[Concept] More Technicals

[Spook]

THe problem there is: How will you control those weapons? You can not just mount up on them and shoot where ever you like. IRL you position the vehicle, use your hands to adjust the rocketlauncher, move back and use a remote control to fire them. I dont think thats possible in PR.

[Psyrus]

THe problem there is: How will you control those weapons? You can not just mount up on them and shoot where ever you like. IRL you position the vehicle, use your hands to adjust the rocketlauncher, move back and use a remote control to fire them. I dont think thats possible in PR.

Simply using similar (or the same) code as the bradley TOW restrictions would be perfectly acceptable to emulate what you're proposing. You'd have a driver's position and a 'gunner', the gunner being the one who can control the rocket pods, but not while moving and there'd be an 'unusable' period after the vehicle stopped moving, much like the M2A2 TOW.

[Kevokpo]

;1739471']If its not gonna attack inf like in RL so why we talk about reality??? I dont want to see reality only on bluefor side.

I just said that to avoid vanilla BF2 gameplay, and force insurgent players, not to use them as tecnicals, as they would be very valuable assets for the ins faction. Using the ZPUs as techies, you would lose all of them in less than 5 minutes.

Another idea, is making it as an opfor "APC", I mean, to avoid soloing, making it operable only if it has a driver and a gunner, and it would be able to shoot, if it is fully stopped. Just as psyrus said.

[ma21212]

For the possible balance issue a ZPU teki might cause, I think we can easily solve it, low ammo. From all the vids youve seen from Libya, the tekis have people around with alot of ammo for it. A teki on the move (in PR for example) would run out of ammo very quickly and have to RTB, it wount be able to sustain a long fire fight.

[Arnoldio]

This thread is full of BLUFOR whiners. Limiting the angle... Well how about limiting your M249 to 300 RMP or 20 bullets in a mag, to keep it fair and balanced, so you cant put down suprassion fire, but instead use it as a normal rifle.

That APC 2 man only is what i like. And its up to the crew to decide to go raid with it or drive it off a cliff, maybe even crash it. Like its SLs choice to attack and get the squad killed or just sit in a remote corner of the map being useless. Squad of normal players is the most powerful weapon in the game. It has everything if planned properly. AT, AP, AA capabilities, fire superiority, healing, smoke, there is at least 6 of them, so target can disperse, they can respawn 100m back if the SL isnt a jackass.

ZPU techie, like a tank, valuable, really powerful, but nobody gives a damn shit about it since its about spearheading everything, getting killed, mostly by a HAT, wich is, yes you guessed it, carried by the motherf**?***?*y***ing infantry.

So by nerfing it according to those whiners, everything you will achieve is pure retardation of the vehicle. Its going to kill and get killed anyway so you migh just aswell keep it realistic.

[USMC scout sniper]

How about a technical that is regular flatbed but can transport people in the flatbed?

[Dev1200]

Putting ZPUs in (even the ZPU-1) would be op for insurgents, as with a few rounds can kill any helo or jet.

Now, the Rocket Pod on the back firing S5's would be fair, imo. 55mm, perhaps only frag?

Or have the same thing as SPG techy, and have HEAT rounds as well?


Also, I'm all for the idea of having people on the back of technicals.



Just a random picture from mexico pulled from google, but I just got off of my trip from there and it's common practice ^_^

[Murphy]

This thread is full of BLUFOR whiners. Limiting the angle... Well how about limiting your M249 to 300 RMP or 20 bullets in a mag, to keep it fair and balanced, so you cant put down suprassion fire, but instead use it as a normal rifle.

The issue is that a balance has been struck, especially on the infantry level, concerning how everything fits against its counter. Here we are discussing a counter to air power, but what will keep things balanced for any infantry that happens to find themselves being ripped to shreds by the ZPU (If you haven't seen what it can do to infantry there are plenty of ways to test it).

I prefer Opfor on just about every map so shhhhh with the blufor whiners ****, it's about keeping things relatively balanced, not keeping it "easier for blufor to win cause they is DA BOMB".

[fabioxxxx]

Dev1200 is right.

We could have transport pickups .

you rarely see a group of insurgents traveling in a small vehicle ... it's always a pickup or a small truck

[Stealthgato]

The issue is that a balance has been struck, especially on the infantry level, concerning how everything fits against its counter. Here we are discussing a counter to air power, but what will keep things balanced for any infantry that happens to find themselves being ripped to shreds by the ZPU (If you haven't seen what it can do to infantry there are plenty of ways to test it).

