It's unfair of the developers to take away physical Artillery

[Electrofreak]

As long as artillery cannot be fired blind (requires target designation before it can be fired) I have no issue with it. It was the Flail drivers that just parked themselves in a courtyard and fired with impunity that we all hated.

[Accuser]

I'll agree that OS is lame, but artillery is worse.
Let me put it this way: Everything else in the game can be countered by one person using a wide variety of options. Enemy tank? You can: roll a tank, use C4, use an aircraft, use HA rockets, use an engi turret, use base defenses. Enemy aircraft? You can: use an aircraft, roll a tank, use HA rockets, use an engi turret, use base defenses. Enemy sniper? You can: roll a tank, use an aircraft, snipe him, infil-ninja-gank him, LA jump behind him.

Enemy arty set up at their vehicle spawn / rally point? You can: try to set up your own arty while they're hitting you? Fly an aircraft into their well manned rally point?

It gives a massive, unfair advantage to attackers exactly when defenders should have the advantage. "Balance" it all you like, it's still a terrible concept that will be more annoying for more people than it is fun.

[Goldeh]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

the only time you die to an OS is because A: you're a retard or B you just spawned and had no possible chance of moving out of the way. with the charge up time its pretty easy to dodge and compared to artillery that can be spammed, orbital strikes cant be by an individual.

What would be the purpose of artillery though? or would its only purpose be to attempt to simulate a real battle?

Ya but, from what I read CR5's can spam OSs' it'll just be one per person. Also, watching a youtube vid here.


Now, unless the Orbital strike will be a once per empire per cooldown thing, I think it issss, maybe not sure... PS2 might look like that after a long while with everyone maxed out and all.

And concerning your question on the purpose of artillery... I took this from the wiki.

Counterbattery fire: delivered for the purpose of destroying or neutralizing the enemy's fire support system.

Counterpreparation fire: intensive prearranged fire delivered when the imminence of the enemy attack is discovered.

Covering fire: used to protect troops when they are within range of enemy small arms.

Defensive fire: delivered by supporting units to assist and protect a unit engaged in a defensive action.

Final Protective Fire: an immediately available prearranged barrier of fire designed to impede enemy movement across defensive lines or areas.

Harassing fire: a random number of shells are fired at random intervals, without any pattern to it that the enemy can predict. This process is designed to hinder enemy forces' movement, and, by the constantly imposed stress, threat of losses and inability of enemy forces to relax or sleep, lowers their morale.

Interdiction fire: placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point.

Preparation fire: delivered before an attack to weaken the enemy position.

Deep supporting fire: directed at objectives not in the immediate vicinity of own force, for neutralizing or destroying enemy reserves and weapons, and interfering with enemy command, supply, communications and observation; or

Close supporting fire: placed on enemy troops, weapons or positions which, because of their proximity present the most immediate and serious threat to the supported unit.

Neutralization fire: delivered to render a target temporarily ineffective or unusable;

Suppression fire: that degrades the performance of a target below the level needed to fulfill its mission. Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire.


Looks like a lot of purposes to me. What purpose does Orbital Strike have?

Also, it's not really an argument to say "you must be dumb if you died to X" kind of lame.

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by Accuser

.Enemy arty set up at their vehicle spawn / rally point? You can: try to set up your own arty while they're hitting you? Fly an aircraft into their well manned rally point?

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people lack the capacity to think of how to counter. Why would they be hitting you when you're setting up your own artillery? The only reason I can think of is that you're setting up your artillery in the place that's currently under attack, in which case:

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

You have a huge map and many places to go and set up, why would you choose the one spot on it that's currently being plastered by the enemy?

It gives a massive, unfair advantage to attackers exactly when defenders should have the advantage. "Balance" it all you like, it's still a terrible concept that will be more annoying for more people than it is fun.

It gives a massive unfair advantage to the attackers when the defenders continue to do nothing but pour out of the base that's currently under attack instead of taking the initiative and doing something like pulling armour/aircraft from a nearby base and counter-attacking.


Edit: Why can't I thank/favorite/like/support Goldehs post. Seriously, someone give this man a cookie.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by kadrin

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people lack the capacity to think of how to counter. Why would they be hitting you when you're setting up your own artillery? The only reason I can think of is that you're setting up your artillery in the place that's currently under attack, in which case:

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

You have a huge map and many places to go and set up, why would you choose the one spot on it that's currently being plastered by the enemy?

...

^ THAT!



The whole "you can't counter arty" argument is completely asinine. That's like saying you can't counter a lib -- hells yeah you can! It's called AA flak and/or a mossie/reaver/wasp (scythe for ps2 of course).

There are plenty of ways to avoid this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=Vy3rNEpwsLw


Another few things for arty: You can have a dedicated arty vehicle that is large with weak armor, very slow, and requires, say, 2-3 players to operate it (reloading, firing, aiming, etc...). There's an instant balance feature right there -- that's 2-3 prowlers/vans/mags that aren't on the frontlines; that's 2-3 snipers that aren't pinning down your squads. Furthermore, these don't have to be kill tanks that just spam rain all day long. Give these big boys a rof of like .5/sec (1 shot every 2 seconds) and that's if all of your crew members are working in tandem well. Furthermore, limit the range -- for this big gun example, give it a 2-3k max range (or less) along with a min range of, say, 250-500m -- anything inside of that range it won't be able to target and can easily be killed by. Weak armor; I can't stress this enough. Artillery is NOT armored. These are not tanks, they are gigantic guns designed to put indirect fires; they are area target weapons. Speaking of area targets, the further out the shot is fired, the less accurate (cone of fire) the shots will be. You can put, say, 6 shots in 12 seconds out, but if it's at full range each shot could land anywhere in a 50m radius.

