CoH: Modern Combat

The Chinese tank is a standard tank, available without any doctrines. There's GOT to be some tradeoff for it being ubiquitous, compared to the Abrams, which is the last doctrine unlock in two doctrines, and costs a pretty penny with MP. Same goes for both game modes.

The follow ability, as Spoon said, seems a bit unneeded. Just takes an extra second or so to get the vehicle to follow. It's also got less finesse to it and is MUCH more vulnerable to AT weapons, since it's rather difficult to select it.

I don't really mind if the buildings can be rotated - good if it works, good if it doesn't.

Most of that balance stuff with the PF-98 I can't say much about. Although in one of the dev versions, we've buffed it a bit AFAIK.

The Soldier wrote:The Chinese tank is a standard tank, available without any doctrines. There's GOT to be some tradeoff for it being ubiquitous, compared to the Abrams, which is the last doctrine unlock in two doctrines, and costs a pretty penny with MP. Same goes for both game modes.

The follow ability, as Spoon said, seems a bit unneeded. Just takes an extra second or so to get the vehicle to follow. It's also got less finesse to it and is MUCH more vulnerable to AT weapons, since it's rather difficult to select it.

I don't really mind if the buildings can be rotated - good if it works, good if it doesn't.

Most of that balance stuff with the PF-98 I can't say much about. Although in one of the dev versions, we've buffed it a bit AFAIK.

well... In my opinion the PF-98 need to be upgrade because this unit need to be unlocked (this gift should have something good), if you compare the AT 100 mm cannon against the PF-98 you can see the AT is better than the last mentioned...

I preffer build a 100 mm AT cannon than the PF-98 and the AT cannon cost is only 105 manpower and you can build it from the game start without any requirement... and I need mentioned this 100mm cannon can penetrate and destroy a abrams with 3 or 4 shots...

In my personal opinion all AT guns (cannons, missile emplecement, rocked launcher, RPG, AT4, PF-98) should be completly effective against vehicle because this is their main funtion and does not have other funtion... (AT weapon that does not destroy tanks?? that is insane...)

the good example that what should make an AT weapon is the U.S AT emplacement... is really effective against armor but easy to destroy by soldier unit... the PF-98 should be like this U.S emplacement.

Like I said before, there still has to be an ounce of balance in the game. Infantry weapons HAVE to be less effective than Heavy Weapons like the 100mm AT gun because they have much more mobility and are a much harder target to hit. Image your tank getting ingratiated time after time again by an AT4 or the Carl Gustav. It gets VERY annoying, I can assure you that. Same goes with the AT guns/launchers, though they have more slip because they either need to be be built in the field or have to set up.

By the way, the Chinese can get a doctrinal PF-98 TOW launcher. It's so much better than the US one simply because it can actually move, as well as set up in buildings if I remember. (that is, if you were talking about the PF-98 on the SOP unit)

The Soldier wrote:Like I said before, there still has to be an ounce of balance in the game. Infantry weapons HAVE to be less effective than Heavy Weapons like the 100mm AT gun because they have much more mobility and are a much harder target to hit. Image your tank getting ingratiated time after time again by an AT4 or the Carl Gustav. It gets VERY annoying, I can assure you that. Same goes with the AT guns/launchers, though they have more slip because they either need to be be built in the field or have to set up.

By the way, the Chinese can get a doctrinal PF-98 TOW launcher. It's so much better than the US one simply because it can actually move, as well as set up in buildings if I remember. (that is, if you were talking about the PF-98 on the SOP unit)

no, my brother you do not understand me...

I saidthe PF-98 has low power if you try to compare this weapon with the 100mm AT cannon power...

the 100mm in this game cause more damage than the PF-98 but the PF-98 need to be unlocked...

this do not have sense for me... when you use the 100mm canno around 90% of shots will make a positive impact but when you use the PF-98 is only 50% of shots will make a positive impact, this is too much low percentage for this weapon...

I am saying: use the PF-98 against a Abrams is like kill a elephant with pinching....

yes, the PF-98 can be moved but in Harcore you have not unit limits that means you can build U.S AT emplecament how many you wants...

The PF-98 has much more mobility than the 100 AT gun. So you can properly flank with it, thus means it can't just penetrate everything.

The Soldier wrote:The PF-98 has much more mobility than the 100 AT gun. So you can properly flank with it, thus means it can't just penetrate everything.

