Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Project Reality Mod > PR Suggestions
PR Suggestions : Suggestions from our community members.

Welcome to the Project Reality Forums! Join the Project Reality forums! Contact Us


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-05-2008, 12:08 PM   #1

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

topic
baptist_christian is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 12:11 PM   #2

3===SPECTER===3's Avatar
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

1. dont think its realistic

2. ever heard of assymetrical balance?
3===SPECTER===3 is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 12:17 PM   #3

baptist_christian's Avatar
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3===SPECTER===3 View Post
1. dont think its realistic
aren't they on the APCs IRL?

Quote:
2. ever heard of assymetrical balance?
yes, its a contradiction in terms.
baptist_christian is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 12:17 PM   #4
Supporting Member

Dr2B Rudd's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to Dr2B Rudd Send a message via Skype™ to Dr2B Rudd
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

I'm not a beta tester, do I have no idea how balanced it is, nor if the devs have put anything else in for the opposition.

do you have inside information?


dona nobis pacem
Respect the R-Staff, they are pretty...pretty badass
Dr2B Rudd is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 12:20 PM   #5
PR Developer
Supporting Member
Project Reality Tester

[R-DEV]bosco's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to [R-DEV]bosco
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

Quote:
Originally Posted by baptist_christian View Post
aren't they on the APCs IRL?
Not on LAV-25s, WZ551s and BTR-90s, that's why they have been removed in the first place

[R-DEV]bosco is offline
Sponsored Links
Old 07-05-2008, 12:22 PM   #6

baptist_christian's Avatar
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd View Post
I'm not a beta tester, do I have no idea how balanced it is, nor if the devs have put anything else in for the opposition.

do you have inside information?
its in part 2 of the US Army update, and as you can see, the M2A2 Bradley IFV has two TOW missiles, just one can take out another APC like *snaps fingers* that. two or 3 can take out a Main Battle Tank. the only way to balance this would be to put anti-armour missiles on every APC that would be called on to take out an M2A2
baptist_christian is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 12:26 PM   #7
PR Art Team

[R-DEV]AfterDune's Avatar
Send a message via ICQ to [R-DEV]AfterDune Send a message via AIM to [R-DEV]AfterDune Send a message via MSN to [R-DEV]AfterDune Send a message via Yahoo to [R-DEV]AfterDune Send a message via Skype™ to [R-DEV]AfterDune
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

Quote:
Originally Posted by baptist_christian View Post
the only way to balance this would be to put anti-armour missiles on every APC that would be called on to take out an M2A2
There are other ways to balance teams or just a map than giving all apc's a TOW (or similar). Diversity is good! Come up with solutions to this "problem", fight different.
Or one force shouldn't spawn as many apc's as the opposing force, etc, etc, etc.

[R-DEV]AfterDune is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 12:32 PM   #8
Supporting Member

Flanker15's Avatar
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

Some of the IFVs in PR do already have ATGM, they're just not used.
The BMP-3 fires them out of its barrel, the BTR-90 is supposed to have one mounted on its turret and M2A2 has its TOW. That only leaves the PLA which does have a IFV similar to the BMP-3, the type-97 that can fire ATGM out of its barrel. The UK and USMC don't have a IFV with a gun and ATGMs.
Apparently the other IFVs ATGMs will be accessed after the release of the M2A2.

Help Project Reality in Australia, join the bigD community!
http://www.bigdgaming.net/
Flanker15 is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 01:17 PM   #9

Sir.Saul's Avatar
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

Quote:
Originally Posted by baptist_christian View Post
its in part 2 of the US Army update, and as you can see, the M2A2 Bradley IFV has two TOW missiles, just one can take out another APC like *snaps fingers* that. two or 3 can take out a Main Battle Tank. the only way to balance this would be to put anti-armour missiles on every APC that would be called on to take out an M2A2

Well if you have 2 bradley, then the other team would probably get helicopters or tank(s).

Trust me the last thing the devs would do is unbalance the game so no worries there, and if something gets out of hand in 0.8 servers probably wont run the map and it will be fixed in 0.850 or so-----
Sir.Saul is offline
Old 07-05-2008, 01:39 PM   #10

Wh1tE_Dw4rF's Avatar
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC

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.

Wh1tE_Dw4rF is offline
Sponsored Links
 


Bookmarks

Tags
antiarmour, apcs, balance, combat, missiles, put, sake
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO.
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2008, Project Reality.