Infantry vs. Armor/Air - Page 2

Chanfan · 2003-03-19, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Warborn
Are you in the Beta yourself, or are you drawing your information from elsewhere?

I only wish. No, just from what I've seen of the beta screen shots and journals. Discussing such things from actual beta observations would probably violate the NDA, and if I were in beta, I wouldn't want to do anything that might get me booted out (or worse).

Later posted by Warborn
Think about it logically. A MAX is a one-man suit of armor, a tank takes 3 people to function.
<snip additional reasons>.
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.

Excellent point. A 3 person tank should be at least as effective as 3 individuals - probably more so, given the other limiting factors.

Back to the earlier item posted by 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�<snip>�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.

I agree this also is a limiting factor, but given the heavy reliance on teamwork, and the natural advantages of getting in a squad, it may not be all that limiting.

I'm still interested about the time limits on getting new vehicles.

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

Thanks!

NapalmEnima · 2003-03-19, 04:11 PM

I think everyone's going to WANT to be in a vehicle unless they have something to do (attack, defend, repair, whatever) inside that base.

As was mentioned earlier, people spawning at an AMS don't have the option spawning themselves a vehicle, so getting from their spawn to the base is going to be Quite Hazardous.

That's why base assaults will want some sort of vehicular assistence... A transport to shuttle (Galaxy, Deliverer, or Sunderer) them back and forth, some heavier vehicles for covering fire (reaver, tanks), whatever.

Assault teams will also be deeply interested in disabling the defender's vehicle pad, either by blowing the terminal itself, blowing the generator[s], or (the ultimate goal anyway) hacking the command console.

One of the beta journals mentioned that a hostile AMS was deployed within the walls of a base, making life DIFFICULT for the defenders. The attackers didn't have this wide open space to cross on foot, and reinforcement time was reduced.

A friend of mine and I are planning on using a Deliverer as a transport for a relatively distant AMS during attacks. Since Deliverer's FLOAT (non-dev info) the AMS can be on the other side of a body of water, making it that much harder to locate.

As far as Vehicles vs Infantry goes, I'm with mr_luc. Open space = dead infantry. Provide some decent cover for the infantry to use, and you've got another matter all together. A relatively large group of AV-equiped infantry might be able to take down a combat vehicle before suffering significant casualties. Say 4 to 1... so 8 for a 2-crew, or 12 for a Prowler. I wouldn't be suprised to find that 12 lancers/strikers/phoenixes would do enough damage to toast any vehicle in the game in one volley... 2 at most for the heaviest of the heavy.

Mauser101 · 2003-03-19, 04:40 PM

NapalmEnima-

That's a pretty cool idea for using the Deliverer. Keep in mind though that deploying the Deliverer across that water will cut it off from any other vehicle support. That Deliverer will not actually be able to get it's troops up to the front lines and survive a return trip.

I plan on relying heavily on the Deliverer. As bricks on wheels aren't very fashionable I'm sure I'll end up being the driver as opposed to hitching many rides in them though.

For those that recall the fileplanet video... Remember how it took roughly 2 pheonix missles to take out that Thresher, and the enemy AMS took 2 pheonix missles up the tailpipe without going up. It appears the devs are doing a good job of balancing that weapon. (it also seemed fairly slow and slugish, though I have no other missles on video to compare it to) I wonder how a Skeeter will hold up.

mr_luc · 2003-03-19, 04:47 PM

Yeah man, it's all about the obstacles.

When I saw that one shot of the fight in the valley (kind of orange-looking terrain) with the visible AMS shield, and NOTHING BUT BARE GROUND and valley walls, I got this weird panicky feeling in my chest imagining myself there . . . no jetpack, no skiing, and no vehicle . . . I would be screwed! I felt naked and agoraphobic just looking at it.

But I analyzed that feeling and realized it was a good thing. We know perfectly well that there are places that vehicles will have a hard time maneuvering (forests etc), and Gun Towers and the like are refuge for infantry. And of course the VAST majority of the fight for a base will be fought on foot. So the vehicles need to have a bigger purpose than just ferrying people around. I think that valley shot (and my paranoid, ex-Tribes-1 reaction to it

) shows great promise for the place vehicles will occupy in PS combat.

Realistically, if a battle for a base is going on, wtf is a Mosquito's place going to be? With that many people on either side, SOMEONE (more likely multiple someones) will have AA, and will use it to take him out. Even a bigger aerial gunship will be vulnerable in pitched battle for a base, where its greater mobility will not help it to track down a single target.

Instead, vehicles will own the areas in between. Every Galaxy that is ferrying troops to a base is prey for an enemy Mosquito or Reaver, looking to take it town. Every group of heavily armed MAX armors, plodding down a road from the AMS they spawned at, is prey to a tank that can move much faster than they, and can waste them from range with its massive cannon. Every ANT, every AMS, every group of soldiers that is not already AT a destination will be prey for the air and land vehicles that are patrolling the area.

Heck, there could be some incredible battles. I mean, at first I was thinking 'Gun Towers, HAH!' But now . . . I mean, you can't deploy the AMS within an enemy SOI, so there's distance implicit there. That distance will likely be large enough that people in vehicles will be able to hunt down the attackers in transit. If there are 5 ordinary infantry versus one Reaver, I'll run for the Gun Tower. That thing might actually be really useful if it's in between the AMS and the base.

K, I've got a Planetside Erection again.

NeoTassadar · 2003-03-19, 05:06 PM

There's not much cover I've seen that you couldn't splash-damage the guy to death. Plus there's the secondary AI machine gun on the tanks. If you're in a forest, maybe. But tank drivers are not likely to go near those places.
Flaw (slight) in Warborn's point. Buggies take same number of people to use fully. Will a buggy stand a chance one-on-one with a tank? I know there are certain circumstances, but realisticly. You are missing possibilities and less obvious pros/cons with MAX/infantry vs. Tank, though. Tank's pilot(s) can jump out and repair (if engineer), MAXs can't. Many things can come from the fact that those pilots can bail. They'll probably balance for those when they become apparent in the beta, more likely around time for open beta. Because when there's more people, they start to get creative.

Mauser101 · 2003-03-19, 05:07 PM

The following three pictures give me great hope for a Jungle Warfare type of combat to evolve in Planetside.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/m...php?img_id=231

http://www.planetside-universe.com/m...php?img_id=216

http://www.planetside-universe.com/m...php?img_id=207

I can see squads of players moving through a forest hin the hopes of avoiding enemy vehicles. At the same time, I can see squads of harashing snipers and stealthers haunting those forest like the VC of yesteryear.

In the high grass of the second picture, a sniper will have pretty good concealment. Just look at how much of the harasser is covered.

I do hope that some of the forests are rather vast, and that some are a bit darker with less sunlight penetrating the leaf canopy.

EDIT: 1st link fixed

NapalmEnima · 2003-03-19, 05:13 PM

I mean, you can't deploy the AMS within an enemy SOI, so there's distance implicit there.

Where'd you get that idea? Remeber that journel entry I mentioned, where the enemy AMS was inside the base's walls?

K, I've got a Planetside Erection again.

TMI!!!

Moleculor · 2003-03-19, 05:16 PM

I thought there was one more limitation.

A specific person could only get a specific vehicle every few hours from a certain spawn point. And that kind of vehicle can only be obtained a certain number of times in a time period from a point.

NeoTassadar · 2003-03-19, 05:26 PM

The first link is to reply, Mauser.
In that environment, a sniper would have a tough time because no line of sight is going to last long enough to be sure. However, I'm going to be stealthing in there with a knive, melee booster, and eventually silent walk until people get the picture and stop going in the forest.

mr_luc · 2003-03-19, 05:35 PM

I didn't know the tank had an AI machinegunner.

That SERIOUSLY sucks.

As for cover and splash damage -- wait a second. Does splash damage go THROUGH static objects?? I would think that if I'm on one side of those big-ass PS trees, and a rocket hits the other side, I don't take any damage . . .

If the splash won't go through a static object, then I should be ok. As long as I can see it coming (rocket, grenades etc) I will have at least a fighting chance of getting on the other side of my obstacle from the explosion.

If splash damage goes through static objects though I am going to be irritated. I mean, if I can put a huge rock between me and an explosion, I should be ok.

Jakal · 2003-03-19, 06:05 PM

The SOI of the base can get disabled spomehow. I think if u blow the generators the soi goes down.

Warborn · 2003-03-19, 06:32 PM

Plus there's the secondary AI machine gun on the tanks.

Wha? Where on earth did you hear that? There is no AI gunner on tanks. You want the gun to shoot, you get someone to shoot it for you.

Flaw (slight) in Warborn's point. Buggies take same number of people to use fully. Will a buggy stand a chance one-on-one with a tank? I know there are certain circumstances, but realisticly.

No, a buggy won't. Does a buggy move a hell of a lot faster than a tank though? Yes it does. It also has other advantages over a tank too, like a better anti-air defense due to its smaller size and the gun mounted on the back. Buggies are also much more agile than tanks are. And I'm pretty sure buggies have a slower rebuild timer than tanks do. So I really don't see any flaw in my logic.

Tank's pilot(s) can jump out and repair (if engineer), MAXs can't...

If you jumped out of the tank while it was under fire you would not be getting back in. This isn't BF1942 where you instantly zip inside the tank. It takes a second or two to get into whichever compartment you want to enter, and you've gotta do it from a specific spot (ie. with the Prowler, the driver enters the tank from a hatch in the front, while the gunners enter from either side).

Also, MAXs can use health terminals to get healed, just like infantry, so it's not like MAXs are incapable of healing themselves.

Remember how it took roughly 2 pheonix missles to take out that Thresher...

Two missiles and a lot of gunfire from the surrounding infantry. And, remember, the Thresher is a less armored type of buggy. So you can get a pretty good idea of how much it'll take to put down a tank.

LLMerc · 2003-03-19, 06:53 PM

AI = Anti-Infantry not Artificial Inteligence

Warborn · 2003-03-19, 07:38 PM

Three cheers for misnomers.

NeoTassadar · 2003-03-19, 08:10 PM

Thanks for explaining that one for me, Merc. I elaborate NOT machineGUNNER, machineGUN.

Okay, luc, only an idiot would try to splach through a static object. I'm talking slightly behind and to the side.

Warborn, I was only referring to your basing superiority on players used for a single unit. I know you weren't using this as an absolute, and it is a good idea on how to judge things, but as always, there are many exceptions (though it is good for majority). As for repairs, I was talking about instant recovery AFTER a skirmish. Doesn't sound like THAT much, but it is enough to require thought while balancing. Also note: "(slight)"