Combat Engineering

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Manitou

We have all experienced the bridge battles (one of my personal favorite types of battles). What would happen if the bridges could be destroyed or damaged beyond use and it required the combat engis to repair it

Kinda like in C&C Tiberium Sun, where you can blow a bridge and then pop an engineer into the bridgehead and fix it. This is definitely something I'd like to see. It gives artillery and bombers something to do - it should be incredibly difficult to do, however. Denying the enemy a route of advance because the bridge is down? Hell yeah.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Firefly

Kinda like in C&C Tiberium Sun, where you can blow a bridge and then pop an engineer into the bridgehead and fix it. This is definitely something I'd like to see. It gives artillery and bombers something to do - it should be incredibly difficult to do, however. Denying the enemy a route of advance because the bridge is down? Hell yeah.

One of my favorite activities in planetside is pulling out my gluegun and holding fire for a minute.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Bags

One of my favorite activities in planetside is pulling out my gluegun and holding fire for a minute.

Just make it like a generator repair. Multiple people would need to repair it to get it done quickly, since it's a bridge and would need a lot of NTUs.

[Manitou]

Originally Posted by Bags

One of my favorite activities in planetside is pulling out my gluegun and holding fire for a minute.

So how about pulling out your weapon and covering those who will do this...

[ArcticPrism]

Originally Posted by Firefly

Kinda like in C&C Tiberium Sun, where you can blow a bridge and then pop an engineer into the bridgehead and fix it. This is definitely something I'd like to see. It gives artillery and bombers something to do - it should be incredibly difficult to do, however. Denying the enemy a route of advance because the bridge is down? Hell yeah.

All that does is encourage the use of air. Why bother fighting over a bridge when you can just fly over it?

[Knightwyvern]

Originally Posted by ArcticPrism

All that does is encourage the use of air. Why bother fighting over a bridge when you can just fly over it?

The point of destroying bridges isn't so much denying infantry, but heavy vehicles (tanks.) Destroying a bridge would severely hinder enemy tank columns from advancing quickly. It is a very viable tactic and I would love to see it in PS:N.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by ArcticPrism

All that does is encourage the use of air. Why bother fighting over a bridge when you can just fly over it?

Because there are these things called vehicles. A lot of people don't fly because they're not good at it, so they drive. That's to say nothing of outfits that enjoy rolling large tank formations. There's also this type of soldier known as the foot-zerger. Both of these types of non-flying gamers use bridges.

[Baneblade]

Infantry AA needs to be reviewed. It should be short range relatively, but not significantly overpowered in single combat. I see the Lancer as the ideal AA weapon. Lock on weapons make AA far to easy.

But I also feel farming infantry should take more effort than simply flying a 12mm that doesn't trigger base turrets and finds infils. If aircraft were more purpose built in general (ie Wasp, Liberator) and less universally useful (Skeeter, Reaver) that would go a long way to solving the air chav problem.

The Skeeter needs no weapons to fulfill its role (scout, fast response).

The Reaver should be less spammy and more tactical, all the ideas I've ever had for Reavers made them 2 person (pilot/20mm funner and RIO/Empire specific heavy AV gunner... think ESAV replacing rocket spam on Reavers).

Liberators are ugly, but are technically fine generally.

The GG needs to be removed or more specialized in a particular combat capacity. Flying Battleship is not acceptable for a vehicle that small.

[Sirisian]

My CE idea to see around walls and to track enemies in a base.

A combat engineering camera! You get the ability to place a camera on a wall and you get a small fuzzy camera screen pop up. Could be used with a boomer too. So a player like an NC would run up to a wall slam it on the wall then run back to hide and see a small screen pop up on their screen where they could keep track of a hallway.

Either that or some kind of laser motion sensor. Like you slam it on a wall and it makes an invisible line and anything that trips it pings your map.

Would make it easier to track enemies if a base gets more complicated. (It was originally the reason to get rid of third person for infantry).

[Hamma]

Destroyable bridges is an awesome idea I would love to see that and it seems totally feasible. Destroyable terrain and bases I think would go waaay to far but bridges I think would be a pretty easy fit. It would have to be balanced well, for example I don't think a solo squad should be able to run out there with some decimators and blow that shit up.

[LordReaver]

Originally Posted by ArcticPrism

Cyan stuff.

AI can't lead shots simply because it was lazy coding. All it does is adjust its aim to where you will be based on your speed and direction of travel. That's why all you have to do to trick it is not travel in a straight line. Their damage vs aircraft is easily changed. Why assume that they will be just as shitty as before?

How about making jammer nades explode in proximity to aircraft. That should pretty much take care of infantry vs air troubles. We also don't know how aircraft handle, so making assumptions on how easy it will be to farm is rather pointless really.

The Lodey is much bigger than any ground vehicle. That is so it's easy to take down. When it carries vehicles it basically adds armor and mobility at almost no cost. Then when it gets to where it wants, it turns into a repair/rearm station. That's why it is big.

You clearly didn't read anything I said on wall turrets.

Spitfires can have have an armor plate on their top, so that when they are underground they are hard to kill.



The blowing up bridge thing is an interesting idea. My explosives expert idea would be well fitted for the position of blowing them up. There does need to be some way to counter blowing up bridges though. Who gets to choose what bridge and when? What happens when people take out bridges to grief everybody? How do you effectively repair the bridge?

On the other hand, it does provide benefit. It emphasizes amphibious combat and alternative routes. It would be awesome! I would love to see a group of armor crossing a bridge when a bridge starts coming down.

I would like to know what kind of bridges are going to be in. The old ones are boring and ugly. If some had a hump or were curved, or that would help support infantry crossing the bridge. If they are all the same, I hope they are truss. It would help against air.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by LordReaver

How about making jammer nades explode in proximity to aircraft.

I remember people wanted them to just turn off the engine on an aircraft. That would be epic. Jump out of a plane onto a galaxy and hit it with a Jammer.

[Traak]

Riight, what we don't need is a game where the Vanu go around blowing every bridge in existence because they can hover OVER the water.

It's already hard enough to keep a generator running six minutes after any enemy steps into an SOI.

If all the empires have hovertanks, it would be less unbalanced. However, if only the Vanu do, well... We would be seeing many, many blown bridges.

[Bruttal]

Well not to rip off CoD:BO to much but Id like to see deployable cameras

[Bags]

Is stealing from thieves stealing?

Dunno, depends on how they're implemented. Not a huge need as we currently have radar. Could be useful or useless.