Vehicle - Aircraft: the Hammerhead

[Gugabalog]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I do believe that PS2 needs a light transport aircraft for 5 passengers or so, but I don't think this should be it. I think a crew of four could be okay, one pilot, one gunner with a light weapon, and two passengers. This allows it to carry a small group, while keeping its main focus on the cargo. This kind of aircraft shouldn't be zipping around at the front lines too much. Get in, drop aid, and get out before you catch too much fire.

I do think it is important to keep it focused on the logistics/engineering role, with options that definitely set it apart from the other support vehicles and deployables. There has been a fair amount of demand for player constructed bases or outposts, and I think the Hammerhead could be a good way of implementing that. This is something that will set the niche for the aircraft that meshes well with existing vehicles.

Aside from the supply caches and repair stations, specialized drops might include:
-Shield generator (Dome, falls under heavy fire, vulnerable to EMPs)
-Stealth field generator (Dome, imperfect illusion, more noticible or ineffective to Thermal sights)
-Compact fortifications (Barricades and small bunkers, providing good spots for Engineers to set-up turrets in cover)

All of these could be destroyed, the durability would obviously vary. Turrets and fortifications would be best taken on with AV weapons, while other items would be more fragile.

More advanced or powerful modules would require activation by a friendly player once they landed before they fully construct(Yay Nanites), and players could maybe even choose to deconstruct/remove a module instead of activating it. This could justify the passenger capability-carry a couple buddies to jump out and flip the switch on your drops.

/support

[Xenostalker]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I do believe that PS2 needs a light transport aircraft for 5 passengers or so, but I don't think this should be it. I think a crew of four could be okay, one pilot, one gunner with a light weapon, and two passengers. This allows it to carry a small group, while keeping its main focus on the cargo. This kind of aircraft shouldn't be zipping around at the front lines too much. Get in, drop aid, and get out before you catch too much fire.

I do think it is important to keep it focused on the logistics/engineering role, with options that definitely set it apart from the other support vehicles and deployables. There has been a fair amount of demand for player constructed bases or outposts, and I think the Hammerhead could be a good way of implementing that. This is something that will set the niche for the aircraft that meshes well with existing vehicles.

Aside from the supply caches and repair stations, specialized drops might include:
-Shield generator (Dome, falls under heavy fire, vulnerable to EMPs)
-Stealth field generator (Dome, imperfect illusion, more noticible or ineffective to Thermal sights)
-Compact fortifications (Barricades and small bunkers, providing good spots for Engineers to set-up turrets in cover)

All of these could be destroyed, the durability would obviously vary. Turrets and fortifications would be best taken on with AV weapons, while other items would be more fragile.

More advanced or powerful modules would require activation by a friendly player once they landed before they fully construct(Yay Nanites), and players could maybe even choose to deconstruct/remove a module instead of activating it. This could justify the passenger capability-carry a couple buddies to jump out and flip the switch on your drops.

I, coincidentally, was thinking the exact same concept about deployable fortifications where engineers can setup turrets, etc. My main concept was actually going to be in the concept art: a bunker that is deployed at a designated angle by ground troops (think Quake Wars if anyone has tried it, where you can select the angle of deployables), so a turret or line of fire could be directed at a desired location instead of just arbitrarily placed.

I was just unsure if this was overkill, though. It seems like eventually there's going to be too much going on. Though, setting up fortifications would be cool as hell.

The other thing I worry about is the return of orbital strikes (or some form of instant mega-death in a large radius). You get a giant stronghold in place then some tool comes by and presses a button and all that work is gone - a foothold is lost because of one person.

--

The more we discuss this transport idea, the more I like it. I'd keep it at four passengers, though. It would not hold drop pods, preferably. It might even require you to land instead of drop out at all - just to add a different approach at ground deployment. As the pilot you would have to be careful of the airspace and make "hotdrops" - vietnam style (helis).

Nice suggestions. Added them to the main post for new viewers.

[Gonzo]

Orbital Strikes certainly are a serious threat. Players would need to think ahead when setting up defenses, making sure they are spread out enough to prevent a single OS from annihilating the whole outpost. From what I've heard about OS's though, they will require scaling amounts of resources depending on power, radius, and duration. Hopefully, anyone who can call down enough firepower to wipe a well-planned outpost off the map at least had to pay out the A$$ to do it.

The shield dome should have enough strength to absorb the brunt of an average OS before it fails, saving anything underneath from at least some damage. Deployed bunkers and walls should be very durable as well. These defensive installations could have cert trees to improve strength so that some one who has really invested in base-building doesn't have to worry quite so much.

Another item that could have real use is a droppable radar/sensor station. Give a boost to everyone's minimap detection in a local area. Upgrade it for jamming capabilities to block enemy radar. An expensive/high-level cert could give it some sort of OS jamming.

[Gugabalog]

I like the idea of makeshift deployable buildings. Maybe make a roadblock in a canyon or a surveillance post on a hill.

[Xenostalker]

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

I like the idea of makeshift deployable buildings. Maybe make a roadblock in a canyon or a surveillance post on a hill.

You know I forgot about TRAPs from PS1.

Could be another deployable cache.

[Graf]

It would be cool if this was combined with advanced destructible environments! This would be way better than engineer deploying everything and would be much more versitile. Engineers could repair damaged sections of fortifications. You could have a small squad in the transport and they could pop out, repair damage, and pop back into the transport.

[Gugabalog]

Maybe engineers deploy it using a tool and have to replenish those tools?

(This is starting to sound suspiciously like the ACE from Ps1)

[Xenostalker]

Originally Posted by Graf

It would be cool if this was combined with advanced destructible environments! This would be way better than engineer deploying everything and would be much more versitile. Engineers could repair damaged sections of fortifications. You could have a small squad in the transport and they could pop out, repair damage, and pop back into the transport.

That would be cool. But that is problably not going to happen for a while unless BF4 is planning on being an MMOFPS :P.

As far as the transport role goes, there are problably a dozen other uses the vehicle could support. Drop snipers on ridges or structures, deploy an infiltration team, list goes on.

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

Maybe engineers deploy it using a tool and have to replenish those tools?

(This is starting to sound suspiciously like the ACE from Ps1)

I wouldn't say it's like the ACE, it's just the supply crate that is dropped could possibly be used as a deployment tool for... whatever you have certed into (the shield generators for example). You won't be able to toggle what it is (the pilot selects the type of crate that is dropped), or move it very far (if it can even move), as a ground troop you would simply interact with it - similar to hacking a base.

The default purpose of the aircraft is still to "hotdrop" in supply caches for ground forces (and the suggested transport role), it isn't here to replace engineers.
In fact, a cool setup would be to have a vehicle repair cache loaded up, then grab engineers as passengers and just run around as a mobile vehicle repair unit. Possibilities are... not unlimited, but there are many uses for an aircraft like this.

[Gugabalog]

I was thinking of it as more of a engineer focused airborne sunderer. It would replenish the tools that the engineers use to construct what they have certed to.

[Xenostalker]

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

I was thinking of it as more of a engineer focused airborne sunderer. It would replenish the tools that the engineers use to construct what they have certed to.

Yes, a reasonable suggestion as well.

[Duskguy]

what if you made it a cross between a liberator and a fighter. a BF3 transport helicopter and an attack helicopter.

perhaps flight speed faster than a liberator, slower than fighters. armor more than fighter, but less than liberators.

make it a gunship as well as a transport. i have a few ideas for how this could be implemented.
Setup A:
-have the pilot not be able to use weapons; but instead concentrates on flying and controls the supply drop, or if no supply drop, simply flies.
-(Maybe) a nose gunner with miniguns, 30mm cannons, etc.
then the passenger/gunners could be arranged as:
1- side gunners one and two would be situated on the left and right side of the body, and with a turret that can only aim partly (or mostly) down, and mostly (partly) up (avoid the wings/engines) as well as a full 180 degrees horizontally.
OR
2-passenger two/three gets a rear bottom bubble turret and passenger three/four gets a top center bubble turret.

in seat setup 1, the top of the gunship or the bottom of the gunship would be vulnerable (preferably the top, being that its a gunship) to other aircraft. in seat setup 2, the sides would be more or less exposed depending on how the turrets would be positioned and how far they would be able to depress (top gun) or rise (bottom gun).
HOWEVER either of those suggested setups would leave the direct rear of the plane, where the cargo would go, exposed to enemy aircraft.

