On the Israeli army addition thread I made there is a nice heated debate that just won't stop, even though it is off topic. So, I decided to make a thread here for this arguement.
So, should the MEC army and vehicles be changed?
I personally think so. Once example is there is no way, in real life, that Russia or India would sell the MEC T-90 tanks. Also, much of the other gear isn't exactly realistic for the MEC to have. I don't even think the MEC forces would have AK-101's but would either have AK-47's and/or 74's. Yes, the middle eastern nations have lots of money, but it's still nothing in comparison to the money that the U.S., England, or even Russia has to back it's millitary with. They would settle on the ak's above because they are cheep, reliable, and still very good weapons. Now, their special forces would be another story, they would have very good gear, but unless a seperate MEC special forces team was made up(not just a kit) this would be pointless.
To balance out the MEC in maps because of their weaker weapons and equipment, they would have many more tickets as well as more vehicles. For example, in Oman, the U.S. could be give 2 abrams and the MEC would get 4 T-72's, or maybe 2 T-72's as well as one challenger 2 that Oman bought from england.
The T-72's could be weaker in armor, in their weapon, and their zoom, but their numbers would ballance them out.
I can go on, but I think I'll go play oblivion, so you guys duke it out.
Should the MEC forces be changed?
-
snoopdogy
- Posts: 60
- Joined: 2006-03-31 01:49
first thing i want to ask you is how does oblivion play? i not relly in to those med-eveil games but i hear it's a good game
well what i think is if there al-qadea(think thetes how you spell it) or the taliban your right? but if there the left over force from iraq or some over mideast counrty you coldn't be any wronger iraq's armey had t90's ak101 all of thete stuff befor desert storm they even had scudmissals. i think the mec forces spose to be a well funed army.
i think in this mod we shold change them a to a well funed terrorist group.wold say yes/no on downing there wepons i think all there primary wepons they shold be able to keep and remove the eryx for a rpg7 personaley i think all there air,apc,tank shold be removed let them have the vodnik,fav but we wold have to trust are map makers not to make maps with mecforces in gulf oman put china there insted. such as mec forces are only in city maps where the US army only have 1 tank on the map lets say
and what i wold love to see in every mec kit to have a remote for him to blow him self up with every thing around him othere then armour
well what i think is if there al-qadea(think thetes how you spell it) or the taliban your right? but if there the left over force from iraq or some over mideast counrty you coldn't be any wronger iraq's armey had t90's ak101 all of thete stuff befor desert storm they even had scudmissals. i think the mec forces spose to be a well funed army.
i think in this mod we shold change them a to a well funed terrorist group.wold say yes/no on downing there wepons i think all there primary wepons they shold be able to keep and remove the eryx for a rpg7 personaley i think all there air,apc,tank shold be removed let them have the vodnik,fav but we wold have to trust are map makers not to make maps with mecforces in gulf oman put china there insted. such as mec forces are only in city maps where the US army only have 1 tank on the map lets say
and what i wold love to see in every mec kit to have a remote for him to blow him self up with every thing around him othere then armour
-
Resjah
- Posts: 812
- Joined: 2005-08-24 02:33
I would like them to....
Stay the MEC, i dont want to fight a **** army, i would prefer a challenge, not me turn a corner in a t-72tank and i see an abrams and i know i have no chance of killing it, ruins the game in my opinion.
So i say keep the MEC, keep their weapons with obvious adds and improvements, and make up a fictional story line. simple works best
Stay the MEC, i dont want to fight a **** army, i would prefer a challenge, not me turn a corner in a t-72tank and i see an abrams and i know i have no chance of killing it, ruins the game in my opinion.
So i say keep the MEC, keep their weapons with obvious adds and improvements, and make up a fictional story line. simple works best
-
RikiRude
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 3819
- Joined: 2006-02-12 08:57
uhm i dont care what kind of terrorist group your in i dont think they will give every soldier and explosive device to attatch to himselfsnoopdogy wrote:
and what i wold love to see in every mec kit to have a remote for him to blow him self up with every thing around him othere then armour
i agree they gave the MEC kind of too nice of weapons and such. I think we are just supposed to assume that the Russians have beef with the US so they are selling their vehicles and weapons at a very... discount price.
also thinking that russia and the MEC are working together, i think that there should be MORE advanced weapons then are what in the game, because russia has ALOT of very advanced stuff, that never quite makes it out of development for the simple fact they cant afford it. so i think the MEC would buy alot of experimental stuff such as the AN-94, and i think they would have weapons such as the OTs-14 Groza and AS-Val. All I have to say, if you want to expand the MEC army, look no further then the first POE, if it makes things simpler, in the story of PR say that russia and MEC joined forces.
id also like to see the german army for the allied forces and another army for the MEC/China side, just so you had 3 armies vs 3
Proud n00b tub3r of 5 spam bots!
