For extra firepower and longer range? I'm just thinking it trough my training experience as anti-tank infantry, that's all...XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote:Hmmm as cool as that sounds, its quite ridiculous realy. We already have a HAT kit. Why add another one?
Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
-
fubar++
- Posts: 248
- Joined: 2007-07-08 17:04
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
-
K4on
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 5055
- Joined: 2009-05-08 19:48
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote:I think it will also help lead to some good FB defense firefights. At the moment they are usually a bit 'build and forget'. If the mortar becomes a deployable asset aswell as the TOW we could have some serious bases on our hands![]()
I agree with "as the TOW we could have some serious bases on our hands "
-
chuckMFd
- Posts: 130
- Joined: 2007-11-24 18:17
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
The TOW deployable asset is a great idea! The foxholes could have LMG mounts, someone on the 50cal. Cover the sky with AA. I think that is a recipe for some serious teamwork! Give people somthing to feel more secure about while they're defending a FB and they won't get abandoned as much.
I know some people would say thats way to overpowered but it would make life guarding a FB alot better. 1 TOW, 1 AA, 1 50cal, 3 foxhole LMG nests (current foxholes don't get used that much). If these extra assets are to much then limit FB production down to just 3 instead of the current 4. That way on a 64 player map 3 squads could effectively guard 3 FBs.
This would make Tankers and APCs rely more on their infantry units to attack FBs instead of just running off into the sunset on a rampage lone wolf style. Maybe APC crews would actually take a full bus to the front lines because they would be more vulnerable without their infantry scouts.
TOW DEPLOYABLE ASSET PARTY UNITE!
I know some people would say thats way to overpowered but it would make life guarding a FB alot better. 1 TOW, 1 AA, 1 50cal, 3 foxhole LMG nests (current foxholes don't get used that much). If these extra assets are to much then limit FB production down to just 3 instead of the current 4. That way on a 64 player map 3 squads could effectively guard 3 FBs.
This would make Tankers and APCs rely more on their infantry units to attack FBs instead of just running off into the sunset on a rampage lone wolf style. Maybe APC crews would actually take a full bus to the front lines because they would be more vulnerable without their infantry scouts.
TOW DEPLOYABLE ASSET PARTY UNITE!
[CENTER]
PR KICKS ***
[/CENTER]PR KICKS ***
-
HangMan_
- Posts: 1753
- Joined: 2009-06-07 00:58
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
I'm really glad that people are supporting this idea. After this has been discussed a bit more i may post a suggestion in the suggestions forums... Or i will look into making this myself.
PR Community Faction Team - "Getting Sh*t Done..."
-
Solid Knight
- Posts: 2257
- Joined: 2008-09-04 00:46
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
Why not have a TOW truck that allows you to spawn a TOW somewhere every twenty to thirty minutes?
-
[FC]Freddie
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 2009-06-23 23:49
-
TF6049
- Posts: 584
- Joined: 2007-03-29 03:24
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
I like this idea. You get 3 "defence foxholes" with every FOB. MG, SAM, or TOW - take your pick.XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote:Seeing as this isn't the suggestions forum then its ok to discuss it again i believe. I can't remember the TOW being deployable ingame before. I think it should be put into PR as a deployable asset that u have to sacrifice the AA for. This means u will be vulnerable to either tanks or aircraft but its up to the players to decide![]()
"Make sure that: Suppression effect works when bullets hit penetrable metal feces too"
A funny typo by Sgt. Smeg
A funny typo by Sgt. Smeg
-
Expendable Grunt
- Posts: 4730
- Joined: 2007-03-09 01:54
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
Yes.XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote: Should the TOW be a deployable asset to be built near FB's?
Choose.XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote: Should it be allowed aswell as the Anti-Air or should u have to choose between the two?
One per fire base.XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote: How many should be allowed if it was implemented?
Tanks would have to either die or scout out their target before assaulting.XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote: What effect do people think this would have on gameplay?
M.

Former [DM] captain.
The fact that people are poor or discriminated against doesn't necessarily endow them with any special qualities of justice, nobility, charity or compassion. - Saul Alinsky
-
00SoldierofFortune00
- Posts: 2944
- Joined: 2006-02-28 01:08
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
Oftentimes those sandbag/razor wire combos do nothing to stop tanks for taking out FOBs. I agree, make TOWs requestable but put some resonable limitation on it.
And to whoever said placement of the FOB matters, it does, but on some maps like Kashan, it is so open that you can't avoid a tank seeing it. Only place is the bunkers, and they are still easily taken out from there from a distance.
