Why do people want tanks and APCs to become obsolete?
Yes, we could use more LAT, and lower reallocation times on some kits. But, a real life infantry squad can run out of light AT rounds. A real life squad can be incapable of dealing with an armor threat because of their equipment, position, situation, etc. Encountering enemy armor should be an "OH SHI-" moment, not a situation where you calmly pull out your rocket launchair and promptly dispatch the vehicle that took 20 minutes to spawn.
more hat availibity
-
Aranykai
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 2008-11-02 02:49
Re: more hat availibity
So here's my understanding based on your numbers:'[R-CON wrote:nedlands1;841551']Recount it. There are four Bradley fighting vehicles in a real life US Army mechanised platoon versus 0-4 in-game. We have less or equal number of APC's/IFV's compared to reality, less people then reality (32 vs 40) and less H-AT kits which makes sense.
Reality: 40 persons, 4 APC's, 3 Javelin Systems with 2(or more) rounds each
VS.
PR(Fools road, Militia): 32 Persons, 2 MBT's, 4 APC's, 2 Predator Systems, 2 AT-4 Systems
or another way:
Reality: 10 persons/armor, 6.67 persons/AT weapon
VS.
PR(Fools road, Militia): 5.34 persons/armor, 8 persons/AT weapon
Scaled by the number of persons per armor we have compared to reality, we should be getting 9 AT weapons per team, not 4( 3.5 persons/AT weapon).

7thID| Aranykai - 7thID.net
" Honestly its not so much the weapon you have but how you use it that should matter." - [R-DEV]CAS_117"
-
Mongolian_dude
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 6088
- Joined: 2006-10-22 22:24
Re: more hat availibity
APCs must remain a severe threat to infantry, and simpky increasing the amount will just make them a glorified CO truck.
I think what'd be a better approach would be a 1/4 reduction in "Re-recirculation time".
Reduction in waiting times for weapons to come back into circulation after loss should be expected to be lowered in general, in future releases anyway.
I still think LATs should have more impact on MBTs (After firing 3 into the side of a T-90 which was disabled and plooming black smoke, to watch the crew run across the desert to saftey) and prove an actual threat, as opposed to a slight annoyance.
I'd think a slight increase in availability would be nicer too, with perhaps 4 per side at max?
...mongol...
I think what'd be a better approach would be a 1/4 reduction in "Re-recirculation time".
Reduction in waiting times for weapons to come back into circulation after loss should be expected to be lowered in general, in future releases anyway.
I still think LATs should have more impact on MBTs (After firing 3 into the side of a T-90 which was disabled and plooming black smoke, to watch the crew run across the desert to saftey) and prove an actual threat, as opposed to a slight annoyance.
I'd think a slight increase in availability would be nicer too, with perhaps 4 per side at max?
...mongol...
Military lawyers engaged in fierce legal action.
[INDENT][INDENT]
[/INDENT][/INDENT]-
Waaah_Wah
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: 2007-07-26 13:55
Re: more hat availibity
LAT should barely scratch tanks if hit to the front, and only do some damage ih you hit a tank on the rear armour.
Never argue with an idiot, he will just drag you down to his level and beat you by experience
Killing for peace is like f*cking for virginity
I
Jaymz
Killing for peace is like f*cking for virginity
I
Jaymz
