Should the TOW be a deployable asset?

[R-COM]HangMan · 09-07-2009, 06:16 AM

Pretty simple questions,

Should the TOW be a deployable asset to be built near FB's?

Should it be allowed aswell as the Anti-Air or should u have to choose between the two?

How many should be allowed if it was implemented?

What effect do people think this would have on gameplay?

Please discuss

HangMan

angellfall · 09-07-2009, 07:08 AM

Ye i think it would be great to have TOW near to FB.. This would make inf more usefull to take those firebases out.. they seem to get raped by armor way too easily now atleast in desert maps...

Imo it would just make defending FB's littlebit easier even if FB would get destroyed by first tank shot tank would get hit back...

[R-COM]Glimmerman · 09-07-2009, 07:11 AM

I agree

EnermaX · 09-07-2009, 07:13 AM

Hm, maybe a bit overpowerd, but u can handle this with the amount of ammunition. Maybe 3 shots? Not more I'd say.

Anyway good idea.

Vege · 09-07-2009, 07:19 AM

TOW has been an buildable asset before as far as i know.
Was taken out because it was felt to be too owerpowered.

Engineer · 09-07-2009, 07:35 AM

Never seen TOW being built before... But I'd certainly like to see such feature.

It's usually a complete mess when the FB hears about incoming APC/Tank, everyone tries to get AT equipment with no luck and organize the defence.. usually all of this fails.

Having one TOW launcher per FB would probably make things better. But I'm certain the devs have thought about this. And this isn't the first time this has been suggested either.

[R-COM]HangMan · 09-07-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engineer

Having one TOW launcher per FB would probably make things better. But I'm certain the devs have thought about this. And this isn't the first time this has been suggested either.

Seeing as this isn't the suggestions forum then its ok to discuss it again i believe. I can't remember the TOW being deployable ingame before. I think it should be put into PR as a deployable asset that u have to sacrifice the AA for. This means u will be vulnerable to either tanks or aircraft but its up to the players to decide

@bsurd · 09-07-2009, 08:42 AM

yes it would be cool to get tows in. But i say let both in. A firebase needs Air and ground defense imo.

echo · 09-07-2009, 08:56 AM

I think it should be a deployable asset, and you have to choose between Anti-Air and the TOW. To not make it as a weapon of attack and just defence, it should not have any zoom capabilities, like current TOW missile launchers do. IMHO.

I don't believe TOW missiles were ever deployable. You had the 30mm anti-air guns, which used to decimate apc's and infantry, but never have I seen tow missiles being able to be deployed.

joethepro36 · 09-07-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

TOW has been an buildable asset before as far as i know.
Was taken out because it was felt to be too owerpowered.

I've been playing since .5 and I've yet to see deployable TOWs.

I'd like to see them ingame, in addition to the current anti-air. For a 4km combined arms map like kashan or quinling, deployable aa is essential. Deployable TOWs would just complement the infantry and add greater strategic importance in firebases.

09-07-2009, 06:16 AM	#1
[R-COM]HangMan NZDF Faction Lead Join Date: Jun 2009 New zealand Location: Auckland Posts: 1,712	Should the TOW be a deployable asset? Pretty simple questions, Should the TOW be a deployable asset to be built near FB's? Should it be allowed aswell as the Anti-Air or should u have to choose between the two? How many should be allowed if it was implemented? What effect do people think this would have on gameplay? Please discuss HangMan
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. PR Community Faction Team - "Getting Sht Done..."*

09-07-2009, 07:08 AM	#2
angellfall Join Date: Jun 2009 Finland Posts: 124	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? Ye i think it would be great to have TOW near to FB.. This would make inf more usefull to take those firebases out.. they seem to get raped by armor way too easily now atleast in desert maps... Imo it would just make defending FB's littlebit easier even if FB would get destroyed by first tank shot tank would get hit back...
angellfall Join Date: Jun 2009 Finland Posts: 124

09-07-2009, 07:11 AM	#3
[R-COM]Glimmerman Dutch Forces Mod Leader Join Date: Aug 2007 Netherlands Location: Amsterdam Posts: 2,596	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? I agree
	Cheers, Glimmer To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Please visit To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for free house music To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

09-07-2009, 07:13 AM	#4
EnermaX Join Date: Apr 2009 Austria Location: Tyrol Posts: 127	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? Hm, maybe a bit overpowerd, but u can handle this with the amount of ammunition. Maybe 3 shots? Not more I'd say. Anyway good idea.

09-07-2009, 07:19 AM	#5
Vege Join Date: Jun 2008 Finland Posts: 479	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? TOW has been an buildable asset before as far as i know. Was taken out because it was felt to be too owerpowered.
Vege Join Date: Jun 2008 Finland Posts: 479	BF universe: Jorma[fIIn], Tahanmikaansovi, Vge, Lou Bang, Marjapiirakka

09-07-2009, 07:35 AM	#6
Engineer Join Date: Dec 2006 Europe Posts: 2,040	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? Never seen TOW being built before... But I'd certainly like to see such feature. It's usually a complete mess when the FB hears about incoming APC/Tank, everyone tries to get AT equipment with no luck and organize the defence.. usually all of this fails. Having one TOW launcher per FB would probably make things better. But I'm certain the devs have thought about this. And this isn't the first time this has been suggested either.
Engineer Join Date: Dec 2006 Europe Posts: 2,040

09-07-2009, 08:42 AM	#8
@bsurd Join Date: Mar 2008 Germany Location: Hessen / Wiesbaden Posts: 350	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? yes it would be cool to get tows in. But i say let both in. A firebase needs Air and ground defense imo.
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

09-07-2009, 08:56 AM	#9
echo Join Date: Apr 2007 Taiwan Location: From the UK ... living in Taiwan. Posts: 974	Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset? I think it should be a deployable asset, and you have to choose between Anti-Air and the TOW. To not make it as a weapon of attack and just defence, it should not have any zoom capabilities, like current TOW missile launchers do. IMHO. I don't believe TOW missiles were ever deployable. You had the 30mm anti-air guns, which used to decimate apc's and infantry, but never have I seen tow missiles being able to be deployed.
	*To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.* 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