Old image revisited: Do we know what this is now?

[duck]

It's a pretty old concept art, one of the first to be released. Based off what we know now, does anyone know what that massive flying object is? Is PS2 trying to borrow the Titan concept from 2142 and incorporating it somehow into the game? Did Higby say what it is yet?

[Atheosim]

There's been no word on it, but I know some devs have said that space/orbital functionality of some sort is a dream of theirs and is being considered for a post launch possibility.

[Stardouser]

That also looks like a city, and there are no known cities, as opposed to bases, right?

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

That also looks like a city, and there are no known cities, as opposed to bases, right?

God I want cities in the game so much. Right now tanks are a superfluous part of gameplay in my opinion, they're only useful as a defensive tool, not an offensive one. Tanks/armour in warfare in general are area denial weapons, they serve as active deterrents to infantry and force them to remain in cover/hidden as they'll quickly be annihilated by the armour. Their purpose is to sit in open areas and play an impassable passive role, and to engage other armour to remove their passive role as area denial also. It is inherently a defensive weapon, with air support and infantry really playing core offensive roles.

Armour only really serves the purpose of an offensive weapon in warfare today during block by block city warfare, with armour providing a rear guard and rolling powerhouse for mechanized infantry that push through streets block by block.

Without landscape that suits such pushing through, tanks are relegated to one role really, that of fighting in the open plains. I'd really like to see armour get a much more active role in supporting proper mechanized infantry pushes, only cities and town-like landscapes would allow for that to happen though.

PS gets a lot of things right, but armour and their offensive role in warfare are under appreciated as a result of this missing landscape in the game.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

God I want cities in the game so much. Right now tanks are a superfluous part of gameplay in my opinion, they're only useful as a defensive tool, not an offensive one. Tanks/armour in warfare in general are area denial weapons, they serve as active deterrents to infantry and force them to remain in cover/hidden as they'll quickly be annihilated by the armour. Their purpose is to sit in open areas and play an impassable passive role, and to engage other armour to remove their passive role as area denial also. It is inherently a defensive weapon, with air support and infantry really playing core offensive roles.

Armour only really serves the purpose of an offensive weapon in warfare today during block by block city warfare, with armour providing a rear guard and rolling powerhouse for mechanized infantry that push through streets block by block.

Without landscape that suits such pushing through, tanks are relegated to one role really, that of fighting in the open plains. I'd really like to see armour get a much more active role in supporting proper mechanized infantry pushes, only cities and town-like landscapes would allow for that to happen though.

PS gets a lot of things right, but armour and their offensive role in warfare are under appreciated as a result of this missing landscape in the game.

Rommel and Patton would disagree with you.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Vash02

Rommel and Patton would disagree with you.

Purely tank warfare in a time before helicopters were the bane of tanks. The hierarchy of battle today is Air support and response > Attack Helicopters > Armour > Infantry

In Planetside we know tanks aren't going to play a major role in offence, they might defend a sundy in transit to an objective, that's about it, once at the facility their role appears to diminish entirely. It is however far more likely, efficient, and intelligent for infantry to travel via air, galaxies supported by air to air craft as well as air to ground gunships will effectively transport infantry to an objective and support them while they do their thing. The need for tanks there is unnecessary, and slow.

In a city landscape on the other hand there is a veritable need to push block by block, the nature of city landscapes and the ability for the enemy to be at so many angles means a slow and steady pace, armour supports infantry in these roles as they push block by block to effectively clear as they move towards and objective. In a city landscape armour has a purpose, otherwise, not so much.

Originally Posted by Shade Millith

In a city area (Indoors/windows) without destructible buildings, armor is at a severe disadvantage.

Their job isn't to decimate the city, it's to stop enemy infantry from leaving cover while friendly infantry progress forwards and clean them out. Armour sits behind infantry and supports as opposed to playing the lead role, though their importance is immense when it comes to locking down routes, an armoured vehicle on an important cross section forces infantry to take a roundabout route or entirely stops them from passing until armour moves or is destroyed. The dynamic this adds is huge.

That said, build said buildings and the like intelligently, it would all be handcrafted so the cities should be built with armour in mind. How would these cities look anyway? I'm picturing more Star Wars Coruscant style buildings with large balconies and long wide sweeping windows, this kind of architecture wouldn't have the problem of small windows and doors being a problem for tanks.

[TheDrone]

Smedley said shot up urban would be part of the game. "like Beirut"

That would be awesome beyond belief.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Purely tank warfare in a time before helicopters were the bane of tanks. The hierarchy of battle today is Air support and response > Attack Helicopters > Armour > Infantry

Its called anti-air weapons. There was a reason NATO destroyed Libyas ageing anti-air defences before their armour.

Anyway getting off topic here.

Like Alios said, didnt they say Esamir was going to have a load of ruins on it? I think I read that somewhere in one of the interviews.

[Shade Millith]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

PS gets a lot of things right, but armour and their offensive role in warfare are under appreciated as a result of this missing landscape in the game.

