anti vehicular weapons

[WolfA4]

Originally Posted by Sharp

on the word about weapons, probably some of u have noticed this, the vanu have no real anti-air except for MAX's!

oh please the vanu have a TANK capable of being a damn good anti-air vehicle.

[Onizuka-GTO]

Thats because it isn't much of a Tank, you don't see Mag's smashing it's way though the frontline like what a real tank is suppose to do. It's more of a mobile Anti-Vehicle Firing platform, that is versitile at killing all vehicles at a great distance.

And the Mag is only versitle vehicle we have, being one of the only empire specific non-AA that can take on AA.
.

Yes its a sniper, but in a mechanical sense.

Its even vunerable to infantry, due to the fact that it takes longer to kill them, it sometimes faster to attempt to run them over.

you are telling me a tank that isn't effective at kill infantry with one direct hit from its Main cannon, is a tank?

No it isn't.

Vanu needs a frontline battle tank, but until then, we have keep our tanks behind safely and let the maxs and infantry run up close.

[Lartnev]

Well the Lightning's a tank, and that can't kill infantry with its main gun in one shot

I'm not sure that the VS truely appreciate the advantages heavy rail beam. Sure it has some drawbacks, but damn it can kick ass.

[Onizuka-GTO]

I'm not saying it's bad. I love my magbaby

But the Lightening is not really a Main Battle Tank it's weapons are for light assaults, your classed as Light Infantry or Scoutts

I'm just saying that when you take in consideration of the vehicle class it's suppose to compete in:

A direct hit from a Prowler will kill a Rexo Infantry

A direct hit from a Vanguard will kill a Rexo Infantry

A direct hit from a Magrider will not kill a Rexo Infantry

.......

mmm...something seems wrong with this formulae........


Edit: i did a little research and i found out there are many types of Tanks:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

oday most tanks are in the 'main battle tank' category. However, from the 1920s to 1940s there were widespread differences of doctrine about how tanks should be used in battle and what technical specifications designs should have. Some of the categories that arose are below.


Tankette

A tankette was a small tank, with a crew of 2 (there were prototypes with one-man crew). It usually had no turret, or if it did, it was traversed by hand. It was armed with 1 or 2 machineguns, or rarely with 20mm gun. The "classic" design was British Carden-Loyd Mk.VI Tankette - many others were modelled after it. Tankettes were produced between about 1930 and 1939, but ceased soon afterwards due to limited usefulness and extreme vulnerability.
[edit]

Light Tank

These tanks were designed for speed and to be able to take on infantry and light vehicles. While very common at the start of World War II they were graudually relegated to use as scouts and to strike vulnerable areas. Some, like the Tetrarch were small enough to be air-lifted to the battlefield. Sometimes called a cavalry tank.


Medium Tank

Tanks with a good balance of firepower, mobility and protection. Able to engage infantry and also other tanks. German Panzer III, Panzer IV and Panther tanks were medium tanks of increasing sophistication and power, as were the American M3 Grant and M4 Sherman and Russian T-34.


Heavy Tank

Designed to attack obstacles, create breakthroughs and engage enemy armoured formations. Prominent World War II examples were the German Tiger and Russian Josef Stalin. They featured very heavy armour and guns. After World War II the heavy tank concept wasmerged into that of the main battle tank.


Assault Tank

A very heavily-armoured vehicle designed to directly attack heavy anti-tank emplacements, of limited tactical use otherwise. While the German Panzer IV was originally envisaged as something like this, World War II versions included the Sherman Jumbo, Sturmmoser Tiger and Churchill AVRE.




Cruiser Tank

Primarily restricted to Britain and the Commonwealth, cruiser tanks were designed to have moderate armor and fast speed. They were intended for maneuvers such as flanking the enemy.


Infantry Tank

The idea for this tank was developed during World War I by the British and French. The infantry tank was designed to be slow (moving at the same pace as running infantry) and heavily armored. Its main purpose would have been to clear the battlefield of obstacles, take out enemy soldiers, and protect the infantry on their advance through and into enemy lines.

The most developed infantry tanks were the Matildas of World War II. Their armour and anti-tank firepower was sufficient to take on German Panzer IIIs. However, their anti-infantry weaponry was often restricted to a machine-gun, with no high-explosive rounds for their main gun being available. Later British tanks were more akin to medium tanks.

Tank Destroyer

Used mainly in World War II, the tank-destroyer concept was used by German, British, American and Russian armed forces. In theory, tank-destroyer units (from platoon to battalion level) would be deployed alongside armored formations to destroy enemy armoured forces when encountered and act as fully mechanized anti-tank guns.

All tank destroyers were equipped with powerful guns. Early in the war tank destroyers tended to be lightly-armoured to ensure mobility but increasingly late in the war heavily-armoured models were produced, able to take on heavy tanks at all ranges.

In spite of the tank destroyers, most tank casualties in the War were inflicted by other tanks or anti-tank guns. After the War the concept of the tank destroyer was replaced by that of the main battle tank.

Obviously now the three empire specific "Main Battle Tanks" aren't in the same catagory at all.

What are they?

Lightening is definately a Light Tank,

But what is the Magrider?
What is the Prowler?
What is the Vanguard?

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by mechaman

that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. I'm already sick of you NC sitting behind a wall shooting your damn phoenix at me while I'm on foot. So damn annoying...

but it deos hardly ever kill you. Whenever i see a person using a phoenix to shoot infanty and they have a better weapon for i cringe.

Part of teh problem is that poeple stil insist to use a JH outdoors at range, when a gauss will do much better so they take out a phoenix to kill people that are far away

[Wraithlord]

muss is obviously from unreal where the rocket launcher is the best weapon, he cant deal with having to aim at things to kill them

[mussina]

One person wrote if it was that easy to kill someone with the phoenix then everyone will have it. well they should then change it to have a squad based game where everyone is assigned to a squad like in americas army where one or two individuals will have anti vehicular some will have special assault etc etc etc. as you spawn you will be assigned to a squad or platoon and that is who you will be attached to throughout your gameplay until you respawn somewhere else or quit playing I think this way weapons can be alittle more balanced and with vehicles you can have mechanized units with infantry mixed in this way you can have the right configurations in your squad platoon or mech unit not everyone will have the same weapon and maybe it would be alittle better to use wepons and have the right effect that they should have and not where it takes 4 or 5 shots because not everyone will be able to get the same weapon

[Lartnev]

I think such a system would be too restrictive. AA's system (whilst I agree is kinda cool) works for AA for 2 reasons. 1)It's a simulation trying to re-create the way US army squads operate and 2)It's small scale.

[MajorTom]

Originally Posted by mussina

One person wrote if it was that easy to kill someone with the phoenix then everyone will have it. well they should then change it to have a squad based game where everyone is assigned to a squad like in americas army where one or two individuals will have anti vehicular some will have special assault etc etc etc. as you spawn you will be assigned to a squad or platoon and that is who you will be attached to throughout your gameplay until you respawn somewhere else or quit playing I think this way weapons can be alittle more balanced and with vehicles you can have mechanized units with infantry mixed in this way you can have the right configurations in your squad platoon or mech unit not everyone will have the same weapon and maybe it would be alittle better to use wepons and have the right effect that they should have and not where it takes 4 or 5 shots because not everyone will be able to get the same weapon

Or we could simply leave well enough alone and let the AV take out the vehichles, the AI take out the infantry, and the AA take out the aircrafts, and let people choose what they want to do.

I am not sure about you, but if I want to go tearing around with my rocklet gun, snipe folks from distant places, or let tanks have it with a decimator lancer striker what-have-you, I don't want the game to tell me I can't because there are too many other players of that type around.

Instead, lets just try and perfect the rock paper scissor balance, where if the enemy insists on using nothing but their brand new AV weapons, a infantry rush will quickly change their mind.
Or at least that is the general idea...

[BUGGER]

Its only like this to be balanced, or else (like people said) everyone would have the most powerful one hit kill weapon.


Its a game, not suppose to be realistic, just fair.

[StrangeFellow]

Or we could simply leave well enough alone and let the AV take out the vehichles, the AI take out the infantry, and the AA take out the aircrafts, and let people choose what they want to do.

I am not sure about you, but if I want to go tearing around with my rocklet gun, snipe folks from distant places, or let tanks have it with a decimator lancer striker what-have-you, I don't want the game to tell me I can't because there are too many other players of that type around.

Instead, lets just try and perfect the rock paper scissor balance, where if the enemy insists on using nothing but their brand new AV weapons, a infantry rush will quickly change their mind.
Or at least that is the general idea...

agreed

[Sp3ctre]

The Magrider always owns me, I find it more formidable than the Prowler, although I never fight as many prowlers as mags.

I find it annoying that AV takes AGES to kill Tanks. Couldn't every VS (for example) get the Tank Cert and completely own everything? Why use any other vehicles when it takes about 20 shots to kill a Mag?

[FatalLight]

Because of maxs and other vecs the point is of anti vec weapons is to give u a chance not total pwnage.

[Onizuka-GTO]

Originally Posted by Sp3ctre

The Magrider always owns me, I find it more formidable than the Prowler, although I never fight as many prowlers as mags.

I find it annoying that AV takes AGES to kill Tanks. Couldn't every VS (for example) get the Tank Cert and completely own everything? Why use any other vehicles when it takes about 20 shots to kill a Mag?

Plus if it takes 20 shots to kill a magrider how many shot would it take to kill a Vanguard or a Prowler considering the magrider has the lowest Armour points? who i might add can't kill you in one direct hit in Rexo like the other non-vanu tanks.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Gotta love the NC who have never goten a missle lock at the edge of an SOI turned around hit your burners, used them all, be at the next bases' SOI and STILL get pegged by 3 or 4 missles.

They do about zero damage that far out...

And saying the NC never get locked is ignorant or stupid...which are you?