Let's look at vehicles that should and should not require crewman kit.

[PeppeJ]

There are some oddities in PR when it comes to what requires crewman kit to drive and what doesn't. Sure the current restrictions might make sense IRL, but how people play PR and use the vehicles is slightly different.

The main vehicle that very often is debated is the french VAB. Sure it's an APC, but on any sane server they are not claimable. Many servers also use the idea that anything that requires a crewman kit is claimable with this being on an exception list.

There are also some other vehicles that often are desginated as claimable, but does not require a crewman kit to drive, some that comes to mind is the HMMWV CROWS and Panther.

So I suggest slightly changing what require a crewman kit to follow the standard way people play PR, the PR "meta" if you want. That would mean that the following vehicles should have the crewman kit requirement removed:

• French VAB
• Israel M113 Logistics

And the following vehicles should have crewman kit as a requirement:

• HMMWV CROWS
• HMMWV TOW
• British Panther
• Insurgent SPG
• Insurgent Rocket Technical

Note that the chineese VN-3 requires a crewman kit, which I think contradicts the kit requirements for the Panther & HMMWV variants.

Why the insurgent ones? Well the vehicles themselves have a 15 min respawn to start with and as such are pretty valuable to the insurgents. This is why a lot of servers forbid people to use the SPG as trans or solo-use it.

What about the rocket techie? If you ever tried using the rocket technical, you'll notice that for some reason every person on the server suddenly has an urge to hop in and drive around in it. This is EXTREMELY annoying and can easily end up in a death and a 15 min wait for the respawn. Add that on top of the already clumsy aiming system and it'll be even more aggrivating when the vehicle moves. I've also had a few people hop in and hold the fire button, causing mass TK's and wasting rockets (which takes forever to reload), the splash damage can also kill the vehicle if the rocket pod is pointing towards something close by.

So to wrap it up; I understand the current kit requirements, but I think it's better if we adapt the vehicles to follow the most common rules people play by nowadays.

[Mats391]

I see where you are coming from, but disagree with most of this.
First off the M113 Logistics. Removing the crewman requirement will only make people use it as transport more often. I dont mind the crewman on this at all. Only issue might be if CO wants to use it for supply runs.
Then the VAB. While it is similar to a jeep, it has more utility than one. It allows you to request kits and it will support your rally point to be permanent. These things make it more powerful than a normal jeep and justify the sacrifice of having one crewman in squad (gunner does not need crewman).
For the Humvees my first question would be: Why the Mk19? I have never seen a server where that is claimable and you did not list other Mk19 vehicles (Landrover or Boat). The other two sound more reasonable. We actually had a discussion about CROWS and Panther when the Fennek got introduced. The Fennek requires crewman in game as it gets crewed by dedicated crew in r/l, however the other two are used in normal infantry squads. The only real benefit from forcing crewman for these would be to remove the combat-engineer as driver/gunner allowing infinite repair.
For the TOW humvee i am not certain, but i think it is same as CROWS and usually used by normal infantry.

[PeppeJ]

Removing the crewman requirement will only make people use it as transport more often. I dont mind the crewman on this at all. Only issue might be if CO wants to use it for supply runs.

Couldn't you say the same thing about normal Logi's then? (To be honest how often is the 50 cal used that much on the M113 and when it is good luck hitting something with it.)

For the Humvees my first question would be: Why the Mk19? I have never seen a server where that is claimable and you did not list other Mk19 vehicles (Landrover or Boat). The other two sound more reasonable.

I was supposed to edit out the Mk19 but forgot as I think that it's fine as it is (edited the post).

We actually had a discussion about CROWS and Panther when the Fennek got introduced. The Fennek requires crewman in game as it gets crewed by dedicated crew in r/l, however the other two are used in normal infantry squads. The only real benefit from forcing crewman for these would be to remove the combat-engineer as driver/gunner allowing infinite repair.
For the TOW humvee i am not certain, but i think it is same as CROWS and usually used by normal infantry.

I suppose that TOW kinda makes sense, but I think the way the CROWS is used a nice little bump for kit requirements would make more sense and help the common rules.

What's your thoughts on the SPG / Rocket Technical?

[Mats391]

The logistics M113 is unarmed, no 50cal on it. Yea, you could say same about using logis as trans and that is why we regularly get suggestion to make them use crewman as well.
The biggest stopper for SPG/Rocket techies are the lack of kit system for insurgents. It is not a real issue, but would be annoying to add just for crewman In the end i doubt it would prevent people from stealing it. I have played on a couple of servers where these are claimable and they still get wasted regularly.

[Gerfand]

the problems w/ SPG and Rocket getting wasted is that people usually go alone on that (there one guy in Divsul that think he is more effective alone in one, because no one know he play style... but I never saw he taking down a Full Health MERKAVA in Gaza, like I did w/ another guy) and this because of 2 things

First the driver is not punished by the game for doing that, and is little for driving away if mistakes are made.
The second, what makes SPG a Powerful asset, is that he can track a APC in one shot.

And, in that case, the only thing that should happen for an asset like this, is you not being able to move from the Driver to the Gunner(as opposed for getting only a delay for doing that)

The same should apply for AA guns, as in R/L they are crewed by more than one people (and for gameplay, this would not allow people to wasting this assets for the enemy Jet, another history from DivSul... )

[Acecombatzer0]

AFAIK for the Humvees it's pretty silly to require crewmen kits, as those vehicles are operated by infantrymen, not people with dedicated roles to those vehicles, that's where the line should be drawn IMO.

[Fir3w411]

In regard to rocket technicals, what's up with the slow, manual reload?

Attack helos don't require this so why do rocket techys?

I agree on crewman for SPG and rocket techy tho.

[Rudd]

In regard to rocket technicals, what's up with the slow, manual reload?

Attack helos don't require this so why do rocket techys?

The mount is pretty irregular, rather than a helicopter with well drilled engineering crews I guess.

[Geronimo]

The only vehicle that comes to my mind when I think about kit restrictions is the Avenger. The driver needs a crewman kit while the gunner doesn't. IMHO that should be turned around.

[Stonefly2]

How about the BRDM non gun version. It's just a Russian humvee without a gun. Like a transport humvee. No need for a crewman kit on this thing.

[Quobble]

Is it possible to have certain vehicles require crew kits only on SOME maps?

[Murphy]

I feel Insurgent kits requiring Crewman is counter intuitive. As far as I can see INS vehicles are "simplistic" in that they actually require very little training when compared to their counter parts (APC/LAV/IFV). Sure using the weapon systems would surely not be something you can do effectively without proper instruction, but driving a truck around is something even a 14 year old can do if forced into it. This would put the gunner as the man needing a crewman (if we follow my logic ofc I understand WHY people want drivers of SPG/Rocket techies to require crewman kits), as opposed to the driver.

It just seems to go against the principles of Insurgent assets, which are civilian vehicles modified to resemble Mad Max versions.