Vehicles and environment

[Chiron]

I know some people say NO! to vehicles but they do have a purpose.

Where PS fails is by not giving the infantry an environment to hide and seek cover in. There should be areas where a tank or other vehicle just cannot pass. Dense foilage, trees steep terrain. Also vehicles should have places where they are extremely vulnerable. Close quarters combat, terrain chokepoints. On the open field vehicles will rule, picture desolation in PS. However this new game should not give them as free a reign as PS. There are trade offs for that 150mm gun. :)

[GreatMazinkaiser]

Agreed... One thing SOE did right was make vehicles king within their own environs. The problem was that roughly 75-85% of Auraxis was great for vehicles.

So, if Joe Grunt wants to wander out in the middle of an open field/road/whatever, he should die...

But likewise if Deathmachine Alpha wants to wander into a dense wood with very little space to move around and lots of hiding places, it should die.

[Cogburn]

Agreed... One thing SOE did right was make vehicles king within their own environs.* The problem was that roughly 75-85% of Auraxis was great for vehicles.*

So, if Joe Grunt wants to wander out in the middle of an open field/road/whatever, he should die...

But likewise if Deathmachine Alpha wants to wander into a dense wood with very little space to move around and lots of hiding places, it should die.


Coudn't have put it better myself.

[Mug]

Just a little tangent here on vehicle balance... In planetside, one of the easiest ways to kill a vehicle is to remove its mobility. While it isn't really possible with any weapons, in a dense forest trees did the job. I would suggest some sort of infantry-carried deployable object that would serve this purpose. Something like an emp mine that disables a vehicle for a certain amount of time, webbing, or some sort of mud or loose earth trap. Or my favorite, a deployable object similar to the invincible unmoving trees of planetside. Something to stop a vehicle dead in its tracks, like these metal obstacles placed on the lower right in this picture, on the beaches of Normandy.

http://www.ifelix.co.uk/games/images/img021/ww2001.jpg

[Cogburn]

Mental note: Deployable tank traps.

Nice.

[Aftiel]

Mental note: Deployable tank traps.

Nice.


If you have those you'd better have infantry able to place explosives to destroy them. One of the funniest things in WW2 was the assload of time spent by Hitler on the Siegfried line....all rendered useless (hundres of Kms of it) by blowing a few holes in it. What was it Patton said? "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" or somesuch. But anyway I'm rambling, point being: Yes have the abilty to place tank traps but also have the ability to destroy them.

[Xae]

Fixed fortifications where a monument to stupidity in WWII, but God-Link before gun powder. Things change overtime, who is to say what it will be in the future?

[Aftiel]

Me.

[Cl2v2r]

Whoa... slow down there God. I'm still transcribing your last commandment.


;)

[Kyraal]

Very neat :) Just be aware of the grief potential if this thing effects friendly tanks as well.

[Aftiel]

<3 Cl2v2r ;)

[Cogburn]

Ya, PS shied away from deployables that can "block" terrain for a reason.

I figure it's at least worth a look.

[Chiron]

Ya, PS shied away from deployables that can "block" terrain for a reason.

I figure it's at least worth a look.


Its just a matter of planning. You need to look at deployables as not a block but as a delay. If a Tank approches a tank obstcle he has 2 choices. Run it down and take damage (Less than a mine) and be slowed down because it takes repeated rammings or weapon shots to destroy OR go around it and be delayed in the time it takes to find a path around.