Then explain how other games done it.

They haven't, because you don't need to, if your balancing a shotgun you give high damage, short ramge and low accuracy.
That's it, no terrain, cover or player skill involved, just pure and simple maths.

If it is a short ramge weapon it should have the highest mathematical chamce of killing an opponent in the shortest time for that range. THAT IS IT, that is literally how weapons are balanced. In every game ever.

Gameplay wise this makes sense...... Logically it is seriously flawed.

WE're not talking about just weapons, we're talking about hulls, as turrets, and their relationship between them.

Yes, there's math involved making them, but you make it to where the said thing is good situation, and bad for another. Good against a said setup, bad against another. Good in X terrain, bad in another.

Your own example even proves that, as you said it's a CQ weapon, which implies that it exels in CQ, but does **** all at range.

I'll say it again, put down the spreadsheets and think about it.
EDIT: Warthunder has done it by the way. As well as any DOTA copy game.

Sometimes logic doesn't make good balance imo

Logic makes for perfect balance, it's a lack of logic that
Allowed RR to have DPS comparable to the AR
Allowed pretty much every weapon to out class a shotgun

Logic makes for perfect balance, it's a lack of logic that
Allowed RR to have DPS comparable to the AR
Allowed pretty much every weapon to out class a shotgun

FOR GOD'S SAKE!

This discussion of having "everything done by spreadsheet" is STUPID!

Let me ask you one question: Have you ever heard of this thing called "play-testing"? it allows you to see the effects of unquantifiable values (such as cover, terrain and other stuff) in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions.

If a tank was unable to survive attack from a single person, it would be uneconomical to make said tank.

Unlike people, the machines (vehicles) are able to carry much thicker armour plating and are more durable, and they can carry much bulkier weapon systems. In addition, there are many defence systems that protect against exotic anti-vehicle weapons [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Thus, (for a tank), I can only see the Forge Gun as being any major threat, as missiles, rockets, and grenades have many countermeasures against them. This fit in with the motif of tanks being something to be feared; they are the ones who push you over.

This would not be true for dropships, however. As aircraft, they have precious little capacity for armour (or space for shield generators) that can be applied, thus they would be VERY vulnerable to attack by all current AV weapons. They would instead rely very heavily on their speed and agility to outmanoeuvre attack.

LAV's would be similar to dropships (in two dimensions), slightly tougher, but still very vulnerable.

Since we don't have MAV's, I couldn't comment on those.

Just don't let General Motors manufacture the LAVs anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IZ2TroruU&list=FLWAVCGsyDP1eXxAenraZ-KA&index=2

You make a good point, and I agree with you, but there shouldn't be a "One is better than the other period", which is the whole point of me making this thread.I think you get that though.

I do agree with you on it not being a case of "one is better than the other period." (Even if the post didn't exactly sound like that). But there should still be advantages and incentives to using vehicles over infantry, otherwise vehicles become redundant, useless wastes of resources even.

Balancing vehicles and infantry is a very difficult thing to pin down in 6 000 characters, let alone an entire thread; but it stands to reason the following points:

* Certain AV weapons are necessarily more effective against one vehicle type than another.

* The ability for an AV unit to attack and destroy a vehicle should be proportional to both the difficulty of use, and specialization of the AV ordinance.

* It is basically a requirement to mirror reality that, unless in the case of traps set by individuals (with RE's Proxies, Mines, et al.), very special weapons, or simple lack of parity (a prototype/officer Anti-Vehicle Vs. Militia Vehicle); there must be a minimum number of infantry that work together to defeat a vehicle.

Vehicles themselves would also need the following characteristics:

* Specialization:

** A tank with a weapon designed to mow down squads of infantry will fare very badly against an AV Vehicle.

** Conversely, AV Vehicles would be ineffective at attacking infantry (although tank may not be vulnerable, if there are no AV infantry present)

** There must be NO or VERY LITTLE ability for these two rules to be bent or broken EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES.

* Resistance:

** Simple: They are harder to kill than equivalent heavy infantry.

** Still vulnerable to attack and environmental damage (where applicable).

* Cost

** Depending on how superior to infantry vehicles are, vehicles will be more expensive to buy, run, and train for (but not too costly as to be uneconomical in occasional circumstance).

** Also must take into account the fact that vehicles are unable to move through/more restricted in movement while in urban areas, interior spaces, and small overhangs above 5 mile high cliff faces.

On the subject of cliffs; NO INERTIA DAMPENERS for vehicles.

Only problem I have with this is the part where you talk about turrets (what do you think a turret that is AI friendly vs. AV friendly is?), and the part where you say that there is at minimum, which I think you covered under the "There's exceptions to the rules", so I'll let it slide.

What can I say?

I'm an expert in ensuring all loose ends are tied down. Keep everything as watertight as you can, saves a lot of bother.

Well, you left me hanging on the turrets (read my last post again), but otherwise, yea, you did.

