derpcannon BG wrote:
There are plenty of amphibious vehicles in the game(PT series, BMP-3, AMX-10RC to name a few). But none of them can go on water. Making them do what they're designed for wouldn't be a useless feature for them ingame since many of the maps here have rivers. I don't understand why they didn't make all those vehicles amphibious from the start.
Balance. Quite some Pact stuff can swim not so many Nato. + Bridges would hold less important strategic value if stuff could swim.
I can see where you are coming from, but isnt that part of the point? Its not like the sides are mirrors, NATO has its own advantages. Also, swimming should be balanced by real life negatives, such as slow speed and being extra vulnerable in the water and while entering/exiting the water.
As for bridges, they would be just as important for NATO, and just as important for PACT to defend because of this. Since not all shoreline would be enterable, you would still have choke points and beachheads to defend. Its kind of like going with a mostly airborne deck. Its a gimick that might work if you play it right and your enemy plays it wrong.