DUST Search - [Request] Gunships

gbghg wrote:

Falco Bombardi wrote:

Gunships should possess a few key traits:

Nimble - Terrain hugging, intricate and tight maneuvers and weaving between obstacles are going to be necessary for gunships to be effective and survivable

2 man crew - Pilot should have an unguided forward firing weapon such as unguided rockets. Gunner would have control of the turret weapons. Either autocannons or pulse lasers or blasters, etc (Primary and secondary weapons for gunner, bringing vehicle grand total up to 3 including pilot "dumb" munitions)

Fast - The gunship will need to be able to dictate engagements for everything except dedicated air superiority fighters.

Fragile - To maintain game balance Dropships should be significantly toughened and Gunships should be quite thin skinned. They will need to rely on the EVE concept of "speed tanking" to essentially survive by not taking hits.

COCKPIT VIEW - This will be crucial, visibility needs to be excellent and the HUD needs to be effective. No way you can do close air support with a 3rd person view.

These are my two cents on the matter.

actually the gunship would need to be at least a tough as the dropship due to the fact that its designed for close air support, but i agree with the rest of your points

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
SickJ French unchained corporation 49	Posted - 2013.03.24 02:37:00 - [31] - Quote Jathniel wrote: Guys on foot should not be taking jets out with swarms. Gunships and dropships? Maybe. Jets? Hell no. We* shouldn't be able to take out jets reliably, but we should at least be able to annoy them. Like 'oh that puny groundpounder just did 400 damage to my 3000HP shields. That is a minor inconvenience' (I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'm gonna spend much time in the air) Quote: Just make the combat aircraft much more expensive than tanks, so they can't be spammed. Considering the price they should cost... I'm not comfortable with a jet being called down via RDV... I don't trust those bastards. Let me fly myself in. YES.jpg
Oxskull Duncarino Shadow Company HQ 184	Posted - 2013.03.24 02:45:00 - [32] - Quote slypie11 wrote: Lol proving my point before me Haha. I have to take back what I said about it having being used on fighter aircraft for AAMs as I can't find the aircraft. Kitten brain. But yeh, it's a very nice short range SAM.
slypie11 Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 11	Posted - 2013.03.24 03:00:00 - [33] - Quote Oxskull Duncarino wrote: slypie11 wrote: Lol proving my point before me Haha. I have to take back what I said about it having being used on fighter aircraft for AAMs as I can't find the aircraft. Kitten brain. But yeh, it's a very nice short range SAM. Yeah, and with the size of these maps, all you need is a short range SAM
SickJ French unchained corporation 49	Posted - 2013.03.24 03:00:00 - [34] - Quote Oxskull Duncarino wrote: slypie11 wrote: Lol proving my point before me Haha. I have to take back what I said about it having being used on fighter aircraft for AAMs as I can't find the aircraft. Kitten brain. But yeh, it's a very nice short range SAM. Stingers are used on helicopters. Jets usually carry bigger stuff.
slypie11 Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 11	Posted - 2013.03.24 03:13:00 - [35] - Quote Yep all true
Eriknaught 666th Hellraisers 0	Posted - 2013.03.24 06:34:00 - [36] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Agreed. The main prob with Aerial vehicals is that the Pliots get no WP. This would give the Pliots a way to exercise their rage at Swarms and help the team at the same time! Not necessarily. Been getting more points since I did away with gunners. Weight+Gravity=50+ points for me. Drop right in the middle of a cluster & rotate, multi-kill. They never see/hear ya coming when you don't got Gunners shooting constantly grabbing every ones attention. When Gunships come out I'll probably switch professions to being a GS pilot. Till then I'm happy being a DS pilot.
Epicus Brilliuntus M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command 16	Posted - 2013.03.24 11:13:00 - [37] - Quote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz3Cc7wlfkI well thats the way to attack a base :)
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 804	Posted - 2013.03.24 13:46:00 - [38] - Quote Falco Bombardi wrote: Gunships should possess a few key traits: Nimble - Terrain hugging, intricate and tight maneuvers and weaving between obstacles are going to be necessary for gunships to be effective and survivable 2 man crew - Pilot should have an unguided forward firing weapon such as unguided rockets. Gunner would have control of the turret weapons. Either autocannons or pulse lasers or blasters, etc (Primary and secondary weapons for gunner, bringing vehicle grand total up to 3 including pilot "dumb" munitions) Fast - The gunship will need to be able to dictate engagements for everything except dedicated air superiority fighters. Fragile - To maintain game balance Dropships should be significantly toughened and Gunships should be quite thin skinned. They will need to rely on the EVE concept of "speed tanking" to essentially survive by not taking hits. COCKPIT VIEW - This will be crucial, visibility needs to be excellent and the HUD needs to be effective. No way you can do close air support with a 3rd person view. These are my two cents on the matter. actually the gunship would need to be at least a tough as the dropship due to the fact that its designed for close air support, but i agree with the rest of your points
Falco Bombardi Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 5	Posted - 2013.03.24 23:04:00 - [39] - Quote gbghg wrote: Falco Bombardi wrote: Gunships should possess a few key traits: Nimble - Terrain hugging, intricate and tight maneuvers and weaving between obstacles are going to be necessary for gunships to be effective and survivable 2 man crew - Pilot should have an unguided forward firing weapon such as unguided rockets. Gunner would have control of the turret weapons. Either autocannons or pulse lasers or blasters, etc (Primary and secondary weapons for gunner, bringing vehicle grand total up to 3 including pilot "dumb" munitions) Fast - The gunship will need to be able to dictate engagements for everything except dedicated air superiority fighters. Fragile - To maintain game balance Dropships should be significantly toughened and Gunships should be quite thin skinned. They will need to rely on the EVE concept of "speed tanking" to essentially survive by not taking hits. COCKPIT VIEW - This will be crucial, visibility needs to be excellent and the HUD needs to be effective. No way you can do close air support with a 3rd person view. These are my two cents on the matter. actually the gunship would need to be at least a tough as the dropship due to the fact that its designed for close air support, but i agree with the rest of your points What I meant to say is that the Dropships should be toughened significantly and the Gunships being a bit less robust. Both would still come out harder than where the DS is sitting right now though. The DS is a flying brick, potentially equipped with a CRU and is a battle taxi flying much more slowly than a Gunship therefore it stands to reason it can take a bit more punishment than the Gunship. Gunship pilots will need to rely on their speed, maneuverability and outright aggression to survive. Think a minigun Little Bird helicopter for inspiration as opposed to a Hind.
SickJ French unchained corporation 49	Posted - 2013.03.25 04:38:00 - [40] - Quote Falco Bombardi wrote: Fragile - To maintain game balance Dropships should be significantly toughened and Gunships should be quite thin skinned. They will need to rely on the EVE concept of "speed tanking" to essentially survive by not taking hits. Gunship users would probably fit more turret upgrades instead of shields & afterburners(that's what I plan on anyway), so that part may happen on it's own