Something like this:
^ Again, remember that even though that's quite a bit of fire down range, each cannon requires a crew of 2-3 and fires very slowly. That's 6-9 mbt's, snipers, or maxes that aren't on the frontlines.




Now I like the idea of the lightning having a sort of mortar turret. This would be more rapid fire than the big arty described above, with weaker shells and decreased range. Like the arty above it will have a max/min range, the further out the shots the less accurate the fires, and it has to deploy (kinda like the TR MAXes in ps1) to fire it's cannon. Obviously being a lightning it's got some better armor, and will be able to travel faster, but it cannot use the gun when not deployed. For examples of this, check out this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=Qln3hVoe8qA#!

[TAA]

I truly do miss the artillery from BF1942, but they werent suitable for most other games.

Here is what I would view as a good implementation of artillery:

• Mobile vehicles that cant fire on the move. They would need to stop and spend 5-10 seconds deploying support anchors into the ground before being able to fire. It would take a similar amount of time to become mobile again.
• Very weak armor.
• Crewed by one player.
• Able to fire only in a 45 degree arc in the direction they are facing.
• Distance limited to about 2 hexes.
• Firing an artillery piece immediately identifies your location on enemy mini maps.
• When a driver is ready to fire they press a button to transmit fire request to their team. All friendly infiltrators with a target designator within 2 hexes of that artillery piece get a message that artillery is waiting for a target.
• Infiltrators can designate a target. Once designated the operator of the artillery piece can fire at that target. Hitting the target precisely should involves some skill by the firer. Eg. Maybe needs to account for a wind direction flag in their targeting display.
• If a shell lands directly on target both the infiltrator and the artilleryman get kill credits. If there are an FF casualties then both get the grief.

[CutterJohn]

I would support artillery, but only one wherein the gunner of the artillery got to pick his own targets. PS1s system of the operator being a useless body whose only purpose was to aim where someone else told him to aim then pull the trigger is horrible gameplay.

[Sabot]

Artillery has always had the most complex lines of communication in any branch of the military to function as intended... HQ, artillery commanders, attacking/defending infantry, spotters and a collaborating officer (I don't know what they're called in english for real)... they all have to communicate to make the most of the artillery.

By just making a artillery gun a 2 or ever 3-manned vehicle, give it low speed and low armor with no other defenses apart from the crew, and make spotters necessary for somewhat accurate fire, you limit the amount of artillery guns active in the game, as they will require teamwork to opperate , dedicated people only to defend them, as well as dedicated people for spotting. No lone wolf would be effective in one.... only dedicated outfits with a squad of 5-7+ people would be I think. If Rambo decides to get one, then spam v-n-g untill some random guy hops in, they could easily be sniped by aircav... not to mention it's probably a prime target for an OS if there's more than one bunched up, with it's defenders.

I've been playing PS1 now for a week or so, and the TR like to sport flails... and I don't think they've been OP at all. A direct hit on infantry and they die.. a direact hit on a tank it hurts but it doesn't kill unless you have low armor to begin with. Give the artillery 2 different ammo types... one that does huge dmg within a very small area, and one that does low dmg in a big area... shrapnel so to speak. That way moving targets will be relatively safe, but deployed Gals will have to be defended very hard if they're being target by artillery... they could for instance have a sort of shiled that protects it from incoming fire for a short while if specced that way... it'd give them time to try and counter the artillery, find the spotter or move the gal. Basically just come up with ways that gives players the ability to counter them... after that it's the players fault if they whine that artillery is OP but they do nothing themsleves to get rid of them. If you run into a tank while holding pistol and die, you don't scream that the tank is OP cause you died from it... same thing, it's just a lot more complex.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I would support artillery, but only one wherein the gunner of the artillery got to pick his own targets. PS1s system of the operator being a useless body whose only purpose was to aim where someone else told him to aim then pull the trigger is horrible gameplay.

I thought about this and I would have to agree tbh... while using spotter would be a more tactical approach, it does take some of the fun out of it. Perhaps give the gunner a sort of map display... like the PS1 OS targeting? Not that the shells would hit exactly where you put the marker... but in an area around there. Size of area TBD....

[super pretendo]

What's with people shrieking "I JUST DON'T WANT TO DIE TO ARTILLERY! NO NO NO!" We can discuss implementations that's aren't broken. Stop trying to terminate productive thought.

[Superbus]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I would support artillery, but only one wherein the gunner of the artillery got to pick his own targets. PS1s system of the operator being a useless body whose only purpose was to aim where someone else told him to aim then pull the trigger is horrible gameplay.

It was only horrible, because the laser got no credit for the kills. If the gunner gets to pick his own targets it would lead to small teams or solo players using it to rack up kills, and it would be everywhere. I could support this idea if the map had a grid system where by the gunner would have to be given coordinates of enemies via a player in the thick of it, but most people can't even operate a GPS properly, let alone give out accurate coordinates on a map, so I don't think that method would catch on quick either. It inst that fun for the F.O. who is dodging bullets trying to read his map, or the gunner sitting there waiting to get coordinates.

It should also be added that the ammo for these be severely limited, so it requires constant supply on the battle field.

[The Kush]

God no. Please no artillery. This is a fail thread

[Redshift]

It's not fun for most people, hence it isn't there

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by The Kush

God no. Please no artillery. This is a fail thread

Impressive argument, very valid points.

[Otleaz]

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding. I wouldn't mind seeing artillery as long as it was solely for destroying vehicles or emplacements.

I would like to see orbital strikes follow the same rule, taking roughly 20 seconds to charge up.

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

It is undeniable that it is not fun to die to something you had no way of avoiding. I wouldn't mind seeing artillery as long as it was solely for destroying vehicles or emplacements.

You mean like being shot by a sniper? Or by a vehicle no AV?

You could say "take cover" but being inside should defend against artillery as well