APCs Under Appreciated

[badmojo420]

So what if the APCs are easy to kill? Perhaps you shouldn't be putting the APC into a position where it will get shot at?

I mean really guys, those anti-tank weapons are designed to kill tanks, TANKS!

In my opinion, PR relies too heavily on transport choppers. I feel it ruins the game sometimes because they work so unrealistically well. How many times do you see helicopters flying into the bunkers on Kashan while fighting is going on in there. The pilots get so cocky that tanks regularly take them out.

Helicopter transport should be used for getting to places that are hard to access by land. Or to quickly extract infantry. They shouldn't be used as a faster transport from main to the front line. That's just spammy gameplay.

[Brainlaag]

So what if the APCs are easy to kill? Perhaps you shouldn't be putting the APC into a position where it will get shot at?

I mean really guys, those anti-tank weapons are designed to kill tanks, TANKS!

In my opinion, PR relies too heavily on transport choppers. I feel it ruins the game sometimes because they work so unrealistically well. How many times do you see helicopters flying into the bunkers on Kashan while fighting is going on in there. The pilots get so cocky that tanks regularly take them out.

Helicopter transport should be used for getting to places that are hard to access by land. Or to quickly extract infantry. They shouldn't be used as a faster transport from main to the front line. That's just spammy gameplay.

That, sadly its the daily apparence on PR servers.

[chimpyang]

Meh, APCs are too vulnerable and slow. The Huey's seem invulnerable to AA whilst a pop-up pop down LAT or HAT (crouch-stand suffering no deviation) will kill an APC without an evenish chance for recourse (given the inability to kill the cover they are popping up and down from)

The BMP <3 is awesome though. The fun of using HE Frag makes up for the ability to pop-up pop down shoot.

[badmojo420]

Meh, APCs are too vulnerable and slow. The Huey's seem invulnerable to AA whilst a pop-up pop down LAT or HAT (crouch-stand suffering no deviation) will kill an APC without an evenish chance for recourse (given the inability to kill the cover they are popping up and down from)

The BMP <3 is awesome though. The fun of using HE Frag makes up for the ability to pop-up pop down shoot.

The solution seems obvious to me, reduce the hit points of the transport helicopters to something more realistic. But, I've been saying this for a couple versions now, and it hasn't happened yet.

[goguapsy]

So what if the APCs are easy to kill? Perhaps you shouldn't be putting the APC into a position where it will get shot at?

That's what we are saying... To PREVENT an APC from getting into a position where it will get shot at, we don't use it that much...

[badmojo420]

Or just don't be in the front line of an assault. Play it like you're a medic, let the infantry move in and then move up to help hold down the ground they've cleared. Provide ammo and kits, and help cover their flanks.

You might get shot by some sneaky guy with a HAT or LAT, but somebody would have to make a calculated decision to hunt you down and kill you. You wouldn't have put the APC into a position where it's being shot at, they brought the fight to you.



APCs, being able to move gives them great power, but moving them brings great danger.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Helos can currently -

A - Take massive, highly unrealistic amounts of damage.
B - Break the speed of sound.
C - Land in areas that would normally be inaccessible to helos because of a lack of collision-meshed rotors.
D - Drop crates.

Just sayin'.

[cyberzomby]

I think the main reason for APCs being under appreciated is because they are so damn easy to take out.

"Oh look, I just took out a full APC".

Yep. Like someone else said, if you look angry at it, it blows up. Choppers have flairs and appear to be much safer. They are a much safer way to get you there.

I love APC cover and it even helped me a few times but I rather be there without. It really depends on who is crewing it

[Nebsif]

Helos can currently -

A - Take massive, highly unrealistic amounts of damage.
B - Break the speed of sound.
C - Land in areas that would normally be inaccessible to helos because of a lack of collision-meshed rotors.
D - Drop crates.

Just sayin'.

+1.

A tandem RPG will instagib an APC but will only make a Chinook smoke. There is no advantage of using a real APC for transp over a fast, agile, flying "Namer APC".

Helis are too good, and armor is too easy to take out.. people shouldnt be running after a tank/apc like a dog after a bone, but they do cuz its eazy kills.

[killonsight95]

Things that should change:
- Tanks should only be taken down in one hit by TOWs and not H-AT, also after a H-AT hit they should be smoking but no disabled.
- APCs can be destroyed by H-ATs but only smoking if hit by L-AT.
- light apcs such as the BRDM should be taken down with L-ATs one hit.
- all heli's should have their armor lowered so that if they take a hit by an AA they should at least get the warning *beep beep*
- flares should be made more powerful because of the lack of distance in-game they arn't as good as thye should be imho.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

Yeah the problem is partly with helos. They need a nerf.
Also people please separate APC from IFV. APC is a battletaxi, IFV is an offensive weapon with support infantry to clear out dangerous terrain.

The biggest problem i find with apc is that we have not been able to use the biggest advantage of apc, namely transport capability. An apc usually can carry up to 11 soliders, while ifv can carry around 6. I don't agree on lowering hp, only if we are allowed more at kits.

