Background Image

About Flyers Ingame

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Frantic002, May 15, 2014.

  1. Tbh i hope they dont include any air vehicles

    In PS2 there is no nothing worse then Libs wrecking good infantry fights.....farming infantry & camping the spawn rooms so you dont even have a chance to get out & defend the point
  2. I made a thread regarding this a while ago, my thoughts were, slow-ish gunships, with somewhat speedy transports
  3. intense intents Capital_G Active Member

    fliers tend to make for less fun ground battles.
    Kudzu likes this.
  4. Flyers will be great, but with the speeds they can get to, they really aren't feasible for the continent maps we will be on. Latest sources (Miguels speech at C2E2 speech) say that the content takes 51 minutes for a marine to cross on foot. Taking into account their longer stride length and strength, a normal walk for a space marine would be about 3m/s or so (think your walk in space marine, just not the painfully slow walk when talking to people in the campaign). So, walking that fast for 51 minutes, that's 3x60x51= 9180km of map (EDIT: 9180 METERS, OR 9.18 KILOMETERS. epic fail, thanks to Rasczak for pointing it out). On the 40k wikia, it states the thunder hawk can get to 2000 kph. That's in space, so ill just assume 1000kph over land. That means it will take 0.00918 hours (9.18km/1000kmph) to cross the whole continent, which equals too... 33.048 SECONDS (0.00918x60x60). That's ridiculously fast. Being a map this small I'd never expect player driven hawks to exceed 300kph as a combat speed for ease of landing but still that's 110.16 seconds (just under 2 minutes) to cross. That's way too fast, and opens up massive aerial rushes to capture territory. Sure AA could obliterate the landers as they slow up and go to touch down, but clever use of cover and assault marine hot drops Titus-style into enemy territory make this tactic possible.

    Stratergies like this will inevitably be used because a) it's a quick and effective shock assault and b) who DOESNT want to do an assault marine hot drop, Titus-style? Sure, if territory invasions can only be supported against territories adjacent to the factions controlled territories this will lessen the appeal as a land-grab tactic, but it will still be super effective for annoying aerial Zerg rushes to pillage and burn behind enemy lines. And remember, thunder hawks aren't even the fastest planes in the sky. The eldar will be even faster, turning their deadly ability to strike hard and fast from an annoying but dangerous tactic into a complete game winner. Speed, stealth and presicion will net them campaign after campaign if their command uses it effectively. Sure, this is part of the eldars war stratergy, but remember: this is a game world, not an actual planet. 9km long continents aren't suitable for such, fast killing blow strategies.

    In short: the map needs to be ALOT bigger for air transport to not be an op invasion force (triple current size as minimum (27 km), a little big for infantry, but hey, more realistic in size for a continent to, and that's the whole point of land and air transport). More expensive build costs are also a must (more than land raiders for the bigger transports/gunships), reducing spam, even if it does make aerial warfare a niche play style. Las cannons and stuff should also be AA in addition to AV, giving normal ground dudes a fighting chance. Do this, or no planes; limit flying stuff to skimmers, jet bikes and jump infantry, with transport planes being a transitional loading screen thing between the continents and space.
  5. Crioxus Arigulius Crioxus Arkhona Vanguard

    We could have a troop transport unarmed.
    Unarmed flying machine. It would avoid problems like PS2
  6. what in wh40k is unarmed? this cant be! :p
    Galen, Nostramo Born and geniuschrist like this.
  7. Rasczak Rasczak Subordinate

    You messed up your units. ;)

    3m/s*60s/m*51m=9180m, not km. That's 9.18km, or just a smidge larger than a PS2 continent. I see the point you're trying to make though, we're not likely to have anything that goes 2,000 kph, and anything we do have is not likely to go that fast in-game even if it technically should be able to. I wouldn't be surprised if any aircraft we have are limited to subsonic speeds.

    I see you corrected it to 9.18km when you calculated how long it would take the Thunderhawk to cross it though. :D

    Project Reality handles the issue by making most aircraft helicopters (which some "skimmers" could possibly behave as), which usually don't go more than 220km/h, and limiting their jets to sub-sonic speeds (though I think fighters might have been able to hit mach 1 or pretty close?) just because their map is only 4km and if you engaged afterburners to hit mach 2 you'd completely overshoot the whole thing.

