Infantry vs. Armor/Air

[Chanfan]

In another thread, I got thinking about some old board games - Ogre/G.E.V.

The relevance being, that in those games, units were purchased according to their combat value. Heavy armor cost a bit, Light armor or G.E.V.'s (fast hovercraft) less so, and infantry was very cheap. Things are balanced by point cost.

Certainly in games like BF1942, aircraft and tanks, etc. are generally more effective / desirable than just being a basic grunt. Grunts are needed to capture and defend bases, mind you, but the vehicles are really controlled by scarcity - there's a limited number of them, and they take a while to re-spawn. If there were enough for everyone playing, most likely, everyone would be in a tank or plane (with a few exceptions, of course).

In PS, there is no point cost for vehicles. There's no scarcity, either. It's limited, as far as I can tell, by a few things: Certifications, spawn point locations vs. vehicle purchase locations, and speed/ease of transport.

Certifications aren't terribly limiting, as it looks to be fairly easy to get enough certs from training to get at least one vehicle cert.

Spawn point locations are probably a biggie, as if you spawn at an AMS or other locations not close to a vehicle purchasing point, you just have to make do.

Transport I'm not sure on. A Galaxy can make it easy for a large squad to get from point A to point B, certainly. But why wouldn't the Galaxy just take the squad to a vehicle purchase point, and have them all buy aircraft/tanks/MAX armour? (MAX's seem like mini-vehicles to me, for this purpose).

Obviously, some terrain is restrictive - bases, for instance. And some things - infiltration suits - have special purposes not found in vehicles.

But what is going to prevent, play-balance wise, everyone just getting in their favorite vehicle for most combats? I'm wondering why it would be good to bring a squad of infantry to a tank fight. Will the only time you see infantry in agile armour running around be in bases, or when their vehicle has been destroyed?

It certainly doesn't look that way from the beta - I'm just wondering what the dynamics are in PS that prevent this from happening.

[Edit] - I see in anothe thread there may be a timer on getting another vehichle - any conformation on this? It would add scarcity to vehicles.

[Warborn]

The main reason most people do not use vehicles excessively in PlanetSide is because a lot of the heavier vehicles are not one-man endeavours. For example, the Marauder takes 3 people to operate fully. One driver, and two gunners. You can't quick-switch your position, so you need other people if you want to operate the vehicle fully. That makes it fairly undesireable unless you've got a set team with you, in stark contrast to the tanks of BF1942 where one guy controls a tank (in PS, tanks are also not 1-man vehicles). So, that right there is enough to discourge most people from using the heavy combat vehicles. They need team mates if they want to actually use those vehicles properly. The vehicles that are one man are, with the exception of the Reaver, relatively vulnerable to getting blown up by regular infantry if they try and go front-line with their ride.

It certainly doesn't look that way from the beta - I'm just wondering what the dynamics are in PS that prevent this from happening.

Are you in the Beta yourself, or are you drawing your information from elsewhere?

[LesserShade]

ok, semi off topic here but Operation Flashpoint armor is how I'd to see armor done in other games. Although the driver/gunner combo in PS does look fun and I can't wait to try it out, OpF had driver/gunner/commander which was a blast because it required a lot of teamwork.

I must agree with warborn though, the necessity of teams to operate vehicles should keep their numbers low. I am somewhat concerned with over abundance of mosquitoes and reavers however.

[Warborn]

Air dominance shouldn't be a big problem. There are plenty of ways to counter aircraft, so as long as you're with a group of people who've taken into consideration the risk posed by enemy air power, you should be reasonably fine.

[LesserShade]

At least AA Max units will be in demand.

[mr_luc]

I'm not worried about that as much -- there's only so much air vehicles can DO, and conversely, there's a lot that a ground unit with AA missiles CAN do to those in the air.

You'll see heavy air traffic -- this is a good thing, a very good thing! But mostly between destinations -- when you get where you're going, the real work (taking the base) is going to be accomplished mostly by foot soldiers.

[Shark]

I think the cert point cost could be a factor too. We don't know yet what the final cost will be to say be a tank driver. And we also don't know how a tank would fair one on one with an AV MAX or a couple of AV infantry. And so far, it appears that damage done to the armor of a tank will have to be repaired. I suspect that will require the crew to have some ability to repair armor, which means more certs. That leaves fewer certs for things like weapons and medical...a tanker will probably make for a limited fighter outside of his tank.

