Player Controlled Artillery/AT

[Chadwiick]

Ok when it comes to artillery wouldn't it be cool to be able to be in the class of artillery? Where it would take a little crew to manage an artillery piece or AT. Like you have one guy giving the cordinates and distance while you have another guy who would be adjusting the gun like 100 meters... 200 meters... of range and moving the weapon left or right until it has reached the end of its firing arc and has to pick up and adjust. Where it would be really hard to aim a gun, mortor, or a howitzer so not you don't get people nailing you on their first try and you can't fire artillery untill your commander has given you a zone to shoot it giving the commander role something else to do. What do you guys and gals think?

 

[/Sven\]

Insert class artillery I think it's a great thing to give a more varied gameplay ...
and then would give an additional realism to product ...

 

[Nicholas]

Well actual "artillery" is fired from miles away, but they should have stationary artillery on the maps for taking out tanks and protecting areas.

 

[Felix Ostheim]

AT yes, arty no.

 

[Dwin]

Player controlled mortars are a definite must. Carpathian Crosses had them. Darkest Hour will have them in the next update. And you're telling me RO2 STILL won't have them? Come on. Get with the times, TW.

 

[slavek]

AT guns would be a good addition to RO. DH and AH pack for RO had them and it turned out great. Artillery however I think would be best left non controllable.

 

[Capt.Cool]

YES to anti tank guns, RO1 had them, too!

YES to mortar which can be controlled by 1 or 2 players like in Carpathian Crosses.

NO to real Arty which shoots from miles away...

 

[AgresywnySpawacz]

Maybe players should be able to use light (movable) and medium (stationary) mortars. They should work like in Carpathian Crosses mod.

Howitzers were usually long range guns, so they were used many kilometers behind the front.

Edit: Argh, Capt.Cool was faster :<

 

[Brozex]

AT-> Of course.
Arty->I think not.

 

[Apos]

AT yes, arty no.

+1

It works like a charm in RO:O however random AT gun placement would be awesome

 

[hockeywarrior]

I'm rather tired of hearing these kinds of suggestions. Want to know why?

NOT ENOUGH PLAYERS.

Seriously, when a game ships with 64 player servers, I want as many of those players as possible playing the game and adding to the experience. All things like this would do would tie up large numbers of players in non-essential roles.

Why does the artillery have to be player controlled? We can assume the artillery gunners knew how to do their jobs in areal life, and I would rather have those 2 or 3 players manning a tank or joining my squad to capture objectives, rather than sit in spawn the whole game doing something (probably less efficiently) that an AI could easily do.

Regarding AT, then sure, there is no reason why players shouldn't be able to hop on anti-tank guns to fire at incoming enemies, if we assume for a moment that AT guns are in the game (we haven't heard anything on this). It would be silly to have AI in such a direct combat role, imo.

 

[Game-Enthousiast]

Hockeywarrior definately has his valid points. I also agree with the no to artillery due to the fact that people would not be participating properly while being busy with handling a large artilellery piece in the rear.

Nonetheless, I actually would enjoy having movable Pak Guns, that you could either tow or even push yourself with 2 ppl or so.. loader/spotter and gunner.
Of course it would not make sense to employ something like this on every map but think about combined arms maps or maybe even tankmaps.
There are a few cool Arad modification which employ Paks and i ve always enjoyed the variety of weapons against armoured vehicles.

It could add immersion and realism to the game because for example the Germans often employed their Pak along with their other weapons/forces. As well as the russians used their Ratsch-Bumm in its respective roles.

Hockeywarrios is right when fearing that he would might loose to many ppl due to the fact that they would be busy with non core activities but as mentioned before it could be a feature that could be deployed depending on the map and its goals/objectives and tactical prerequisites.

 

[Chadwiick]

Yes I thought about the fact of the number of people would diminish if you give AT/Artillery, so having a few mortors and some moveable AT would kind of balance it out in a way. It would be a neat feature to see though.

 

[Tiger2]

The only reasonable thing to have is light mortars controlled by ai that are physically present on the battlefield with limited mortar ammo, but the gun elevation and direction should be set by commander through the map. He should also have the ability to set waypoints for the mortar team to move to, if they are at danger of being attacked by the enemy team. Anything heavier than light mortars is not suitable for the scale where the max is 32 players per team.

 

[213]

what firing arc? look at how small these maps are(with respect to artillery range)

 

[Chadwiick]

what firing arc? look at how small these maps are(with respect to artillery range)

Firing arc as in for the AT you could setup an AT in a spot and someone comes around and flanks you with their tank... because we all want an AT weapon that can make a 180 degree turn with only the turret, but no some people might have an AT weapon up closer and decreasing their field of fire because they want to be more accurate.

 

[Tiger2]

what firing arc? look at how small these maps are(with respect to artillery range)

Ok, Let us say that the mortars will be outside of the map (you can see a small square on the image). The commander should see a green marker on the map where that mortar is located. He will also see how far away the mortar team is (i.e. 1 km). This information lets him estimate what the angle should be to hit the target on the map (i.e. 45 degrees as shown in the image). If he overshoots or undershoots, he can correct the angle and ask for fire again.


I think this way there is some skill involved for the commander to direct the mortars and I would like it this way at least. As for setting the direction in which the mortars should be pointing it can be as simple as clicking anywhere on the map.

 

[Taisenki]

I accidentally voted yes






Bare in mind that your taking people AWAY From the battlefield. Which means less action. Which means more people getting bigger higher kill streaks without dieing. All of a sudden everyone wants to be artillery guy.

So no. I want as much action on the field as possible. I want to be pinned against a wall with a squad supressing me and I'm having to call in reinforcements which don't exist because they are busy manning artillery spamming the hell out of it wherever they can.

Suddenly the game becomes....less shooty

 

[TodSky]

I think this is the worst composed poll I have ever seen. Artillery and anti-tank guns are not really comparable. AT guns should be useable and moveable. Artillery should not (they should be off map), AT guns need to be in the front line as they are a flat trajectories weapon. A field howitzer isn't and due to its longer range sits a number of kilometers behind the front. So to simplify things

 

[Chadwiick]

Muwahhahaaha, I know it's not perfect but I just wanted to squeeze 2 things in without overloading the forums with "chadwiick's Ideas". If I could edit the poll I would, should I make a new post for the AT since it seems more popular?