So every HA can be an aircraft counter?

[LegioX]

Originally Posted by Landtank

The Battle of Britain was different due to the need for air superiority to minimize German infantry losses as they shipped their armies across the English Channel. The Germans could have done what the Allies did in 1944, but decided not to for various reasons.

Look at Operation Overlord, we had no air superiority, but still managed to land paratroopers behind enemy lines to disrupt.

dude really? Do i need to bring up the combined American/Britain bombing campaign which virtually made the LW non existence at the time of Operation Overlord. Allies had overwhelming air cover during the landings.........

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by LegioX

dude really? Do i need to bring up the combined American/Britain bombing campaign which virtually made the LW non existence at the time of Operation Overlord. Allies had overwhelming air cover during the landings.........

You've missed the point, good work.

They did NOT have overwhelming air cover, they achieved it once they had landed by destroying the majority of German aircraft while they were grounded. What made the landing successful on ALL fronts was the deception.

That's the point >.> even without air power you can do stuff, try reading the rest of my post dude!

[LegioX]

Look im not going to get into a history debate with you, but im not missing the point.

Do you really think the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions would have landed in Normandy without total control over the skies? LOL come on man think about it. There was no LW anywhere on June 5th. I have read 2 books on the subject, i know what im talking about.

Read Stephen Ambrose D-DAY. You will talk a different tun afterwards.

And i did read your post. You're obviously not hearing my argument.

1. Every HA should not have AA launchers
2. Air support should be the primary goal or attack/defense....NOT the ability for ground troops via rocket launchers given to HA to fight off air.
3. Are you getting raped by air? Then give the players (this is a team oriented game right?) The ability to form or request BARCAP/CAP over targets to help relieve the pressure.
4. Devs have been harping on how you can "Cert" out your aircraft to be either air-to-air or air-to-ground. This in return will give players (who cert their plane for air-to-air) a distinct advantage over other players who go the air-to-ground route.

So why should we be concerned about air "possibly" raping ground troops over bases? Force the players to play together ie: form groups/communicate, to send up air to shoot down anything causing a problem.

If anything limit those AA rocket launchers alot.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by LegioX

Look im not going to get into a history debate with you, but im not missing the point.

Do you really think the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions would have landed in Normandy without total control over the skies? LOL come on man think about it. There was no LW anywhere on June 5th. I have read 2 books on the subject, i know what im talking about.

Read Stephen Ambrose D-DAY. You will talk a different tun afterwards.

Fair enough,

But my post, the rest of it >.>

[LegioX]

Originally Posted by Landtank

Fair enough,

But my post, the rest of it >.>

We shall see. Good open debate without name calling is always good. Wait until Beta to make judgement

[Revanmug]

Originally Posted by LegioX

You want Mobile AA that is fine. I'm arguing about having every HA with a lock on ability missile. You people really need to read before typing. Been arguing the exact point for a couple of pages

Irony? I said that using "but real life" argument to make a point in a game is stupid and nothing else. Take your own advice?

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by WorldOfForms

So finding cover, creeping around and coming back to kill your opponent counts as running away?

An aircraft easily hunting down the units designed to kill it counts as running away?

In PS1 you could play the role of an aircraft and make it your exclusive mission to hunt down and kill AA. And it wasn't even difficult. So how was AA a serious threat?

Your definition of threat needs work. Anything that can directly force you into a specific course of action is a threat.

Is a Reaver a threat to my Vanguard? Hell yes. Does that mean the Reaver will win? No. Is the Vanguard a threat to the Reaver? No, not really. At least I've never felt threatening to Reavers.

AA MAXes are a threat to your aircraft, just like you are a threat to the AA MAX.

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by LegioX

Look im not going to get into a history debate with you, but im not missing the point.

Do you really think the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions would have landed in Normandy without total control over the skies? LOL come on man think about it. There was no LW anywhere on June 5th. I have read 2 books on the subject, i know what im talking about.

Read Stephen Ambrose D-DAY. You will talk a different tun afterwards.

And i did read your post. You're obviously not hearing my argument.

1. Every HA should not have AA launchers
2. Air support should be the primary goal or attack/defense....NOT the ability for ground troops via rocket launchers given to HA to fight off air.
3. Are you getting raped by air? Then give the players (this is a team oriented game right?) The ability to form or request BARCAP/CAP over targets to help relieve the pressure.
4. Devs have been harping on how you can "Cert" out your aircraft to be either air-to-air or air-to-ground. This in return will give players (who cert their plane for air-to-air) a distinct advantage over other players who go the air-to-ground route.

So why should we be concerned about air "possibly" raping ground troops over bases? Force the players to play together ie: form groups/communicate, to send up air to shoot down anything causing a problem.

If anything limit those AA rocket launchers alot.

The problem I have with this is you see a return of air dominating outdoor battles like in PS1. Ground forces are largely at the mercy of pilots and having to call in your own air just to deal with the enemy air devolves the game into a battle of which side as more/better pilots.

Ground based AA should be effective enough to eliminate air threats and provide protection for other ground forces without the need for assistance from friendly air. And when I say ground AA I am talking more so about maxes with dual AA weapons or lighting tanks with the skyguard turret etc, units that are dedicated to killing air. HA should be able to lock on to air but it should require multiple HA to bring down air. They function more as a deterrent for air farming infantry rather than an actual "threat" for eliminating air. I feel that is best left to dedicated AA units or as you said air craft speced for air to air combat.

But I dont like you idea of having ground forces rely on single person air to do anything. Because then everybody and their brother will be a pilot like in PS1 and it makes for dull gameplay. This game is supposed to stress combined arms play NOT just relying on who has more air.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Your definition of threat needs work. Anything that can directly force you into a specific course of action is a threat.