The main problem is that PR gameplay and players don't encourage mechanized warfare. The biggest advantage of IFV and APC is to allow the commander to fast gather a superior number and firepower advantage at a local point. With no commander and bad teamplay between squads this don't work. What happens is lots of APC and IFC is alone unsupported and get picked of.
Thus if creating a local superiority is apparently not desirable, walking slowly and stealthy to the attack object offers somewhat more survivalbility to a lone squad.

Also the small distance between flags combined with fob and relativity small maps makes operational mobility not crucial which takes away a big advantage of APC/IFV. Often it only takes 3-5 min to walk from fob to the flag you are attacking. With that the flags are a must have mobility advantage is further nullified since you are not allow to win by "flowing like water" through the enemy strongpoints. You must actually attack , for the enemy known, strongholds.

For comparison play arma2 (which has bigger operational areas) warfare and try to stay in the game whilst only walking.

[angellfall]

Things that should change:
- Tanks should only be taken down in one hit by TOWs and not H-AT, also after a H-AT hit they should be smoking but no disabled.
- APCs can be destroyed by H-ATs but only smoking if hit by L-AT.
- light apcs such as the BRDM should be taken down with L-ATs one hit.
- all heli's should have their armor lowered so that if they take a hit by an AA they should at least get the warning *beep beep*
- flares should be made more powerful because of the lack of distance in-game they arn't as good as thye should be imho.

Or then just get the FH2 mentality Blown apc or not blown apc. there is no different stages on reallife cars when they start to burn and eventually just blow up that ain even fun gameplay wise. they either move or not eitherway they rarely are that blown up that u cant go inside of it -.-

[ShockUnitBlack]

APCs are better on 4K maps, particularly 4K maps without helicopters. Agree.

[BrownBadger]

Meh, APCs are too vulnerable and slow. The Huey's seem invulnerable to AA whilst a pop-up pop down LAT or HAT (crouch-stand suffering no deviation) will kill an APC without an evenish chance for recourse (given the inability to kill the cover they are popping up and down from)

The BMP <3 is awesome though. The fun of using HE Frag makes up for the ability to pop-up pop down shoot.

can't argue with any of that : - )

Obviously APCs have their advantages at long range, but 800m view-distance just isn't enough when versing a HAT and it's extreme easy-to-use ability in PR. How long for 8km maps?

L4gi has a point.

We shouldn't give APC a zoom option. In addition, the amount of Anti-Tank measures should be limited also.

Giving APC the ability to zoom just makes them portable HMGS, thus making them overpowered.

On the other hand, the amount of ANTI-Tank is absurd, APC avoid supporting infantry because of how easy it is to kill an APC. (INS/AAS)

Instead of asking whether this is realistic, first ask if this is balanced or promotes better gameplay.

Are we talking about APCs or IFVs? Either way, removing zoom from the optics wouldn't be realistic or promote teamwork. We shouldn't be limiting things just because people don't want to work as a team - either way if you do remove the zoom of an IFV/APC you'll have trouble working with infantry. What good are you versus a HAT or a LAT when you can't see anything and you're trying to provide fire down range for the infantry advancing near your APC?

[ytman]

OPINION:

Mechanized battles in PR is a facet largely overlooked due to a few factors, the most extreme being a lack of teamwork (intentionally/unintentionally). This is a result of the Infantry squad being seperate of the IFV/APC squad which is 100% opposite to any Conventional Army's Doctrine. Instead, and especially with the theoretical squad size increases coming, IFVs/APCs must always be attached to an infantry squad to offer the highest ammount of teamwork possible.

The way I organized the PLA's Army in TG's IHS Scrim of Shijia Valley paid massive dividens in what ended up being a solid victory against a PR developer who, I believe, treated Infantry complete seperate of Armor.

The concept was that each IFV/APC would be in a seperate squad but connected with an Infantry squad of 5 soldiers and have direct Team Speak communication with that specific Crew. No IFV/APC would act independent of its Attached Infantry and the Infantry's SL would be in direct command of the IFV/APC.

In effect the three British Army infantry squads were forced into a very defence posture while the IFVs surpressed their movements allowing the attached Infantry to deal with them in the way they felt fit. Their was a stalemate for some time, but clearly it was a fight that the British were losing. All said all British were killed and not one IFV lost.

Of course this is an extreme case as their armor was thuroughly ravaged but a Hunter/Killer HAT team and could provide no support or even at least a diversion.

This battle quite litterally shows the payoff of Mechanized Infantry versus Infantry and I'd go in more detail but there is a Media Embargo .

The ONLY way to play 4km maps as infantry should rely on quick mobile transit and the force multiplier of an Armored Fighting Vehicle. There are no exceptions to this rule. Sure that IFV will be a target, but everything is, if using that IFV even results in 5 E-KIAs it broke even ticket wise and probably enabled your Infantry to do something that otherwise it could not.

You'll never see me underestimate an AFV. In the 100+ games AFVs will surely reign even stronger, specifically if the Transport Helo gets the much needed nerf in HP. (1 AA will take out an Apache outright but 2 will rarely kill a Huey)

To diferentiate the APC from the IFV I'd like to see a Ticket Cost reflecting the IFV's larger gun and the APC should cary more than 4 ammo boxes.

