Theoretical Artillery - Page 4

Ratstomper · 2012-07-11, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Goldeh

From what I know from playing FPSs' anything that requires thought or care will not be used by most people. SO that limits arty right there.

Artillery would only likely be used by outfits or other more organized groups anyway. Considering that PS2 takes the fight away from bases, there's much more viability for artillery than there was in PS1.

Artillery SHOULDN'T be used by most people, it's simply a part: tool for the war effort...

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 05:56 PM

Well, trying to use it excessively would turn south pretty quick... Artillery is great for blowing stuff up OVER THERE ----> But when a bunch of pissed off people show up over HERE <----- Things get ugly.

Just like now, you don't see lots of it (a few usually, but not tons). Part of the balancing is handled automatically in that most people don't want to do all the same thing. And if they for some reason DID all do the same thing, they die pretty quick. 400 foot zergers would die pretty quick if attacked by a comparative handful of tanks or air. 400 tanks (while troublesome) would take massive casaulties as other people started spamming air or whatever...

Yeah, by its nature, it somewhat is limiting itself to a handful of people who can/will use it properly, otherwise they'll get frustrated after the first couple times they die and won't want it anymore.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-11, 10:17 PM

I like artillery because it helps tie the whole continent into a fight instead of just "Ok, lets fight over this base. Ok, now lets fight over that base."

There's SO much more complexity and tactical depth in having to deal with artillery that may be firing on your base or on a field you have to cross. Should we send an air squadron to bomb it? Should we sneak in a spec ops team to disable and harass artillery batteries? What are our options on crossing a field or bridge that's being bombarded? Do we rush it with tanks? Do we send in bombers first?

Those are the things that makes PS2 a war simulator and not just another FPS. Well worth the fact that you may get killed every once in a while from half a continent away.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-11, 10:53 PM

I like artillery because it's existed for thousands of years. No reason to think it would suddenly disappear in the future. Although, if you want to be perfectly honest, all the griping about OS is over the top. If there were really space ships in orbit (or stations) with guns... It's highly likely they would participate in any fighting in this manner.

Only way artillery would not be present in some form is if technology had somehow changed to render it obsolete (like Orbital Strikes). On that note, I consider Orbital Strikes to be plentiful in PS1, but they really are not NEARLY so bad as people carry on about. And yes. I've been killed by them a number of times.

Dloan · 2012-07-18, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

We already have plenty of indirect fire built into the game that I know about. We have OS, ai mortar secondary guns, high altitude bombing...it would seem that the spam of indirect fire right now wih just those three is going to be quite fierce.

If there's so much indirect fire flying around, then it seems like it would be a good idea to introduce some kind of Point Defense emplacement to provide limited umbrella protection from rocket and large projectile bombardment.

RoninOni · 2012-07-18, 12:07 PM

You want artillery?

Do it right.

No minimap firing.

no BF2 designate and get a camera.

No... you set angle and degree of your canon... and you fire.

On your HUD you see estimated range based on your canon elevation (provided even level... if target is higher it won't go as far, lower it goes farther.) and compass degrees.

You would then have to have a teammate in sight of the impact area to help you guide your shots using comms and comms alone.

ONLY way artillery would work IMO.

No cheesy minimap shooting.... that's just lame.

I could see mortar's as a potential as well. Same mechanics (ie; you're looking from your view trying to guess range and angle) just less range and damage

Originally Posted by Dloan

If there's so much indirect fire flying around, then it seems like it would be a good idea to introduce some kind of Point Defense emplacement to provide limited umbrella protection from rocket and large projectile bombardment.

Goalkeeper CIWS Gun System - YouTube

Uhm... you are not going to shoot a high velocity shell out of the air.

Those defenses are for shooting ROCKETS and MISSILES out of the air which are much MUCH slower

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-18, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Dloan

If there's so much indirect fire flying around, then it seems like it would be a good idea to introduce some kind of Point Defense emplacement to provide limited umbrella protection from rocket and large projectile bombardment.