'[R-CON wrote:2Slick4U']That's like being the smartest kid with down syndrome.
-
RikiRude
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 3819
- Joined: 2006-02-12 08:57
-
Zepheris Casull
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 2006-01-21 05:27
gameplay wise, having an inferior army on one side does not bode well with gamers in an online competitive gaming, so downgrading their equipment might not be the wisest choice.
realistically of course, having the MEC fully equipped and trained is short of impossible within reasonable time scale. But for the sake of gameplay, some justification would have to be made to convince us that the MEC can acquire their hardware one way or another and have the training to use it. One way i can see it done is that MEC being a private mercenary group, or a small army instead of their current form in BF2. A smaller combat unit is much more likely to succeed in acquiring and utilizing high end hardware than a whole army made of various allegiance.
another way i can see it put into the game is that they have the hardware somehow, and have the men to operate them, but both in very short supply. This then gets translated into the gameplay in the form of more point/ ticket loss (assuming we r still using the old system in the final PRMM), or a slower respawn, or a variation of both. That in my oppinion would work better than downgrading the hardware in the game. Unless we change the hardware appearance but not the stats, which is still not realistic since we know abrams massacred the T-72s they encountered in iraq and the rest of the hardware in general are a generation or two behind the western power hardware.
realistically of course, having the MEC fully equipped and trained is short of impossible within reasonable time scale. But for the sake of gameplay, some justification would have to be made to convince us that the MEC can acquire their hardware one way or another and have the training to use it. One way i can see it done is that MEC being a private mercenary group, or a small army instead of their current form in BF2. A smaller combat unit is much more likely to succeed in acquiring and utilizing high end hardware than a whole army made of various allegiance.
another way i can see it put into the game is that they have the hardware somehow, and have the men to operate them, but both in very short supply. This then gets translated into the gameplay in the form of more point/ ticket loss (assuming we r still using the old system in the final PRMM), or a slower respawn, or a variation of both. That in my oppinion would work better than downgrading the hardware in the game. Unless we change the hardware appearance but not the stats, which is still not realistic since we know abrams massacred the T-72s they encountered in iraq and the rest of the hardware in general are a generation or two behind the western power hardware.
-
Top_Cat_AxJnAt
- Posts: 3215
- Joined: 2006-02-02 17:13
i think a reinforcment pool would be cool. Where when you and respwn it takes a ticket away. But the US have less tickets becuase they are never on home turf and the Mec can recruite the local and the chinese have their whole population to take from.
E.G in a 12 v 12 round, US against MEC, the US would get around 48 tickets while the MEC would get 72 tickets.
THe US would have better equipment in terms of Vehicle. But this would make the combat alot more realistic but it would require Well made maps that ensured thing where kept even.
This ticket system would inlcude vehicle
e.g same example as above, US tanks, adn APC would spwn a once, in twos and they would have 3 tickets for 3 whole group vehicle spawns. While the MEC would have a different group spwn (type adn number of vehicles) but they would have 5 or 4 tickets!
I think this could work out to be a beautifull system that encouraged realism and would be sooo cool.
I REALLY WANT THERE TO BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, TANKS , AFV and PLANES in terms of weapons, power, speed and manovourbility.
E.G in a 12 v 12 round, US against MEC, the US would get around 48 tickets while the MEC would get 72 tickets.
THe US would have better equipment in terms of Vehicle. But this would make the combat alot more realistic but it would require Well made maps that ensured thing where kept even.
This ticket system would inlcude vehicle
e.g same example as above, US tanks, adn APC would spwn a once, in twos and they would have 3 tickets for 3 whole group vehicle spawns. While the MEC would have a different group spwn (type adn number of vehicles) but they would have 5 or 4 tickets!
I think this could work out to be a beautifull system that encouraged realism and would be sooo cool.