[goguapsy]

That's a good story, ytman. But I rarely don't have some AT capability in my squad, and most others as well. I honestly only have issues with APCs/IFVs if, for whatever reason, I don't have a HAT or LAT in my squad. Otherwise, if I hear an engine, my mission instantly changes to "kill that APC", because doing so gives a better sensation of power.

I remember on Yamalia once... We were defending the flag to the NE of the map... We killed about 4 APCs and 6 infantry, and we got overun by an infantry squad.

We would've lost SO much quicker if the APCs weren't there. That's because the infantry squads thought they would be safe to shoot at us with an APC/IFV from their team nearby. Didn't work.

[Rudd]

I remember on Yamalia once... We were defending the flag to the NE of the map... We killed about 4 APCs and 6 infantry, and we got overun by an infantry squad.

when there are no tanks on a map, and there are APCs...teh APCs automatically behave as tanks

[Robert-The-Bruce]

To diferentiate the APC from the IFV I'd like to see a Ticket Cost reflecting the IFV's larger gun and the APC should cary more than 4 ammo boxes.

I agree, but other things would have to be adjusted in conjunction with this.

IFVs need to be more survivable.

Bradleys are supposedly highly resistant or even prof against 30mm APDS (and RPGs, although that claim seems a bit dubious or at least down to which kind of RPG you are using exactly) all round. I'd imagine all the other IFVs to be similarly protected. (The BMP-3 is a lot lighter so would probably not quite stand up to the same punishment from the sides and rear[it's supposedly 30mm proof from the front]).

In conjunction tanks would need to be a lot more survivable.
A higher resistance against HATs is overdue in my opinion, they are after all shoulder fired and so quite small and light. This counts especially from the front but also from the sides to some degree. Even TOW and Spike and Kornet should be hard pressed in the frontal arc. In the same instance the possibility of damaging subsystems could be greater, it hardly ever seems to happen that a tanks turret is damaged for example. Other malfunctions could be introduced as well, like main gun unable to fire, coax unable to fire, IR broken, CITV broken, gunner's sight broken, slower movement due to damaged engine, dead engine(no external sign of immobilisation), slight main gun deviation due to damaged barrel, etc., etc..(this would go towards IFVs as well)

Tanks ticket costs need to be adjusted upwards.(Goes without saying i think)

APCs are well portrayed I think, although a slightly higher spread in the effects of an ATM round would be nice.(Currently a 1-hit-kill seems impossible. And disabling hits don't happen often either. But by no means do I want a 1-hit-kill to always happen!)

Edit: Also a greater availability of LAT kits could be good. There are just too many times these things are unavailable because someone wasted them all.

[mat552]

In unoffense: ytman, your strategy predicated that your opponent would not assume to deal with infantry and armored support as one package, which is a fair assumption. There's a critical failure in packaging 8 people as a single unit in a team of 32, and while this may not be a problem on an open map like Kashan or a small map like Muttrah, anecdotal evidence shows that blobs, even multiple small blobs, can be outflanked and destroyed with relative ease, provided they can be identified. All it takes is one or two lucky shots to bring a Mechanized Assault in PR to a screeching halt for ten minutes, during which your infantry centered opponent is free to maneuver (mostly) independently of his assets. One can never truly balance around scrim or preorganized play in PR, as it is such a small fraction of total games fought. The best you can hope for is to have "most of" your team on board with your plan, and that they're competent enough to handle rapidly changing situations that don't fit into original tasking orders.

APCs and IFVs are proportionally weaker than transport helicopters in PR. Limited by terrain and line of sight limitations, they cannot stand on level ground in the category of infantry transport. They do bring significant volumes of accurate fire to a fight, but if the fight begins to shift or otherwise move away from easily accessed supply routes or other areas traversable by tracked vehicles, they lose their advantage, and can even become a weakness if a hamfisted commander or squad leader tries delay an assault to wait for the vehicle to catch up. In addition, whereas these tracked vehicles carry four ammo footlockers, a single helicopter can deliver the core component of a forward spawn point at the same time it delivers the troops to assemble that point. It takes land vehicles an additional set of wheels that is much slower and much less maneuverable than the tracked vehicle that is supposed to protect it.

Consider also the requirements of the vehicles themselves. It is most effective (and indeed mandatory in most cases) to apply two squadmembers to an APC or IFV. Each must perform a separate set of duties in addition to keeping an updated picture of the situation at large. Contrast the helicopter, which functions best with a single squadmember. It may be outfitted with a navigator, but that second squadmember performs no actual duties in the vehicle. He manages no weapons, he controls no systems, etc. (I only talk about transport helicopters here, because just like tanks up yours merkava don't carry infantry, neither do attack helos carry cargo).

In short and in closing, yes APCs are under appreciated. It's because they underperform in most situations compared to their airborne counterparts, and require finesse and a large degree of skill to use, which most teams in PR struggle to bring to the table in even a fraction of a degree.

[goguapsy]

when there are no tanks on a map, and there are APCs...teh APCs automatically behave as tanks

Perhaps this would be more accurate:

"In PR, teh APCs automatically behave as tanks."