DUST Search - vehicles vs. infantry

Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Hawk-eye Occultus wrote:

Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease.

See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all.

I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart.

Loose ends all tied up. Happy?

Hold up; that's not necessary, nor does it make sense. You realize that they are all Large turrets, right? Why should a large turret be fixed to a specific target like that, especially when some of those don't even make sense (why would you use a large blaster if you could use a medium and most like do far better, or why use a large rail against a LAV)? Sure, there should be some T II variants to go down a specific path like that (or rather ammo), but locking a turret to a role like that is a very bad idea.

It makes perfect sense. Turrets are what define the role of a tank. They each have their own unique purpose. Imagine, if you will that each of the turrets have been substantially modified from what they are now. The Missile launcher would launch Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).

The railgun would continue as it basically is, with a lower max elevation (for some reason it currently can aim over 20 degrees higher than all other turrets), so it could be used as a very crude AA or AI weapon if need be. The turn rate would also be boosted quite a bit too.

The blaster (or whatever we will replace it with) would be very effective against infantry, but would be very bad for attacking other vehicles.

Size also fits with this. See, small turrets are basicly fit purely for self defence (in the case of tanks); large turrets are the main weapon.

Way I see it, the medium turret would be what you stick on the MAV (probably something like an APC). How exactly would making the turret smaller make it work better?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10256	Posted - 2014.05.20 23:04:00 - [1] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: On equal grounds (skill, SP, equipment, positioning, numbers), a infantry player should be able to fend off against a vehicle, or vice versa. They would cancel each other out, If one of things becomes an advantage Gameplay wise this makes sense...... Logically it is seriously flawed. Markdown:
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10271	Posted - 2014.05.23 03:02:00 - [2] - Quote Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Hawk-eye Occultus wrote: Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease. See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all. I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart. Loose ends all tied up. Happy? Hold up; that's not necessary, nor does it make sense. You realize that they are all Large turrets, right? Why should a large turret be fixed to a specific target like that, especially when some of those don't even make sense (why would you use a large blaster if you could use a medium and most like do far better, or why use a large rail against a LAV)? Sure, there should be some T II variants to go down a specific path like that (or rather ammo), but locking a turret to a role like that is a very bad idea. It makes perfect sense. Turrets are what define the role of a tank. They each have their own unique purpose. Imagine, if you will that each of the turrets have been substantially modified from what they are now. The Missile launcher would launch Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). The railgun would continue as it basically is, with a lower max elevation (for some reason it currently can aim over 20 degrees higher than all other turrets), so it could be used as a very crude AA or AI weapon if need be. The turn rate would also be boosted quite a bit too. The blaster (or whatever we will replace it with) would be very effective against infantry, but would be very bad for attacking other vehicles. Size also fits with this. See, small turrets are basicly fit purely for self defence (in the case of tanks); large turrets are the main weapon. Way I see it, the medium turret would be what you stick on the MAV (probably something like an APC). How exactly would making the turret smaller make it work better? I cannot say I am a fan of your rigid ideals of turrets. Markdown: