Page 2 of 4
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:12 pm
by South
South wrote:Talking about ABV, I have another idea.
The line charge of ABV can be launched to 350 feet(about 100m) away, and it has 5 pound(about 2.25kg) C4 explosive on each foot(30cm) - enough to make a havoc in a well defended position. If it can destroy mine and IED, it can also stun infantry, destroy bridges, and even destroy bunkers, only put some more C4 on the line charge.
ABV in game will fire 3 or more satchel charge spread in a line one time, and it detonate once they dropped on the ground. It is effective vs bridge, garrisoned building, and bunker. it can also stun/shock infantry and disable light armor/vehicle.
Marine didn't engage large quantity of ambushed infantry or bunker in Afghanistan, but it doesn't mean ABV can't deal with it. During Chinese Civil War, PLA uses barrels to launch satchel charge like mortars, to destroy bunkers of ROC Army(and even use it as howitzer. PLA don't have their howitzer that time), and it's proved very effective(for this reason it was given the name "Inhuman cannon" or "没良心炮"by ROC soldiers). Useing line charges to destroy bunkers is a lot in the similar way.
Anyone read this?
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:43 am
by South
Here's another one:
Replace M2A3 Bradley of Marine faction with Warhammer Bradley - which has it TOW replaced by Javelin. Warhammer Bradley fires ammo-free Javelin missiles and has the ability of vertical strike on enemy armor.
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:06 am
by The Soldier
Eh...the Bradley is supposed to be more of a general anti-everything vehicle. I see no reason for replacing the Bradley with an even more powerful version of it.
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:59 am
by South
The Soldier wrote:Eh...the Bradley is supposed to be more of a general anti-everything vehicle. I see no reason for replacing the Bradley with an even more powerful version of it.
However PLA have Type 59D……US factions don't have some "real" tank is what US factions players are now complaining about, and that's why 59D are weakened to a level which even don't look like a tank.
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:46 pm
by The Soldier
I find the Bradley's TOW missile is good enough to do the job. Deters the T59 or you can lure it into the TOW missile emplacement you get.
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:04 pm
by South
The Soldier wrote:I find the Bradley's TOW missile is good enough to do the job. Deters the T59 or you can lure it into the TOW missile emplacement you get.
I forgot another faction..in next version seems marine faction will get M1A1 instead of M1A2, which has weaker armor than M1A2.
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:04 pm
by The Soldier
Far as I can see, that's not happeneing.
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:33 pm
by South
The Soldier wrote:Far as I can see, that's not happeneing.
Yeah..still, I'm looking forward to something completely different between Army and Marine.
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:03 pm
by I_am_a_Spoon
The ABV sounds fun on paper, but the M58 line charges would just function too unconventionally for a game like CoH. Ultimately it just isn't designed well enough for front-line combat.
That said, we'd prefer not to go the CoH2 route and have identical M1A1s for two separate doctrines...
Re: Some suggestions about changes of Marine faction
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:16 pm
by The Soldier
Like I said, why not the 105mm M1 Abrams? I find that it fits the role perfectly - it's pretty much an up-armored 105mm Stryker. Just like the T-57 for the Chinese.