I will cover turrets tomorrow, as it is sleepy mc dreamtime, and I cannot be bothered to get myself into objective mode.

Yet another **** thread from Godin.

If tanks are solo-able by random infantry, nobody will run a ******* tank. Why risk a 150m tank when some scrub in a 10m suit is just going to come by and pop it like it's nothing?

I ask you a question: what environment does a shotgun do better than any rifle? Also, why does it?

By answering that question, you will see what I mean. If not, That's a shame

Also, a shotgun has a disadvantage in open field combat vs. a rifle. Answering the above question with rifles will tell you why.

The weapon itself has no favour towards any particular enviroment, it simple favours close range, the enviroment this engagement takes place jn is neither here nor there, stop trying to bring me round to your logic and listen.

A shotgun can kill just as well in an open field as it can a complex, the operation of use does not change dependent on the enviroment. I can stand in a field at 5m and kill you with a shotgun just as well as I can kill at you 5m inside a complex.

Environment does not make the weapon more effective, what your probably trying to say is that shotguns favour complexs because it is easier to find someone in a favourable position. This does not effect balance though, because this engagement has already been balanced out on the coverless flat field.

In short environment does not change the maths of the engagement!

You still answered the question, you just disregarded the truth. and no, a shotgun is not as good in a open field as in a complex, as a shotgun user can much more easily close the gap in a closed in environment to get to its optimal rather than a open field. You're a lost cause it seems............

Doesn't change the engagement though does it, think about it!
Would you really find it more difficultmto kill someone with a shotgun at 5m in an open field than at 5m inside a complex?

"as a shotgun user can more easily close the gap in closed enviroment" exactly the chamces of finding a favourable engagement is increased, but the engagement does not change at all.

If tanks are so easy to kill, what Is the point of having them? You seem to be mistaking my argument as an emotional pro tank one for some reason. Know that I am nether a tanker nor emotional.

Let's say you are the leader of some faction. And you get the report from your advisers that all those tanks you ordered to be built have no greater a survival rate or effectiveness than infantry. You'd have to be stupid to keep making those tanks if that were the case, as production of vehicles is a costly process. It needs factories, operators must be specially trained, all the materials to make the tank...

Point is, making 1-1 Infantry Vs. Vehicle makes no sense. As I said before, this is not an emotional argument. Tanks are designed to be hard to kill war machines.

Ever heard of the British main battle tank; the Challenger 2? There is only 1 of the 466 made that was ever destroyed (and that was due to a friendly fire incident with another Challenger 2). One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs, and was completely unaffected.

Given the current AV weapons set, I reiterate, that the only weapon that I believe may be suitable for 1v1 is the forge gun. Not because I'm a heavy. Not because I'm a tanker. Because of physics. Have a read of the forge gun description, it's great.

You skip out on the entire engagement process. Do you just happen to always be within spitting distance of your enemy? Nope. It's quite the opposite. You have to get to them first. and in a open area, there's less of a chance that you'll get close enough before dying. That is not my opinion, that is fact, and you know it.

Stop trying to fight me, as your argument looks only at pure numbers for balancing things, which doesn't work when there's actual variation to environments.

No I merely startmthe engagement at the correct time, if you are in cover this is the same as not engaging the enemy since neither of you are firing upon each other, you are between engagememts.

You do not need to consider enviroment if balance across a varied set of ranges, because each time you duck in and out of cover you reset the engagement, it's simple, your just to dense to see what Im getting at.

But I will give it 1 more try.

If an engagement starts at 5m in open field what is the difference from engagement that starts at 5m in a complex?
None

The range is the same, the accuracy is the same, the damage is the same, the ammo is the same.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE

There is a difference. As anyone teaching an a modern or even ancient school of warfare will tell you.

Ever heard of Hannibal?

Hannibal is famous, of course, for his many victories in battle against the Roman Empire. Critical in his battle plans were use of the terrain to ambush or trap his opponents or to offer a defensive advantage.

At the time, Romans were a very technologically superior foe, Hannibal had to rely on cleverness and cunning to win the day. There is little question that, had he just met the Romans on a flat, open field, his army would have been slaughtered by the Romans...

Oh wait, that did happen.

Don't try to get off by saying "oh but that was before guns 'n ****"; because these same tactics are still taught and analysed in MODERN settings.

Additionally, cover offers PROTECTION, flat ground does not. this is why D-Day had so many INFANTRY dead on the beaches (with no cover), where they were mowed down by machine gun fire from entrenched bunkers.

In conclusion, terrain is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT with the advent of firearms, artillery, and all that stuff.

To anyone in this thread:

If I changed this quote



to:

As far as a 1v1 medium/light vs. heavy suit, that's only possible if the heavy messes up constantly, just overall sucks, or the infantry gets lucky. Otherwise, it'll be a stalemate.

Would you consider that balanced?