Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Get off Cyssor!
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2002-12-10, 08:29 PM | [Ignore Me] #19 | ||
Contributor Custom Title
|
/excuse
Everything common pool would technecly be TR wouldn't it? Since they are the origonal empire, I would suspect that they devolped the Common Pool weapons, and that the Empire Specific weapons were developed individualy by each empires after the split. /end excuse |
||
|
2002-12-10, 09:34 PM | [Ignore Me] #23 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
Yeah agreed, i'll hope in the magrider once in a while but mainly my focuses are sniping(if it's done right, if i need 5 headshots on a med armor screw it.), medic/repair/engineer, fighter pilot and stealth. I'll most likely try the MAX a few times but i very much doubt it will be my cup o' tea.
|
||
|
2002-12-11, 01:27 AM | [Ignore Me] #26 | ||
Private
|
I have to disagree with the majority of the posts here, I think. The tanks should not be all that difficult to destroy, with an anti-tank weapon, because (if what I read is true) you can purchace them more or less on demand. Although you can not get yet another if it is destroyed for some period of time after, (the 24 hour wait is subject to change, yes?) if it was as powerful as you seem to want it to be, I would see virtually no reason not to rush in with nearly all tanks with very little fighter cover and perhaps a small stealth team. Of course, I could be completly wrong.......
|
||
|
2002-12-11, 02:17 AM | [Ignore Me] #27 | ||
The fact that you can purchase them more or less on demand (I had heard that you can only get so many of each type of vehicle over a period of time) doesn't negate the fact that tanks are a very large target, and that anti-tank weapons likely have a really long range. If tanks get destroyed in two or three hits from a rocket, nobody would ever use one, because you'd have virtually no survivability.
Personally though, I like the way Battlefield 1942 handled tanks and anti-tank weapons. The armor was thinner at the back (as is with real tanks), and a couple shots to the rear would destroy a light tank. However, the anti-tank weapons were difficult to aim well due to the relatively slow shot of the projectile, and the fact that they shot in a rather shallow arc, but an arc none the less. |
|||
|
2002-12-11, 02:28 AM | [Ignore Me] #28 | ||
Inventor of Dirt
|
Galaxy pilots!
a well versed drop pilot will be in great demand I think. no matter how badass the tank is, you gotta get it there in one piece in a place where it will do some good.
__________________
In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them. Last edited by xuur; 2002-12-11 at 02:32 AM. |
||
|
2002-12-11, 02:41 AM | [Ignore Me] #29 | ||
Private
|
Warborn, I would think that is why you would have infantry move in first, so that the heavy weapon squads are killed, via snipers or strafing runs, allowing the tanks to move in and destroy the rest, as well as provide staying power. The vast majority of troops do not carry AT weaponry, so they would still be quite useful.
|
||
|
2002-12-11, 03:33 AM | [Ignore Me] #30 | ||
You know Archonxvi, I really wish those kinds of tactics happened more in games. Not saying it won't happen in PS (I imagine it will given the more serious nature of the game -- everyone will likely be in an Outfit) but just, in general, it'd be nice to see real-world battlefield tactics used in games.
That aside, the tanks shouldn't be extremely strong when faced with a heavy weapon, but should be fairly tough none the less. It all depends though. If Combat Engineers can repair the tank fairly quickly then the tank can be made a little less durable. If the heavy weapons are a bit difficult to aim, like the Panzerfaust weapons in BF1942, then that again leaves more room to make the tank weaker. Truthfully... I don't think we can really comment unless you actually see the big picture. There are too many variables. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|