I REALLY WANT THERE TO BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, TANKS , AFV and PLANES in terms of weapons, power, speed and manovourbility.
-
rofflesnlols
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 2006-02-12 21:06
-
lonelyjew
- Posts: 3176
- Joined: 2005-12-19 03:39
The gameplay is awsome. Yesterday for example I had to do a quest and the only path I saw to succeed in front was to betray a character I really like(she was very nice to me) and I just couldn't go through with it. I left hoping I'd figure out a way to do it without betraying her. Any game that could make me feel too guilty and play with my other emotions is excelent in my book.snoopdogy wrote:first thing i want to ask you is how does oblivion play? i not relly in to those med-eveil games but i hear it's a good game
The graphics are great, not unbelievable but good enough, but that's hardly why I am addicted to it. The combat is always fun and it's always challenging, the interaction between NPC's is amazing, and the story seems pretty good so far. I don't see why anyone wouldn't get it. It's one of the best games I've ever played.
Back to the topic
It wouldn't be impossible to kill an abrams, but head to head, one on one, is not a good idea. I still think the T-72 should be able to kill with one hit to the rear, but if hit in the side it would only do say half damage. To the front it could take the health down only a measly quarter. The Abrams on the other hand would knock out a T-72 in the rear, set it on fire with a hit to the side, and maybe do 1/3 total health damage to the front. In any case, two T-72's would always come out on top.[R-PUB wrote:FlyBoy]Stay the MEC, i dont want to fight a **** army, i would prefer a challenge, not me turn a corner in a t-72tank and i see an abrams and i know i have no chance of killing it, ruins the game in my opinion.
One reason I would like the MEC changed would be to make the armies different from eachother. They still would be even in the end, but different tactics would be needed to win on each team. The U.S. forces would use more precise methods while the MEC would use brute force and numbers.
-
EON_MagicMan
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 2006-02-05 18:43
OH MY GOD FICTIONAL PLOT!
I say leave the MEC with their weaponry, because, as many of you know, most people prefer the SAW and the M16 over the AK-101 or the RPK-- so already their weapons are arguably slightly inferior.
For the sake of balance though, leave the MEC as they are-- you can assume they found a way to make plenty of moolah from their oil and commissioned Russia to make all that weaponry for them. Russia, in alliance with China (although Russia would not nessecarily at war with the US, and not nessecarily in alliance with the MEC-- they'd more just like to keep the US as a power at bay).
Either way, don't go downgrading their equipment-- why? Because you don't have to, and it just ain't fun.
Yeah it sounds more neat and more plausible to downgrade their weaponry and equipment, but then in practice, everyone says "ZOMG MEC sux0rs", and next thing you know, teams are stacked in favour of the US.
I say leave the MEC with their weaponry, because, as many of you know, most people prefer the SAW and the M16 over the AK-101 or the RPK-- so already their weapons are arguably slightly inferior.
For the sake of balance though, leave the MEC as they are-- you can assume they found a way to make plenty of moolah from their oil and commissioned Russia to make all that weaponry for them. Russia, in alliance with China (although Russia would not nessecarily at war with the US, and not nessecarily in alliance with the MEC-- they'd more just like to keep the US as a power at bay).
Either way, don't go downgrading their equipment-- why? Because you don't have to, and it just ain't fun.
Yeah it sounds more neat and more plausible to downgrade their weaponry and equipment, but then in practice, everyone says "ZOMG MEC sux0rs", and next thing you know, teams are stacked in favour of the US.
-
RikiRude
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 3819
- Joined: 2006-02-12 08:57
agreed.EON_MagicMan wrote:OH MY GOD FICTIONAL PLOT!
I say leave the MEC with their weaponry, because, as many of you know, most people prefer the SAW and the M16 over the AK-101 or the RPK-- so already their weapons are arguably slightly inferior.
For the sake of balance though, leave the MEC as they are-- you can assume they found a way to make plenty of moolah from their oil and commissioned Russia to make all that weaponry for them. Russia, in alliance with China (although Russia would not nessecarily at war with the US, and not nessecarily in alliance with the MEC-- they'd more just like to keep the US as a power at bay).
Either way, don't go downgrading their equipment-- why? Because you don't have to, and it just ain't fun.
