afew more light tank weapons yes or no ?

better selection of light tank weapons early game more interesting yes or no ?

Mk1 auto cn - 3 shot burst then reloads
Amour piercing mg - 20 rounds low damage fast rate of fire longish reload
Fragmentation ml - good vs infantry
Bio Cannon - alot like bio ml but fires alot slower
These would add abit more diversity to light tanks

chemistry - fragmentation ml
physics - armor piercing mg
electrical - mk1 auto cn
biology - Bio cannon
All 1 slot weapons ment for the nf light tank and be AFV

 

Can we have the same thing for AFV too?
If so then yeah.

 

Security there 1 slot weapons of course there going to be for the afv......

 

I think that might be useful, particularly on some of the lower resources maps where you don't see mediums or heavies for awhile.

I'd suggest that instead of giving them specific tech items, they be attached to nodes that lead to later weapons. This way, they would provide more flexible options rather than comitting 30-45 seconds away from the main research lines.

The frag ml, for example, would be unlocked by "Improved Warhead Compounds" (Which is the tree node that leads to UMLs). I'm a bit hazy on this, but you would basically clone the BML, remove its DOT, change the color of the sprite, make it 1 slot, and give it maybe 30 damage.


I believe the autocannon option should be combined with the armor piercing MG. While many 13mm rounds can be armor piercing vs. light vehicles (Such as trucks, bullet-proofed or resistant armors on personnel carriers and transports), AFVs and the rarefied modern light tanks will mount 20, 25, or 30mm weapons systems to achieve armor piercing (Such as APFSDS) or HEI for anti-infantry roles. These weapons generally come in the form of auto-cannons. These do sometimes fire in burst modes for heat management or accuracy reasons.

In game, this autocannon would face some limitations compared to DU or HEMGs (The HEMG is itself an Autocannon). The APAC would be a 3 round burst with a very rapid reload, such as .15s, high magazine count (It would show up as 3/120 in game), lack the bonuses of HEMGs vs. reflective, or the raw DPS of DU. But it would be slightly more accurate (Because it would be conducting essentially a first shot every 4th shot.) It would also have slightly lower damage vs. both. A 2 slot version would have same stats, but increased ammunition storage and a slightly faster reload (.12s) to reflect more space devoted to an improved loading mechanism.

This would make it a solid interim weapon vs. DU or HEMGs.

Continuing the node research theme, APAC could be unlocked through either The Improved Projectile physics OR improved flagration compounds.

This makes sense realistically, logically, and from a balance sense.

Bio Cannon: I would change this to instead be a bio grenade, launchable from APCs. It would unlock through the Biological Weaponry node. Again, this is a logical and realistic choice that would balance well.

Balance: It would provide a greater way of making APCs viable late game, such as for suppressing dug in infantry. It would also be great for limited vehicle maps, such as escort. It would also improve on the lackluster options for grenade launchers. If the commander researches UGLs, and has researched Biological Weaponry, the UBGL (Upgraded Bio Grenade Launcher) would unlock. This may require minor coding changes to implement a tech dependency. The BGL would be a 2 slot apc grenade weapon, while the UGBL would be a 3 slot.

 

I though tier 1 vehicles needed a boost against other vehicles, not infantry hate.

 

I'm a fan of more diversity for low level tanks - anything that gives me a shot at comebacks when a whole chassis behind, and more options for the resource starved.

For the most part, I very much agree with this. For balance some should be separate research items, in particular the Auto CN (because if my memory serves correctly auto cannon has not traditionally been a 'fair' research).

 

Also i was thinking maybe abit more diversity in apc weapons maybe ?

 

people should realize that no one will get these weapons except the losing team or on maps where resources is scarce

other than that, im fine with stronger 1slot weapons. just as long as they are not comparable with 2 slot weapons

id say they need to be a bit stronger against other apcs/lts and buildings

 

Lazybum this is why i love you long live lazybum

 

Well, since you're implementing so many of these weapons, why don't you do the fun next thing and deliver a new intermediate chassis that has 2 double slot MG weapons. We'll call it an "SPAA" with 1-2 armor slots. You could pull the AAA guns off EMP King and mount them on a BE APC. Then could pop the turret off teh NF APC, enlarge it, and put a pair of gun barrels similar to the Flak 36 Vierling

Its intended role would be to humor me. But also enable lower res teams to be more competitive and have a greater variety of options.

 

http://www.vipergameservers.com/hlstats/hlstats.php?mode=weaponinfo&weapon=Imperial+AFV&game=empires
http://www.vipergameservers.com/hls...=weaponinfo&weapon=NF+Light+Tank&game=empires

I do agree that AFV/LT's killing ability is a bit too weak.
At least LTs can be annoying super LTs, AFVs are just..meh.

Even though I love AFV.

It should be a good idea to buff them a little.

 

That's the method I like most.

Although I am with people on not making light chassis better against infantry. That's their major weakness and it should stay that way imo. Besides, there's always chainguns if you want to be anti-inf, right?

 

We seriously need a new AFV model.

 

We actually have a new AFV model, I think. It just wasn't able to be balanced so it kept spinning upside down and all kinds of crazy ways whenever it was spawned. It's the same kind of rigging problem I think Redskull was having with the medium.

At least I think it was, with my extremely limited knowledge of modelling and animating :p

We definitely did use the AFV in testing a few years back. Sweet model, not sure if the modeller is still around though.

Well fair enough then

 

Haven't read through the thread really, but if you're wanting to do autocannons you'd better hope the script line to control recoil was added. If it wasn't then they're going to be super difficult to control and actually put on target. Controllable cannon recoil was something I wanted for a very long time.