-shark

[LesserShade]

^perhaps. It seems like so far though when you max out your certs while you are unable to have everything, you'll still be able to be a pretty versatile soldier.

Good point though luc. I suppose I was having flashbacks to 1942 where if you were a lonely soldier in the middle of a field and planes were above, you could kiss your ass goodbye because your options of downing a plane were pretty limited.

[Gladiator]

What is the AA Max is it a Vehicle or armor? Do you have to get certified to use it.

[Warborn]

there's only so much air vehicles can DO

You don't want to mess with a Reaver.

And we also don't know how a tank would fair one on one with an AV MAX or a couple of AV infantry.

Think about it logically. A MAX is a one-man suit of armor, a tank takes 3 people to function. A MAX can be bought at any equipment terminal, a tank requires a more advanced vehicle pad to be created. A MAX is a relatively small target, a tank is a big, tracked bullseye. You can buy MAX armor over and over again, but you can only buy one tank every so many minutes.

If you put two and two together, I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that a couple AV infantry or an AV MAX don't stand a friggin chance against a fully crewed tank.

[simba]

all you need to be a infantry dude in weapon certifications is really only medium assault which everyone should get couse there is where you get the most anti-infantry weapons-Punisher(anti-vehicle also), flechette rifle(good for close combat) and empire specific rifle(good for all-around things.
I mean all u need is medium assault cert and you got it.
And lets see, what do you need in armor to make a infantry dude?
Well I would say reinforced is the perfecet choice if ur going for infantry dude so then u only need reinforced, which probably gonna need agile to get before.
Total it is a 6 point highest, possibly 4 points also. If u want you could choose a AV weapon certification also if you want to if your punisher isnt strong enough.
Then you got an infantry for 4-8 points.

[simba]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
What is the AA Max is it a Vehicle or armor? Do you have to get certified to use it.

yes u need to get certified to use it , theres AV, AA and AI max, each MAX costs cert points, around 2-3 for each MAX.
Its an armor

[Warborn]

simba,

I'm not going to comment on the point cost or the certs you mentioned, but you're going to be having a time consuming run around the world if you don't buy any form of personal transportation (like a Basilisk).

[mr_luc]

Also, vehicles vs. infantry -- whether air or land -- only favors the vehicles when the infantry is exposed and there are no obstacles around (in a game).

I recently beta'd an indy game where you spawned in a hover-capable flying craft, but where you could get out of said vehicle and walk around on the ground -- the scale was actually probably close to Planetside as far as terrain size and vehicle-player size. The vehicle fire rate and damage it did was much, MUCH greater than the player's puny blaster-projectile weapon.

If I got out of my vehicle and had the other guy come after me, I was screwed if I was out in the open. I wouldn't be able to get a shot on him without him getting one on me as well, so I had to use evasive maneuvers -- and since this wasn't an airplane that has to keep flying at a certain speed, but a hovering vehicle, it was almost impossible to move anywhere; you had to be highly evasive, but he was faster and had MUCH better weapons. You could only dodge the projectiles so long, and I never once took him down in open ground.

However.

If I got out of my ship near a cluster of sheds . . .

I could duck behind cover and he had NO OPTIONS. He had to get in close -- but it takes time to maneuver around an obstacle to get a clear shot, whereas I could just pop around the side and pop off a few shots while he was repositioning. If there was an obstacle around for me to hide behind/maneuver around, it suddenly became a very, very even fight.

Remember in the PS video when that Vanu hoverthingy is attacking a group of infantry on the snow world? The guy kept popping around the tree and laying down smack on the Vanu vehicle. That's exactly the kind of difference that an obstacle can make.

A vehicle can still lock that player down -- in Planetside, it looks to me thus far like cover isn't thick everywhere, just in the more 'forest'-like areas (which we see in the video). I think that's great, an excellent mix and compromise. There should be areas, like the places with lots of trees, where a vehicle is just plain too clumsy to be super-useful. (A reaver might have a tough time in there). But like on the snow world -- cover there seems to be more sparse, so it would be a pretty difficult thing to get from one bit of cover to the other.

I think those kinds of tradeoffs are exactly what is going to make PS such a tactically -- and tactily (is that a word?) -- enjoyable MMOG.

[OmnipotentKiwi]

Good thread (original post). I share 99% of your feelings on this issue.