Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Latrobe on May 03, 2011, 05:36:52 PM

Title: M-16 thought
Post by: Latrobe on May 03, 2011, 05:36:52 PM
Now that we have an updated M-3 with a 75mm gun choice, why don't we just make the quad .50cal another gun option for the M-3? Do we really need to make it a separate vehicle for it?
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: shotgunneeley on May 03, 2011, 07:32:35 PM
Why? What good would it do to get rid of the current m-16 just to add the same gun package to the new m3?

If we didn't already have the m-16, then I would agree that the quad .50 cal system would be an easy gun to add to the m3 loadout. Are you asking this only for the sake of grouping the weapons under one vehicle?
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: SmokinLoon on May 03, 2011, 09:11:17 PM
It might have something to do with the number of slots allowed per table.  Is the max number allowed 6?

EDIT:  Nope, I've found a table with 7 options.
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: LLogann on May 03, 2011, 10:00:51 PM
It is an interesting question for sure.  Not too many differences between the standard M3 transport and the anti air version.  If SP artillery is the same class, the AA MGMC too!!!
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: Krusty on May 03, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
Maybe it has more armor?
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: DemonFox on May 04, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
I think that the reason is that it is considered a different platform. It's a M-16 not a M-3. At least this is my only logical answer. It's like why don't we have the 30mm choice on the Fw-190 A-5 well it's different then the A-8 that's why.
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: LLogann on May 04, 2011, 08:00:17 PM
Troops, maybe, but the self propelled, no.  So shouldn't the 75mm and the M16 be the same vehicle?

And I cannot prove any of that, way too lazy to look it up right now. 

Quote from: Krusty on May 03, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
Maybe it has more armor?
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: SmokinLoon on May 04, 2011, 09:24:34 PM
The M3/M3A1, M16, and M3/T48 have the same armor, same engine, and same chassis.

If HTC wanted to, they could easily fit them all into the same M3 selection but pick and choose which variant you want.  The M3 and the M3/T48 are different only in mission capabilities, not chassis, armor, or engine.  I'm sure the M16 and M3 could be viewed just the same.
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: EskimoJoe on May 04, 2011, 09:40:40 PM
Perhaps HTC didn't have enough information on the platform
to implement it in the update?
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: Motherland on May 04, 2011, 10:26:01 PM
Quote from: EskimoJoe on May 04, 2011, 09:40:40 PM
Perhaps HTC didn't have enough information on the platform
to implement it in the update?
They had enough information to implement it in the first place...
Title: Re: M-16 thought
Post by: EskimoJoe on May 04, 2011, 10:38:44 PM
Quote from: Motherland on May 04, 2011, 10:26:01 PM
They had enough information to implement it in the first place...

Then again, as others have said their standards have changed.