[Map] Karez Offensive (4km) [WIP] - Page 3

~~sakils2~~ · 2009-05-30, 14:40

So, in layer 2 and 3 MEC won't get crap?

Rangu · 2009-05-30, 14:58

nah, I think he just forgot to write up the vehicles on the MEC side, as he said he wanted it to be symetrical.

RedAlertSF · 2009-05-30, 14:58

I like the idea of Norwegians having only CV90 but I think MEC should get at least some tanks instead of BMPs. The BMP is pure rape on tracks. The autocannon is crazy and it still has the TOW. Way too overpowered, because I think CV90 has just a cannon?

Anyway, I like the idea of having Norway fighting against MEC. Keep the good work up!

EDIT: Oh CV90 has autocannon too but still no TOW. :/

HeXeY · 2009-05-30, 16:22

As PR is set a few years in the future (says so all around the forums) tank could be added. We don't know what Diesen might do when he gets the position as "Forsvarssjef" (Chief of Defence?

)

~~sakils2~~ · 2009-05-30, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedAlertSF

I like the idea of Norwegians having only CV90 but I think MEC should get at least some tanks instead of BMPs. The BMP is pure rape on tracks. The autocannon is crazy and it still has the TOW. Way too overpowered, because I think CV90 has just a cannon?

Anyway, I like the idea of having Norway fighting against MEC. Keep the good work up!

EDIT: Oh CV90 has autocannon too but still no TOW. :/

1) So is a tank, BMP-3 would be more appropriate.
2) BMP-3 does not have a TOW.

Zimmer · 2009-05-30, 16:31

BMP-3 has something called AT-10 or something like that as far as I know.

RedAlertSF · 2009-05-30, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by sakils2

1) So is a tank, BMP-3 would be more appropriate.
2) BMP-3 does not have a TOW.

1) I don't know about map's terrain but I believe that a tank would be less mobile, giving some advantage for Norwegians, as the CV90 isn't heavily armored. If MEC gets BTR-90 back in the future, it would be good option too. I just think that BMP-3's rockets are overpowered.
2) Well it's an anti-tank rocket anyway. Are you happier if I call it AT-10 or 9M117?

Wicca · 2009-05-30, 18:30

Yes its going to be assymetrical.

What i wrote is just a suggestion nothing is fixed, except for basics.

What is the basics?

Its going to be AAS

Its going to be Norway VS MEC

And its going to be 4X4

Its going to contain villages

Its going to be desert warfare with mountains and valleys. Its supposed to be tough terrain hard to come through unless you choose the right route, like roads.

So, what if, the MEC gets the BMP 3 + T 90, but no jet?

And norwegians gets the CV 90 + JET.

Well, basically, this is not fixed, i can change this as much as i want. Its going to have to go through a "test" process to see if its balanced or not.

Im not going to spend alot of time on the "Assets" until the end time of the map, but it is the one thing that shapes the gameplay of a map, and thats also what sets the tone of it.

So its important the Community can have a say so in this. But remember these are only suggestions. And i cant promise anything

Honestly, i would like the 64 Version to have 5 CV90 + 2 412 Bell for norgies
For MEC 5 BMP3, + 2 transport Helicopters.

But would that be balanced? If the CV9030 had more speed?
Its max velocity is 70 kmph

But the BMP3 is known for its imencive firepower. And has a higher speed velocity than the CV9030. With 75 on road, and 45 off road.

But the CV has 620 Hp while the BMP 3 only has 500
So the CV is stronger, which one is more effective for Desert warfare, and in the map i created, which one will be superrior?

The only way to find out? Test. Infantry combat might have alot of say so, as AT rockets and AT emplacements in my map might have a tactical advantage in form of surprise, camouflage aswell as cover.

Since i might add, my own belief of the fact that the CV90 most probably will loose, if it would be possible to drop a TOW rocket from the back of the CV90, as its known in the Norwegian army to have TOW teams working from APCs.

Please let me know what you think

~~sakils2~~ · 2009-05-30, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedAlertSF

1) I don't know about map's terrain but I believe that a tank would be less mobile, giving some advantage for Norwegians, as the CV90 isn't heavily armored. If MEC gets BTR-90 back in the future, it would be good option too. I just think that BMP-3's rockets are overpowered.
2) Well it's an anti-tank rocket anyway. Are you happier if I call it AT-10 or 9M117?

1) Give more CV90 to the BluFor.
2) Yes.