    As far as what damages aircraft, I think anything that hits them should do some damage in most cases. Aircraft are usually not particularly well armored, even in 40k most are only AV10 (ie you can damage them with Bolters).

    Even tougher aircraft like the Vendetta that has AV12 on the front still only has AV10 on the rear, so it would still have "weak points" where a Bolter can damage it.

    However, I believe lock-on missiles should be the primary source of AA. 220km/h is still a pain in the ass to hit even with prox-flak. Plus even when limited to "dogfighting speed", a jet going 400-500 km/h will laugh at any non-lockon AA. Guided SAMs are simply necessary to have a good G2A counter. With that in mind, countermeasures such as flares will have to be standard issue and designed to provide good counterplay for both the pilot and the AA user.

    Another way PR kept aircraft under control was limited ammo, with only one resupply point in the main base (the landing strip). What this generally meant for a jet was sure, you could reach any part of the map in 20 seconds and make ONE attack.

    Then, hit or miss, you're out of bombs and have to spend another 20 seconds flying back to your main base. Then you've got to land, get taxi out of the landing strip so you're not blocking it, wait for your bombs to rearm, taxi back onto the airstrip, and take off.

    This meant that although any call for air support could potentially receive a response in 20 seconds or less, it was only good for one attack and then you had at least a couple minutes of downtime. You get in, make your attack, get out. No loitering, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    So the experience of being "camped" by aircraft in PS2? Not so in PR. Camping was impossible: the aircraft got one shot at you, and if he missed he had to go all the way back to his main base while you haul ass away from there.

    Helicopters had a good deal more staying power due to their ability to hover, but they were extremely vulnerable to small arms fire (especially the M2 .50 cal, that thing could drop a helo in 2 seconds if you let it) and they carried very little ammo for their rockets, so loitering wasn't a terribly good idea for them either. Plus, being much slower, it took helicopters longer to get anywhere.
  8. simon1812 simon1812 Active Member

    honestly Im a fan of DICE since BFBC2, and I have loved every game of them ever since (still hate EA though) in spite of all the problems that come with launch and the expansions , and all the horrible bugs that take forever to fix (if that) I can not deny I enjoyed (still do) the hell out of those games with the characteristic gameplay that has been a trademark for the Battlefield franchise, yes, those large/medium scale all out battles.

    I would love to see a wide range aerial units, and ground vehicles and even artillery vehicles like the whirlwind for example, yeah would love to see a battlefield that has everything , dropping on the enemies from thunderhawk backed up by stormravens, the chances for moments of pure epicness would be off the charts.

    that being said though, DICE's BF4 do accommodates several (several) game modes and gameplay variations it is hard not to find one to like, from close quarters (infantry only combat) to large battles involving the deployment of all kind of vehicles, and even air superiority mode (air planes only).

    honestly I dont see a reason to think the same thing cant be applied to EC, I love the idea of close combat myself, but the lack of light/heavy/aerial vehicles roaming large battlefields would feel like a missed opportunity in my humble opinion.

    PS

    personally , infantry only action is something one can get on pretty much every generic fps out there, I want to think EC can be better than that and stand out. planet side 2 is a poor reference , if anything an example of how not to do this kind of game my goodness.
  9. Khorlial Member

    It would be quite cool to have aircrafts in the game as long as there aren't too many e.g. limit and high resource cost.
    Also you'd want automated AA on fortresses that would easily take out any larger craft that dares come close to the fortress:
    C/ SM Thunderhawk, Eldar maybe Void phoenix/dragon and Ork thingies just random bombimg transporters.

    So say you're flying from your base to attack the other base 15min walk away 5 min drive or 1 min flight you still want to land outside of turret range so the emeny doens't get a lot of points/you lose a lot because you got shot down with 5 marines in the back.
    Then things like titus tactic can be done assault marines jumping out while the thunderhawk flies over the enemy fortress at high speed to get out of the AA range ASAP.

    The smaller crafts: Landspeeder, Deffkopta, Vyper, Chaos landspeeder. Could fly lower slower and closer to fortress if they fly low and slow enough AA can't take them out anymore but then Devastators/havocs etc easily could.
    Thunderfury 2575 likes this.

Share This Page