-setup one would lead to the plane concentrating more on ground or air depending on whether or not the guns aim up more than down or down more than up
(i would prefer the guns aim mainly down and side to side for support against ground units, or air if the plane is high enough, much like a BF3 transport helicopter)
-setup two would split between air support and ground support unless the pilot banks in which case the turrets may be able to attack the air/ground they normally woundn't reach

Setup B:
-pilot gets light machine guns, less powerful than the liberator's pilot guns.
(here the model OP suggested would differ, but suit the name better)
-the front of the helicopter/plane would have a hammer head shape with a quarter gunner bubble on each side to augment the pilot. these guns would not aim up, directly forward or beyond straight down). ****leaves a thin bottom strip, the top and directly front vulnerable while protecting the bottom and sides****
-rear gunner placed on the top rear to fire in a 180 degree arc above the horizon. ****leaves the bottom and sides vulnerable****

with this setup the plane will have heavy firepower to the front, a slightly exposed center bottom strip along the feuselage and fully exposed rear (below the plane's horizon) with only one gun designated to protect against air units.

while a powerful gunship/ supply transport, the armor would be barely stronger than a fighter but only slightly faster than a liberator. the maximum height these planes can fly should be a bit less than the other aircraft since it is a close support gunhip/ supply transport.

while the liberator can get heavy 130mm cannons, this ship's turrets would only get heavy machine guns, or dual mini guns or something. meaning the turrets would be great anti infantry, decent enough vehicle damagers/ destroyers, but without the heavy firepower of a liberator or a air to ground fighter. and with all that firepower forward and downward, the plane will be exposed from behind.

[Xenostalker]

I liked most of your suggestion.

The only thing with it is it seems to put a more combat-centric focus on this aircraft than I, personally, originally intended (my reason being: it's really a full-on support aircraft/transport).

I wouldn't limit this suggestion immediately, though. The hammerhead could definitely have some customization decisions that turn it into basically what you have suggested - more firepower as a gunship around the strength of a fighter/lib happy-medium, and less support power. Perhaps it could give up the supply drop mechanic for this type of focus.

2-passenger two/three gets a rear bottom bubble turret and passenger three/four gets a top center bubble turret.

This would be an awesome customization - swap out supply drop mechanic for these WW2-esque turrets

Edit:

[Gonzo]

While you have a very well thought out idea there, it does really seem to take a large departure from the main goal of the original idea. Your concept heavily emphasizes a gunship element that wasn't really in there before. I feel like that would turn the Hammerhead into something very different, and reduce the focus on the supply drop & construction ability. With that many weapons, you will see squads getting into Hammerheads just to fly around and spray lead, with the supply drops as an afterthought, or possibly ignore them completely.

I don't want to say this is a bad idea, but it is essentially a completely different aircraft. If the Hammerhead has 3 or 4 gunner positions, it should probably just become a dedicated attack/transport for carrying a smaller number of players and providing moderate fire support. That is a perfectly reasonable concept and a role that can be filled, but it is very different from the role originally outlined for the Hammerhead- A lightly armed and armored aircraft for making quick supply runs and constructing light fortifications.

[Duskguy]

hmm, perhaps. but with the amount of customization they intend, it may be possible to have a transport OR a gunship model.

basically- the top/bottom turrets, as xenostalker suggested would replace the support transport role while if the pilot uses a transport role, those gun ports or at least the bottom one are covered by the support crate. and the additional passengers are just that, passengers rather than gunners

as for the "hammer head" design i mentioned, i agree, it would probably end up a completely different aircraft. it was 4 am when i started that post and just about 5 when i finished and the hammer head idea was a spur of the moment last minute thing.

on the other hand, the hammerhead version could work in that the pilot is in one of the sides while a near 360 degree turret gunner is in the other side and then based on whether you are playing as a support player or a gunship, you can switch between rear turrets or a supply crate of your choosing. this forward seat setup would be like a BF3 attack chopper but instead of having the pilot and gunner lined vertically, they would be horizontally aligned, giving it the hammerhead look. and again, give the pilot a gun like the fighter's machine gun, the main gunner would get whatever up to 30mm cannons and the top gunner would get options that the liberator rear gunner gets while the bottom (possibly the top as well) gunner is either there or not depending on whether the pilot is playing as a support crate transport or gunship.

[Talek Krell]

Why not just make it a Lib variant? I've long been of the opinion that the Lib should have module options to switch out the bombardier with troop transport capacity or other support functions.