I have been arguing against the numerical 'nerf hammer' being cried for by people all over the forums in relation to Vehicles. Specifically Heavy Attack Vehicles which are 'dominating the field' at the current time.
This has earned me many bad looks, an opinion that I favour HAV and Vehicle Drivers over Infantry. An allegation that is false, misleading, and completely innacurate.
I do believe, however, that a 'quick fix' numerical balance will not solve the inherent problems in Vehicle Vs. Infantry Gameplay, but simply 'patch it' until another change comes along. What I'm campaigning is a more permanent fix which may include a numerical alteration, but not as the be all and end all of the discussion.
First, the Maps MUST be balanced. Currently every map has at least 80% or more coverable by Vehicles. Heavy Attack Vehicles account for 60-70% dependant on the map, with an overlap for Assault Dropships making up the additional coverage.
A well-designed map has greater variance in each unit's ability to perform it's job. Open Plains with scattered cover favor Heavy Attack Vehicles. This is where they 'dominate'. A cluttered installation interior, with buildings (interiors included) and gaps too small for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get through (and fire through effectively) favors the Infantry when combating Heavy Attack Vehicles.
Dropships are capable of three dimensional movement, and thus are greatly desired if maps are designed with steep up and downs, such as cliffs, valleys, and hills that ground units find hard to traverse.
Currently, there is little actual diversity in the overall map. If a Heavy Attack Vehicle cannot get to the point itself, there is alot of open space around each point that they can cover. Effectively covering the point strategically and tactically. Anyone in there is unlikely to be able to get out to support their allies, and reinforcements are unlikely to get in.
Secondly. Infantry need more options to deal with Vehicular Threats. Currently non-Anti-Vehicular Equipped Infantry have a mere handful f options. All involving damage and / or destruction (AV Grenades, Flux Grenades for Shield Tanks, Proximity Explosives, Remote Explosives, and already deployed, but non-replaceable Turret installations).
What is needed is content designed to allow infantry to shape the battlefield to their advantage. Things such as Hedgehogs, Walls, Deployable Turrets, Shield Generators and Gates. Not only would these add greater options to dealing with Vehicles, they would also introduce multi-level theatres.
As an example (I wont say quick, because my examples never are quick):
Quote:Team A in a Skirmish is defending a Point accessible by Northern, Eastern, and Southern routes. They need to free up some forces to move on to the next point, but 3 access ways is alot of ground for 1 or 2 men to cover. So they deploy some defences. The Northern Path is wide enough for a Heavy Attack Vehicle to get in and cover the point (or seriously impact the ability to hold the point) so they lay out 3 strategically placed Hedgehogs. This will slow down Heavy Attack Vehicles who must destroy the Hedgehogs in order to penetrate the defender's position. Each hedgehog has HP equivalent to a Supply Depot, so they are not easy to kill.
The Eastern route is a covered walkway. The soldiers deploy 2 'Cover Shields' to allow 2 people to stand and fire with some easily accessible cover nearby. The third route is he landing platform. Accessible only by air. So they deploy 2 Automated AA Guns to deter aerial assault.
Now you have a point, highly defensible, with the ability to counter the 'most likely' threats from each position. The Northern Route can still be traversed by Infantry and the Eastern Route is heavily Defensible from Infantry. Taking apart these defences would require more than just rocking up in a Heavy Attack Vehicle or Dropship. The two infantry defenders do not need to carry any particular equipment to counter threats (making personal choice once again matter), but would be advised to carry at least 1 repair tool to keep the defences from being destroyed or overrun too easily.
Giving us the options and the tools to counter both lethally and non-lethally Vehicles and / or other threats makes the game far more complex, involved, and allows balance by proxy. Maps, deployable installations, and being able to 'dynamically change' the battle field on the fly make for a much more interesting gameplay experience than a simple numeric balance.
A simple numerical balance right now will not solve the long term issues that having vehicles and infantry on the field at the same time will have. Nor will complex mechanics restricting Heavy Attack Vehicle usage. It's quite simply a case of getting the content to balance tanks, the maps to balance tanks, and not touching the numbers until this is in place.