Why do light vehicles in RP get blown up so soon? + British soldier got his *** shot.

danshyu · Post by **danshyu** » 2007-06-18 07:21

This video shows a group of British Royal Marines engaged in firefight in Afghanistan while on their Land Rover.

http://www.collegeslackers.com/video/968

As you can see it was shot through a helmet camera of one of the soldier. They used the Land Rover for cover and fire support. At the end the soldier with the camera got shot in his *** and drove the Land Rover back to friendly Afghan convoy.

I must stress that this is not a balance complain, just a question that came up in my mind after watching that.

Usually we'd think that a Humvee with a .50 cal machine gun would be nice to provide mobile fire support. Much like a machinegun nest with wheels.

Yet in PR almost nobody ever perfer to man the gun. As usually when you start firing the top side machine gun, your vehicle gets blown up within minutes.

So why is that?

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-06-18 07:27

Search, its been posted before...the video.

As for the vehicle getting blown up, I dont get, what you mean, either because you get shot at and destroyed or is this a bug?

MadTommy · Post by **MadTommy** » 2007-06-18 07:29

..."can you see anything?".. "yeah you're bleeding".. "its pasted right through your ***"...and they all have a laugh.!! LMAO

..back on track... i didn't hear the Landrover taking that much fire... nothing like they get given in PR.

danshyu · Post by **danshyu** » 2007-06-18 07:44

Outlawz wrote:Search, its been posted before...the video.

As for the vehicle getting blown up, I dont get, what you mean, either because you get shot at and destroyed or is this a bug?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unlike in the reality we saw in that video. People perfer not to utillize these light vehicles such as providing covering fire. Instead they perfer to stay far away from them. Since these vehicles never last long the moment it's gun starts firing and giving up tracers.

If those British soldiers were in the world of PR, they'd all run far away form the Land Rover and take cover behind hills. As the Land Rover would have been blown up by RPG within 3 minutes into the video.

Ironcomatose · Post by **Ironcomatose** » 2007-06-18 08:11

I think the thing is that IRL the enemy in afgan can shoot as well as we can in PR.So with us being much more accurate with our weapons and often going for cars first, its not smart to stay around those things.

jackal22 · Post by **jackal22** » 2007-06-18 08:17

because irl shooting a car with bullets does no damage to the actual car other then add simpsons speed holes.

where as in game 1 squad shooting it with normal aks and its toast.

ryan d ale · Post by **ryan d ale** » 2007-06-18 08:21

I agreee that people don't make full use of Humvees and land rovers. It's going to be harder to blow them up in .6 with limited kits anyway (RPG being a pickup). So what may have been a game play killer has been dealt with already IMO.

danshyu · Post by **danshyu** » 2007-06-18 09:07

Come to think of it, there's also another reason why they arn't as effective in PR.

Small arms can very well disable a vehicle in reality, they rarly blow em up.

A vehicle can be rendered out of commission by small arm fires, but usually they don't blow up like they do in PR. The tires and engines might get shot up, but the gunner can continue to use the mounted machine guns to lay down cover fire if he chose to, without suffering the firey death in PR.

mrmong · Post by **mrmong** » 2007-06-18 09:25

i feel really vunarable in a gun, as you cant be revived

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-06-18 09:29

ryan d ale wrote:I agreee that people don't make full use of Humvees and land rovers. It's going to be harder to blow them up in .6 with limited kits anyway (RPG being a pickup). So what may have been a game play killer has been dealt with already IMO.

Conversley, there'll be alot more people with 4x zoom on thier rifles. So being a stationary target still isnt that appealing.

Skyren · Post by **Skyren** » 2007-06-18 11:28

I have to agree that i avoid any light vehicle like the plague unless i have to cover it when in a squad, It's just a bullet magnet.

jackal22 · Post by **jackal22** » 2007-06-18 12:03

also because as soon as you hear a vehicle you check your map and if it isnt blue your whole team go after it,

problem in irl, there would be civillian vehicles in some areas so they would be part of the normal nack ground noise.

maybe if the devs could add car noises as background in bashrah? would make things a little more interesting.

ryan d ale · Post by **ryan d ale** » 2007-06-18 12:04

Bob_Marley wrote:Conversley, there'll be alot more people with 4x zoom on thier rifles. So being a stationary target still isnt that appealing.

Aye, but I did oppose the give every rifleman a scope idea.

[SAF]stal20048 · Post by **[SAF]stal20048** » 2007-06-18 13:07

my tactic, that is infact a real life british army tactic, is to have a permanent gunner and driver in the landie, and lay down cover fire form one position for say 30 seconds, then displace to another location, and still lay down fire on the same spot, which means your team doesn't lose cover fire, and you dont get pinned down with bullets and civvys marking your position.

jerkzilla · Post by **jerkzilla** » 2007-06-18 13:11

I do occasionally use the HMMWV, vodnik and the PLA large transport but rarely the Saxon and the light transport vehicles. That shield around the gun provides some good protection, and, as opposed to the light transports, you can duck inside when things get a bit too hairy. The Saxon's gun has small coverage, limited to the front of the vehicle too so it isn't that useful to fire on the move or in a hurry. All of them are pretty useful at long range and in a decent position but very rarely does anyone use them that way.
And as to why the vehicles get blown up by shooting the windshield or other non-critical parts, I've made a suggestion to modify the hitboxes in such a way to only allow the vehicle to blow up if shot in the engine area or underside, or something similar in any case.

l|Bubba|l · Post by **l|Bubba|l** » 2007-06-18 13:58

It should be like the choppers with many more hitpoints.

Apheirox · Post by **Apheirox** » 2007-06-18 15:18

I use the mounted guns whenever possible. Of course. It is silly not to. Massive ammo supply, armour protection, .50 one-shot caliber, machinegun rate of fire... People insisting on doing everything on foot (which I see a lot, a freaking stupid LOT) are idiots. In general, vehicles are not being used nearly enough which, frankly, is downright retarded.

The 'stationary target' argument does not hold water since you also become a stationary target on foot while firing - and those rifleman scopes are an even bigger threat to your big, cheese-filled balloon head than if you were at least somewhat covered in a vehicle where you can duck down when things get too hot.

The only thing I might ask for is what Bubba suggested, namely that light vehicles get disabled faster rather than going around at full speed on the brink of destruction.

The only vehicle I do not mount is the PLA van - that thing has both ridiculously limited outlook and is impossible to aim with.

danthemanbuddy · Post by **danthemanbuddy** » 2007-06-18 16:31

I think most, if not all vehicles should have enormous hit points like bubba said, but make them at 50% or even 75% to start losing power.

This would also stop things when shot to going to instawreck in air like cobras.

I think when cobras turn into that wreck material or humvees there should be some debris or cloud/explosion effect.

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2007-06-18 16:50

Cuz when you man the .50 you get a splitting head ache.