really work, what they're used for, and their very real vulnerabilities. But ok.

My point is that one hit kills is definitely NOT the way to go, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING EMPIRE SPECIFICITY.

The biggest problem with HA weapons is that they fire too slow and the projectiles move too slow to fly realistically.

We need shoulder-mounted railguns, bolter cannons, and the Lancer that can deal serious damage accurately with a projectile speed that would be avoidable only by aircraft from a distance. MAX units need to be buffed.

There is a problem with the relationship between infantry/MAX units and vehicles, but it isn't solely based on damage output. It's mostly related to how easy it is to avoid that damage, in my opinion.

I agree, although I still believe that damage outpout from an AV rocket is just not enough. But you raise excellent points about projectile speed/velocity. It's just too easy to see it coming and avoid currently.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Doesn't that mean that liberator cannon rounds, ESF rockets and MBT shells will have to go a bit faster too?

[Beerbeer]

Right now, tanks can lay waste to fields of infantry, alone. I do it all of the time. HE rounds and zoom optics and they don't stand a chance.

You want teamwork, make me bring infantry to dig out those infantry defenders because I don't fear them at all while in a tank. I farm them. I don't care if the base is captured, I don't about anything so long as they are dumb enough to keep respawning and trying to kill me.

[Stanis]

Vehicles project force directly into all areas of the game.
There is virtually no area except the inside of a biolab they can't tactically suppress. (Read: camp)

The solution is that vehicles should be able to take the CY. Or surround a base and breach the wall for infantry.
But then the actual flow of battle would require infantry to take territory.

We'd then discover how shallow the infantry fights are. With the biolab model showing us that the devs only give us bases that are swiss cheese having 2 landing pads, 4 jump pads, teleporters and spawn beacons giving mutliple points of entry and no fall back , regroup or supression points (read corridors, enfilade, defilade) to actually defend.

Also, wait until we do have a location for decent infantry fight. No more crying about NC being underpowered - their strength will be very obvious.

[Beerbeer]

I don't want to be shoe-horned into the biolab. Infantry should be able to move and fight anywhere. Defend themselves anywhere.

The biggest benefit to vehicles is that they can move fast and project their power over a large area, while foot soldiers cannot. Vehicles have benefits that infantry do not. That means a lot, but vehicles just farm infantry.

Infantry in this game is hobbled beyond any recognition. Either up AV damage that infantry can do or get rid of vehicles' ability to one/two shot infantry.

And redo the bases already. Hamma, please dig up every post during beta that defended the current base design and post their names here: the wall of shame.

[Ghoest9]

Historically(and lets be honest all fun games play more or less like WW2-Veit Nam era warfare.)

Tanks + Infantry are very powerful. Tanks alone die to infantry. Infantry alone dies to Tanks + Infantry.

Planes kill tanks. Planes rarely kill infantry. Gun implacments sometimes kill planes.

Helicopters kill Infantry when they fly in close. Infantry kills Helicopters when they fly in close.

Planes kill Helicopters.

Planes kill Planes.



This model would have made for much more fun game.

[Beerbeer]

Exactly. This game is backwards. Infantry is the primary fighting force in any army, except for world of tanks and here.

You want to use your vehicles and farm infantry, you better bring some infantry of your own.

[AThreatToYou]

We don't really have planes. We have a bunch of VTOL craft, basically helicopters.
That still makes enough sense for me.

[Beerbeer]

Hamma, don't make me subpoena you, dig it up or I will, unless you were part of the vehicle whoring cadre advocating this crap.

[Carver]

Tanks are pretty squishy as is. They always hang back on hilltops and bombard because as soon as one rushes forward into a field of infantry it's usually greated by 10 heavy assault rockets (and a few of my AT mines if he tries to roll through a choke point)

The only thing that really bugs me is flying tank Liberators 1000m in the air that you can't shoot back at.