CoH: Modern Combat

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:He was referring to Middle Eastern soldiers as cowards. I disagree; say what you want about their ideologies and politics, but taking on planes, drones and gunships armed only with Kalashnikovs and RPGs requires massive balls. The Afghanis for example have fought against the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the USA. Most nations wouldn't have lasted a month against any of those superpowers.

Afghanistan is called "Grave of Empires" in our history books, cause they're extremely tough enemy to any invaders.
But forces of Saddam and Gaddafi collapses really fast, that's true. (BTW, they say Gaddafi is the only man in the world who annoyed all five permanent members of UN at the same time.)

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:OT: The M1A2 and M1A2 TUSK seem fine to me, although the M1A1 does seem to go down a bit too easily.

They all currently have the same main gun stats, however the M1A1 has 800 HP, the M1A2 has 900 HP and the TUSK has 950 HP. Might be worth increasing M1A1 HP and cost to to 850?

In my opinion, for Hardcore mode, light armor like PTZ-89 and Stryker ATGM would be destroyed in one "General Antitank Shot"(TOW or Type 59 main gun), medium armor like Type 59D and Bradley sometimes would take two. However, although MBTs has more HP, they wouldn't survive when take the second attack, which makes the extra HP kind of useless.
In my opinion, increase HP of MBTs to about 1000 so that they could bear 3 or more attack would be better.

South wrote:One more thing to remind you, PLA is not cowards, saying this will offend Chinese players in the forum.

I never said that they were.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:He was referring to Middle Eastern soldiers as cowards. I disagree; say what you want about their ideologies and politics, but taking on planes, drones and gunships armed only with Kalashnikovs and RPGs requires massive balls. The Afghanis for example have fought against the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the USA. Most nations wouldn't have lasted a month against any of those superpowers.



OT: The M1A2 and M1A2 TUSK seem fine to me, although the M1A1 does seem to go down a bit too easily.

They all currently have the same main gun stats, however the M1A1 has 800 HP, the M1A2 has 900 HP and the TUSK has 950 HP. Might be worth increasing M1A1 HP and cost to to 850?

I respect your opinion and your right to disagree, but as someone that has fought them, I will strongly disagree with you. Perhaps you could argue that their regular military was brave to attempt to stand against us, but look how long they lasted before they dropped their weapons and hid among the population. Hiding an IED and then acting like you're a NC when it blows up is not courageous. Kidnapping a man's family and threatening them with death unless they cooperate with you, and blow themselves up, is not courageous. Hiding among the women and children in your family during the day, and digging IEDs at night is not courageous. AK47s and RPGs are not the weapons they use against us. They last because they know how to use our values against us. They hide and wait among people they supposedly care about because they know we take every precaution not to harm innocents. Call that what you want, I call it cowardice.

Back on topic. I still haven't played as anything but the Marine Corps, so all of my opinion is based on the M1A1. I think I said that, but if not, I just wanted to clarify that. I would agree that the Abrams could use a small boost. I'm not saying it need to be ridiculously overhauled. Just some adjustments to make it worth paying for.

chinatown90 wrote:I want to say, this is a game forum, not a real war.

This is a game forum, dedicated to a somewhat "realistic" style of gameplay. Balance obviously comes first, but the "real-world" aspects of things should also come into discussion.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:He was referring to Middle Eastern soldiers as cowards. I disagree; say what you want about their ideologies and politics, but taking on planes, drones and gunships armed only with Kalashnikovs and RPGs requires massive balls. The Afghanis for example have fought against the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the USA. Most nations wouldn't have lasted a month against any of those superpowers.

Definetly!

SnowBlaZeR2 wrote:I respect your opinion and your right to disagree, but as someone that has fought them, I will strongly disagree with you. Perhaps you could argue that their regular military was brave to attempt to stand against us, but look how long they lasted before they dropped their weapons and hid among the population. Hiding an IED and then acting like you're a NC when it blows up is not courageous. Kidnapping a man's family and threatening them with death unless they cooperate with you, and blow themselves up, is not courageous. Hiding among the women and children in your family during the day, and digging IEDs at night is not courageous. AK47s and RPGs are not the weapons they use against us. They last because they know how to use our values against us. They hide and wait among people they supposedly care about because they know we take every precaution not to harm innocents. Call that what you want, I call it cowardice.

Back on topic. I still haven't played as anything but the Marine Corps, so all of my opinion is based on the M1A1. I think I said that, but if not, I just wanted to clarify that. I would agree that the Abrams could use a small boost. I'm not saying it need to be ridiculously overhauled. Just some adjustments to make it worth paying for.

They're doing the smart thing and figthing you in a way you so can't easily fight back. They're working as a resistance movement now which is the way you fight when you don't have a military.


Judging balance from one factions perspective is hard to justify....

Campaigner wrote:They're doing the smart thing and figthing you in a way you so can't easily fight back. They're working as a resistance movement now which is the way you fight when you don't have a military.


Judging balance from one factions perspective is hard to justify....

I'm not discussing it any further.

It's really quite easy to justify. I'm not judging balance, I'm judging the way one single unit works in the game. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, no matter what perspective you look at it from.

SnowBlazer wrote:Back on topic. I still haven't played as anything but the Marine Corps, so all of my opinion is based on the M1A1. I think I said that, but if not, I just wanted to clarify that. I would agree that the Abrams could use a small boost. I'm not saying it need to be ridiculously overhauled. Just some adjustments to make it worth paying for.

Try to imagine a war which is much more cruel than the war you've experienced, or ask your grandfather how cruel the Korean war is.