Muttrah City v0.91 Feedback

Locked
Smegburt_funkledink
Posts: 4080
Joined: 2007-11-29 00:29

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Smegburt_funkledink »

Some people are suggesting adding to the US assets, ie HMMWV's or a tank. Whereas others are suggesting upping the MEC armor a bit. Some people prefer playing as US and some prefer MEC.

To me, this would suggest that the asymmetricity of the map can't be balanced any better than it currently is.

I enjoy playing as either faction on Muttrah, I don't feel that either side has any sort of clear advantage.

I think I just made a word up. :)
[R-Div]Robbi "There's nothing more skanky than eating out of a tub of hummus with a screwdriver."
[R-DEV]Matrox "CHINAAAAAAA!!!"
samogon100500
Posts: 1134
Joined: 2009-10-22 12:58

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by samogon100500 »

I think good idea make tank for USMC!
M.B on EU and US servers USMC win sometimes,but on our server they loose,cuz in first 10 min MEC capture DOCKS,and USMC can't back control again!
I think it's must spawn after capture the docks!
That's good vehicle to control docks!But I think it's must spawn 1 time at round,cuz it's not effective in city!!
Image
Herbiie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 2009-08-24 11:21

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Herbiie »

I generally dislike the US Stuff spawning on the Island, having a logistics truck spawn out of nowhere is immersion breaking enough, adding a tank would be even worse.

Samogon - the only time the USMC lose is if the USMC team is so bad it cannot get to docks faster than the MEC, the MEC ofcourse have to travel about 1.7Km to get there in slower vehicles than the US have to travel about 0.6Km to get there, or if it's been a close-fight and they've just been bested by the MEC.
alberto_di_gio
Posts: 534
Joined: 2009-12-11 09:47

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by alberto_di_gio »

USMC APCs have superior fire power against MEC's. +3 trans choppers to support FOB and asset built. + a cobra. What USMC only need in Muttrah is a good coordination
Image
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 21225
Joined: 2007-08-15 14:32

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Rudd »

K4on wrote:i'm missing the good old vodnik...
i know it won't happen, but if usmc would get their hummvies, mecs should revive their vodniks again :)
Image
that model was sooooo ugly.
Image
sweedensniiperr
Posts: 2784
Joined: 2009-09-18 10:27

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by sweedensniiperr »

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:that model was sooooo ugly.
sure is, but the nostalgia...*sigh*
Image
Tte.oteo
Posts: 302
Joined: 2008-03-11 12:19

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Tte.oteo »

omg...please not tank in a close combat. will be a wasted tickets sure¡¡¡
richyrich55
Posts: 332
Joined: 2007-07-18 16:04

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by richyrich55 »

Scared, your little pipedream isn't going to happen. Just quit trying.
"What's the advantage of these choppers when compared to a squad medic?"

Pirate

"Medics dont have rotors."

rampo93(FIN)

Jigsaw
Posts: 4498
Joined: 2008-09-15 02:31

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Jigsaw »

Scared_420 wrote:i find that usa are under equipped now against the mec on muttrah city, with the deployable tows
Just in case you have forgotten a TOW can take down a tank in one hit, just like it can an LAV. A tank in that sense would serve no purpose other than giving the MEC BTRs absolutely no chance in a head on fight, whilst it would destabilise the current (and rather exceptional) level of balance between both sides.

Also, just how many heavy assets do you want the US to have? They already get a Cobra, an Attack Huey, 3 Transport Hueys and 2 LAVs (with the potential therefore to use up a third of the team in an urban map). I can say with absolute certainty that i've accomplished more with a couple of full infantry squads on Muttrah than any of those assets ever have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CKjNcSUNt8
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... "
Tannhauser
Posts: 1210
Joined: 2007-11-22 03:06

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Tannhauser »

Rather than give MEC a T-72 tank, a BMP-3 would fit more for the job. It is an APC afterall.

However, the map is alright as it is currently. If people REALLY want a BMP-3 and some other asset (? :p ) there's always the 32p layout that could be changed?
«Hollywood jackasses who insist on spending seriously huge amounts of money to make films that even my cat won't watch. And he'll happily sit in the bathroom and watch me shit.»
- [R-DEV]Masaq
Scared_420
Posts: 403
Joined: 2009-06-25 07:15

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Scared_420 »

well i suggested it as the tank would get ownd in the city and it wouldnt be respawnable , jus a tank to guard the docks from mec rushing and to make it harder for mec to cap docks cuz when they do its 95% of the time game over for usa
richyrich55
Posts: 332
Joined: 2007-07-18 16:04

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by richyrich55 »

Of course it is...when the players on the US team suck so bad.
"What's the advantage of these choppers when compared to a squad medic?"

