Apc question?

*spacecadett* · Post by ***spacecadett*** » 2007-08-17 14:30

what i have read the apc spawn capability will be removed just curios if you guys have worked out if the kit request option will be removed from apcs as well?

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-08-17 14:31

Why would it be? It would make it useless...

*spacecadett* · Post by ***spacecadett*** » 2007-08-17 14:38

apcs useless? on the contrary my friend if used correctly deadly and effective!

Farks · Post by **Farks** » 2007-08-17 14:54

I wanna see APCs with less firepower in the mod, like the Stryker. Why? Because, without the firepower the current APCs has it would force the crew to avoid enemy contact more, and therefore make them better as transport.

Post by **bosco_** » 2007-08-17 14:56

Stryker is coming with the US Army in 0.7

.

Farks · Post by **Farks** » 2007-08-17 15:09

[R-PUB]bosco wrote:Stryker is coming with the US Army in 0.7 .

Will MEC and PLA get counterparts?

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-08-17 15:12

Farks wrote:I wanna see APCs with less firepower in the mod, like the Stryker. Why? Because, without the firepower the current APCs has it would force the crew to avoid enemy contact more, and therefore make them better as transport.

i wanna see APC whit MORE EFFECTIVE firepower!!! Like why APC cannont destroy TANK anymore ? ( 2 single shot even 1 great placed and boom nomore APC...) 25MM is suppose to de some hard damage to T90 and WHY THE HELL T90 can destroy a abram more easiestly

IRL ABRAMS & CHALLENGER are 2praticly unpenetrable tank... not like the T90 Need to be fixed if you want my opinion....

ANYWAYZ if you unarm the APC how the hell we gonna defend our infantry ? is not named Infantry Fighting Vehicule ( or Mechanised Infantry ) for nothing....

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-08-17 15:16

Is it possible you could use punctuation?

The APCs firepower is fine as it is. I took a T-72 out with around 50 APFSDS (sp?) the other day. That's more than enough firepower.

They aren't going to disarm the APCs..... that would be a stupid idea. They were talking about removing the spawn point. And no, it's not named an IFV, it's an Armoured Personnel Carrier.

The 13th Raptor · Post by **The 13th Raptor** » 2007-08-17 15:17

No-one is talking about disarming the apc, but simply limiting its firepower so people will be more inclined to use it to transport and support troops, instead of playing hide and seek around buildings raping infantry spawns.

Farks · Post by **Farks** » 2007-08-17 15:24

Hotrod525 wrote:i wanna see APC whit MORE EFFECTIVE firepower!!! Like why APC cannont destroy TANK anymore ? ( 2 single shot even 1 great placed and boom nomore APC...) 25MM is suppose to de some hard damage to T90 and WHY THE HELL T90 can destroy a abram more easiestly IRL ABRAMS & CHALLENGER are 2praticly unpenetrable tank... not like the T90 Need to be fixed if you want my opinion....

ANYWAYZ if you unarm the APC how the hell we gonna defend our infantry ? is not named Infantry Fighting Vehicule ( or Mechanised Infantry ) for nothing....

APC = Armoured Personal Carrier, not Armoured Anti-Tank Vehicle. If you 'wanna take on enemy MBTs, use an MBT!

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-08-17 15:47

What I'd like to see:

IFVs - Infantry mobility and fire support, keep firepower as it is, not a spawn point.

APCs - pure battle taxis, 12.7/7.62mm top side and can act as a spawn.

ZaZZo · Post by **ZaZZo** » 2007-08-17 17:24

What Bob said

PlayPR! · Post by **PlayPR!** » 2007-08-17 17:40

Bob_Marley wrote:What I'd like to see:

IFVs - Infantry mobility and fire support, keep firepower as it is, not a spawn point.

APCs - pure battle taxis, 12.7/7.62mm top side and can act as a spawn.

I would love to see that as well, I even thik it would be a little more fun to play as the preverbial Battle Taxi driver...

And if this is implimented the USMC sould keep there LAV as their IFV, and the AAV-7 should be their APC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle
Yes, I am aware wikipedia isn't the best source but it is the most accessable...

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2007-08-17 18:07

Bob_Marley wrote:What I'd like to see:

IFVs - Infantry mobility and fire support, keep firepower as it is, not a spawn point.

APCs - pure battle taxis, 12.7/7.62mm top side and can act as a spawn.

That would be rather nice... M2A3 and Stryker for the Army, LAV-25 and AAV-7A1 for the Marines... don't know what the other guys would get, though.

General Dragosh · Post by **General Dragosh** » 2007-08-17 19:52

Bob_Marley wrote:What I'd like to see:

IFVs - Infantry mobility and fire support, keep firepower as it is, not a spawn point.

APCs - pure battle taxis, 12.7/7.62mm top side and can act as a spawn.

Best sayed if u wand use a apc with firepower get yourself a damn IFV !!!!! XD LOL...

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-08-17 20:09

Cerberus wrote:That would be rather nice... M2A3 and Stryker for the Army, LAV-25 and AAV-7A1 for the Marines... don't know what the other guys would get, though.

FV432 "Bulldog" (APC) and FV510 "Warrior" (IFV) for Brits, ZSL92A (APC) and ZSL92 (aka WZ551) (IFV) for the PLA.

As for the MEC, depends if the devs want to keep the focus on Russian stuff, really. If so, BTR-80 (APC) and BTR-90 (IFV) I would imagine.

Longbow* · Post by Longbow* » 2007-08-18 10:23

Hotrod525 wrote: IRL ABRAMS & CHALLENGER are 2praticly unpenetrable tank...

lol'ed
unpenetratable tanks are fiction , every tank is penetratable .

hx.bjoffe · Post by **hx.bjoffe** » 2007-08-18 19:00

Not a single post on-topic?
Come on guys, kit requests.
DEVs?

El_Vikingo · Post by **El_Vikingo** » 2007-08-18 19:02

Spawn on APC? NO

Request kits on APC? Very likely, except for Crewmen and Piot kits.