WMIK, Possible Changes

Thunderchunk · Post by **Thunderchunk** » 2007-12-23 21:12

During my tour in Helmand this year i used Land Rover WMIKs on multiple occasions and i have a few ideas/Suggestions which i thought ide share.

Firstly they look a little plain, all of our WMIKS were battle scarred which various bullet holes and burns on them. Also the paint jobs were rough and ragged. Also, attaching some kit to the sides would do wonders. It was also common to have a couple of AT4s strapped to the front.

Another point which would add to the visual realism in my opinion would be the actual firing of the 50 Cal. If anyone has fired a 50. Cal they will know the sheer seismic energy that is released. My lasting memory of the .50 is from an abush en-route to Sangin, Helmand Province, in which i was on the .50 and the sheer force i felt coursing throgh me with every shot was immense. I think a slight blur effect for each round being fired would demonstrate this.

Other than that, great job with them and i hope these comments are valued.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-12-23 21:16

Strapping AT4s on it would make it a ninja anti-armor jeep, so most likely won't happen.

robbo · Post by **robbo** » 2007-12-23 21:23

I totally agree with the AT4 idea maybe just one but make it so you cant reload the AT4 at the jeep or make it so you can request L-AT from the jeep.

I like the blur idea too.

Oh and thanks for your service in afganistan

LtSoucy · Post by **LtSoucy** » 2007-12-23 21:38

Some great ideas. The AT4's would look cool but may require a new model. And the bullet holes cant be done as far as I know. The burns could but it would need require reskining of it. And thankyou for your service.

Thunderchunk · Post by **Thunderchunk** » 2007-12-23 21:41

Outlawz wrote:Strapping AT4s on it would make it a ninja anti-armor jeep, so most likely won't happen.

They are not fired from it, it is solely to either ressuply ground troops or for the commander to jump out, grab one and give an enemy compound some love.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-12-23 22:39

LtSoucy wrote:Some great ideas. The AT4's would look cool but may require a new model. And the bullet holes cant be done as far as I know. The burns could but it would need require reskining of it. And thankyou for your service.

Your just saying what you heard about other more outlandish suggestions. Its is Easy to add an existing model to a existing model. by recoloring the skin you can add bullet holes, scrapes and burns.

Crusader09 · Post by **Crusader09** » 2007-12-23 22:40

I see requestable light anti-tank kits from jeeps. Sounds good on Kashan Desert at least.

Viper5 · Post by **Viper5** » 2007-12-23 22:42

Teek wrote:Your just saying what you heard about other more outlandish suggestions. Its is Easy to add an existing model to a existing model. by recoloring the skin you can add bullet holes, scrapes and burns.

True, but

1. How will that effect the poly count?

2. Its not quite as easy

3. How will it impact gameplay?

4. Do you want to re-skin?

Would love to see it but I dont know exactly how much work it'd be. Also dont think the DEV Team wants to allow people to request kits from light transport (Landrover, Nanjing, Vodnik, HMMWV) but I could be wrong.

Post by **bosco_** » 2007-12-23 22:44

Getting a L-AT kit from the base before leaving and therefore "putting" it into your Landie works fine for me

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-12-23 22:44

It won't affect poly count, because you can add a child to an object?

Thunderchunk · Post by **Thunderchunk** » 2007-12-23 22:51

Basically make them look rugged and battleworn. Retexturing and remodeling i can imagine is a lot of work, but the result could look impressive. It all depends how realistic you want to go i just felt that the WMIK lacked the realism that some of the other vehicles seem to have. Possibly because it is still in the earlier stages?

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-12-23 22:57

Re-texturing to add more bullet holes/scratches isn't complicated, but dunno why should they be remodeled. The idea is, that we're using brand new Landies in-game, as they don't usually return to base.

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-12-23 23:02

But they look so purty...
Definitely worth adding kit to the sides of the landies imo. Both realistic and visually impressive

Thunderchunk · Post by **Thunderchunk** » 2007-12-23 23:03

Outlawz wrote: The idea is, that we're using brand new Landies in-game, as they don't usually return to base.

Very good point, but still, the kit and armour strapped to the sides. Where else would we keep our lucazade sachets. Also ammo tins on the inside, we carried loads, seeing as in a 10 minute rolling ambush i fired off 350 (reloading on a moving WMIK is difficult btw)

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2007-12-24 06:30

I like the suggestion thunder. Every troop carrying vehicle, regardless of country or service, ends up with **** all over. Ammo, packs, rockets, etc. It'd be nice to see this ingame.

None of the jeep class vehicles will rearm in .7 so I personally think it should just be for looks. Sometimes you just want something to look right, and I think these would be some touches that would make PR look that much better.

Thunderchunk · Post by **Thunderchunk** » 2007-12-24 14:59

Here is an example of some kit strapped to a WMIK. The armour plates ( will stop 7.62 short) and two bergans. also note the back door is open, inside are two types of ECM.

Brummy · Post by **Brummy** » 2007-12-24 15:13

It does add realism, but if you'd add it to the Landrover. You would have to add it to every vehicle in the game = Way too much work.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2007-12-24 16:21

That is quite true. Also, while some visual effects are all well and good, gameplay changes are much more important.

Thunderchunk · Post by **Thunderchunk** » 2007-12-24 16:47

The armour is not just visual, the armour is a relativly lightweight addition which all the WMIKs have.