Should the TOW be a deployable asset? - Page 2

GoreZiad · 09-07-2009, 10:34 AM

Most players doesn't care where they build FBs. That's the first mistake. Second is building defences all over the place, not used, and on horrible spots. If a tank/APC has a beat on the FB, fall back. A TOW cannot compensate for badly placed FBs/defences IMO.

rampo · 09-07-2009, 11:21 AM

No, that would just overpower the Firebases and i think this is a re-suggestion

Colonelcool125 · 09-07-2009, 11:49 AM

No.

It's hard enough playing armor.

[R-DEV]Thermis · 09-07-2009, 12:29 PM

I don't remember TOWS ever being deployable assets. I would however like to see them as deployable assets. The balance of TOWs and AA is something we'd have to test before we figure it out. there is now way to really know how it will effect game play until we can actually get our hands out it.

Vege · 09-07-2009, 01:17 PM

Yer, seems that my memory indeed fails me and there never was an TOW asset.
I got that idea from a older thread where that idea was branded as sIMBA.

KingLorre · 09-07-2009, 01:24 PM

Either an AA or a TOW to pick from would be fair by me. but not both.

and yea this would be a pretty good addition if we do the Kinglorre Mathematics :P

Quote:

X TOW + Y tank =/= P1+ AN x X AA + Y PL+AN3 / Ω + chuc= ∑=mccool.

but on the serious side TOW or AA choice would be cool, not to much ammo on the tow and the ability to place it, you can ruin that placement but you can also do something great with it. its all up to so many factors to make that thing very deadly. (SL+firebase+truck+Squadmembers+placement+gunner+a mmount of targets+field of view=posibilities)

Tarantula · 09-07-2009, 01:31 PM

if you can make it so that you can have either TOW or AA, its a good idea, otherwise it may end up being soo ridiculously difficult to assault a FB

General Dragosh · 09-07-2009, 01:32 PM

I am all for that idea, cause ushually when a tank happens to stumble on a FB they just rush to it not considering their safety because they know well that there are no defence that can kill a tank, and henceforth they rush in

But with the abillity to build one, tank drivers/gunners have to be very carefull no to rush, if u die because of that its your own fault that u didnt send scouts before that and u deserve your death. . .at least thats how it works in real war

=P

Rudd · 09-07-2009, 01:37 PM

I'm not a huge fan of the TOW launchers

and ingame they would become little artillery pieces

with HATs, LATs etc the battlefield is already dangerous enough for the vehicles imo.

also, TOWs fire a one shot kill projectile iirc, different to the TOWs carried on the humvee/APCs.

Not_able_to_kill · 09-07-2009, 01:45 PM

It appears that everything that is unbalanced/overpowered/overkill is taken out of this mod, i want to ask? is a war really SO balanced in real life?

09-07-2009, 10:34 AM	#11
GoreZiad Join Date: Feb 2008 Denmark Posts: 2,239	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? Most players doesn't care where they build FBs. That's the first mistake. Second is building defences all over the place, not used, and on horrible spots. If a tank/APC has a beat on the FB, fall back. A TOW cannot compensate for badly placed FBs/defences IMO.
GoreZiad Join Date: Feb 2008 Denmark Posts: 2,239	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

09-07-2009, 11:21 AM	#12
rampo Join Date: Feb 2009 Northern Mariana Isl Location: I really don't know Posts: 2,774	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? No, that would just overpower the Firebases and i think this is a re-suggestion
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

09-07-2009, 11:49 AM	#13
Colonelcool125 Join Date: Jun 2007 United States of America Location: Saint Louis, MO Posts: 4,264	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? No. It's hard enough playing armor.
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Don't let chafed nipples ruin your day Words to live by.

09-07-2009, 12:29 PM	#14
[R-DEV]Thermis PR:BF2 Developer Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Kansas Posts: 1,437	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? I don't remember TOWS ever being deployable assets. I would however like to see them as deployable assets. The balance of TOWs and AA is something we'd have to test before we figure it out. there is now way to really know how it will effect game play until we can actually get our hands out it.
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. DM Clan Leader & Recruitment Officer "Even if the world doesn't end in 2012 you won't go to college because your an idiot" -Colonelcool To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

09-07-2009, 01:17 PM	#15
Vege Join Date: Jun 2008 Finland Posts: 479	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? Yer, seems that my memory indeed fails me and there never was an TOW asset. I got that idea from a older thread where that idea was branded as sIMBA.
Vege Join Date: Jun 2008 Finland Posts: 479	BF universe: Jorma[fIIn], Tahanmikaansovi, Vge, Lou Bang, Marjapiirakka

09-07-2009, 01:31 PM	#17
Tarantula Join Date: Mar 2008 United Kingdom Location: E5kp1, The flipped truck Posts: 214	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? if you can make it so that you can have either TOW or AA, its a good idea, otherwise it may end up being soo ridiculously difficult to assault a FB
	Ingame name: OfficerJamesPrice "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you can always hit him with it"

09-07-2009, 01:32 PM	#18
General Dragosh Join Date: Dec 2005 Croatia Location: Found Devils home lets see what inside =3. . . OMG so many Hentai O.O Posts: 1,243	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? I am all for that idea, cause ushually when a tank happens to stumble on a FB they just rush to it not considering their safety because they know well that there are no defence that can kill a tank, and henceforth they rush in But with the abillity to build one, tank drivers/gunners have to be very carefull no to rush, if u die because of that its your own fault that u didnt send scouts before that and u deserve your death. . .at least thats how it works in real war =P
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Newly ordered sig !

09-07-2009, 01:37 PM	#19
Rudd Retired PR Developer Join Date: Aug 2007 United Kingdom Location: England, Brighton Posts: 17,664 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? I'm not a huge fan of the TOW launchers and ingame they would become little artillery pieces with HATs, LATs etc the battlefield is already dangerous enough for the vehicles imo. also, TOWs fire a one shot kill projectile iirc, different to the TOWs carried on the humvee/APCs.
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure." I'm AFK until further notice, have fun guys.

09-07-2009, 01:45 PM	#20
Not_able_to_kill Join Date: Mar 2008 Finland Location: Kuhmo Posts: 126	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? It appears that everything that is unbalanced/overpowered/overkill is taken out of this mod, i want to ask? is a war really SO balanced in real life?
	[R-DEV]Hitperson: my body is a temple with the fountains flowing fresh with cider and the holy water being scotch. [R-CON]Rudd: remember, your penis size is proportional to your post count To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Sponsored Links