Jump to content

Bring back the CHALLENGER"

Recommended Posts

After a while of only using RHS tanks I have grown to be sick of their handling

[don't say 'its just because it is in development' please]

but seriously, I have would like to reinstate the Burnes Challenger 2 on EU3



AGM [ACE works instead]



RAM [RHS works with it] or we could wait for the non RAM version.



This will make people happy [mainly the gunner and driver on tank crews]


proof that it works with ace:


what its like:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do all the features actually work, armor, main cannon, changing tracks (oh right, not implemented into ACE yet)?


The model is obviously gonna work, but that AGM dependancy can be a pain in the ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why does it have to be the Chally? If its all about RHS physics being about as realistic as EU1 tactics then surly it does not matter what MBT you suppose we should have instead of RHS? + have fun tanking on Clafghan. Its got terrain like Morgan Freeman's face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do all the features actually work, armor, main cannon, changing tracks (oh right, not implemented into ACE yet)?


The model is obviously gonna work, but that AGM dependancy can be a pain in the ass.


I did a quick test to see if it worked [main parts] and it did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not throw these on instead? Doesn't have any mod dependence and looks pretty slick in the flat camo scheme

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=24899 - Kuma in Nato camo

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=25166  - Mora in Nato camo


Second link should work now, no clue why it broke


I think it won't be the best thing to do. If we plan on keeping it on vanilla stuff (wich I don't really like to begin with, it's like adding a new camo for the mx imo) just slam in the slammer. It works great with RHS and g-has cargo space. The reason why I would add the challenger(after it gets updated ofc) is not because of physics. They are only slighty better on vanilla vehicles(I think, I'm not a driver). The reason why the chally stands out is in it's full interior, special smoke shell, loadout selector, excellent visibility,....

But yeah, if the chally isn't coming back I would prefer the slammer over the kuma. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would you need a challenger or ambrams when you have this? ;) BRADLEY FTW


Because the Bradly is an APC or LAV but the Abrams and Challenger are main battle tanks so they deal more power and can survive more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well TBH, as much as I like to see a variety of roles and slots being filled by players working as a team to give the immersion of a fully functional platoon, I think the requirement of a MBT, in most situations, is rare. This is seemingly due to the fact that the maps we currently play on EU3 are not ideal for tank-to-tank combat (which is pretty much where a MBT would be a balanced benefit for the team allow equal amounts of fun for INF and tank crew men). Primarily we never get any type of Russian armor standard INF units cant handle such as Russian MBTs like the T-80. Most amoured contact that is encountered by friendly forces are mostly BTRs and BNPs as im sure you are all aware of however this is easily handled by INF that can stick to their roles (carrying AT-4s and MAAWs/JAVs for HAT teams). If more Russian MBTs were to be introduced into common EU3 missions then im sure they would be a higher demand for dedicated tank crewmen but at this present time new tanks or re textures are simply not needed as MBTs are not used during 90% of all ground operations.


If, at some point, new MBTs were to be introduced into the repo then they would certainly need to be balanced and countered by a stronger Russian force and vice versa. But if nothing were to change with the current state of armored forces for either friendly or hostile forces on EU3 then it would be because no change is needed.


I know im more on the side of highly strategical and organised infantry combat rather than all out armored warfare however mixing the two is possible as long as the friendly force on INF and MBTs are countered by equally strong and dangerous forces of Russians, as I have said.


Either way, im almost always happy with the state of EU3 as, at the end of the day, its still a free server where we are promised a certain amount of discipline and decency for nothing but our cooperation.


(The only thing I would change is constantly having more realistic features such as only 1st person and no cross hairs or map markers at all as I know that the harder you make it for one soldier to understand or adapt in a fight using these kind of features, the more likely they are to rely on each other and furthermore provoking teamwork and team play as well as many other benefits such as actually valuing comrades lives due to the benefits them being alive can have on you but thats a whole other large topic for another day  ;) ).


Sorry for the length but I didnt hear your mum complaining. Dont take that to heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the topic you mentioned at the end, definitely one to discuss with everybody to see how they feel about it.


Balance has actually been brought up before and it's a tricky one. Keep posting your thoughts for and against chaps and we'll see if we can pick out a common theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts
  • Create New...