Vanu vehicles...

[Cyanide]

I was reading the vanu vehicle descriptions the other day and it says that they can strafe due to their "gravatic drive system". I'm not in beta so what i want to know is has this proven to be an advantage for them or is it fairly well balanced. I would think that a strafing tank could own a standard tank. Assuming the standard tanks turret doesn't swivel fast enough.

[Seer]

Apparently not. Magriders are proported to be rare sights, and I reckon there is a reason for that.

[Zenny]

First not in beta just opinion here. I find strafing kinda helpful, but not enough, as in the other faction tanks can turn 90degrees and point to the side, and BAM they got their own kinda strafe lol... hrmmm

[Strijder]

I haven't experienced beta yet, so I can't speak from experience, but strafing from side to side sounds like it'd be harder to get hit.

[Deebob]

I've only seen 1 so far...but havent seen many prowlers either.

It was harder to hit, but didnt change my odds that much (reaver/ & Pheonix)

[Cyanide]

The way this thread is going i wonder if vehicles are worth it. Do tanks serve any purpose except to kill other vehicles? If they don't then i don't see them being used much since there are plenty of AV weapons available to infantry.

[Hamma]

All tanks right now are rare, because as it stands their armor is like paper. This will be addressed soon (in the next patch i think) they wont take damage from folks running around with cyclers or standard weapons. You will need some anti-vehicle shit (like it should be)

[Seer]

An upcoming patch will make heavily armored vehicles immune to small arms fire. Still, they may also have to address infantry AV lethality.

[Cyanide]

If the dev team wants tanks to be used more frequently they should make only 1 or 2 infantry weapons that can kill them. They should be most easily countered by other tanks and the cert for those AV weapons needs to be fairly high cost and specialized. If it's easy for a player to get the AV cert and carry around AV weapons without hindering their other capabilities nobody will use vehicles.

[Jakal]

Kind of sounds like maybe they were trying to make sure tanks werent uber powerful like in 1942 (Uber is the coolest word in any language.ever.period). Guess they went to far. Glad its bein fixed. I want to be a lightning driver.

[Seer]

I share your opinion that a tank is best countered by another tank and hope PS comes to reflect this. It would be a net positive in terms of fun. Players don't mind powerful vehicles roaming around as long as valid counterstrategies exist, and fear is a powerful emotion to have in your service while making a game. In BF1942 I feel afraid of the tanks and consequently thril at their destruction. I love playing infantry, and the base interiors ensure that PS will always have a role for the footsoldier, but I would prefer it if vehicles lorded over infantry (including max) and not the other way around.

While the BF system defrays the threat to tanks and vehicles by making AV a seperate (an relatively rare, by choice) class, the PS system allows a footsoldier to carry the most powerful AV weapon available to him as well as the most powerful rifle available to him at the same time.

[Jakal]

I agree seer some of the best memories i have in 1942 are blowing up tanks with the av class. And dont forget that the really powerful vehicles are only useful if crewed by multiple people so they balance out. A prowler which holds 3 should be able to take 3 soldiers i think. Maybe not maxes but at least the footsloggers.

[Bighoss]

The Phoenix makes blowing any vehicle up so simple so it makes them pretty pointless espically one thiats just a big metal box that can;t fly

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Cyanide
I was reading the vanu vehicle descriptions the other day and it says that they can strafe due to their "gravatic drive system". I'm not in beta so what i want to know is has this proven to be an advantage for them or is it fairly well balanced. I would think that a strafing tank could own a standard tank. Assuming the standard tanks turret doesn't swivel fast enough.

You can't strafe extremely fast. A tank's turret can easily keep up with how fast you can strafe, especially if said tank actually has someone driving it (in which case they'll try to move out of the way of the AI weapon fixed to the front of the MagRider.

Honestly, I don't see much good in the MagRider strafing. It might be better for moving through some tough spots, but in combat, a tank is too big, and the strafing too slow to make a huge difference.