Yeah it sounds more neat and more plausible to downgrade their weaponry and equipment, but then in practice, everyone says "ZOMG MEC sux0rs", and next thing you know, teams are stacked in favour of the US.
already the M-16 is much more favorable then the AK-101, because the M-16 doesnt have that big recoil.
Proud n00b tub3r of 5 spam bots!
'[R-CON wrote:2Slick4U']That's like being the smartest kid with down syndrome.
-
Zepheris Casull
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 2006-01-21 05:27
this suddenly gave me an idea, we can simulate a scenario of an insertion by small but strong unit (perhaps a rapid assault by the airborne division). The assault team will have smaller pool of ticket but higher respawn rate or whatever modification is needed to balance them, while defending team is the opposite.
The assault team's goal is to secure an area of some sort that is very heavily fortified before they runs out of ticket, while the defender obviously defend the area. In that case having an inferior equipment on the defender side for that map alone at least should not hurt overall gameplay as much as having inferior equipment for entire side.
so the map is shorter in duration than typical map, but makes up for that with ferocious fight. A better hardware on the assault side coupled with time constraint is essential in this case in my oppinion to give them incentive to do the assault and not just sit around. Meanwhile a less equipped defender side would be right as well in my oppinion to simulate the fact that they were not expecting the assault (which is why they also would respawn slower). The defenders do have the advantage of having a good defensive position though.
In another word, this is one example of scenario in which i believe proper use of inferior and superior hardware might work.
The assault team's goal is to secure an area of some sort that is very heavily fortified before they runs out of ticket, while the defender obviously defend the area. In that case having an inferior equipment on the defender side for that map alone at least should not hurt overall gameplay as much as having inferior equipment for entire side.
so the map is shorter in duration than typical map, but makes up for that with ferocious fight. A better hardware on the assault side coupled with time constraint is essential in this case in my oppinion to give them incentive to do the assault and not just sit around. Meanwhile a less equipped defender side would be right as well in my oppinion to simulate the fact that they were not expecting the assault (which is why they also would respawn slower). The defenders do have the advantage of having a good defensive position though.
In another word, this is one example of scenario in which i believe proper use of inferior and superior hardware might work.
-
GeZe
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: 2006-02-09 22:09
-
six7
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: 2006-03-06 03:17
1. fix the spec ops ak 74u!!! please! its looks like a toy made of plastic and sounds like a bb gun. IRL pic :http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26sa%3DN
2. not any army in the world can afford to give ever dedicated anit-tank soldier a SRAW or Eryx. there is no way one person can carry 3 or them, and you cant even see it on the soldier's back. they jsut pull it out of some magical backpack. add an rpg man with an ak 74u for MEC and a LAW guy with m16/m4
3. maybe give the MEC an uzi for the engy class (or any class that needs a PDW)> would liek to see this gun.
4. BMP please. Much more common that a BTR 90.
2. not any army in the world can afford to give ever dedicated anit-tank soldier a SRAW or Eryx. there is no way one person can carry 3 or them, and you cant even see it on the soldier's back. they jsut pull it out of some magical backpack. add an rpg man with an ak 74u for MEC and a LAW guy with m16/m4
3. maybe give the MEC an uzi for the engy class (or any class that needs a PDW)> would liek to see this gun.
4. BMP please. Much more common that a BTR 90.
-
Pence
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: 2006-02-04 06:10
http://www.volny.cz/ak-47/aks-74u.htmsix7 wrote:1. fix the spec ops ak 74u!!! please! its looks like a toy made of plastic and sounds like a bb gun. IRL pic :http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26sa%3DN
2. not any army in the world can afford to give ever dedicated anit-tank soldier a SRAW or Eryx. there is no way one person can carry 3 or them, and you cant even see it on the soldier's back. they jsut pull it out of some magical backpack. add an rpg man with an ak 74u for MEC and a LAW guy with m16/m4
3. maybe give the MEC an uzi for the engy class (or any class that needs a PDW)> would liek to see this gun.
4. BMP please. Much more common that a BTR 90.
AKS-74U? I agree thogh on that, the AKS-74U looks like it was made from a Macarno kit.
BMP, BMD and Mi-24 are some ideas that cannot be overlooked.
"I am not bald, i shave my head"
"How could you falter when you're the rock of Gibraltar"
"How could you falter when you're the rock of Gibraltar"
-
Cerberus
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: 2005-11-15 22:24