I prefer Opfor on just about every map so shhhhh with the blufor whiners ****, it's about keeping things relatively balanced, not keeping it "easier for blufor to win cause they is DA BOMB".

So what about APCs and tanks against infantry/insurgents? People say "get an RPG or blow it up with a bombcar or just move smart and don't get seen by it, deal with it". Well, get a HAT or a LAT or use your CAS and your armor or don't get seen by the techy and deal with it.

[Pronck]

So what about APCs and tanks against infantry/insurgents? People say "get an RPG or blow it up with a bombcar or just move smart and don't get seen by it, deal with it". Well, get a HAT or a LAT or use your CAS and your armor or don't get seen by the techy and deal with it.

I totally support you, BLUFOR has enough 1337 stuff to take it out. And if you are facing a ZPU Techy with an INF Squad something is definitely not right with your tactics. BLUFOR should think more and whine less. They have a huge arsenal of weapons but as soon as they get shot at, they start retreating!

[BadMad]

So what about APCs and tanks against infantry/insurgents? People say "get an RPG or blow it up with a bombcar or just move smart and don't get seen by it, deal with it". Well, get a HAT or a LAT or use your CAS and your armor or don't get seen by the techy and deal with it.

I totally agree with you and Arnoldio.
Its quite funny to read posts about "balance".So the tanks, APCs, CAS choppers with thermals, jeeps with CROWS systems, small arms with optics and ultimate rate of fire - is that perfect balance or some sort of thing, against old AKs, SKSs,RPG7s with ironsites and thrown STONES(ultimate!1111), etc.
And now one(ore even few) ZPU's on pickup truck - that's unforgiving mistake in balance.-Infantry, choppers and even tanks will be afraid of those things so much, that BLUFOR won't leave even the main base after providing those deadly things(ZPUs on Nissan trucks) into the game..

Awwhhh!Come on!Are you serious?!Everyone who told about "imbalance of ZPUs against (even) BLUFOR infantry"Have you played on Insurgent side against modern BLUFOR since 0.9 've been released?I advise you to do that before bringing such ridiculous arguments about "Balance" on Insurgency layer.
*Sarcasm mode off*

Best wishes..

[Bringerof_D]

people keep talking about balance, the problem is that it is NOT balanced atm. the AA available to insurgents is **** 75% chance of missing, and if you hit you have about a 60% chance of still doing no damage. if a blufor team is even half competent all the insurgent side can ever do is get slaughtered by armor. bomb cars are useless when they just sit back on a hill top that cannot be flanked without being spotted and subsequently blown up. the Kiowa just keeps strafing everything with little to worry about so long as he doesn't do anything absolutely retarded. of course the main reason for this imbalance is bugs rather than the actual game play.

the only limitation i find should be placed on these techies is that for the ZPU and rocket techie that the turn rate be very slow. instead of using mouse it should be bound to the WASD keys just like the mortars. Guns are locked if the vehicle moves with a warm up time of 10 seconds after stopping.

ZPU will have somewhere between 120-200 round magazine with 4 additional magazines with a reload rate of 20-25 seconds. minimum traverse angle will be 0 degrees. this way it can engage targets at the same elevation but if infantry get close enough you are generally safe. this way infantry will have the upper hand at short range engagements both from speed and the ability to duck.

i'll leave the rest of the rocket techie's limitations for someone else to figure out but do you blufor ppl understand now? there are plenty of ways to balance things without nerfing it. the reason everyone is bickering is because no one is exploring actual balancing and only considering ways to nerf something's ability to engage particular targets.

[spiked_rye]

the only limitation i find should be placed on these techies is that for the ZPU and rocket techie that the turn rate be very slow. instead of using mouse it should be bound to the WASD keys just like the mortars. Guns are locked if the vehicle moves with a warm up time of 10 seconds after stopping.

ZPU will have somewhere between 120-200 round magazine with 4 additional magazines with a reload rate of 20-25 seconds. minimum traverse angle will be 0 degrees. this way it can engage targets at the same elevation but if infantry get close enough you are generally safe. this way infantry will have the upper hand at short range engagements both from speed and the ability to duck.

