Anyone have any experiences trying to plan a real to life military assault in this game or does the mentality that comes with it being "Just a game" kick in and change the strategies that you would generally employ* in a full spectrum assault of a significant location.

The closest I can think of right now, is my outfit (guild) taking over bases in stealth during real life night time.

We'd take a galaxy (a plane that can hold 30 or so people) and drop on a base, we'd then setup remote bombs on the generator and slowly break our way to the main console of a base for the hack.

As soon as the alarm went off, it became a waiting game for when reinforcements arrived and as soon as they did, we'd blow up the generator to kill any sort of base technology that would otherwise give them the advantage.

If we succeeded, we could take several bases before they knew what'd hit 'em.

The small scale tactics that would be used in a regular battle, could be anywhere from sending in solo infiltrators to sabotage spawn points/weapon stations, to having a squad setup an anti-air nest on a hill somewhere near the base.

That's about all I've got, it's been over two years since I last played PS, so some of it is a little hazy.

From what i've heard about the first planetside, some things work and others don't. The reason for the strategies that didn't work were cause of game mechanic stuff that seem to have been changed in 2. Stuff like using aircraft to get to a place then just jumping out and stuff like that.

@Erk_Forever:

I'm sure someone will split hairs with me, but more so than other FPSs in most cases, simulators like OFP1 and ArmA1/2 not withstanding. When there were cohesive squads, teams or outfits in the battles with good communication skills, absolutely. Mutual fire support, spec-ops (like Visions described above) and diversionary maneuvers all over the place. And even if not, people would often seem to intrinsically fill the needs of the greater assault or defense if one area was lacking. As such, when you have this large number of people working organically, the basic battlefield tactics that would get employed, intentionally or not, would invariably win over the force of 100 heavy assault individuals running blindly into a cross-fired fatal funnel, to put it simply.

I guess the short answer would be; yes, as much as you can in a game without perma-death, battlefield tactics are rewarded. Teams of individuals and lone wolves generally got raked over the coals repeatedly. The longer the game was released (to what I personally see as being the peak around the beginning of Core Combat), the less of these types of players were visible, as they either changed their play style or simply quit.

This is all from my personal experience, of course. Some people on different servers might have seen the total opposite. But what I described above seemed to be the general consensus.

See you on the battlefield!

/squee! :D

I don't know, I remember some pretty hardcore strategists in PS, and they kicked ass. I managed to team up with some really great 'leaders' as it were, and it was a good time

Outside of sneaking into unoccupied bases, not very. Winning was mostly about strength in numbers. Maneuvering wasn't a huge deal, since most of the fighting took place in corridors. Most of the strategy was getting people to the fight, not micromanaging them.

@SoldierG654342:

Typical TR. All about numbers and a war of attrition. ;)

@TheHumanDove:

Same here. PS is still one of the best online gaming experiences I've ever had. Can't wait.

I'm fighting a real war right now (well, maybe) and I've learned a lot of stuff about deliberate attacks; I'm hoping that knowledge will be useful in the many hours I plan on sinking into this game.

@Grimhild: rolled Vanu and that was still the basic MO. Granted, there was a little more finesse to it since out vehicles were fragile as fuck and didn't pack much of a punch, and our guns were nearly useless in open areas, but for the most part PS battles were about who could get the most guns where.

The TR and their MCGs can still fuck right off though.

Already seeing faction hate in a PS thread, I love it!

Next up, taking it back to the days of hating duo-core abusers. =D

I mainly played NC with The Halibuts, but also rolled Vanu.

@Vision:

YEEAAHHR NC! /highfive

...

*ahem* I mean... they're all fun factions to play >_> ... <_<. I'd call it "good-natured ribbing." I won't lie and say that I didn't mutter more than a little venom towards the VS and the "Mag-mower" though. That thing was annoying as hell lol. Also, were The Halibuts on Emerald? I think I remember seeing that outfit.

@SoldierG654342:

I'm just joking' around hehe. I played mostly NC since most of my friends from Anarchy Online jumped into it, as well as a handful of RLF's. Barnies vs. Smurfs 4eva <3.

The new MAX suits look sweeeeet. Can't wait to have a torch on one arm and an auto-shotty on the other. Gonna get wild.

@Grimhild: Yes, I believe we were mainly on Emerald for a while there.

I can't wait to hate on people who are different than me!

I dont know about military tactics (its not like a game of risk) but the organisation is applicable, separate divisions in outfits that provide air/ground support, the foot soldiers etc. When my outfit The Archangels were at our peak in PS1 we had three such divisions, co-ordinating them was the real challenge in a game like planetside. Not how you clear a room, or flank an opposition.

@Erk_Forever said:

I can't wait to hate on people who are different than me!

Sounds like Vanu scum to me

@TheHumanDove: I was thinking more NC than VS.