Strykers?

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-01 16:01

Marines don't use the Stryker, though.

They should have the AAV-7A1.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-04-02 02:34

fair enough, i'll hold my oppinion on it till i get more info.

but back on the track for this, if the original LAV stays in then something needs to be done to make ppl inclined to ferry ppl. Yes, sure as a teamplayer they should do that anyway. But expecting that in the public server is practically impossible.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-04-02 11:26

JUSt get rid of the LAV missiles. They do not have them.
THEIR ARMOUR IS ONLY 10mm max!!!!!!!!! Not even 50cal proof i think. I have come to the conclusion that the stryker is probaly uneccessary but i would really wnat to see the Bradly used as a APC.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-02 16:42

LAV-25 and BTR-90 definitely cannot have anti-tank missiles. Just makes them way too powerful

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-04-02 17:02

btr 90, unfortunatly, is IRL equiped with an AT missile

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-02 17:05

That makes me sad.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-04-02 18:32

I do not care about balance, that is not about realism. ANy one with any common sence or intelligence knows that if yu wnat to keep things fair:
give 3 btr (with missiles) to the "MEC's" and 2 abrams and 2 LAV to the YAnks. It is not completely fair but life never is and that is what makes games fun, fighting against an enemy with a DIFFERENT weapons adn number of men.
Make the maps designed for one team to have more vehicles but make it easier for the opposing team to defend e.g. roof tops, guided rockets, higher ground, and cover.
IT IS SO VERY SIMPLE and the best games SUCH as C&C generals had completely diffferent sides that REQUIRED YU TO USE DIFFERENT TACTICS when yu played as them.

I would like to see this with PR, where in some levels the US are attacting with SUPERIOr weapons (such as the ABRAm and airsupport) but are against a larger number of enemy vehicles.
This concept can be enhanced by a variety of things such as modifing vehicles adn personal weapons (making less/more powerfull and more realistic)

It will not be until this idea is accknowleged (sp), that we will be able to implament new weapons and vehicles realisticly to PR

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-02 20:06

Giving the LAV-25s and BTR-90s anti-tank missiles will only encourage them to take on MBTs, and people will use them less for transporting soldiers to the waypoints

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-04-02 20:16

i agree as i have said before and will say again: BRing home the BRAdly adn the Warrior (when released) for troop transport. THye can ride alone side MTB with the knolege they are stronger enough to take the s**t that follows MTB's.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-02 20:29

Dudes. We need to put in the AAV-7A1. That thing can carry more troops than the LAV-25 (carries four marines realistically, and they are usually used as scouts).

The AAV has a 12.7 mm machine gun (.50 cal, IIRC) and can carry an entire rifle squad (13 people).

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-04-02 21:03

They are amphibeous vehicles. And are only prtected against 50cal adn mabey 20mm. Imagine this: a whole 2 squad clamber into one and a single Sabot round hits it!!!!! lol, in a 24 player game this would mean the whole American team would be dead........................lol

I agree it would be nice to have on certian levels but it would require more waterey levels and a swamps i think.
We firstly need to sort out waht we already have.........but all vehicles should be considerd for implementation!

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-02 23:16

I doubt an any APC could survive a SABOT

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-04-02 23:41

Cerberus wrote:Dudes. We need to put in the AAV-7A1. That thing can carry more troops than the LAV-25 (carries four marines realistically, and they are usually used as scouts).

The AAV has a 12.7 mm machine gun (.50 cal, IIRC) and can carry an entire rifle squad (13 people).

You are correct that the LAV-25 is used by the Marines as a recce vehicle rather than as a "battle-taxi" APC.

The AAVP7A1 can carry even more than a rifle squad; they are simply monstrous vehicles. Also, in addition to the .50 caliber they have a Mk-19 mounted coaxially to it in the turret. This turret configuration is also used on the Army's Armored Security Vehicle. The AAVP7A1 can also be fitted with supplemental armor tiles to increase its survivability. We would like to include it in PR as an APC.

As for the Strykers, sure, they could work on some maps. The Mobile Gun System is still being tweaked; I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever see service, and if it doesn't, that could be a good thing. The M8 Armored Gun System, IMO, was and still is the better plan, and has been successfully retrofitted with the same 120mm cannon as the M1A1/A2 Abrams.

As for the Bradley and BMP, TopCat, keep in mind that they are both equipped with ATGMs in real life and are equipped with the same cannons as the LAV-25 BTR-90 (respectively). Their presence in the game won't stop people from trying to take on MBTs with infantry support vehicles.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-03 01:49

^Good to hear that you guys want to include the AAV-7A1.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-04-03 07:12

So if the USMC use the AAV-7A1, what will be everyone elses comparison?

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-04-03 08:54

this comparison thing is not good.........sorry pence but world does not always work like that and PR must reflect that if it really wants to succeed.
I would love to see the US having technologically supperior vehicle but have less of them. I really only mean a couple like the eagle adn the Abram but this contrast would be thrilling - 2 abrams against 3/4 T72's (with a proper pilot class requiring a test = fully trained drivers adn gunners)

I believe that the AAV-7A1 could not play a significant role in PR at the moment - map are not suitable, limited number of players.

I really think that Muttrah with infantry comabat and helis is the closest to waht PR should be aiming for. Becuase the vehicle are all pretty dodged - too arcady - map with them mean gameplay is nto very realsitic.

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

To balance things a little, maybe give the MEC a BTR-80 because it isn't equipped with an AT-5 Spandrel ATGM IRL

BTR-80 has a crew of 3, can carry 7, and has a 14.5 mm MG and a 7.62 mm PKT.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-04-03 20:37

I read to day that almost all modern AFV adn AIV are soo very weak. Not even the bradley can take a rpg-7 or something similar. The writers came to the conclution that we should do waht the isralis did with the Meverka (wrong name but..) and have space in the back of their MTB for troops.

IT is stupid, with AFV guns being upted from 20mm to 40mm gradualy adn with missiles why build such weak vehicle. THe US governemnt and Uk has to scrap this idea all there new vehicles must be able to be transported by a hercules (uner 20 tonnes). Westerm armies are building lighter vehicles while insurgents just start using bigger bombs adn other weapons, this being not exsactly "fun for the whole family"!!!!!!!!!!!!! more like half of them (family = human race, unfair for westerm peeps)

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-04-04 02:44

Pence wrote:So if the USMC use the AAV-7A1, what will be everyone elses comparison?

As we have stated before, not every vehicle or piece of equipment will have a direct equivalent on every side. You'll have to find each class', vehicle's and team's advantages and limitations and play your best within them. For example, the Warrior IFV in use by the British Army does not have an ATGM capability (which is kind of odd, because the latest export versions do), but other IFVs in the game will.

The BTR-80, BTR-70 and BTR-60PB are very widely used vehicles and in the inventories of several Mid-East states (particularly the BTR-60PB and 70). The picture you have there is of the BTR-80A, which is fitted with a 2A72 30mm cannon similar to the one on the BTR-90 and BMP-2 (2A42). The BTR-60PB and 70 use the same turret found in the BRDM-2 recce vehicle (KPVT 14.5mm coaxial with PKT 7.62mm). The BTR-80 has an improved version of this turret with a higher maximum elevation.