Agree with everything, the weapon locking and warm up time, mag size, etc. One thing, I think slow turn rate for the rocket techie is a good idea, but not for the ZPU (it is meant to be AA after all).

Also, is it possible for the rocket techie to have the aim done by the gunner seat, but the fireing of the rockets done by the passenger seat (like IRL where the gunner ain't anywhere near the rocket pod when they fire them).

[Bringerof_D]

Agree with everything, the weapon locking and warm up time, mag size, etc. One thing, I think slow turn rate for the rocket techie is a good idea, but not for the ZPU (it is meant to be AA after all).

Also, is it possible for the rocket techie to have the aim done by the gunner seat, but the fireing of the rockets done by the passenger seat (like IRL where the gunner ain't anywhere near the rocket pod when they fire them).

when i say slow i dont mean specifically how much. obviously when talking about the ZPU slow means at elast fast enough to track and lead a chopper at a reasonable distance. it should not be able to track if it's zooming by directly over head.

[Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR]]

The issue is that a balance has been struck, especially on the infantry level, concerning how everything fits against its counter. Here we are discussing a counter to air power, but what will keep things balanced for any infantry that happens to find themselves being ripped to shreds by the ZPU (If you haven't seen what it can do to infantry there are plenty of ways to test it).

I prefer Opfor on just about every map so shhhhh with the blufor whiners ****, it's about keeping things relatively balanced, not keeping it "easier for blufor to win cause they is DA BOMB".

Yes when we say something overpowered for bluefor you all bluefor lovers saying this:

Use your sniper, marksman, mines, IEDs, mortars you dont whine about that. Well simply its goes same to you. Also your inf and sniper/marksman rifles superior when compared to opfors so pls not leave mindless comments for only try to say something against opfor team.

[Murphy]

You guys really think I'm one of these blufor fan boys, but those of you writing that have absolutely no idea which team I prefer. I am indeed an OPFOR fan morons, I still picture myself getting to gun a ZPU and raping every poor soul to the point of being over powered.

Lets all jump on board and bash some people for being blufor lovers, funniest thing is most of the people pointing fingers about that are the very jackasses who teamswap for the sake of having better toys. Are we here to talk about how blufor gets all the cool toys or are we discussing a new asset that WILL be used in other ways then intended? Especially considering the way players generally don't give a fuck about what happens to any insurgent asset, mostly not even holding them in the same regard as blufor equipment.

This asset will be used as anti-infantry and it will make many people mad, if you guys want to envision a game where the players don't exploit every single advantage be my guest....but this is not how things work.

Get real with the rocket techie, the ZPU actually has a purpose where-as the rocket techie may appear to be able to withstand the extreme wear and tear the ZPU techies would surely have to be maintained after shooting (I mean look at the suspension in some of those pics).

Also from reading some posts (mainly the last one) you guys come off as desperate to give insurgents some advantage when if played right they are already equal if not better then blufor, so instead of trying to buff up one faction learn to play better.

[rushn]

or are we discussing a new asset that WILL be used in other ways then intended? Especially considering the way players generally don't give a fuck about what happens to any insurgent asset, mostly not even holding them in the same regard as blufor equipment.

This asset will be used as anti-infantry and it will make many people mad, if you guys want to envision a game where the players don't exploit every single advantage be my guest....but this is not how things work.

ZPU is used for infantry supression if you dont believe me then look at a variety of different conflicts

In the British Falklands war for example the Argentina troops used AA guns to suppress the british there is even first hand accounts on this stuff
rebels in Libya do use ZPUs to suppress the pro Gadafi forces almost everyone improvises during wars what ever it takes to win

[LITOralis.nMd]

Actually in most of Africa, the military doctrine requires that ZPUs be ONLY used for anti-infantry and anti-light vehicle roles, and almost exclusively in defensive postures.

Even the ZSU-23 "Shilka" armored AA vehicles (and other ZSU variants that have not been updated to modern AA missile platforms) are specifically tasked with anti-infantry roles in every country it is still in use.

Just a point.

[Murphy]

Was there not a ZPU issue with it outright decimating infantry in earlier version, or am I mistaken in the thought that these weapons are not intended for use against infantry?

If we're using it akin to an INS IFV then cool, if you want it as an AA asset consider my stance.