Should the TOW be a deployable asset?

[chuckMFd]

Originally Posted by XxX_HangMan_XxX

I would like to see more deployable structures in general. But the TOW is the first thing that needs to be implemented

I completely agree!

[thebeanie]

Originally Posted by chuckMFd

I completely agree!

Same here.. tis one of many things i would like to see added

[xenimus]

Should the TOW be a deployable asset?

Yes, I have been wanting them for years.

-----

Problems. it changes gameplay too much I think.

Firebases would become a powerful asset to defend an entire quadrant.

Insurgents wouldn't get this power.

It could be used offensively. such as a rolling firebase.(keeps advancing)

-----

Though, I think its possible to stop most of these problems.

Insurgents could get a new weapon to help balance.

time restrictions could limit mobility.

limiting FB distances, and number.

maybe there needs to be a new type of firebase, an outpost? I suppose that is what the main base has always been.
-----

and regarding firebases controling large areas. maybe firebases should be rethought.

perhaps a place for ofcourse AT, but also indirect weapons to reside. mortars, artillary.

there could be a more dynamic and always changing power structure to a map.

more supplies needed. making convoys, ambushes, and patrols more important.

Bigger more important choices for SLs and commanders.

[goguapsy]

Originally Posted by xenimus

Should the TOW be a deployable asset?

Yes, I have been wanting them for years.

-----

Problems. it changes gameplay too much I think.

Firebases would become a powerful asset to defend an entire quadrant.

Insurgents wouldn't get this power.

It could be used offensively. such as a rolling firebase.(keeps advancing)

-----

Though, I think its possible to stop most of these problems.

Insurgents could get a new weapon to help balance.

time restrictions could limit mobility.

limiting FB distances, and number.

maybe there needs to be a new type of firebase, an outpost? I suppose that is what the main base has always been.
-----

and regarding firebases controling large areas. maybe firebases should be rethought.

perhaps a place for ofcourse AT, but also indirect weapons to reside. mortars, artillary.

there could be a more dynamic and always changing power structure to a map.

more supplies needed. making convoys, ambushes, and patrols more important.

Bigger more important choices for SLs and commanders.

Actually, I believe that putting 1 TOW instead of 1 HMG is balanced for this reasong:

HMGs can take out a whole squad and pin them down, suppress the hell outta them, and they are precise as... when you wait for your sniper to steady for 8 seconds. kinda.

TOWs would take down APCs easily, but well... what is the infantry gonna suffer with that? comeone! huge armor piercing missiles that don't have a big splash radius?

So I say...... I think that FOBs should be limited to have 2 HMGs OR 1 HMG and 1 TOW. 2 TOWs would be just too much.

I believe thats balanced.
Cheers!

[CyT]

Also you could put a ready-up timer on it, like a tanks turret. So that infantry cant just quickly jump in it and own any tank - they need to organise. And i like the heavy defence limit of only 3 so if there is no air then it allows for another HMG or TOW to be deployed. I do often find that firebases suffer from build-and-forget or are in odd positions. The other day on Sunset City they built a HMG on the hill in the east and stopped the Chinese from crossing the bridge lol.