CoH: Modern Combat

1. About tanks - top gunner switchIn modern combat, the machinegun on the top of the tanks are operated by the commander of the tank. which means he would be slower on marking the target and command the crew when he's operating the machinegun.
My idea is, giving every tank (and/or vehicle) a "machinegun switch" ability. When the machinegun is switched off, the vehicle works as usual, and when the machinegun is switched on, the commander will get out and operate the machinegun, and the aiming time and accuracy of the vehicle will significantly decreased.
2.About Marine factions - mobile barrack
Since we are looking for something different between Army and Marine, making AAVP7A1 of Marine a "mobile barrack" would be a great idea. This would also deal with the confusion of T2 unit list of Marine faction.
My adea is, AAVP7A1 would become a call-in unit and its number is limited to 2 or 4. When it locked down in captured territory, it would work as a barrack and a casualty evacuation point. A little bit like British barracks of vCoH.
3. About Bradley - ERA module
There's ERA modules of Bradley which gives Bradley the protection of against RPG-7 from all sides(similar to the protection level of T59D). Joining this as a upgrade into the game would make up the shortage of US fations that not having non-doctrinal heavy armor.

The top-dunner idea is a bit iffy - it's supposed to be a veterancy upgrade, thus allowing you to gain some extra firepower versus infantry. And giving such a big nerf to the accuracy and aim time of the vehicle just for one MG isn't worth it. And what about the upgraded top gunners for tanks, like the PLA has? Will that also get this?

Meh on the AAV. I'd have to see how that turns out, although I don't think it'll make it very far.

So, armoring the Bradley like a tank? Still doesn't make up for it's weak-ass gun against tanks.

The Soldier wrote:The top-dunner idea is a bit iffy - it's supposed to be a veterancy upgrade, thus allowing you to gain some extra firepower versus infantry. And giving such a big nerf to the accuracy and aim time of the vehicle just for one MG isn't worth it. And what about the upgraded top gunners for tanks, like the PLA has? Will that also get this?

Meh on the AAV. I'd have to see how that turns out, although I don't think it'll make it very far.

So, armoring the Bradley like a tank? Still doesn't make up for it's weak-ass gun against tanks.

For top gunner, just wanna increase surivibility of vehicles a little bit without infantry with them while not breaking balance for too much. Maybe decrease of accuracy is not nessecary since the gunner is still in the vehicle.
I came up with this idea when I see AI's Stryker ATGM still have a machinegunner after upgraged to ATGM, and killed my whole tank hunter squad before I make a single shot. It seems like a bug, but really interesting and kind of realistic.

For Bradleys, at least they have TOWs. Just make players stop complaining about "Light armors too light"

By the way, the Marine faction still not having some direct-fire support. @SnowBlazer, do you know if USMC have any LAV-600 with 105mm gun in their recon battalion? I've heard about there are LAV-600 in Delta Company of 2nd LAR battalion.

I don't think any of the factions has direct fire support.

South wrote:@SnowBlazer, do you know if USMC have any LAV-600 with 105mm gun in their recon battalion? I've heard about there are LAV-600 in Delta Company of 2nd LAR battalion.

We didn't have any in our company, and I don't think 2nd LAR had any. I've actually never seen one, so I don't know who, if anyone uses them.

The Soldier wrote:I don't think any of the factions has direct fire support.

I meant the weapon like Stryker MGS, Type59D and such "cannon" type weapon...maybe I didn't make it clear. You know, my English is poor

http://www.acfun.tv/v/ac808270
Something about PLA infantry anti-tank tactics, maybe you guys would like to read it.

I take those and anti-tank, not so much direct fire support. Otherwise pretty much everything would be that, wouldn't it?

South wrote:My idea is, giving every tank (and/or vehicle) a "machinegun switch" ability. When the machinegun is switched off, the vehicle works as usual, and when the machinegun is switched on, the commander will get out and operate the machinegun, and the aiming time and accuracy of the vehicle will significantly decreased.

Seems a bit pointless to be honest. I think the current system is probably simplest and more intuitive.

South wrote:making AAVP7A1 of Marine a "mobile barrack" would be a great idea. This would also deal with the confusion of T2 unit list of Marine faction.
My adea is, AAVP7A1 would become a call-in unit and its number is limited to 2 or 4. When it locked down in captured territory, it would work as a barrack and a casualty evacuation point.

What confusion? I don't understand.

Adopting the British mobile barracks mechanic sounds OK in theory, but I don't think we should mess with the current tech tree for balance reasons. We just don't have the manpower at this stage of development to make huge sweeping changes like that.

South wrote:Bradley - ERA module

I suggested this on the old forums, and IIRC we agreed that it could work. So maybe, we'll see.