Mgallun74
|
|
« on: June 05, 2009, 09:22:51 am » |
|
Iam running a infantry doc... but, when i get a reinforce package.. i was curious if there is any chance of putting the t17 in the Armor reinforcment?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Scyn
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2009, 09:24:54 am » |
|
There's a chance, but we'd be removing something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
God is a genetically induced obsession that we interpret in such a way as to maintain our obedience.
|
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2009, 09:32:08 am » |
|
thats fine with me, because as it stands now, me being infantry there is nothing in the US Armor Doc that would make it worth my time getting, all it would do is up the number of units i could get, nothing doc specific etc..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Scyn
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2009, 09:36:10 am » |
|
Probably at best we'd replace the Quad.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2009, 09:40:12 am » |
|
Probably at best we'd replace the Quad.
that would be cool, would give either airborne or infantry us users a reason to choose armor reinforcements... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
 Posts: 18379
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2009, 09:40:36 am » |
|
We'll probably make some minor adjustments for the TOV units indeed, perhaps the geschutzwagen can be added in the terror reinforcement package as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2009, 09:49:52 am » |
|
We'll probably make some minor adjustments for the TOV units indeed, perhaps the geschutzwagen can be added in the terror reinforcement package as well.
sounds cool to me.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
 Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2009, 10:17:46 am » |
|
You should better replace the ATG with the T17, rather than the Quad. I mean, an ATG already is a bit "out of place" in an armor reinforcements package, and noone actualy needs one in the first place - brits already have a 6 pdr, so the only people that would have taken it a few months ago won't take it anymore :S.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AmPM
Community Mapper
 Posts: 7978
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2009, 10:22:37 am » |
|
On the same token, you don't want to add so much light vehicle availability to it that it allows non armor companies to spam them. You are already looking at 4 quads with that Reinforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2009, 12:03:18 pm » |
|
But, with "armor reinforcements" it kind of fits in to recieve armor reinforcements. 4 Quads is hardly spam, and was the standard issued number of quads per company before the patch.
On the subject of spam, however, 6 ATGs is also overdoing it in an essence, no?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AmPM
Community Mapper
Posts: 7978
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2009, 12:12:26 pm » |
|
I would agree actually, 6 ATGs is a little much.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RikiRude
Donator
 Posts: 4376
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2009, 12:49:10 pm » |
|
but what if i was TR and wanted some extra ATG spam?
But I agree, first "war" of EIRR as brits I got the reinforcements because I NEEDED those 57's, it was also nice having a sherman in there as well. But now if i was running the same battalion, i wouldn't because i have the 6 pounders.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea" ... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid |
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2009, 01:04:10 pm » |
|
Well, i dont know why atgs would be in a armor reinforcement... its armor? sherman? m10? m18, croc t17, m8 should be options for the armor reinforement, give the brit users some more choices etc...
do we currently have a list of whats in the reinforcement packages?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Latios418
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2009, 01:28:56 pm » |
|
Why would you put the t17 in a reinforcement package when both factions have it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Anonymous 06/19/09(Fri)11:55 No.4931966
Is Akranadas in this thread? Fucker can't stop bragging about his "waifu taldeer" and cosplaying in an eldar farseer costume while shouting "Flithy monkeighs!" interspaced with random eldar gibberish. |
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2009, 02:15:21 pm » |
|
Why would you put the t17 in a reinforcement package when both factions have it?
So US Infantry or Airborne Doc users can access it. So Brits have access to t17? all Docs? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| EliteGren
|
|
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2009, 02:16:10 pm » |
|
That's not the same T17.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
i prefer to no u
Don't knock it til uve tried it bitchface, this isn't anything like salads version. Besides u said a semois conversion would never work, now look that's the most played map, ohgodwhy.jpg r u map lead
 |
|
|
| Latios418
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2009, 02:39:06 pm » |
|
Staghound, which afaik is identical in every way except for a lack of ability to buy WP rounds.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| EliteGren
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2009, 02:40:11 pm » |
|
No, it doesn't fire every second unlike the american T17.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Latios418
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2009, 02:44:50 pm » |
|
Okay then. I've never used it in vcoh cause it's bugged, and I haven't played brits during .006 yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2009, 03:14:35 pm » |
|
T17 - 175 HP vehicle with autocannon
Staghound - 450 HP vehicle with 12 second reload time and 0.25 moving accuracy modifier(maybe 0.5, but it still can't hit shit).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
