for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APCs

[Ragni<RangersPL>]

Assymetrical balance is possible...

Personally I'm glad that PR evolves in this way

[[R-CON]Alex6714]

For the mec, how about TOWs added to the scout chopper?

[CanuckCommander]

Originally Posted by Wh1tE_Dw4rF

Putting TOW missiles back on the apc will mean they will use the APC for other things then transporting infantry.

APCs are now used as support "mini tanks" giving support fire. Because they get destroyed so quickly. If they have a TOW missile they will go out to destroy tanks, which they shouldn't. Making it even less of an armoured transport vehicle.

I ROFL COPTERed at your sig.

[Fungwu]

Well for the sake of balance you could have the guns on apcs do realistic damage.

25mm and 30mm cannon can penetrate the side and rear armor of tanks.

If apc comes up on the side or behind a tank they should be able to take it out, instead of annoying it.

[charliegrs]

Originally Posted by Fungwu

Well for the sake of balance you could have the guns on apcs do realistic damage.

25mm and 30mm cannon can penetrate the side and rear armor of tanks.

If apc comes up on the side or behind a tank they should be able to take it out, instead of annoying it.

are you sure about this?

[Charity Case]

Baptist, I really don't think balancing the M2A2 will be an issue. So far, we know the US Army will be on two maps: Qwai River and Kashan Desert.

Qwai River is asymmetrical to begin with, but I think 2 Bradleys (replacing the TOW HMMWVs) and 3 Strykers (replacing the LAV-25s) vs 2 PLA tanks and 2 APCs would be reasonably balanced. Sure, a Bradley is a hell of a lot better armed and armored than a HMMWV, but it's firepower would compensate for the Strykers' single .50.

On Kashan, the Bradley could be balanced by adding the BMP-3 to the MEC arsenal. While I don't know how the M2A2 and BMP-3 compare in real life, but I presume that they will have similar characteristics in PR (e.g. tank killing capabilities and armor strong enough to withstand a tank round/HAT to the front). The one balance issue I see is the difference between the Bradleys' 7 TOW missiles and the BMPs' 30 100mm HEAT rounds (although, the TOWs higher power could compensate for the reduced ammo count). Also, [R-CON]77SiCaRiO77's improved Vodnick could serve as a reasonable counter to the Stryker (assuming it ever gets in game).

[Craz3y|Assasin]

SOOOOOOOO geting locked


Post given points for unhelpful/useless IBTL comment. -M

[[R-DEV]Katarn]

As CharityCase put forward, the Bradley is not serving as a mirror IFV for the US Army Faction. A melded bradley and stryker mix reasonably equates to another factions two IFV's.

[[R-DEV]Eddie Baker]

Originally Posted by [R-PUB]bosco

Not on LAV-25s, WZ551s and BTR-90s, that's why they have been removed in the first place

BTR-90 has the same turret as the BMP-2, so it does have the real-life capability to launch ATGMs. The BTR-90, however, never should have been in the base game to begin with.

This issue has been discussed before. Locked.