Ground Vehicles Required in PS2?

[Akadios]

I have been kicking this around in my head for a bit. Are ground vehicles really going to be necessary? What I mean by this is not in the general zerg sense but in a more organized outfit sense.

Changes from PS1 that brought this line of thought on:

Galaxy's ability to deploy as an AMS
The ability to spawn on your squad leader
The ability to spec out aircraft for anti-vehicle roles


The concept of a ground vehicle less structure:

25 or so Empire Specific fighters
15 or so anti-vehicle reavers
10 or so anti-infantry reavers
10 or So Galaxies filled with infantry (1 full platoon ie. 100 infantry)

The question: With the above setup is there really a need to have an armor column if it meant you had to remove some of these assets and couldn't remove infantry? Would there be any reason that ground vehicles would be better than fighters, reavers, or gals?

[SUBARU]

I believe you can also capture a spawn point in a base

[Sifer2]

Yeah I sort of felt the same with the removal of stuff like ANT or AMS you really don't need ground vehicles. However they did say some objectives are outdoor objectives. And perhaps only a ground vehicle or foot soldier can capture it. Landing your Reaver to try would probably just result in it being one shotted by a tank.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Assuming that the Sundy has Loadstar repair and infantry equipment terminal functionality the fact that you can drive it straight into an enemy base to support your indoor fight is going to keep the Bangbus relevant.

[Toppopia]

But you need ground vehicles to get to an objective, and a galaxy is probably much more expensive than a sunderer or tanks, and you will want a combined assault of ground and air, or else if the enemy as AA, your aircraft assault is doomed, if the enemy has AT, your ground assault is a bit doomed, combinations would work great for assaults.

[Littleman]

I can't imagine angle of attack matters when firing a missile at an aircraft, nor would one need very many missiles. Tanks though, rear shots are king, but if the tank has infantry support, finding the opportunity to attack it's flank might be difficult. Also, tanks could be fitted with AA capabilities, and I'd like to think they're not ineffective at performing that role.

Additionally, one man can handle a tank in it's entirety, even if it's inefficient compared to having a crew.

[noxious]

If you don't mix it up, most or all of your enemies will play the hard counter (AA aircraft, AA vehicles and AA infantry) and your one-trick pony will be decimated.

[Timealude]

Ya when you have a base full of people ready for an air attack thats your best time to hit them with tanks and sundies

[Zhane]

I'm deeply hoping the Sunderer is not only viable but important, because it's my vehicle of choice.

[Haro]

MBT and lightning AA configurations will likely make mincemeat of any force that relies on air assets too much. They will also likely be far more resistant to enemy fire, and will be necessary to provide fire where aircraft cannot go.

In modern military theory, many have questioned whether tanks really matter in a battlefield increasingly relying on air superiority. For the most part, the answer has always been yes, because you still need significant ground forces to take and hold territory, something aerial vehicles cannot generally do. If anything, I think ground vehicles will be even more required in PS2 than in 1, because battles extend beyond bases throughout a continent, and land transports and tanks will play a much more important role in this new style of combat.

[Turdicus]

After everything thats been posted already the only thing left to be said is that you can totally get away with ground vehicle-less outfit. Air only outfits roll all the time, sometimes outfits roll with 100% reavers for instance. Same goes for everything else, and skill and situation will greatly affect the effectiveness of the strategy.

[Akadios]

After everything said I should say I agree with everything people said, I think the only thing I wonder is,

Are anti-vehicle specc'd reavers an even match for an anti air specc'd lightning or MBT? Do we know the answer from e3 play, i haven't seen anything?

If an anti-vehicle reaver is a 1vs1 match for an anti-air vehicle than the only factor would be cost as far as I can see. I know it sounds silly but it all comes down to how well anti-vehicle reavers can clear out anti-air. If it is similar to the ability of a MBT to kill an MBT than it really doesn't seem like there is a need to "Switch it up".

That being said if it is that way than the air may be better. Let me explain why I think this. If the av reaver is a match for an aa mbt than it will also kill an av or ai mbt. As such if you roll the reavers to kill the aa they can also kill the ai and av, the same can not be said for ground vehicles which in AA mode would have difficulty killing vehicles or infantry, or in av or AI mode would have trouble with air, etc.

So if you have say 50 people other than your infantry force and the enemy is fielding a mix of everything (which can be assumed for the most part). Than if the AV reaver is a match for an AA MBT would it not simply be more efficient to have 35 AV and 15 interceptors rather than mixing it up with units that can't just kill everything?

[Pepsi]

Originally Posted by Akadios

Are anti-vehicle specc'd reavers an even match for an anti air specc'd lightning or MBT?

Personally I'd want the air vehicles to always be at a disadvantage in these situations. The air vehicles not only get to decide when, where, and how to fight an AA tank, but the aircraft can also just zip away if it gets weak (good luck trying to hide or run away from a helicopter/jet).

[Akadios]

Originally Posted by Pepsi

Personally I'd want the air vehicles to always be at a disadvantage in these situations. The air vehicles not only get to decide when, where, and how to fight an AA tank, but the aircraft can also just zip away if it gets weak (good luck trying to hide or run away from a helicopter/jet).

I totally agree, I would prefer if AA vehicles > AV Reavers. I am not sure if that is the case though as we didn't have anti vehicle specialized air craft in PS1. If anyone has seen footage from alpha on this please enlighten us as too the current balance here.

[Malorn]

Planetside is a game of hard counters. From what we saw of resource costs, ground vehicles were also a bit cheaper. ES fighters looked fragile from the footage, two missiles often enough to bring one down. Between AA max, HA missiles, Lightning skyguard turrets and AA config secondary guns there are plenty of hard counters to air.

In the streams the ES aircraft didn't do a lot of air to ground, they were too busy worrying about the other aircraft. I think ground forces with sufficient AA cover can take ground and cause what enemy air is around to screw off.