In a city area (Indoors/windows) without destructible buildings, armor is at a severe disadvantage.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Armour only really serves the purpose of an offensive weapon in warfare today during block by block city warfare, with armour providing a rear guard and rolling powerhouse for mechanized infantry that push through streets block by block.

Hmm. If anti-tank mines and AV weapons are anything like plausibly effective in PS2 the average life expectancy of any given tank in a heavily built-up area will be about 10 seconds against an active group of Engineers.

Plus, Desert Storm and the more recent escapade in Iraq were classic sweeping tank offensives in true blitzkrieg mould. Tanks are associated with cities only because of the years of follow-on from those amazing strikes.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Hmm. If anti-tank mines and AV weapons are anything like plausibly effective in PS2 the average life expectancy of any given tank in a heavily built-up area will be about 10 seconds against an active group of Engineers.

Plus, Desert Storm and the more recent escapade in Iraq were classic sweeping tank offensives in true blitzkrieg mould. Tanks are associated with cities only because of the years of follow-on from those amazing strikes.

Again, that's why armour are supported by infantry. They act as a back line, not a front. What is hard about this to understand? You do not charge your armour in to die stupidly, you use them for backline control and blocking movement, they effectively render enemy infantry stuck to cover while friendly infantry have the opportunity to clear out av weaponry and enemy infantry trapped in cover. The point isn't to put them in the line of fire, it's to deter aggressive play by the opponent.

Desert Storm? Iraq? Are you kidding? This is not a modern military conflict, this is not how tank warfare would play out against an even military with an air force.

Originally Posted by Vash02

Its called anti-air weapons. There was a reason NATO destroyed Libyas ageing anti-air defences before their armour.

Anyway getting off topic here.

Like Alios said, didnt they say Esamir was going to have a load of ruins on it? I think I read that somewhere in one of the interviews.

Anti air weapons for all they're worth a vastly inferior to air vehicles, they are only effective when used with surprise, and even then counter measures are extremely efficient and AA's only role is really that of annoying deterrent.

This is a video of an F16 pilot evading eight missiles

That said, you pointed out the flaws in your own argument, AA gets obliterated by long range cruise missiles long before any ground conflict occurs, this leaves purely vehicle warfare, though AA vehicles are the first to go, again through long range missile use. All that is then left is the above hierarchy and infantry surface to air, though it's even more ineffective than proper installations like the one that fired on the above pilot.

[Bonius]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Again, that's why armour are supported by infantry. They act as a back line, not a front. What is hard about this to understand? You do not charge your armour in to die stupidly, you use them for backline control and blocking movement, they effectively render enemy infantry stuck to cover while friendly infantry have the opportunity to clear out av weaponry and enemy infantry trapped in cover. The point isn't to put them in the line of fire, it's to deter aggressive play by the opponent.

Desert Storm? Iraq? Are you kidding? This is not a modern military conflict, this is not how tank warfare would play out against an even military with an air force.

Anti air weapons for all they're worth a vastly inferior to air vehicles, they are only effective when used with surprise, and even then counter measures are extremely efficient and AA's only role is really that of annoying deterrent.

That said, you pointed out the flaws in your own argument, AA gets obliterated by long range cruise missiles long before any ground conflict occurs, this leaves purely vehicle warfare, though AA vehicles are the first to go, again through long range missile use. All that is then left is the above hierarchy and infantry surface to air, though it's even more ineffective than proper installations like the one that fired on the above pilot.

You're linking to videos on Youtube and quotes on wikipedia as if it's the one and only truth, reality is a bit more complicated than rock-paper-scissors.

If two equally equipped modern armies would engage in combat, I'm pretty certain tanks would play a more critical role in any assault than what you've seen on youtube. They are still the workhorses of any modern army and will probably stay that way for a long time to come, simply because of their design.

You are misinterpreting area denial as being solely a passive or defensive role, this most certainly isn't the case.

(Why would you fit a tank with extremely powerful engines if they are just going to sit around?).

Saying "AA gets obliterated by long range cruise missiles long before any ground conflict occurs" is nothing but a complete and utter lie. Static defenses are a thing of the past, modern AA-weaponry is designed to be highly mobile and stealthy simply to ensure they don't get taken out by long range ballistics. You would be surprised how effective a souped up flak-cannon would be against an apache helicopter or F16 fighter jet.

To relate back to the topic, I expect tanks to play a much more offensive role in PS2 than air vehicles for the simple reason that the armies will be fighting on equal terms. AA will be all over the place, as such you would have to put alot more resources punching through with aircraft than you would using vehicles on the ground. Aircraft are by their design alot less armored than armored vehicles (duh).

Using tanks as a spearhead for the main force when you don't have complete control over the air is nothing new, as someone pointed out.

[Halon]

Concept art is concept art. A possible glimpse at what the devs have in mind for their 5 year plan? I think the fans want the airship to be a sort of outfit base. Anything at this point is speculation and I doubt the devs will have time to flesh this out more until after launch.

[cellinaire]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

That also looks like a city, and there are no known cities, as opposed to bases, right?

Ya I also guess that's for the 5-year plan they have available.

[Hamma]

Yea sadly we don't know a whole lot more about that than we did at Fan Faire.