What would happen if infantry could one shot vehicles

Beerbeer · 2012-12-30, 11:35 AM

Like in the real world, vehicles are indeed powerful. Able to quickly project their power over a wide area. But one aspect is missing, infantry today have tools that dispatch unprotected vehicles very easily.

One man with a launcher can wreak havoc on vehicles if they are not guarded.

In this game, the chips lie completely with vehicles, they can one or two shot infantry, they can move with speed, they soak a lot of damage.

What would happen if one infantry missile could take down an aircraft? One infantry missile could blow up a tank? Just like those that like to draw real world comparisons and state that vehicles should able to quickly dispatch infantry, well that's only half the story, infantry can do just the same, only not here.

Would more infantry be needed to clear out infantry to protect those vehicles?

Tooterfish · 2012-12-30, 12:20 PM

To answer your question, SOE would probably go bankrupt, and Planetside 2 would go down as the worst game ever made.

Jaybonaut · 2012-12-30, 12:27 PM

Sometimes your topics make me shake my head man.

MaxDamage · 2012-12-30, 12:38 PM

One dumbfire rocket does take down an ESF.
Two take a heavy tank from behind.

Strategy · 2012-12-30, 12:42 PM

It would become an infantry zerg-based mediocre shooter.

moosepoop · 2012-12-30, 12:42 PM

they need to bring back vintage max like in your sig, maxdamage. it looks so kewl.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-30, 12:52 PM

I remember people saying (here mind you)--in their justification of one-shotting vehicles--that, "well in real life (lol) vehicles are powerful." This was a while ago, not sure if they are still around.

Well in real life, an infantry with a shoulder mounted launcher can one-shot them. Double-standard?

Sturmhardt · 2012-12-30, 01:03 PM

The solution to the tankspam and ESF spam does not lie in an infantry buff, but in better base design where infantry can play a role.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-30, 01:20 PM

Okay, let me rephrase: why should vehicles one-shot infantry?

Ruffdog · 2012-12-30, 01:39 PM

Tanks do damage. Lost of damage. That's what they do.
Infantry on the other hand have versatility. They do some damage and they can capture territory.

I don't have a problem with tanks one shotting infantry so long as its MBTs and its the gunner spot, not driver spot.
Infantry one shotting tanks is idiotic. You are not John Rambo. This is Planetside.

belch · 2012-12-30, 01:43 PM

Shoulder launched rockets do not "one shot" every vehicle in real life. There are weapons, like the Javelin, that increase that chance greatly. But the RPG or AT-4? Not so much. Of course, a Javelin is much more expensive...and a much bigger, and heavier, munition. A Javelin gunner is not carrying 2 Javelins...believe me.

Of course, none of that should have bearing in game. They aren't working with the tech we have today...there should be advances in the munitions available to the ground pounder. As I can't see the point in nerfing vehicle firepower against infantry, I have to agree, what would be so disastrous about boosting the damage of HA rockets against tanks? Not one shotting them per se, but at least damaging them to the point that the tanker has to dismount or seriously risk being destroyed with the vehicle. As it stands now, there is no such risk unless the tank is seriously outnumbered by HA infantry.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-12-30, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

I remember people saying (here mind you)--in their justification of one-shotting vehicles--that, "well in real life (lol) vehicles are powerful." This was a while ago, not sure if they are still around.

Well in real life, an infantry with a shoulder mounted launcher can one-shot them. Double-standard?

Missiles cant one shot modern day tanks. The best anti tank round against a tank that has reactive armor would be a dpu round. Those old soviet era tanks in the mid east are not good comparisons to make.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-30, 02:23 PM

Lol, okay. Getting really technical.

While I'm no military expert by any means, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. I mean that from the sense that you're looking at this from an "us" versus "them" mentality, NATO vs the Warsaw Pact.

Remove yourself from that thought and now imagine any rocket, from any country used against any tank.

NATO anti-tank weapons, which I would imagine being superior and designed to one-hit kill heavy armor, against their own tanks. You see my point? This isn't drawn against ideological lines.

bpostal · 2012-12-30, 02:34 PM

I would imagine there's some kind of technology that can, once the reactive armor is breached, bounce around inside the crew area and make like rather unpleasant for the crew.
Really what we ought to do is ask them to implement mobility kills.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-12-30, 02:43 PM

A depleted uranium round (dpu) has a solid core of uranium. When this uranium hits armor at the appropriate speed there is a chemicl reaction as it melts through armor. Once the dpu round enters an airspace inside the tank it rapidly expands into a fireball with fragmentation. This is a pretty advanced round and not available to most countries worldwide.