I continue waiting the photo of a real M1A2 abrams with tiger eyes and mouth....

If you say the PLA PF-98 is great, it is because you never play against the U.S army...

or play against the PC on "easy" difficulty because the PC never builds the abrams tank because it is too much stupid to do it....

I personally added all vehicles in their respective factory to give more chance for PC could builds these vehicles.... to make the game more interesting...

Now, the PC builds heavy tanks like abrams, type 99 , type 96 between others...

I suggest this idea before but they tell me that make unbalance game, I do not know why if you need unlock the vehicle in the command tree before have access to him...

Like I said, it's an intimidation factor. Why are tiger eyes and a mouth painted on Spitfires and Cobras? I ask you that.

I never said it was great - I only backed up the fact that it has lower penetration. I've used it times myself and it seems fine at destroying everything up until the Abrams.

Something called balance, as you said yourself. This isn't a computer-dominated mod, it's made to be played by someone with a mind, on both sides of the map.

The Soldier wrote:Like I said, it's an intimidation factor. Why are tiger eyes and a mouth painted on Spitfires and Cobras? I ask you that.

I never said it was great - I only backed up the fact that it has lower penetration. I've used it times myself and it seems fine at destroying everything up until the Abrams.

Something called balance, as you said yourself. This isn't a computer-dominated mod, it's made to be played by someone with a mind, on both sides of the map.

when you paint a mouth on a AH1W super cobra look like a Shark because is slim, faster, powerful and it has a tail like a shark without mention this chopper is for Marines (fishes).... it looks great

but when you paint the same thing on a M1A2 it looks like a elephant or Mamut because is big, robust, heavy and his cannon looks like the elephant trunk...

you need try to destroy a M1A2 using the PF-98 if you want understand what I am talking about...this weapon is not good enough to be something special...

Then I can say the tiger eyes are for intimidation. And I can say that those teeth and eyes look stupid on the Spitfire and Cobra.

Like I said before, in the dev version w're buffed the PF-98 a bit. And you don't think I've actually done that myself?

AAMC4 wrote:first the canister shot does not work if the infantry is behind a sandbags or any defensive position.... it is stupid using At team to engage a tank on a open space, they deserve be killed....for other way this ability can not used to engage Mg nest, MG team, AT cannon, vehicles or Mortar team... It can be used for it...

It's an interesting concept, but IMO canister rounds are probably more likely to end up in a SP mission. Although I wouldn't rule it out entirely for MP, it seems like something that could make our MBTs seriously overpowered. It would definitely be a trump card against Javelin Teams, Tank Hunters, PF-98 Teams, etc. Even T86 AT guns (with their green cover) would be affected, especially if flanked.

AAMC4 wrote:I always suggest make the type 88 100 mm cannon more efective aganist Abrams, I saw a little change but not much...

In my experience the T86 is noticeably more potent against the Abrams since 1.016. I really don't think it needs to be more powerful, not for 300 manpower.

AAMC4 wrote:I do not know why if the PF 98 is a weapon only shrinkable on specific doctrine, why this weapon does not produce enough damage for vehicles, the las time I played, I saw my pf98 make 5 shot and all of them bounced on the M1A2 frontal armor... this weapon is garbage...you need upgrade this weapon....

I just tested in-game and agree somewhat, it does seem slightly lacking in comparison to the T86.

Giving it a HE (high-explosive) missile ability could be interesting...

AAMC4 wrote:I do not know why the direct fire does not work for you because I added this ability and everything work fine.

We were experiencing frequent CTDs related to the ability and it was easier to just drop it than try to fix it. Direct fire isn't really necessary anyway...

AAMC4 wrote:the follow ability can be used if you really want use it. This is optional.... and does not need lot of modification ....

It just seems superfluous. It provides no real benefit, only preventing a negligible amount of micro and cluttering up the UI.

AAMC4 wrote:I added the rotation buildings and it does not produce any conflict with AI contruction.. I proved... I do not know what problem you saw...

When I suggested this before release I was advised (by people in the know) that it can cause AI problems. I'm no expert... but better to be safe than sorry. There may be problems behind the scenes that you just aren't aware of.

AAMC4 wrote:I only make suggestion to add more thing on this game to avoid be boring....

You think MC is boring?