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

baptist_christian · Post by **baptist_christian** » 2008-07-05 16:08

topic

3===SPECTER===3 · Post by **3===SPECTER===3** » 2008-07-05 16:11

1. dont think its realistic

2. ever heard of assymetrical balance?

baptist_christian · Post by **baptist_christian** » 2008-07-05 16:17

3===SPECTER===3 wrote:1. dont think its realistic

aren't they on the APCs IRL?

2. ever heard of assymetrical balance?

yes, its a contradiction in terms.

Post by **Rudd** » 2008-07-05 16:17

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?

Post by **bosco_** » 2008-07-05 16:20

baptist_christian wrote: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

baptist_christian · Post by **baptist_christian** » 2008-07-05 16:22

Dr2B Rudd wrote: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

Post by **AfterDune** » 2008-07-05 16:26

baptist_christian wrote: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.

Flanker15 · Post by **Flanker15** » 2008-07-05 16:32

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.

Sir.Saul · Post by **Sir.Saul** » 2008-07-05 17:17

baptist_christian wrote: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-----

Wh1tE_Dw4rF · Post by **Wh1tE_Dw4rF** » 2008-07-05 17:39

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.

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2008-07-05 17:43

Assymetrical balance is possible...

Personally I'm glad that PR evolves in this way

Alex6714 · Post by **Alex6714** » 2008-07-05 17:46

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

CanuckCommander · Post by **CanuckCommander** » 2008-07-05 18:00

Wh1tE_Dw4rF wrote: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 · Post by **Fungwu** » 2008-07-05 18:17

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 · Post by **charliegrs** » 2008-07-05 19:19

Fungwu wrote: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 · Post by **Charity Case** » 2008-07-05 19:26

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 · Post by **Craz3y|Assasin** » 2008-07-05 19:43

SOOOOOOOO geting locked

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

Post by **Katarn** » 2008-07-05 19:49

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.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2008-07-05 20:57

[R-PUB]bosco wrote: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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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