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

[Ailos]

Isn't that Esamir? They said Esamir was going to be a frozen continent full of city ruins.

The ship in the sky though... anyone's guess.

[Machine]

Agreed.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Atheosim]

To that video: what the fuck.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Atheosim

To that video: what the fuck.

Audio is terrifying right? But props to the pilot and his team for getting through it.

Point being though, modern aircraft are incredibly resistant to AA and it's only really effective by completely overwhelming pilots surprised at coming under fire from it due to lack of knowledge about it to blow it up from range beforehand. The reality of warfare today is as I put it, hierarchical from fast air to air jets down to the infantry. BF3 actually gets this hierarchy very correct in their roles on the battlefield, though the way tanks are used in game as a frontline tool is pretty wron, mainly due to their resilience and ease of repair though. Project Reality on the other hand gets it spot on.

Besides the point though, city combat would really give armour a role in proper team play as opposed to just a defensive tool in the open plains, and I'd absolutely love to see PROPER mechanized infantry tactics come into play in Planetside 2 as opposed to just a bit of protection for sundies (which have 4 times the armour of tanks anyway so they're certainly not going to be in need of too much protection).

Originally Posted by TheDrone

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

That would be awesome beyond belief.

Have you got a source for this? I'd love to verify it/know where it was said.

[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.