Get rid of exsisting APC's.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-17 09:35

When the full release comes apart from the Warrior, we should have tracked APC's instead of the exsisting tire drivern ones?

LAV's are just getting anoying weeling about like a gay. I was thinking along the lines of Bradley's and BMP's.

Anyone else think so?

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-03-17 10:28

i would love BRM's and BMP's but as far as i am aware the PLA don't uses them.

The MEC might do though (could do)

da.SPAWN · Post by **da.SPAWN** » 2006-03-17 14:33

Pence wrote: Anyone else think so?

No i like the (gay)wheeled APCs

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » 2006-03-17 14:43

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL !!!

Peter-SAS · Post by **Peter-SAS** » 2006-03-17 14:45

Bradley should replace the LAV

MonkeyNutz · Post by **MonkeyNutz** » 2006-03-17 14:49

I like that faster wheel based ones, also better for urban environments, well the road anyway :O )

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-17 16:15

MonkeyNutz wrote:I like that faster wheel based ones, also better for urban environments, well the road anyway :O )

Faster APC's are a nusence to gameplay people think that they are fast enough to go ram a tank..

weeling about like a gay.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2006-03-17 19:20

Why would you get rid of them? They are real. Not to mention more maunverable. Bradley is not really designed for an APC vehicle, its an Infantry fighting vehicle, with a small crew compartment that carries 5 to 6 soldiers. If you want a tracked APC for the U.S, look no further than the AAAV seris. Although I think the wheeled APCs should remain on Urban maps since they are more prone to travel on roads rather than tracked vehicles.

For reference on the AAAV, go here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... avp7a1.htm

JellyBelly · Post by **JellyBelly** » 2006-03-17 20:04

With only a .50 and a grenade launcher armament, maybe it would be possible to make the passengers have the ability to fire there weapons throught the hatches that can be opened above the passenger compartment.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-17 21:55

I am sick to death of weeled APC's, I have resined to useing just a shower now in fear of a f*cking weeling gay. It is a bit silly how there is no need for bridges wile APC's are around and floting weeling gay's are worse when the guy who is driveing, drives you into the water and then you have to evacuate only to find you cant go verry fast so you die...

Oh by the way this is not a question of TAKEING them out, i just dont want them to be as powerfull as the IFV's and i want to see everyone else'es view on them.

I also ask that the MEC/China/America/Russia(if introduced) need an IFV and especily i ask for BMP-3's.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-03-17 21:59

i think the APCs are fine the way they are, i dont know what your talking about, all those vehicles serve different purposes. i say keep the wheeled ones but have a variety of vehicles for different maps/terrains. you can have light armoured fast wheeled ones and medium armoured slow ones.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-03-17 22:09

I can tell you now getting rid of the LAV-25 and BTR completely is not going to happen; they will be altered to make them more realistic. They may be on different maps, but that's it.

Tracked APCs and IFVs will be added later.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-03-18 03:45

This is pasted from the general discussions board.

More variations on apcs would be nice. a light class of apc could be faster and aimed more for transport and anti infantry work (lav 25 & btr 90) while the heavy apcs could be more heavily armed with anti tank compatability and more ammunition (bradly & bmp) the bradly and bmp are both much more widly used than the lav anyway...

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-03-18 04:36

The Bradley, however, is not used by the US Marine Corps, which is in-game at the moment. Like I said, it is not going to be removed.

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 2006-03-18 04:53

I personally love the Bradley M2, I even have a model of it, and the LAV's are quite annoying in vanilla. Perhaps we should incorporate a larger spread of IFV's instead of just LAVs. Also, I thought that it would be cool if the driver could open the back doors as a sort of mobile cover for the troops inside.

Post by **Happy** » 2006-03-18 04:57

All it would take for the Bradley(already ingame) to become the IFV Bradley would be to change the missles from AA to TOW. Of course this is all my speculation so if I am wrong I wouldn't be suprised.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-03-18 05:46

Eagle wrote:I personally love the Bradley M2, I even have a model of it, and the LAV's are quite annoying in vanilla. Perhaps we should incorporate a larger spread of IFV's instead of just LAVs.

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']Tracked APCs and IFVs will be added later.

Eagle wrote:Also, I thought that it would be cool if the driver could open the back doors as a sort of mobile cover for the troops inside.

One of the things we would like to implement with the larger APCs/IFVs is a "seatless" passenger compartment with a ramp controlled by one of the crew positions. For a vehicle as huge as the AAVP7A1 this may be feasible, but the Bradley is a tight squeeze, and we may just be better off trying to increase the passenger positions for it.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-18 18:46

I know that tracked IFV's are comeing later..

you can have light armoured fast wheeled ones and medium armoured slow ones.

Take the TOW off of the APC's please! Make the infantry inside fight the Armour when they disenbark, also the cannon should not damage a tank at all.

Fast APC's in BF2 should be called bumpercars.

Infantrigel · Post by **Infantrigel** » 2006-03-18 19:27

Pence wrote:I know that tracked IFV's are comeing later..
Take the TOW off of the APC's please! Make the infantry inside fight the Armour when they disenbark, also the cannon should not damage a tank at all.
Fast APC's in BF2 should be called bumpercars.

Then it would just be a heavy armoured Hummer or Vodnik. I quite like the APC like they are.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-03-18 20:52

Pence wrote:Take the TOW off of the APC's please! Make the infantry inside fight the Armour when they disenbark, also the cannon should not damage a tank at all.

For the LAV-25, we will, since it is unrealistic. However, the BTR-90 does have an ATGM launcher mounted on the roof. LAV-25 does not have firing ports for embarked infantry, but the BTR-90 does. As for the auto-cannons not being able to damage a tank, that is not true, either, especially in the case of the BTR-90. The 2A42 30mm cannon fires rounds slightly smaller (30 x 164mm) than those used by the GAU-8 Avenger found in the A-10 (30 x 173mm). Just to note, this family of ammunition is used in the GsH-30 series aircraft cannons mounted in the MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-25 and the anti-aircraft cannons mounted in the 2S6 Tunguska.