CoH: Modern Combat

chainsaw wrote:I understand what you said. In real world, MBT is not that unvulnerable. But one thing is, vcoh and its mod Modern Combat is not that real. It is just a game for competition, not a simulator. Besides, what you required is the vision of MBT will be blocked by the terrain or buildings. But in vcoh and its mod, the vision cannot be blocked because of the game engine.( coh2 has more real vision of a unit. if the work is on coh2, this can be discussed again).

I agree with you.The Coh is just a game.And I hope the game and Modern Cmobat will be better.Maybe we can play Coh2:Modern Combat one day.I just want to say that tanks could be an important part of the MC.And I have some other suggestions.We all hope MC will be better and better.

chinatown90 wrote:Delete the Type 86 AT Gun and the Type 81 MLRS.They are too old and should be decommissioned.

From what I've read online, the Type 81 is only 5-7 years older than the PHZ89 and still fairly commonplace?

The Type 86 is also younger than the Abrams, although we're currently reviewing how it functions in-game.

chinatown90 wrote:Give PLA ATV an upgrade of QJZ-89 12.7mm HMG.It's like the Bren Gun Carrier “Vickers Machine Gun” upgrade.If the player upgrade the QJZ-89,the QBB-95 LSW can also work,but the ATV can't capture Strategic Points.

The ATV will be subject to some major changes over the next few patches.

chinatown90 wrote:I am a Chinese and I can't speak English well.

You both have better sentence structure and grammar than most of my friends.

Although you should put spaces after punctuation marks such as commas and full stops (<- and before brackets).

South wrote:

chinatown90 wrote:In PLA,the political instructor can also be a commander.We see many political instructors command the forces in films and TV plays(Although some of them are unexpected and boring).They are important.I hope a commissar or a political instructor can appear in Coh:Modern Combat.

For battle command, Political instructors are backup of the company commanders, they take the authority of command when the company commander is out of action. However, I agree that having officers in the game will be more fun.

We've discussed commanders/officers for singleplayer, but I doubt they'll appear in multiplayer this late in development.

Type 86 AT Gun is a improved version of Type 73 AT gun. And Type 73 is the Chinese version of Soviet 100mm AT Gun… Now PLA have used PTL-02 Assault Gun instead of Type 86. PTL-02 has a 100mm smoothbore gun that is the same as Type 86 AT Gun. PTL-02 also has a 12.7mm HMG. And, the PF-98 is a better idea than Type 86.
M1 is older than the Type 86, but the M1A1 and the M1A2 is much younger than the Type 86.
Type 81 is also too old. Some news said that PLA have used Type 90 or Type 90A 122mm MLRS instead of Type 81.

chinatown90 wrote:Type 86 AT Gun is a improved version of Type 73 AT gun. And Type 73 is the Chinese version of Soviet 100mm AT Gun… Now PLA have used PTL-02 Assault Gun instead of Type 86. PTL-02 has a 100mm smoothbore gun that is the same as Type 86 AT Gun. PTL-02 also has a 12.7mm HMG. And, the PF-98 is a better idea than Type 86.
M1 is older than the Type 86, but the M1A1 and the M1A2 is much younger than the Type 86.
Type 81 is also too old. Some news said that PLA have used Type 90 or Type 90A 122mm MLRS instead of Type 81.

Seems the differences between Type 81 and Type 90/90A is only chassis and airdrop capacity?

South wrote:

chinatown90 wrote:Type 86 AT Gun is a improved version of Type 73 AT gun. And Type 73 is the Chinese version of Soviet 100mm AT Gun… Now PLA have used PTL-02 Assault Gun instead of Type 86. PTL-02 has a 100mm smoothbore gun that is the same as Type 86 AT Gun. PTL-02 also has a 12.7mm HMG. And, the PF-98 is a better idea than Type 86.
M1 is older than the Type 86, but the M1A1 and the M1A2 is much younger than the Type 86.
Type 81 is also too old. Some news said that PLA have used Type 90 or Type 90A 122mm MLRS instead of Type 81.

Seems the differences between Type 81 and Type 90/90A is only chassis and airdrop capacity?

Maybe. But we can use other things, such as PCL-09 122mm MOBAT or the PLL-09 122mm Self-Propelled Howitzer. I prefer the PLL-09. We can use ZBL-09 instead of ZBD-05 and use PTL-09 105mm instead of ZTD-05. Then use PLL-09 instead of Type 81. And the ZBL-09 will have PTL-09 and PLL-09 upgrade.
Or we can use PLZ-07B 122mm Amphibious Self-Propelled Howitzer instead of Type 81. It is a 122mm howitzer version of ZBD-05. I think the ZBD-05 can have a PLZ-07B upgrade.

^ That would be a lot of work.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:^ That would be a lot of work.

Yes. But now the US have many mortars or mortar carriers (M242 60mm, M106A2 107mm and M1129 120mm Stryker MC). PLA only have a PP87 82mm mortar. I don't know how many player will (or can) build the Tier 4 building and produce the PHZ89. But in the 1.015 PLA have Type 81. Now we don't have Type 81. We can use PLZ-07B 122mm Amphibious Self-Propelled Howitzer (122mm howitzer version of ZBD-05).

Thing is, the PLA artillery outranges ALL US artillery, even the 81mm mortar will outrange the 120mm Styker mortar in both Standard and Hardcore. The rocket launcher - even more so. And there's a reason why heavy artillery like the US's 155mm Palidan has to be doctrinal - it's damn powerful and has an epic first strike capability.

The Soldier wrote:Thing is, the PLA artillery outranges ALL US artillery, even the 81mm mortar will outrange the 120mm Styker mortar in both Standard and Hardcore. The rocket launcher - even more so. And there's a reason why heavy artillery like the US's 155mm Palidan has to be doctrinal - it's damn powerful and has an epic first strike capability.

In China our players don't think so. In the 1.015 and the earlier versions, we call China “Bomb Better”. But in the 1.016, we call the US “Bomb Better”. Thing is, many Chinese players think that the M1129 Stryker MC is too powerful but the PLA PHZ89 is too useless. Another thing is, the US both have M777 Bombardment and M109A6 Self-Propelled Howitzer but PLA only have PHL03 Rocket Bombardment. PLA doesn't have a Self-Propelled Artillery.

chinatown90 wrote:

The Soldier wrote:Thing is, the PLA artillery outranges ALL US artillery, even the 81mm mortar will outrange the 120mm Styker mortar in both Standard and Hardcore. The rocket launcher - even more so. And there's a reason why heavy artillery like the US's 155mm Palidan has to be doctrinal - it's damn powerful and has an epic first strike capability.

In China our players don't think so. In the 1.015 and the earlier versions, we call China “Bomb Better”. But in the 1.016, we call the US “Bomb Better”. Thing is, many Chinese players think that the M1129 Stryker MC is too powerful but the PLA PHZ89 is too useless. Another thing is, the US both have M777 Bombardment and M109A6 Self-Propelled Howitzer but PLA only have PHL03 Rocket Bombardment. PLA doesn't have a Self-Propelled Artillery.

Maybe translate "炸逼(Bomb Better)" into "Barrage Bastard" would be easier to understand?
In 1.014, PHL89 has the same role as M109A6. However it was weakened too much in 1.016 I think.