Add a tank on Muttrah

[Rudd]

yeah those 40mm grenades will surely hurt armour still, but I doubt it will do as much as AP rounds.

Thus, bring a At4 with ur AAV7 or u be in a lot of trouble

[alberto_di_gio]

Tank to MECs? How come it will balance? I think it will greatly unbalance against US side according to me. As everyone says it takes only one good shot to take it down.

Plus... where you gonna put the tank anyways. (without changing the map) To the docks? Means you have to place an US flag on docks. Or you'll make an aphibic tank Don't think it'll work

[killonsight95]

Tank to MECs? How come it will balance? I think it will greatly unbalance against US side according to me. As everyone says it takes only one good shot to take it down.

Plus... where you gonna put the tank anyways. (without changing the map) To the docks? Means you have to place an US flag on docks. Or you'll make an aphibic tank Don't think it'll work

MEC get tank *facepalm*

[dtacs]

[quote=""'[R-CON"]Rudd;1218553']iirc the AAV7 is going to feature on this map as its an ocean assault, at least in part

I don't see how the AAV7 will be as good as the LAV in AT combat, so I'm sure it will be balanced.[/quote]
I remember the dev that was making the AAV said that one would have to 'lob' the Mk19. AFAIK it doesn't have AP rounds, only HEAP?

[quote="killonsight95""]EJOD desert?
pretty awesome map well balenced[/quote]
If you're joking or being sarcastic, I'm getting trolled, if you're serious then you're blind.

A single TOW verse 2 BTR's and a T-72 is the biggest gamble I've ever seen on PR, as with Qwai, it is simply too much to ask putting the only AT asset up against enemy assets that even a child could properly operate.

Like chilean said, you cannot properly operate the BTRs solo on Muttrah unless you're extremely competent with the map, which almost noone is. The worst that can happen with 2x BTRs vs. 1x LAV is one of the BTRs going to black smoke, unless the BTR was hit hard before the second one can come and finish off the LAV.

Hell even one BTR can get the jump on the LAV if they get in there straight up.

yeah those 40mm grenades will surely hurt armour still, but I doubt it will do as much as AP rounds.

Thus, bring a At4 with ur AAV7 or u be in a lot of trouble

Not really.

Any good gunner will simply pop the LAT that just hopped out and then go straight back onto the AAV with the 14.5mm.

Or if the LAT is running by the AAV then he'll either have to wait to stabilize his shot (on a moving BTR btw) or panic and insta shoot it, blowing it up 5 feet in front of him and pissing off his mates in the process.

[rampo]

rampo thats why he said it wont be as good as an LAV.

Yes i know but i just think the MEC BTR's might get the advantage now whit the AP rounds

[DankE_SPB]

Yes i know but i just think the MEC BTR's might get the advantage now whit the AP rounds

search through other Mk 19 and AAVP threads, there were info about armour penetration for it, and its more than enough to counter BTRs and even more tough vehicles

[Donatello]

search through other Mk 19 and AAVP threads, there were info about armour penetration for it, and its more than enough to counter BTRs and even more tough vehicles

question is: will DEVs realize it ingame?
or AAVP will have only HE rounds?

[Snazz]

I agree with Rudd. The future introduction of the AAV should sort out the balance, nullifying any need to give MEC a tank. Not that I'm against tanks on Muttrah or asymmetrical balance, just responding to the OP's reasoning.

Map is too small for the tank.

All such heavy assets are not present in PR in small maps i dont think.

Muttrah is the same size as most PR maps (2x2km), a few of which currently also have tanks.

BTW Fallujah is smaller and it's getting an Abrams tank in 0.9.

[Mongolian_dude]

No, I dont think its a good idea.
The very fact that the USMC have to force a Amphibious Assault makes it hard enough for them to stay on top against a MEC team with their feces together. Perhaps on a delayed spawn of after 1hour perhaps, that could add a development to the match.

I'd rather just see an additional ground based version of Muttrah, where the USMC is already established on the docks (fortified to main base standards), where both factions have an array of MBTs and IFV.

...mongol...

[Rudd]

The very fact that the USMC have to force a Amphibious Assault makes it hard enough for them to stay on top against a MEC team with their feces together. Perhaps on a delayed spawn of after 1hour perhaps, that could add a development to the match.

this would mean that if killed it would respawn after 1 hour...

actually that would work well imo mongol, local armour regiment comes to aid to the beleaguered defenders of muttrah, while the rest of the regiment orgaises a tank pushes on ahead to provide more immediate relief.

[009783232]

I disagree with the idea that the tank would be useless in urban terrain. The tank is quite vulnerable sure, but at the same time, it is quite powerful when it isnt taken down. This means that if the mec put the tank in an area with anti-aircraft and infantry, it would be quite difficult to take down. It would be quite a useful defensive unit.

However, the real issue with this suggestion is that the mec are less well equipped as their objective is slightly easier than the Americans. The lavs superiority over the btrs is balanced indirectly by the ability to retake docks.

Edit: The US generally start to win the map after they have a foothold on the island, as the lavs are superior to the btrs by a fair margin. You could as has been mentioned make the tank spawn very late in to the round, and maybe give the US an asset or two at docks at this time. This would in my opinion would cause the eventual obsolescence of apcs in combat, representing the progression of the invasion for both sides.