[Ubernator]

I would like to see tanks to work somewhat like MAX armors do for infantry. It seems to me that MAX armors are the slow heavy weaps guys that soak up the enemy fire for the grunts. Without the support of grunts though, a lone MAX is toast. Tanks should work similarly. They should be supporting convoys of APCs or foot soldiers so that they make it inside an enemy installation with minimal damage.

I plan on doing just that ^^ when I get a heavy tank cert.

The Mag-rider has a direct fire heavy rail beam I believe. Am I right that it is direct fire? Being direct fire, I could order my gunner to easily take out wall turrets for our VS invading force. The rail beam would also make hitting enemy vehicles at long ranges quite easy. So, if the Mag-rider cant compete in the armor or main gun department, it can at least use it's mobility to stay at range from the other heavy tanks (where indirect fire would be difficult to land a shot). I wonder if it would be possible to pluck a Reaver out of the sky with the heavy rail beam....
:D

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Ubernator
I would like to see tanks to work somewhat like MAX armors do for infantry. It seems to me that MAX armors are the slow heavy weaps guys that soak up the enemy fire for the grunts. Without the support of grunts though, a lone MAX is toast. Tanks should work similarly. They should be supporting convoys of APCs or foot soldiers so that they make it inside an enemy installation with minimal damage.

I plan on doint just that ^^ when I get a heavy tank cert.

The Mag-rider has a direct fire heavy rail beam I believe. Am I right that it is direct fire? Being direct fire, I could order my gunner to easily take out wall turrets for our VS invading force. The rail beam would also make hitting enemy vehicles at long ranges quite easy. So, if the Mag-rider cant compete in the armor or main gun department, it can at least use it's mobility to stay at range from the other heavy tanks (where indirect fire would be difficult to land a shot). I wonder if it would be possible to pluck a Reaver out of the sky with the heavy rail beam....
:D

The MagRider's main and anti-infantry guns are both direct fire. I actually don't believe any Vanu weapons have a fire arc. They all shoot directly out. The only thing I'm unsure on is whether the Rail Gun (yes, it's a Rail Gun, and it has a really nice looking projectile/projectile explosion) has the accuracy that the Thresher's gun does, or whether repeated firing will degrades its accuracy, similar to infantry weapons.

[Ubernator]

Hmmm, it is a turret that is fixed on a tank so I wouldn't think recoil would be too big of a problem. Then again, I could be wrong. It's good to hear that the rail gun looks cool, heh. It should be like the rail gun from Red Faction... oh wait getting sniped by a tank on the other side of a wall would not be very fun. :p

[FliggenMan]

i honestly just think that pheonix missles shud be switched to homing like the striker, with a stronger missle but a slower ROF. then u also have to increase magrider speed and make tank arnor immune to AP ammo(just tank armor not other vehicle armor).

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Ubernator
Hmmm, it is a turret that is fixed on a tank so I wouldn't think recoil would be too big of a problem.

Don't try to factor in realism here. The game is balanced based on what's fun and fair, not what's realistic.

[Ubernator]

Yah, I do concede that the remark I made could be wrong.

Maybe a beta tester that has been a Mag-rider gunner could shed some light on this. It would also be nice to know its rate of fire relative to the other heavy tanks.

[Seer]

Originally posted by Warborn
Don't try to factor in realism here. The game is balanced based on what's fun and fair, not what's realistic.

I don't see how this is an issue here or in real life--tanks do get shaken up when they fire, but it isn't like they're going to be firing again in the handful of seconds it takes to settle down.

Also, you don't modify reality significantly in the interests of making things fair. There are ways to balance a tank aside from making it suffer recoil issues that it otherwise wouldn't, and most players can pick up instantly on anything nonsensical that happens to be working against them.

[NeoTassadar]

How much faster are Mag Rider than say, a Prowler? Because since empire-specific tanks don't fit in Galaxies, that speed is a huge advantage, regardless of strafing. What good is a tank if you can't get it to the fight before it's over? Or am I exaggerating unknowlingly?