And I do recall the TOW being ingame before in this way. I think it was first when the Firebases/Bunkers came out or shortly after in a smaller patch, but was soon taken out which caused a small stir.
And to whoever said placement of the FOB matters, it does, but on some maps like Kashan, it is so open that you can't avoid a tank seeing it. Only place is the bunkers, and they are still easily taken out from there from a distance.
And I do recall the TOW being ingame before in this way. I think it was first when the Firebases/Bunkers came out or shortly after in a smaller patch, but was soon taken out which caused a small stir.
"Push the Envelope, Watch It Bend"
Tool ~ Lateralus
Tool ~ Lateralus
-
=0verlord=
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 2008-01-02 11:51
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
Yeah, I would love to have a deployable TOW for firebases, they could use a little somethin' extra in my opinion. I also like the idea of 3 LMG nests, 1 .50, 1 AA, and 1 TOW.
-
HangMan_
- Posts: 1753
- Joined: 2009-06-07 00:58
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
Why do we need an LMG nest? The 2 .50's are easily sufficient...=0verlord= wrote:Yeah, I would love to have a deployable TOW for firebases, they could use a little somethin' extra in my opinion. I also like the idea of 3 LMG nests, 1 .50, 1 AA, and 1 TOW.
PR Community Faction Team - "Getting Sh*t Done..."
-
Riflewizard
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 2008-10-03 22:10
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
Instead of a TOW which could be overpowered, maybe some sort of LAT kit spawner? Because AT is never avialable when needed. It could be made weak too, like 1 LAT plus rifle and 1 spare magazine (and knife), so people wouldn't take it unless it was to defend the firebase, no bandages or smoke etc..
-
Fractal
- Posts: 75
- Joined: 2008-12-28 08:28
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
I was always wondering why TOWs were impossible to build like AAs?!
It is essential to FB, isn't it?
It is essential to FB, isn't it?
-
HangMan_
- Posts: 1753
- Joined: 2009-06-07 00:58
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
I think that could cause issues with no team locking.. ie enemy rush the base then use the kits to rape it?Riflewizard wrote:Instead of a TOW which could be overpowered, maybe some sort of LAT kit spawner? Because AT is never avialable when needed. It could be made weak too, like 1 LAT plus rifle and 1 spare magazine (and knife), so people wouldn't take it unless it was to defend the firebase, no bandages or smoke etc..
I think that it would be an essential part if it were implemented. At the moment it is essential to defend the FB with a HAT which sucks for the guy who has to battle it out with the tank..Fractal wrote:I was always wondering why TOWs were impossible to build like AAs?!
It is essential to FB, isn't it?
PR Community Faction Team - "Getting Sh*t Done..."
-
LUKE_NUKE_EM
- Posts: 417
- Joined: 2009-06-12 19:41
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
I should think that a TOW system would be just as important at a FB as a HMG. It seems logical that you would need to be able to hold off armor as well as infantry.

-
rrrrrkkkkk
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 2008-11-28 04:57
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
1 tow for each firebase, with only 1 rocket in it.
so the defenders would need to be wise when to use the tow, against tank is 1 shot 1 kill
for gain another rocket, infantry should destroy and build another tow (again, with only one rocket)
so the defenders would need to be wise when to use the tow, against tank is 1 shot 1 kill
for gain another rocket, infantry should destroy and build another tow (again, with only one rocket)
-
Hairysteed
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 2007-10-02 22:23
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
That is very lamerrrrrkkkkk wrote:1 tow for each firebase, with only 1 rocket in it.
so the defenders would need to be wise when to use the tow, against tank is 1 shot 1 kill
for gain another rocket, infantry should destroy and build another tow (again, with only one rocket)
-
HangMan_
- Posts: 1753
- Joined: 2009-06-07 00:58
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
I'd rather see it with a few rockets but a giant reload time. That way u don't have to destroy it but when it gets shot it has to count.rrrrrkkkkk wrote:1 tow for each firebase, with only 1 rocket in it.
so the defenders would need to be wise when to use the tow, against tank is 1 shot 1 kill
for gain another rocket, infantry should destroy and build another tow (again, with only one rocket)
PR Community Faction Team - "Getting Sh*t Done..."
-
Archerchef
- Posts: 196
- Joined: 2008-10-05 22:05
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
it would be nice on HUGE maps
-
HughJass
- Posts: 2599
- Joined: 2007-10-14 03:55
Re: Should the TOW be a deployable asset?
agreed, I think this is fair since the tow is stationary... easy to spot.XxX_HangMan_XxX wrote:I'd rather see it with a few rockets but a giant reload time. That way u don't have to destroy it but when it gets shot it has to count.




