Each army own type of playing

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 2007-08-06 07:46

this was just an idea:

USMC: Much strong vehicles, good weapons less players
UK : Much strong vehicles, good weapons less players
PLA : less strong Vehicles, nonverry good weapons,more players
MEC : less strong Vehicles, nonverry good weapons,more players
INS : Few 50.cal trucks, bad weapons, lots of players

this will ad new type of gameplay
U.K-USMC need teamplay more, Less man
PLA,MEC,INS need teamplay more, non good weapons, but more players

pasfreak · Post by **pasfreak** » 2007-08-06 07:58

this would suck. everyone would be suiciding trying to get onto us and uk if they have shitty weapons. and then they would leave.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2007-08-06 08:11

I dont agree with your suggestions there but I do like the overall idea. Basically you'd like to see some specialization for each of the amrys that are linked to their RL strengths/Weaknesses. This is something I'm sure the devs have in mind and will be looking at in the future as things progress. I'm all for these kinds of things as they add in diversity of tactics and thinking depending on whose side you are playing.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2007-08-06 08:23

The idea of giving vehicles unique capabilities is something that should be considered (instead of the mirror balancing we see with most vehicles). However the OP isn't really realistic. We should concentrate on reflecting each vehicle's strenghts and weaknesses ingame.

The T-90s and T-99s for example, should be more manuverable, and slightly more powerful than their counterparts (to reflect the 125mm cannon). Even potentially having the unique capability of firing the 9M119 Refleks missile. Their weakness would be their armor compared to the Abrams & Challenger tanks. Both the T-90 & T-99 tanks could also feature unique counter-measures as well (I've read that the T-90 has some sort of infared jamming device, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows about the laser on the T-99).

That's just using tanks for example, the concept really deserves a detailed and well-written thread to fully appreciate it though.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-08-06 08:48

I don't really get the OP's idea of having 'superstrong vehicles=more teamplay'

People would just drive them off alone, camp somewhere and score kills
They did it with the IFV, thats why I disliked it in the beta, when it was new, becuase it raped the Insurgents so much.

Metis-M · Post by **Metis-M** » 2007-08-06 09:06

Terranova wrote:The idea of giving vehicles unique capabilities is something that should be considered (instead of the mirror balancing we see with most vehicles). However the OP isn't really realistic. We should concentrate on reflecting each vehicle's strenghts and weaknesses ingame.

The T-90s and T-99s for example, should be more manuverable, and slightly more powerful than their counterparts (to reflect the 125mm cannon). Even potentially having the unique capability of firing the 9M119 Refleks missile. Their weakness would be their armor compared to the Abrams & Challenger tanks. Both the T-90 & T-99 tanks could also feature unique counter-measures as well (I've read that the T-90 has some sort of infared jamming device, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows about the laser on the T-99).

That's just using tanks for example, the concept really deserves a detailed and well-written thread to fully appreciate it though.

Agree about 9M119, its a big advantage.
Who said that Abrams & Challenger tanks have better armor then T-90, show me please the site where i can read this!!!

Nimble · Post by **Nimble** » 2007-08-06 09:12

Metis-M wrote:Agree about 9M119, its a big advantage.
Who said that Abrams & Challenger tanks have better armor then T-90, show me please the site where i can read this!!!

Not entirely sure how accurate the numbers given on this site are, but I see it bouncing about on various forums from time to time as a reference.

Tank Protection Levels

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-08-06 09:54

Erm from what I've heard the QBZ-95 is a great weapon...why would PLA have "not very good" weapons?

Nimble · Post by **Nimble** » 2007-08-06 10:09

Expendable Grunt wrote:Erm from what I've heard the QBZ-95 is a great weapon...why would PLA have "not very good" weapons?

Because it's ugly, that's why.

ZaZZo · Post by **ZaZZo** » 2007-08-06 10:18

wtf? QBZ-95 is the sexiest weapon ingame!

Hardtman · Post by **Hardtman** » 2007-08-06 11:51

We have some kind of specialisation right now:

Insurgents: Short to medium range, has good equipment(IED's,Mines,VBIED's,Civilians) to set up ambushes, which are their strongest weapon.

