BMP-3 Weaponry

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2008-02-06 08:05

The "Trojka" is one of the most heavily armed combat vehicles around, fitted with a 100mm main gun, which can fire conventional HE-Frag shells or 9M117 (AT-10 Stabber) ATGMs (40 rounds + 8 ATGM are carried), a 30mm autocannon with 500 rounds, and a 7.62mm machine gun with 2,000 rounds, all mounted coaxially in the turret. There are also two 7.62mm bow machine guns, again with each 2,000 rounds. The BMP-3 is capable of engaging targets out to 5,000 - 6,000 meters, with its ATGM weapon system 9K116-3 "Basnya" (with an approximately eighty percent probability of a hit at that range).

So...can has? Currently, IIRC, all it has is the cannon (firing heat only) and sabot coax auto-cannon. Am I to assume the current one is a place holder?

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2008-02-06 09:29

For an APC its allready very powerfull in PR

mammikoura · Post by **mammikoura** » 2008-02-06 10:02

you could do some balancing like giving it less armor (this might be realistic) or lower speed (probably not that realistic) or something else like that.

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2008-02-06 10:04

mammikoura wrote:you could do some balancing like giving it less armor (this might be realistic) or lower speed (probably not that realistic) or something else like that.

Or in the balancing equation treat it like another tank.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2008-02-06 10:20

Well, according to Wikipedia <fail> it's pretty kick ***.

Cp · Post by Cp » 2008-02-06 10:30

Im seeing this vehicle becoming more usefull in the term of balance, once and if the US army faction arrives, to counter the M2 Bradley. Unlike all the other APCs ingame, the M2 would still have its dubble tow laucher, it also has a 25mm gun and a co-ax machine gun.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2008-02-06 19:02

A coax would be nice, currently you can't counter infantry with the BMP, unless you shoot 30 mm AP rounds at them

BetterDeadThanRed · Post by **BetterDeadThanRed** » 2008-02-06 19:48

8 ATGMs + 40 HEAT rounds + 500 30mm rounds + 3 PKTs w/ 2000 rounds.

Nice.

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2008-02-06 20:00

Yea but in theory the normal apc should have AT missiles but that was removed for pr so its all in line still

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2008-02-06 20:22

I think realistically representing the BMP would be really cool, and continue along the road to having asymmetrical armies. Do remember that there is a limit to the number of weapons you can control with one player in the BF2 engine, but I think having the driver seat control some MGs on the front would be a good idea.

When I return home in 2 or 3 hours I'll have a look at the number of weapons that can be controlled on vehicles, but I'm pretty sure that you're limited to a pair of primaries and a coaxial, as most of the APCs are currently equipped. But I'll check it out.

Harrod200 · Post by **Harrod200** » 2008-02-06 20:30

Does the BMP3 inherit that nice little feature of having the diesel tanks in the rear doors from the BMP1/2, so that any hit there would shower everyone inside in burning fuel? 1x LAT to the rear = instadeath would give it a bit of a weakness

Post by **eggman** » 2008-02-06 20:54

I dont like arbitrary artificial balancing. And I'd love to see the BMP-3 modelled as powerful as it is in real life... then let scenario designers (mappers) and players sort it out.

Generally speaking the militaries throughout the world have already done a lot of balancing work on this stuff. And they have much bigger R&D budgets than we do

Dragonfire43560 · Post by **Dragonfire43560** » 2008-02-06 21:39

I would love to see this vehicle but not if you have to take the P*****y way out and weaken it so the balance noobs can get a hard on. Keep it the way it is, powerful. I mean its still an apc and 1 good tank shell should take it out but dotn weaken it! Also about the fuel tank thing, they dont carry the fuel tanks in battle so no it wouldnt be a weak point.

gclark03 · Post by **gclark03** » 2008-02-07 01:41

If the point of war is to kill the enemy, why not kill them well? They don't design military vehicles to mirror-balance the enemy, they design them to surpass and destroy the enemy.

Upgrade the BMP-3 to its real-life standard, and let the player balance things out.

Post by **GeZe** » 2008-02-07 01:49

I fully agree.

Load out should be in my opinion:

- alt fire (right click) is coaxial 7.62mm
- slot 1 is 30mm AP
- slot 2 is 30mm HE
- slot 3 is 100mm HE
- slot 4 is optional AT missle

Deadmonkiefart · Post by **Deadmonkiefart** » 2008-02-07 01:52

Harrod200 wrote:Does the BMP3 inherit that nice little feature of having the diesel tanks in the rear doors from the BMP1/2, so that any hit there would shower everyone inside in burning fuel? 1x LAT to the rear = instadeath would give it a bit of a weakness

diesel fuel doesn't burn at all unless it is under much pressure.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2008-02-07 02:24

'eggman' wrote:I dont like arbitrary artificial balancing. And I'd love to see the BMP-3 modelled as powerful as it is in real life... then let scenario designers (mappers) and players sort it out.

I totally agree with this. With changes to the vehicle will come changes to maps in order to balance.

'Geze' wrote:Load out should be in my opinion:

- alt fire (right click) is coaxial 7.62mm
- slot 1 is 30mm AP
- slot 2 is 30mm HE
- slot 3 is 100mm HE
- slot 4 is optional AT missle

Definitely agree with this. There are already templates for the 30mm AP and HE, and for the 100mm HEAT, so those would just need to be added to the vehicle, along with sounds (no easy feat, the way sofad has set up the sounds is pretty amazing). I don't know that the ATGM needs to be added, does anyone know if they are commonly used?

Harrod200 · Post by **Harrod200** » 2008-02-07 02:37

Deadmonkiefart wrote:diesel fuel doesn't burn at all unless it is under much pressure.

Actually diesel does ignite at around 210-260*C, which is well below the heat an AT round would generate.

Deadmonkiefart · Post by **Deadmonkiefart** » 2008-02-07 02:57

eggman wrote:I dont like arbitrary artificial balancing.

That is the first time I have heard that in a while, especially from a mod. I am now very relieved. I have been worrying that PR will become increasingly "balanced". I can't stand it when people want to limit a vehicle/weapon just because it is unbalanced. I also hate the idea that armies need to be mirror images of each other. I would like the different armies having different strengths and weaknesses, and have different map positions. If there is a problem with balace in a map, I think the that tickets should be adjusted, or that the weaker team should have a positional advantage.

MarineSeaknight · Post by **MarineSeaknight** » 2008-02-07 03:02

eggman wrote:I dont like arbitrary artificial balancing. And I'd love to see the BMP-3 modelled as powerful as it is in real life... then let scenario designers (mappers) and players sort it out.

Generally speaking the militaries throughout the world have already done a lot of balancing work on this stuff. And they have much bigger R&D budgets than we do

The truth has definately been spoken. I couldn't have put it in a better way.

An example would be like Al Basrah's GB vs. INS situation: the GB is way overpowering with it's modern weaponry and vehicles but the INS can prevail in CQB situations as well as it's advantage as the defender. I find this a very balanced scenario, and I think the DEVs are capable of other balances in scenarios instead of having to balance the weaponry itself.