Goalkeeper CIWS Gun System - YouTube

Yup i love the aegis anti missile system. Once that thing is engaged it would take out almost any decent sized object in its defined kill zone. This thing is automated and far too powerful of a system to have in ps2.

Superbus · 2012-07-18, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by RoninOni

You want artillery?

Uhm... you are not going to shoot a high velocity shell out of the air.

Those defenses are for shooting ROCKETS and MISSILES out of the air which are much MUCH slower

Lol those guns are accurate enough with radar support to shoot a 60mm mortar out of the air. They have even shot high velocity 155mm rocket assisted rounds in tests. They aren't perfect but I've witnessed them in action while convoying to Balad Iraq, they do work.

Also the only way your system would work would be with a proper uniform grid system. Without that system its difficult to gauge ranges and elevations. Ultimately the best compromise of both systems would be a F.O. type cert that grants the artilleryman access to his view a la bf 1942. I agree however soldiers should not be revealed on a mini map what so ever, but my guess is they will do a bf3 system for this game, where if you shoot you reveal yourself.

Dloan · 2012-07-18, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by RoninOni

Uhm... you are not going to shoot a high velocity shell out of the air.

Those defenses are for shooting ROCKETS and MISSILES out of the air which are much MUCH slower

Maybe not with pathetic TR or NC technology, but I'm sure the VS can get the job done

.

RoninOni · 2012-07-18, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Superbus

Lol those guns are accurate enough with radar support to shoot a 60mm mortar out of the air. They have even shot high velocity 155mm rocket assisted rounds in tests. They aren't perfect but I've witnessed them in action while convoying to Balad Iraq, they do work.

Also the only way your system would work would be with a proper uniform grid system. Without that system its difficult to gauge ranges and elevations. Ultimately the best compromise of both systems would be a F.O. type cert that grants the artilleryman access to his view a la bf 1942. I agree however soldiers should not be revealed on a mini map what so ever, but my guess is they will do a bf3 system for this game, where if you shoot you reveal yourself.

I stand corrected....

My original ideas stand though. I think that defense system would be OP lol

I think that artillery should have NO eyes on the target. Not with map targeting and most DEFINITELY not with air cams. Their view is of the vehicle they occupy, and they need to get the compass degree and firing angle (distance) right to hit their target.

This means any lone artillery is just blind firing. To get good effect you would need a spotter who would guide you in manually via comms. "Adjust fire, 50m farther, 30m left" or "On target, fire for effect"

No lazing, no auto assists. You're blind firing and relying on teammates to communicate with you to be effective.

Also, as mentioned, the need for overhead clearance, and lack of mobility while firing would make artillery prime targets for air vehicles.

Truly, the Liberator is supposed to act as the "artillery" as it were in the games current model.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-18, 02:05 PM

I am writing this reply having only read the OP, and not the rest of the thread.

While I do see the potential of the idea (and it is not a bad idea by any means), I feel this role is already covered by the tanks that are currently in the game. The video demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Dividing the roles, and allocating the artillery role to a separate vehicle while reducing the effectiveness of the current tanks over long distances isn't neccessarily a dumb idea. it could definitely work. But I personally think the current tanks would perform this task more than adequately, and I see no reason to change this. More is not always better.

DukeTerror · 2012-07-18, 03:38 PM

Well I think the best artillery solution for PS2 at this stage would be the Sunderer as an upgrade path. The Sundy could sacrifice the 2 turrets for a larger indirect fire Arty Cannon and a reduced number of seats. A driver and gunner would be needed and it'd be a big and slow enough target for run and gun operations to be challenging.

I agree it should be largely a suppressive fire shot, with a wide fiery result only able to hurt infantry about 1/3 of health or so, depending on how fast it shoots. It will need to use spotters to aim, and the vertical fire arcs high enough that being inside will be mostly likely safe and using against a tank at close range foolish. Basically give or take what others have been saying about not being overpowered of a shot.