Militia: Only High Range (SVD,SKS) and short range (PPsH,Scorpion,AK) Weaponry, sucks at mid-range, but excels at high and short-range. Have to use Bunkers and other buildings to archieve optimal distances.

US,UK,PLA,MEC: Good mid-range weaponry, good Armor. Conventional. Air-Assets.

It would be nice to see some more differences between the conventional armies in the future, i.e. US with air-superiority and PLA with armor-superiority or something like this.

Post by **marcoelnk** » 2007-08-06 12:48

usa,gb less players,stronger weapons?? american propaganda seems to have worked....

Greenie Beanie · Post by **Greenie Beanie** » 2007-08-06 12:51

I do agree that sides need more differences...

ArmedDrunk&Angry · Post by **ArmedDrunk&Angry** » 2007-08-06 13:52

marcoelnk wrote:usa,gb less players,stronger weapons?? american propaganda seems to have worked....

Can you show the link to some of this propaganda ?

I have found that people on this forum are unusually aware of the weapons systems available and fair and balanced in their assessment of them.

I don't think the ChiComs have the IVIS system.
I have also read that the PLA does not have body armor for line troops.
These two differences I think would make a large difference IRL.
I would have serious doubts about anyone knowing the real details of modern ChiCom MBT's armor protection.

While I have grown to love the British rifle I think bullpups in general are ugly weapons but that is simply my prejudice .

I do not think that the OP's idea would result in anything good because I don't think we have enough people willing to utilize the real world differences in the armies strengths and weaknesses.

Look how much whining there is over the G3's scope and magnify that for an entire team's equipment.

It sounds good and I would love to see it happen but I don't think it would result in better teamwork or gameplay.

youm0nt · Post by **youm0nt** » 2007-08-06 14:24

This is an FPS, not a RTS. For some reason OP's ideas sound like something out of a RTS game...

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-08-06 15:25

youm0nt wrote:This is an FPS, not a RTS. For some reason OP's ideas sound like something out of a RTS game...

Actually, while I was thinking about that very thing today I began to think that a "perfect" game would play out A LOT like an RTS.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-08-06 15:56

i agree about make diferents between armys , but not the ones that you are suggesting .

diferents like (by example) :

-m1a2 with better armor than the t90 , but the t90 has AT-11 .

-at4 must have less zoom than the pf89 (you know , the pf89 has a scoped) not the same zoom like now , but the at4 has more piercing power than the pf .

etc.

AnRK · Post by **AnRK** » 2007-08-07 01:38

Yeah I agree with the thread but not the fiercely generalising terms used earlier. I like all the niggly little details that are in at the moment that cause armies to adapt playing style though. Such as the scope on the G3, The Brit marksman rifle, The Chinese support weapons. All of those are very different to their counterparts and make armys act differently and more stuff like that would be ace. More players and worse equipment is a bit C&C.

I agree in principle with what AD&A is saying about body armour and stuff like that but firstly since this is set slightly in the future and is based on projected economic growth it'd reach a point where the respective armys would all be pretty well funded (obviously Chinas budget is far from small at the moment but it is a hell of alot of troops to pay for) and basic equipment such as body armour would almost certainly be standard issue, I would of thought at least.

With regards to the gameplay though I think anyone who has a modicum of interest in playing the game properly will learn what each sides' equipment is capable of and use it to their advantage. As the game becomes more detailed these differences will give armies as a whole a much ore distinct character and people will use different tactics with different armys. Like C&C but in a more fitting manner.

LekyIRL · Post by **LekyIRL** » 2007-08-07 01:44

Well, I don't agree with the OP about team differences but maybe if one team's tanks are better in one area and another team's tanks are better in another.
i.e:USMC tanks slow but take more hits etc.

Hardtman · Post by **Hardtman** » 2007-08-07 12:35

LekyIRL wrote:Well, I don't agree with the OP about team differences but maybe if one team's tanks are better in one area and another team's tanks are better in another.
i.e:USMC tanks slow but take more hits etc.

The speed of the used tanks hardly differs, about 5 km/h at most.

What would work is to give the T90 slghtly better firepower due to it's 125 mm main cannon (The Abrams has 120mm), but a bit less armor or something,but the problem would be: nobody would notice. The higher firepower of the T90 would overrule the slightly higher armor on the abrams and vice versa.