Wicca · 2009-05-31, 10:06

Well if we could drop TOWs from the back of the CV9030, by pressing, X and then engage targets such as the BMP3, that would be nice.

But, giving the Bluefor a JET, could that be done too? Would that balance it? we can try...

2009-05-30, 14:40	#21
~~sakils2~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,366 Latvia Location: Riga, Latvia\| Northern Europe	Re: [Map] Northern Afghanistan (WIP name) So, in layer 2 and 3 MEC won't get crap?

2009-05-30, 14:58	#22
Rangu Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 827 Norway Location: Akershus	Re: [Map] Northern Afghanistan (WIP name) nah, I think he just forgot to write up the vehicles on the MEC side, as he said he wanted it to be symetrical.

2009-05-30, 14:58	#23
RedAlertSF Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 875 Finland Location: Espoo, Finland	Re: [Map] Northern Afghanistan (WIP name) I like the idea of Norwegians having only CV90 but I think MEC should get at least some tanks instead of BMPs. The BMP is pure rape on tracks. The autocannon is crazy and it still has the TOW. Way too overpowered, because I think CV90 has just a cannon? Anyway, I like the idea of having Norway fighting against MEC. Keep the good work up! EDIT: Oh CV90 has autocannon too but still no TOW. :/

	Last edited by RedAlertSF; 2009-05-30 at 15:06..

2009-05-30, 16:22	#24
HeXeY Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,149 Norway Location: Vadsø	Re: [Map] Northern Afghanistan (WIP name) As PR is set a few years in the future (says so all around the forums) tank could be added. We don't know what Diesen might do when he gets the position as "Forsvarssjef" (Chief of Defence? )

2009-05-30, 16:31	#26
Zimmer Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,066 Norway	Re: [Map] Northern Afghanistan (WIP name) BMP-3 has something called AT-10 or something like that as far as I know.
Zimmer Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,066 Norway	People don't realize that autism doesn't mean they're "stupid". Just socially inept. Like rhino... > > or in a worst case scenario... Wicca. =)- Lithium fox I found this sentence quite funny and since this is a war game forum I will put it here. No offense to the french just a good laugh. "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you do is leave behind a lot of noisy baggage."

2009-05-30, 18:30	#28
Wicca Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 7,315 Norway Location: Vestfold	Re: [Map] Northern Afghanistan (WIP name) Yes its going to be assymetrical. What i wrote is just a suggestion nothing is fixed, except for basics. What is the basics? Its going to be AAS Its going to be Norway VS MEC And its going to be 4X4 Its going to contain villages Its going to be desert warfare with mountains and valleys. Its supposed to be tough terrain hard to come through unless you choose the right route, like roads. So, what if, the MEC gets the BMP 3 + T 90, but no jet? And norwegians gets the CV 90 + JET. Well, basically, this is not fixed, i can change this as much as i want. Its going to have to go through a "test" process to see if its balanced or not. Im not going to spend alot of time on the "Assets" until the end time of the map, but it is the one thing that shapes the gameplay of a map, and thats also what sets the tone of it. So its important the Community can have a say so in this. But remember these are only suggestions. And i cant promise anything Honestly, i would like the 64 Version to have 5 CV90 + 2 412 Bell for norgies For MEC 5 BMP3, + 2 transport Helicopters. But would that be balanced? If the CV9030 had more speed? Its max velocity is 70 kmph But the BMP3 is known for its imencive firepower. And has a higher speed velocity than the CV9030. With 75 on road, and 45 off road. But the CV has 620 Hp while the BMP 3 only has 500 So the CV is stronger, which one is more effective for Desert warfare, and in the map i created, which one will be superrior? The only way to find out? Test. Infantry combat might have alot of say so, as AT rockets and AT emplacements in my map might have a tactical advantage in form of surprise, camouflage aswell as cover. Since i might add, my own belief of the fact that the CV90 most probably will loose, if it would be possible to drop a TOW rocket from the back of the CV90, as its known in the Norwegian army to have TOW teams working from APCs. Please let me know what you think
	Xact Wicca is The Joker. That is all.

2009-05-31, 10:06	#30
Wicca Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 7,315 Norway Location: Vestfold	Re: [Map] Northern Afghanistan (WIP name) Well if we could drop TOWs from the back of the CV9030, by pressing, X and then engage targets such as the BMP3, that would be nice. But, giving the Bluefor a JET, could that be done too? Would that balance it? we can try...
	Xact Wicca is The Joker. That is all.