Pirate

"Medics dont have rotors."

rampo93(FIN)

Hunt3r
Posts: 1573
Joined: 2009-04-24 22:09

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Hunt3r »

How about just fixing the LAV's performance against BTRs?

A tank would still be killed as hard as an LAV when it gets TOWed. Also, the lack of an autocannon would make it pretty bad.
Image
Psyrus
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 3841
Joined: 2006-06-19 17:10

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Psyrus »

Scared_420 wrote:well i suggested it as the tank would get ownd in the city and it wouldnt be respawnable , jus a tank to guard the docks from mec rushing and to make it harder for mec to cap docks cuz when they do its 95% of the time game over for usa
So that's why the USA's #1 goal should be a locked down docks until North city is secure and east/west city is starting to neutralize. The amount of times I've seen the team land at docks, maybe throw down a single firebase and then everyone walks off to north city is unbelievable! Maybe that'd still be ok but if the team starts to lose NC (as in, they are being killed off by the MEC on North city) then one squad should definitely be spawning back at main or legging it back to docks with choppers en route to set up a primary defense firebase and then perhaps another fallback firebase to the east of docks. A tank is not going to solve the problem, but thanks for trying!
Scared_420
Posts: 403
Joined: 2009-06-25 07:15

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by Scared_420 »

well to me it seems one squad cant hold the docks as it is so big and can be flanked from all sides, enemy can supress from hills to west, pier to east/northeast and drive right up the middle, unless the road entrances get mined its game over for usa and even still the btrs can go in the water
dtacs
Posts: 5512
Joined: 2008-12-07 23:30

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by dtacs »

Scared_420 wrote:well to me it seems one squad cant hold the docks as it is so big and can be flanked from all sides, enemy can supress from hills to west, pier to east/northeast and drive right up the middle, unless the road entrances get mined its game over for usa and even still the btrs can go in the water
All sides? Incorrect. As shown in the image below there are only a few places it can be attacked from. Even then, the ramp entrances are used by infantry once in a blue moon since the infantry that would be attacking docks almost ALWAYS are attacking from north city, as they had just been taking it.
Image

I for one have never ever seen any infantry move in from the north. There is one break in the fence, and there is a high chance that a LAV can see you moving in as it is the main route they take from the carrier.

The BTR's almost always take route Greenbut even then it isn't hard to stop them coming up with a well placed TOW, HAT or even LAT (just found out today an AT-4 to the top rear of the BTR can kill it instantly)

For big success an infantry squad taking a BTR up route Red or Purple usually can take docks from two different angles. Its all dependent on CAS support as well.

At the moment I personally see no problems with Muttrah. When the AAV comes on we might see some balance issues but until then Rhino has done an excellent job at balancing the map asset wise. For the moment its quite symmetrical in terms of ground warfare, and a tank or BMP for that matter would throw it off on both sides. Tank warfare in the city is absolute hell, already its very very rare to see a LAV or BTR live more than 15 minutes when fighting in the city, and imagine a tank doing that with its inability to fire up more than 30 or so degrees.
myles
Posts: 1614
Joined: 2008-11-09 14:34

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by myles »

anyway it would be very hard for the us to get to the tank to the city it would be unrealistic
Check out my Project Reaity gamplay here http://www.youtube.com/user/Projectreality1

Image
USMCMIDN
Posts: 981
Joined: 2009-07-25 16:32

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by USMCMIDN »

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:yes Sacred, how dare the MEC use strategy and teamwork to defeat you.
LOL and

a tank would not last a minute... Think about it. Mainly city fighting (tanks hate that... they get sad, lonely , and scared) and the MEC forces get TOWs and The ERYX. It seems like a waster to deploy a tank that would get destroyed in the first 5 minutes it rolls out.
HAAN4
Posts: 541
Joined: 2009-06-12 11:37

Re: tank on muttrah

Post by HAAN4 »

the problem is, the USA does't count anymore whicht armor superiority at all.

so something is required, a LAV whicht TOW? some more LAVs? hunves? or even a tank like it's sugested.

the MEC apcs now are asskicking, and since they also got more APCs, they are ASSkiking a twince.

but i like the sugestion of add some TOW hunves, one at least, and other 3, one whicht .50 and 2 trasnport ones will solve both armor problems and mobility problems at all, what you guys thick about it?
Locked

Return to “Maps”