|
|||||||
| PR Suggestions : Suggestions from our community members. |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 199
|
for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APCs
topic
|
|
|
#2 |
![]() Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 500
|
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 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 199
|
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC
|
|
|
#4 |
![]() ![]() |
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
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
PR Developer
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
|
|
#6 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 199
|
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC
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
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
PR Art Team
![]() |
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC
Quote:
Or one force shouldn't spawn as many apc's as the opposing force, etc, etc, etc. | |
|
||
|
|
#8 |
![]() ![]() Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 200
|
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/ |
|
|
|
#9 | |
![]() Join Date: May 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 134
|
Re: for the sake of combat balance, the anti-armour missiles should be put on all APC
Quote:
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----- | |
|
|
#10 |
![]() Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 62
|
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. |
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| antiarmour, apcs, balance, combat, missiles, put, sake |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|