Is a Reaver a threat to my Vanguard? Hell yes. Does that mean the Reaver will win? No. Is the Vanguard a threat to the Reaver? No, not really. At least I've never felt threatening to Reavers.

AA MAXes are a threat to your aircraft, just like you are a threat to the AA MAX.

AA MAXes are scary D:

[TheSaltySeagull]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Your definition of threat needs work. Anything that can directly force you into a specific course of action is a threat.

Is a Reaver a threat to my Vanguard? Hell yes. Does that mean the Reaver will win? No. Is the Vanguard a threat to the Reaver? No, not really. At least I've never felt threatening to Reavers.

AA MAXes are a threat to your aircraft, just like you are a threat to the AA MAX.

I think you and form are arguing semantics at this point.

I view it like this. If you are driving around in a vanguard and a lone VS with a lancer shows up and starts shooting at you he is a "threat" in that he could kill you if you just sit there and let him. But he is not a "serious threat" because you can one shot him with the main gun and go on your way.

The AA max vs reaver is a similar case. If the pilot just hovers there yes the AA max would certainly kill him. But it is also fairly easy for the reaver to evade or kill the AA max. So the question remains is the AA max a "serious threat" to the reaver? In PS1 I would say no. In ps2 I think possibly yes based on what we have seen so far but we will know for sure in beta.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

Ok, go to this video if you haven't already.(Gameplay at about 2:24)

Thanks TotalBiscuit! You rock!

What did you notice when TB switched to a HA and pulled out his anti vehicle fart launcher(I don't really care what you call it)?

Lock on.

My problems with lock on?
1)


2) If there are two variants for AA/AT and not bundled into one, I'm fine.

Thank you for reading.

I gotta call crybaby worrywort on this one. If you watch that video carefully you will see how hard it is to get a lock on an aircraft. TB couldn't shoot one down to save his life through the whole hour long play session, and his best success with that weapon was against a couple of tanks in a CY.

I believe the weapon functions like the old Striker did, without the lock on to ground vehicles. And personally I see no problem with this.

TB also flew the lib a lot during that run through and you'll see numerous lock on warnings and yet he takes very little damage from surface to air missile locks. Mostly he got shot down by turrets, tanks, and aircraft. And the two times he manages a lock with his own AV weapon, he landed 1 missile (I think) and I noticed how long the lock persists after it is attained despite loss of target.

I haven't seen anything in the vid worth being concerned about anyway, and I plan on flying.

[Fenrys]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

When was the last time a modern army fought another modern army?

2008, Georgia

The last time a modern army fought another modern army, it was MANPADs that prevented the stronger army from having air superiority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war


Georgia gambled that Russia would not respond to an invasion of Southern Ossetia - they were wrong, and masses of Russian armor crushed the mostly light infantry counter-insurgency force NATO had given them.

Both sides had an air force, and the Georgian AA was tougher than Russia had anticipated (they lost at least 3 fighters and 1 strategic bomber over the 5 day war). Within the first 3 days, Russian armor had killed or captured all static and mechanized AA, and the Georgian air forces were intentionally avoiding engagements with Russian air. It was Georgian infantry carried launchers that prevented Russia from ever having air superiority.

[maradine]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lessons-Mo.../dp/0813309557

An excellent treatment of integrated (and no-so-integrated) air defense systems in a recent, lengthy symmetrical force engagement. The rest of the series fantastic as well, BTW.

[Ranik Ortega]

In the spirit of planetside 2 a possible solution to AV spam is different ammo types. Compare a real life RPG-7 round to a stinger missile to get where i got the idea from. Missiles come in all shapes and sizes for what they are intended to do and the changes in what they do should be reflected in their carrying capacity and performance

AV - Dumb-fire =Average = 5-7 round capacity. Average performance
High damage = 5 round carry capacity. slow
High velocity = 5 round capacity. Lower damage

AV- Guided = Average = 2-5 round capacity . Average performance
High Damage = 2-4 round capacity . slower
High velocity = 2-4 round capacity . Low damage
Improved Guided = 2-3 round capacity. Average missile damage and speed with better maneuverability

AA Guided = Average = 1-2 round capacity. average performance
High velocity = 1-2 round capacity. High speed lower damage


Each missile could work in areas it's not supposed to but would not do as well as a missile intended to work against a specific target. EX: You have 1-2 High velocity AA missiles and a Lightning rolls towards you. You CAN use the AA missiles against it but it's not going to do the same damage as a Dumbfire or guided missile. dumbfire would have high velocity overall. Guided would be average all around and AA would be lowest damage with fastest speed

VS could have a central energy cell that is less efficient if fired in modes other than Default. AKA they would have versatility but if they tried switching from the default missile type of the AV variant they were using it would come at 150% of normal ammo consumption. OR they could have 3-4 launchers each having two built in fire modes.

EX: VS-AV dumbfire variant. Normal fire = 10 units of power. Overcharge shot = 20 units of power
VS-AV Guided variant Normal fire = 10 units of power. High velocity = 15 units of power

Each of the more advanced ammo types or weapon systems more catered towards AA would cost resources.

[ParisTeta]

I`m still waiting for a good argument, why a resource free spawn class, which is easy aviable, will probaly be avialbe in big numbers alos because of other advantages and flexibility, should be a hard counter to a limited aviable due resource cost, time cost, and more limited because it is a choice of many, should kill the later regulary.

Good Arguments why that should happen in a balanced game. Yup i dared you!