CODE Breaker93 Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 19	Posted - 2013.03.25 04:48:00 - [41] - Quote +1
Epicus Brilliuntus M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command 16	Posted - 2013.03.25 08:35:00 - [42] - Quote SAMs And Stinger missles are out of date lol Im thinking ark cannon instalations .. That will shock them Or a laser type hmg weapon And vtol jets are like the jsf F 35 so they can stop and hover Just hopefully be more like the ATAC off killzone so they can doge really quickly In my opinion stinger = swarm
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 316	Posted - 2013.03.25 09:33:00 - [43] - Quote It could work if you dont give them any 'lock' features. That way their tank is speed, but if they want to accurately hit anything on the ground they gotta slow down/hover
Ziero01 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 11	Posted - 2013.04.04 00:03:00 - [44] - Quote As someone who currently specializes in Swarms, I would LOVE more things in the air to shoot. Heck, this game could only benefit from having more vehicle types in general. LAVs, HAVs and Dropships aren't enough, Jets, Gunships, Mechs, APCs, maybe even ATV type vehicles, this game should have massive maps and with it massive amounts of machinery on them. Every Dust trailer video features large scale vehicular combat so it's clearly something that's planned for the game, they just need to have more variety in the vehicles we can call in. Personally, as I see it: LAVS: Basically stay as they are, quick cheap weak transport that can eventually be specialized into support vehicles. HAVS: Again, staying what they are, big rolling guns with lots of armor. Dropships: First off, they should get points for being used as mobile spawners, be able to take hits better and mainly be used to move and deploy troops or act as floating Logi-bros for heavy ground vehicles. Gunships: Mainly should be air cover ground support, two pilots, three turrets, two of which controlled by co-pilot. Less armor then Dropships, but much better handling and control. Jets: These should be Air Superiority vehicles, mainly used to hit and run with limited ground fire weapons, maybe Air to Surface lock on missiles to take out other vehicles/installations with quick strafing runs. Very fast but easily blown out of the sky, even by Swarms. Mechs: These should be single pilot walking guns. More maneuverable then tanks but far less armor. Preferably with two turrets and able to out run tanks but not able to survive direct fights with them. APCs: Basically ground based Dropships but much cheaper to skill up and deploy, high armor, medium speed, two small turrets used mainly to transport at least an entire squad not counting pilot/gunners. Which in the end would make it the highest count troop transport in the game. ATVs: Single driver, weaponless landcraft that are faster then LAVs but meant more for stealth commando players and the like. They could make them small hover craft or something instead of the basic quad rollers and junk.
Ops Fox ZionTCD Legacy Rising 199	Posted - 2013.04.04 00:29:00 - [45] - Quote Gunships would be great for air to ground and would be a good counter to tanks. I could also see them filling the light air class since the drop ship fills the medium role, which would be good as far as I'm concerned; a gunship with lots of firepower and speed but low defenses.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 129	Posted - 2013.04.04 02:37:00 - [46] - Quote why not light, medium and heavy gunships. Agile and fast or heavily tanked and slow. 1,2 or 3, crew (pilots, gunners, bombers tail gunners etc...) However, we must have air superiority fighters, and they ideally shouldn't have any signifacant air to ground capability (PS2 lolpods...) so that we can maintain the rock paper scissors. Anti Air turrets for ground veh would be a good idea as well (Autocannons perhaps) although a dedicated flak type weapon with a proximity air burst would work better, or a swarm type lock-on. However they need to remain only a nuisance to air, only able to get a kill if the pilot is dumb, or his craft is already damaged.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page