Another Artillery Thread

Runlikethewind · 2012-07-11, 12:35 AM

This idea has probably already been proposed in one form or another but I am way too lazy to crawl through all the forum to confirm that. So here is my idea.

All the threads I have seen on arty have been based on the self-propelled model of arty like the flail but the primary model for field artillery in real world armies is the towed crew-served weapon. So my thought is to use this as the primary model for conversations about arty in PS2. Rather than simply being an oversized tank that can be driven, deployed and fired by a single player, artillery would be more like it has been throughout its history, it would require a whole squad to man and operate and it would take more than a few seconds to set up. A towed M198 155mm howitzer requires 5 minutes or more to deploy and requires a crew of between 5-8 to fire and that's not including all the support personal, communications, fire direction control, forward observers, ammo supply drivers, etc. This model of artillery creates a scenario in which artillery could only be deployed by a large group of players all working together.

Now I don't really care one way or the other if we have arty in PS2 or not. What I am saying here is that we shift our model when discussing the possibility of arty away from the flail and toward the classic model of field artillery as a gun towed into a position by another vehicle, deployed and manned by a crew rather than an individual.

Loco · 2012-07-19, 10:54 AM

I think having a crew would be difficult to pull off. I agree with your ideas of having to deploy. Any indirect artillery should have that restriction.

I like the flail and would love to see an Artillery aspect. A tank that has to deploy before shooting would work.

Of coarse you could also go with man portable mortars as well.

I also think that anyone using indirect fire should be assisted with a secondary scout with a laser target indicator.

Buggsy · 2012-07-20, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

This idea has probably already been proposed in one form or another but I am way too lazy to crawl through all the forum to confirm that. So here is my idea.

All the threads I have seen on arty have been based on the self-propelled model of arty like the flail but the primary model for field artillery in real world armies is the towed crew-served weapon. So my thought is to use this as the primary model for conversations about arty in PS2. Rather than simply being an oversized tank that can be driven, deployed and fired by a single player, artillery would be more like it has been throughout its history, it would require a whole squad to man and operate and it would take more than a few seconds to set up. A towed M198 155mm howitzer requires 5 minutes or more to deploy and requires a crew of between 5-8 to fire and that's not including all the support personal, communications, fire direction control, forward observers, ammo supply drivers, etc. This model of artillery creates a scenario in which artillery could only be deployed by a large group of players all working together.

Now I don't really care one way or the other if we have arty in PS2 or not. What I am saying here is that we shift our model when discussing the possibility of arty away from the flail and toward the classic model of field artillery as a gun towed into a position by another vehicle, deployed and manned by a crew rather than an individual.

Sounds good.

How about reloading these deployed-fixed artillery is like hacking a base. You hop out, hold down your "E" button and it slowly reloads another shell, then hop back into the gunner's position and fire. Say it takes 20 seconds to load a shell. With 2 players it takes 10 seconds. With 3 players it takes 7 seconds. And the vehicle exit-enter animation is 10 seconds. So optimum group play is 1 gunner and 4 reloaders, and one forward observer to laze target.

__________________________________

1) Takes 20 seconds for 1 player to reload, each additional player halves reload time. Exit vehicle and hit "E" button to reload, sort of like hacking a flag. The little circle takes 20 seconds for 1 player.

2) Exit/enter animation is 10 seconds

3) Can only fire one shot at a time, before needing reload

4) Can only fire after someone laze target, no dumb firing. Laze functions the same as PS1.

5) Takes 1 minute to deploy/undeploy

5) Is a big fat target deployed or undeployed

6) Drives slow

7) Missiles show up on everyone's minimap exactly like it was in PS1.

8) Maximum range is as long a reaver flying straight for 1 minute.

_______________________________

So you can theoretically have 1 player soloing artillery.

-Would take that player a few minutes to drive to a hidden spot

-1 minute to set up.

-20 seconds to load in one shell

-10 seconds to enter vehicle

-About 20 seconds to find a laze'd target if he's in a squad with someone lazing

-10 seconds to exit vehicle

-20 seconds to reload another shell

-10 seconds to reenter vehicle

-Shoot again.

About 45 seconds per shell fired.

_________________________________________

With 4 players on artillery 1 person shooting, 3 people reloading, you can shoot a shell of once every 7 seconds. You still need someone lazing target though.

Anyone who's against artillery needs to have their head checked.

Pinkie Pie · 2012-07-20, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Sounds good.

With 4 players on artillery 1 person shooting, 3 people reloading, you can shoot a shell of once every 7 seconds. You still need someone lazing target though.

sounds awesome, especially with what buggsy here said.
+support from me!

Buggsy · 2012-07-20, 08:06 PM

So let's see uh.

A optimum 4 player artillery squad would be 1 player driving up the artillery followed by 3 players in AA-tanks. They setup and keep their AA-tanks really close so when they spot Reavers, they can hop into their tanks real quick and shoot at Reaver.

1 Reaver wouldn't be much of a challenge. 2 Reavers would be a little harder to defend against. 3 Reavers a 50:50 chance or maybe easier to take out.

Or one player in a fast plane could be scouting behind enemy lines for artillery and eject out of their plane at a safe distance, stealthily creep up on that artillery and laze target for counter-artillery to take them out in one hit. BOOM!

_____________________

Multiboxers. 1 player and 3 bots. If 1 player is gunning then they wont be able to see a Reaver coming and that Reaver would get easy kills on 4 players. Even if that payer would be able to see the Reaver coming, he could only gun one AA-tank at a time with one of his bots. Easy kill for Reaver.

_____________________

No more hiding behind warp bubble

____________________

And if you still think it's too overpowered, have it cost 5-1 infantry resource points to the gunner for every shell fired. eh eh eh eh.

GLaDOS · 2012-07-20, 08:30 PM

This really sounds like an awesome take on the idea, one I haven't seen before.

On a side note, someone mentioned on another thread having a "mortarman" class, which eventually got refined down to a cert for a different one. I think this could work too, possibly the HA giving up his rocket launcher for it. Needless to say, it would have very limited ammo and firing rate, and somewhat limited range.

I think both these should be in the game, one as a more solo, less effective option (although it could still use a teammate) that doesn't require the same setup time, and the other as a resource-expensive, powerful option that requires more people to really work.

Buggsy · 2012-07-22, 10:06 AM

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NoDachi · 2012-07-22, 10:27 AM

3 people having to reload?

Terrible idea.

OutlawDr · 2012-07-23, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by NoDachi

3 people having to reload?

Terrible idea.

Yep, making artillery a pain in the ass and unenjoyable is not the solution. Making it more 'realistic' doesn't address the standing gameplay issues that people have with artillery. The problem is that its indirect combat with a low skill ceiling that has the potential to deny large groups of players in an area from engaging in actual skilled gameplay. We need to address that first.

Buggsy · 2012-07-27, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by OutlawDr

Yep, making artillery a pain in the ass and unenjoyable is not the solution. Making it more 'realistic' doesn't address the standing gameplay issues that people have with artillery. The problem is that its indirect combat with a low skill ceiling that has the potential to deny large groups of players in an area from engaging in actual skilled gameplay. We need to address that first.

The only low-skill stuff I see is running around and just shooting.

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I get that you guys are trying to avoid the problems of the flail, but this is just overkill.

If you implemented artillery where 3 players do nothing but sit there and hold E for 10 seconds, every 30 seconds or so, NO ONE WILL USE IT. You might as well leave it out of the game.

And people suggest SPGs because a towed arty would be ridiculous. "Oh just let me cert into the tow hitch for the Sunderer so we can move this howitzer we spawned" Fun stuff.

I agree that it should take more than one person, and targeting should be limited with out support of some kind or expensive sidegrades.(ex. high-lvl cert into cam-guided shells, sacrificing damage and ammo capacity)

But leave Arty as an SPG, and don't have more than one damn reloader.

You don't have to use it if you don't have the patience.

The SPG Flail was overpowered...because it was self propelled.

lastus · 2012-08-01, 02:55 PM

It'd be cool to have a way to spec a MAX unit into a arty role. Maybe have it be able to go into a fixed position and have a mortar mounted onto its back. It would be able to load automatically but would be vulnerable to enemy fire when in a fixed position. Don't know if they had anything like that in ps1 but it'd be a more usable artillery system for people who want to get into the combat.

Phisionary · 2012-08-01, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Buggsy

The only low-skill stuff I see is running around and just shooting.

You can program the AI to do that, then. I'll program the AI that does the more skilled job, "E" holding.

There is no need for crew anywhere in the firing process. That's why I think that there should be no crew at all for artillery. The only necessary player is the one doing line-of-sight targeting.

I'm not sure the point of having non-self-propelled artillery. It doesn't make any sense in the context of the game, either. It would just make it unfriendly to use, and logistically idiotic. Making gameplay a PITA isn't a way to balance, IMO.

Buggsy · 2012-08-02, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Phisionary

You can program the AI to do that, then. I'll program the AI that does the more skilled job, "E" holding.

There is no need for crew anywhere in the firing process. That's why I think that there should be no crew at all for artillery. The only necessary player is the one doing line-of-sight targeting.

I'm not sure the point of having non-self-propelled artillery. It doesn't make any sense in the context of the game, either. It would just make it unfriendly to use, and logistically idiotic. Making gameplay a PITA isn't a way to balance, IMO.

Don't use the word "logistics" in a game where players magically teleport into existence.

If the artillery is mobile and easily soloable than it will be nerfed into uselessness or not even exist at all.

Plissket · 2013-02-03, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by OutlawDr

Yep, making artillery a pain in the ass and unenjoyable is not the solution. Making it more 'realistic' doesn't address the standing gameplay issues that people have with artillery. The problem is that its indirect combat with a low skill ceiling that has the potential to deny large groups of players in an area from engaging in actual skilled gameplay. We need to address that first.

I totally agree with this one.

I'd love the idea of artillery being in the game from a realism point of view, but I would hate the idea of people just running around and then exploding because someone 4km away fired a shell randomly at an area. (In PS1 they were generally used to fire at a vehicle terminal over and over and over.....exciting stuff

).

There is nothing players can do against that, so until that bit is fixed I think the idea is dead from a gameplay perspective.

On the same note as artillery PS1's orbital strike is also sucky for the same reasons. With that there is no warning, no Star wars 1 style graphics of the bad guy's spaceship lining up its shot to an area, no increasing drama of the mega weapon about to be used, just a column of light and blat your gone.

Gonzo · 2012-07-22, 11:43 PM

I get that you guys are trying to avoid the problems of the flail, but this is just overkill.

If you implemented artillery where 3 players do nothing but sit there and hold E for 10 seconds, every 30 seconds or so, NO ONE WILL USE IT. You might as well leave it out of the game.

And people suggest SPGs because a towed arty would be ridiculous. "Oh just let me cert into the tow hitch for the Sunderer so we can move this howitzer we spawned" Fun stuff.

I agree that it should take more than one person, and targeting should be limited with out support of some kind or expensive sidegrades.(ex. high-lvl cert into cam-guided shells, sacrificing damage and ammo capacity)

But leave Arty as an SPG, and don't have more than one damn reloader.