[dtacs]

Its not useless in urban terrain, its just on muttrah there is only a handful of spots where it could watch.

1. The boulevard, stopping pesky APCs or supply trucks coming down along the coast

2. The rear mountain road, which is only about 400m long.

3. The mountains NW of docks, the hilly area near the fenceline (where the apcs go along, HAT alley)

Or the huge long road in the central area inbetween east and west city. Its simply not that practical IMO..rather have an extra BTR, but a BMP-3 would be overkill.

[009783232]

Its not useless in urban terrain, its just on muttrah there is only a handful of spots where it could watch.

1. The boulevard, stopping pesky APCs or supply trucks coming down along the coast

2. The rear mountain road, which is only about 400m long.

3. The mountains NW of docks, the hilly area near the fenceline (where the apcs go along, HAT alley)

Or the huge long road in the central area inbetween east and west city. Its simply not that practical IMO..rather have an extra BTR, but a BMP-3 would be overkill.

If you were to place a tank defensively amidst an objective which is already controlled by the mec, then the US would be required to take out the anti-aircraft surrounding the objective before they moved in. This means that while the tank would get less kills than if it were to move in to an over-watch or aggressive tactic, it would allow the mec to consolidate their gains and halt the US advance without the appropriate combination of air and infantry assets.

Hatting a tank offensively is quite a difficult task, while defensively it is quite easy.

[dtacs]

Placing it defensively amidst is exactly the same as putting it in an over-watch position. I think you're a bit out of your element in the language you're using.

Over-watch isn't an aggressive tactic as the tank is not moving or trying to take a point (which is an offensive operation). You are forgetting that tanks are used for spear-heading an assault combined with infantry, where on Muttrah the MEC are predominantly on defense for most of the game, adding a T72 would just endorse the fact that the roles would be switched and the US would be the ones defending.

Not counting the simple fact that regardless of who is crewing it, the tank is going to die, alas having a minimal input to the end result of the round. The infantry will win it no matter how good the crew is.

There is more than one angle of attack on Muttrah, alot of the time the MEC have a lack of concentration and air support can come from the rear, or south if you will, of the map, flaring and bailing before the AA can get a shot off. Plus a tank cannot be watching more than one direction, unless it has a .50 gunner who will be shot off at any chance the US get.

Hatting a tank offensively isn't really that hard, hell most shots in PR from HATs are from those who have got into a position to HAT it, on maps where armor is a main asset.

[Jedimushroom]

What Muttrah needs is for Whino to finish the street level cover so the map isn't total rape for infantry.

Also, AAVP7A1s kthnxbai

[dtacs]

What Muttrah needs is for Whino to finish the street level cover so the map isn't total rape for infantry.

Also, AAVP7A1s kthnxbai

Rape for infantry? 6 LATs and 2 HATs say no-no to armor.

There are buildings for a reason, if you are getting wasted in the middle of the road then you deserve it.

[Bazul14]

How about putting a Renault FT-17 WWI tank or a Pz 3 A borrowed from the Nazi's ? Thouse would be great LAV killers without giving MEC a complete supremacy on the map. Or a BMP-1, without TOWm or even better, bring back the T-62, or a T-55, and give the americans a TOW Humvee, it would make things logical, as the city is defended by some normal,freshly pulled from the reserve, Iraq armor unit.

L.E. @Thomas, well, u just got to know bazu

[IAJTHOMAS]

How about putting a Renault FT-17 WWI tank or a Pz 3 A borrowed from the Nazi's ? Thouse would be great LAV killers without giving MEC a complete supremacy on the map. Or a BMP-1, without TOWm or even better, bring back the T-62, or a T-55, and give the americans a TOW Humvee, it would make things logical, as the city is defended by some normal,freshly pulled from the reserve, Iraq armor unit.

This starts out sacrcastic then becomes worringly serious in tone...

[Rhino]

No, I dont think its a good idea.
The very fact that the USMC have to force a Amphibious Assault makes it hard enough for them to stay on top against a MEC team with their feces together. Perhaps on a delayed spawn of after 1hour perhaps, that could add a development to the match.

I'd rather just see an additional ground based version of Muttrah, where the USMC is already established on the docks (fortified to main base standards), where both factions have an array of MBTs and IFV.

...mongol...

.

[Drunkenup]

Those Mk19 rounds aren't harmless against armour

Yeah, but they're not effective either. Once the AAVs are added, they will have no chance against the uber BMP-3s. The AAVP7A1 seems like a better match over the LAV-25 and BTR-60. Add a BMP-3 and the AAVs have no chance against it. Its practically a tank to be honest. If you are to add BMPs than the only other thing for the U.S. to counter it with would have to be a Second Cobra.

If anything, the BMP-3 would have to be a heavly special and limited Asset, it would have to cost many tickets, have a delayed spawn time, OR have it only spawn one time in game. Look at its cannon compared to that of the BTR-60, 30mm, High rate of fire, it as insane damage. It will demolish the LAV-25s, and the Helicopters will have a even worse chance against it. There really are only a few things to counter such a heavily armed APC.

And a reply to Eddie Baker's post on the first page. Its really a mixture of the H-1 series, It has a four rotor system of the AH-1z, the Engines of the Whiskey Cobra, the tail assembly is just so horribly modeled it doesn't really represent anything. Its like they took the AH-1W and Z, put em in Dough form and mixed em together.