[Matuse]

tanks do get shaken up when they fire, but it isn't like they're going to be firing again in the handful of seconds it takes to settle down.

The M-1A2 Abrahms tank can sustain a firing rate of 3 shots per 10 seconds....while moving at 40 mph.

[Seer]

I see your point, but how can an Abrams fire that fast? It is loaded manually. Maybe it's a record.

The Abrams' maximum rate of fire is about six rounds per minute; if a single M1A2 were to engage a half dozen enemy tanks...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/4lastmbt.pdf

[Warborn]

Originally posted by NeoTassadar
How much faster are Mag Rider than say, a Prowler? Because since empire-specific tanks don't fit in Galaxies, that speed is a huge advantage, regardless of strafing. What good is a tank if you can't get it to the fight before it's over? Or am I exaggerating unknowlingly?

They're pretty fast. A little bit slower than a Basilisk, actually (I raced a Prowler). And I can only say for the Prowler, but I'm sure that it's the same for all 3 tanks. If it's not, the speed differences are very minor.

However, don't let this fool you. Tanks are fast, but they're not agile. Rough terrain slows them down considerably, and they can't weave between trees like a Basilisk can.

And finally, travelling in a Prowler can be time consuming, especially on really rough continents (Ishundar has a lot of mountains and valleys, and makes for very poor tank travel). I personally would really like if Galaxies could hold a tank, but the tank couldn't bail while in mid flight, to prevent tank-drops.

[TheAngelOfWar]

i can see an Abrams firing a rate of 3/10 seconds on a range, no reaquiring targets, but not on a battlefield.

back into game, someone said tank should be the main thing to take out another tank. is the reaver not good enough to be the A-10 of PS?

[Warborn]

back into game, someone said tank should be the main thing to take out another tank. is the reaver not good enough to be the A-10 of PS?

No, and the main reason I say this is because Reavers only take 1 person to fully crew, tanks take 2-3. However, if this isn't good enough for you, the PS team doesn't agree with Reavers taking out tanks easily either, as ground vehicle chainguns were made to do more damage to aircraft recently, and as it stands, a Reaver will have to unload a lot of ordinance to take out a fully repaired tank, and you can expect this to be even more difficult next patch when tanks are supposedly being enhanced in terms of armor.


Oh, but rest assured that Reavers are still good. They can chew MAXs and infantry up pretty well, and they're good against other vehicles and aircraft too.

[TheAngelOfWar]

cool, thx for reply. i wasnt really thinking "Reaver should be A-10", but more like "IS Reaver be A-10?"

*watch's tank crews everywhere sigh in relief*

[Sorondur]

Originally posted by Seer
I share your opinion that a tank is best countered by another tank and hope PS comes to reflect this. It would be a net positive in terms of fun. Players don't mind powerful vehicles roaming around as long as valid counterstrategies exist, and fear is a powerful emotion to have in your service while making a game. In BF1942 I feel afraid of the tanks and consequently thril at their destruction.

While the BF system defrays the threat to tanks and vehicles by making AV a seperate (an relatively rare, by choice) class, the PS system allows a footsoldier to carry the most powerful AV weapon available to him as well as the most powerful rifle available to him at the same time.

I heartily agree with Seer's statement, but I want to point out a fault I find with the BF tank threat system: the ability for grenades to apply appreciable damage and force to a tank. In the hopes for balanced gameplay I find this to be a problem in BF and hope not to see it in PS. Although EA patched the amount of damage a nade can do to a tank its still quite easy for 2 infantry members to knock out a tank with their full grenade allotment, and make it near impossible for the tank to engage the infantry at close range since the grenades have the ability to move the tank to some degree. Has anyone in Beta tried nailing a tank with a grenade (and on a side note, whats the deal with mines versus tanks?)

I think Seer best put the roll of tanks versus infantry: they should inspire fear and caution in the footsoldiers. I'd really like to see outfits automatically require one man to hold an anti-tank role out of anticipation of seeing a behemoth like the prowler rolling down towards their position.:scared: