Artillery, Tactical Targets & Field of View

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by JHendy

If the developers implemented artillery with a good set of very viable counter measures, such as counter-battery, the whole 'It can kill me but I can't kill it' argument goes out the window, Cutterjohn.

They did implement artillery with a good set of very viable counter-measures. It's called the liberator. We don't need two sets of vehicles designed to create big explosions on the ground, thanks.

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I did not, I admit.

I'm not actually against mortars too much, since obviously infantry can get a hold of them to return fire. Long range arty I dislike for specifically that reason.. its something that an entire class of units cannot directly counter. Not much of a fan of that. Infantry have AV, and AA, and can shoot back at whats shooting them. They couldn't respond to long range Arty, which could be especially bad in situations where vehicles are in short supply. I especially like mortars as a counter to snipers.

Just needs a better control mechanism than requiring someone laze a target that the operator then shoots at.

Seems like we're on the same wavelength here. I was only using BF3's infantry mortars as an example of how counter-battery could function. Come to think of it though, a deployable static infantry mortar, (perhaps a specialisation of the engineer class), that anybody could make use of once put down could be a perfect compromise.

[Whalenator]

Originally Posted by Warborn

They did implement artillery with a good set of very viable counter-measures. It's called the liberator. We don't need two sets of vehicles designed to create big explosions on the ground, thanks.

I'm a big liberator fan myself.
But Artillery and Liberators aren't two of the same. They fill separate niches and go through completely different processes (and subsequently dangers) to achieve a similar goal. Artillery has the advantage of safety but the disadvantage of needing a spotter. This variation in style is needed just as much as having separate heavy and light tanks in PS2.

[Whalenator]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

My other objection is the indirect fire portion of it, where the arty operators can shoot, but can also be invulnerable to return fire for several minutes until their location is sussed out, and even then could have built up a strong enough firebase that cracking it is not necessarily easy.

Planetside is a fairly offensive game, and is PS2 is anything like it you won't have to worry much about people setting up a fortress in the wilderness. I planned on the artillery pieces having a range shorter than the distance between bases. Air is the direct counter to artillery, though anything else that could reach them is also a counter.

As stated before, it's already been hinted that PS2 may have base-powered shields to fend off air. Why not artillery shells?