APC variants

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-18 01:46

just curius , are we going to see APC variants ? like the LAV AA or the BRT-9 with the ATGM and a MG inside of the cannon ?

because they are used IRL ., and BTW im making a map and i need some brts with the ATGM

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-03-18 01:54

If its used in RL its possible, though the Devs are very much against APCs getting thier ATGMs back, it seems, though if it were for a specific map (presumeubly you envisage MEC APCs going up against heavier enemy armour) I suppose they may make an exemption.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-18 01:57

my map its about a assault from the MECs agains a heavy armored divition of USMC entrenched in a city , so yeah i need those brts with ATGM

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-03-18 01:58

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:just curius , are we going to see APC variants ? like the LAV AA or the BRT-9 with the ATGM and a MG inside of the cannon ?

because they are used IRL ., and BTW im making a map and i need some brts with the ATGM

The LAV-AD, maybe in the future.

As for the BTR-90, it never should have been in game for MEC, since the Russians have yet to equip an entire regiment with it. We'll give it a coaxial machinegun eventually, but the ATGM is not coming back, because none of the other APCs in the game right now have them equipped in real-life (the Saudi and Kuwaiti LAV-25 have ATGM equipped turrets, but the USMC does not; they have a special ATGM carrier variant of the LAV).

Right now the British Army does not have an ATGM equipped IFV or reconnaissance vehicle. They used to field the Striker ATGM vehicle (this is not the same as the US Stryker), but it was retired from service. A Milan ATGM launcher can be attached next to the commander's hatch on the UK Warrior IFV, or on the Land Rover WMIK, but the Milan has been phased out in favor of the Javelin.

Post by **dbzao** » 2007-03-18 01:59

APCs are getting coaxial machine guns in 0.6.

I'm pretty sure we don't intend getting the AT weapons on them because we satisfied with their role as infantry support.

And I don't think we will expend time working in variants since we have AAVs and Tanks that fill the other roles.

Also there are the tow humvees and aa humvees sorta giving that extra variety.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-18 02:00

well ... isnt pr set in the future ? because MECs has havocs when even russia havent enough of them .

and MECs dont have any light AT vehicle (like the hummve with tow)

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-03-18 02:04

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:well ... isnt pr set in the future ? because they have havocs when even russia havent enough of them .

Ah, the second default justification that leads to bullshit being put in the game.

Yes, it is set in the future, and since the Havoc lost out to the Hokum for the Russian Army contract, the Russians, and most likely only the Russians, still won't have very many of them 5 years from now.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-03-18 02:10

I do wonder...between a coaxial MG and a exploding shell cannon, who will pick the coaxal MG? Players will probably just use the cannon...

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-03-18 02:20

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']Ah, the second default justification that leads to bullshit being put in the game. Yes, it is set in the future, and since the Havoc lost out to the Hokum for the Russian Army contract, the Russians, and most likely only the Russians, still won't have very many of them 5 years from now.

even for a custom map were infantery support isnt needed ?

what about the mortar variant of the lav , or the AT variand of the chinise APC (insadie tha cannon , it has a 120 mm ,like a light tank

)

Post by **dbzao** » 2007-03-18 02:24

I guess you don't know how hard it is to put vehicles in game...

Thanks for the suggestions, but the team is focusing in finishing the British vehicles and the other ones we usually get are from BSS and only if they fit our mod.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-03-18 02:25

New vehicles for other factions aren't a high priority right now as we have a lot on our plate. We'll evaluate them when time permits.

PlayPR! · Post by **PlayPR!** » 2007-03-18 02:54

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:well ... isnt pr set in the future ? because MECs has havocs when even russia havent enough of them .

and MECs dont have any light AT vehicle (like the hummve with tow)

Hehehe... Is the future 2007? Or mabey its 2008 or '09... The BF2 isnt set in the distant futuer. Its set in the very, very near future. So that isnt really a valid excuse anymore... Sorry...

ops:

Raniak · Post by **Raniak** » 2007-03-18 05:08

PlayPR! wrote:Hehehe... Is the future 2007? Or mabey its 2008 or '09... The BF2 isnt set in the distant futuer. Its set in the very, very near future. So that isnt really a valid excuse anymore... Sorry... ops:

But this isn't BF2, it's PR ! It can be set in any future ! (yes even this one you are thinking about

)

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-03-18 08:33

Expendable Grunt wrote:I do wonder...between a coaxial MG and a exploding shell cannon, who will pick the coaxal MG? Players will probably just use the cannon...

a smart player who plans on keeping his APC for more than 5 minutes, and knows that a troop he can hit with a MG isnt worth a wasted heat shell, and that hed rather save his HEAT shells for when he needs them, not for when hes engaging one or two inf

dunkellic · Post by **dunkellic** » 2007-03-18 10:41

well, heat shells offer the unbeaten advantage that you can take out people in cover because of the blast radius - i guess i would still prefer heat over the machine gun ^^ (though it is definatly usefull when your cannon is on ap and you encounter infantry)

...i want a grenadelauncher on the btr-90 ^^