Jump to content


Photo

Upgrades and General's Points


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 06 February 2007 - 10:38 PM

If you have any thought for unit upgrades and/or general's points, post them here.
Posted Image

#2 Jim Morrison

Jim Morrison
  • Project Team
  • 65 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 02:55 AM

striped bitch.... ou sorry can that be a gnrls upgrade?

#3 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 February 2007 - 03:07 AM

Hehe, there is no way to balance Heidi Klum. Germany would be all powerful:)
Posted Image

#4 Jim Morrison

Jim Morrison
  • Project Team
  • 65 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 01:27 PM

:( but she could use the fashion model airstrike and lots of models could kill with eyes and beuty

#5 KniveZ

KniveZ
  • Project Team
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Beirut, Lebanon
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare

Posted 07 February 2007 - 04:14 PM

hehe, well how about a Katyusha bombardment for Iran, although Katyushas are weak. we can put the missiles in large numbers, they would have a huge area damage, huge numbers of missiles, but weak vs armor and are inaccurate.

what do you think?

#6 Jim Morrison

Jim Morrison
  • Project Team
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 February 2007 - 04:02 AM

hehe, well how about a Katyusha bombardment for Iran, although Katyushas are weak. we can put the missiles in large numbers, they would have a huge area damage, huge numbers of missiles, but weak vs armor and are inaccurate.

what do you think?


what about rakieta style missile bombardment. old bm21 grad missiles were to be used with smoke, chemicals, biohazard materials, high explosive and armour penetration take chems, explosive and ap as the choose of missile barriage

#7 MCV

MCV

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 737 posts
  • Location:Norway, land of the Moose
  • Projects:Uh... I'm writing a NGE/GitS/Lain/Snow Crash crossover fanfic?
  •  Decipherer of Paradox' legal talk.

Posted 08 February 2007 - 07:46 PM

Well, really, if you're trying to keep realistic, there's not much you can do besides Paradrop/ArtilleryBarrage/Airstrike/Missiles

But I do have some ideas for upgrades and stuff:

1) Most units should have attacks that deal a little damage to civilian buildings and hav a chance to kill one of the people inside, rather than simply destroying the building. Sniper automatically kill one unit at a time from civilian buildings.

2) The ability for one side to sneak into civilians buildings via manhole locations, and kill everyone inside.

3) Booby Traps on buildings for one side.

4) Hand Grenades for one or more sides.

5) One side could have the upgrade to give their rocket troops chemical warheads, so they can chage ammo depending on the target. (Chemicals blow because of wind though)

6) If possible, make all attacks have the ability to demoralize infantry to the point where they surrender. Capture them for Money.
Posted Image

#8 KniveZ

KniveZ
  • Project Team
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Beirut, Lebanon
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare

Posted 09 February 2007 - 10:20 PM

I am against having chemical weapon in TW, or atleast not in large numbers.

As for the garrison area, I think troops should be able to enter garrisoned structures where soldiers would fight inside (wont show, but add some lighting effects) and some soldiers would die until it is fully taken.

as for the BM-21, it is basically like the katyusha, but there should be three different options, one Chemical Katyusha strike, one Napalm Katyusha strike, and one HE katyusha strike, but only one can be chosen, once one is chosen, the other two are black out. (that one is just a thought if it is possible)

#9 Cryptex

Cryptex
  • Project Team
  • 2 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 04:44 AM

As for the garrison area, I think troops should be able to enter garrisoned structures where soldiers would fight inside (wont show, but add some lighting effects) and some soldiers would die until it is fully taken.


I don't suppose you have ever played Act of War: Direct Action, because that idea is pretty much a direct copy and paste from when any type of infantry attack a garrisoned civilian building in AOW. Just a side note, but quite a good idea.

#10 KniveZ

KniveZ
  • Project Team
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Beirut, Lebanon
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare

Posted 13 February 2007 - 02:43 PM

yes Ive played it, and thats were I got the idea from :p

#11 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 August 2008 - 03:35 AM

mass infantry paradrops, and upgrades for building more than one unit at a time, and maybe veterancy upgrades from "training"

#12 Guest_A PERSON_*

Guest_A PERSON_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:13 PM


As for the garrison area, I think troops should be able to enter garrisoned structures where soldiers would fight inside (wont show, but add some lighting effects) and some soldiers would die until it is fully taken.


I don't suppose you have ever played Act of War: Direct Action, because that idea is pretty much a direct copy and paste from when any type of infantry attack a garrisoned civilian building in AOW. Just a side note, but quite a good idea.



codename panzers phase 1 and maybe 2

#13 Guest_A PERSON_*

Guest_A PERSON_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:16 PM


As for the garrison area, I think troops should be able to enter garrisoned structures where soldiers would fight inside (wont show, but add some lighting effects) and some soldiers would die until it is fully taken.


I don't suppose you have ever played Act of War: Direct Action, because that idea is pretty much a direct copy and paste from when any type of infantry attack a garrisoned civilian building in AOW. Just a side note, but quite a good idea.



codename panzers phase 1 and maybe 2


forgot though you see it in these or at least phase 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users