CoH: Modern Combat

Many players are complaining about the lack of US artillery support while PLA have two MRLS.
Type 89 can make single fire as well as barrage, however Paladin can not. If Paladin can make single direct fire shot, US will get a powerful weapon to counterattack on PLA's artillery superiority, and make up the lack on direct fire support(US now only has Stryker MGS while PLA has Type 59D and ZBD2000 with 105mm)

We will be changing the MLRS setup from the Chinese in the upcoming patches and they will not have direct fire anymore.
Also don't forget the Stryker ATGM

PLA have artillery but US has fastmoving vehicles that can be configured to damage infantry, vehicles or both.
You build either T3 OR T4 with the PLA. Not sure I've ever seen any game where the PLA player built both T3 AND T4. The artillerypieces are also different and the tier 3 one are only strong vs infantry.

The two factions have different things but can still compete on a somewhat even playing field.
I don't want any buffs what so ever to the US.

Have the AT4 automatic...more dmg, less accurate, little less fire rate would be nice.

Darkbladecr wrote:We will be changing the MLRS setup from the Chinese in the upcoming patches and they will not have direct fire anymore.
Also don't forget the Stryker ATGM

Stryker ATGM is too weak vs infantry..What players of US players needed is cannon fire which effective to both intantry and armor, not missiles. (US Army have already realized their fault of "missile is everything". For this reason they abandoned M551, M60A2 and MBT70, which replaced their cannon by missile completely)
Way to make game more balance is not only weaken the stronger side, but mainly enhance the weaker side.

Darkbladecr wrote:We will be changing the MLRS setup from the Chinese in the upcoming patches and they will not have direct fire anymore.
Also don't forget the Stryker ATGM

And also, MRL 89 without single fire will make no difference from MRL 81.

spartasmaximus wrote:Have the AT4 automatic...more dmg, less accurate, little less fire rate would be nice.

No.

South wrote:Stryker ATGM is too weak vs infantry..What players of US players needed is cannon fire which effective to both intantry and armor, not missiles.

DB was referring to the "lack of direct-fire support" mentioned in the OP.

South wrote:And also, MRL 89 without single fire will make no difference from MRL 81.

You'll see.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

South wrote:Stryker ATGM is too weak vs infantry..What players of US players needed is cannon fire which effective to both intantry and armor, not missiles.

DB was referring to the "lack of direct-fire support" mentioned in the OP.

I think I didn't make it clear..I meant "direct cannon fore which both effective VS infantry and armor".

Well what about the Bradley?