Air will keep air in check. That's really the way it always should have been and why I'm now fine with fighters being single-person vehicles. With fighters being given air-to-air capability at the expense of air-to-ground, you can count on there to be serious dogfights to determine which side is able to start bringing out aircraft which pose a serious threat to ground targets. Logically it just seems to follow that if one side simply rolls a bunch of liberators and reaver whores like they did in PS1, the other side which instead brings in a bunch of air-to-air fighters will rip them to shreds.
And that's the way it ought to be. With that, you can seriously scale back ground-to-air weaponry and make air superiority be very important and the source of effective anti-air measures.
Originally Posted by VioletZero
Well, let me make one thing clear.
In my intended design, two tanks would beat one tank destroyer most often(most often meaning if the tank drivers aren't COMPLETE buffoons.) But, if facing forward, one tank destroyer would beat one tank.
|
The problem you've identified is armor being too effective en masse. People in this thread have identified something in the game already (air power) which would serve to mitigate the potency of armor, while also pointing out that if tanks have to choose between either anti-infantry or anti-armor guns they will not necessarily be "a problem" if they are seen in larger numbers, as unlike PS1 it will not mean "every single ground target in front of them is about to die".