[Vehicle / Weapon] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

[Smegburt_funkledink]

Lol Rhino, I thought you guys only wanted to put this in game to confuse or upset M.Warren.

[sarcasm] I mean, c'mon, who wants to see more variations of weapons mounted on vehicles in PR? If you thought about it for a minute, you'd totally remove this immediately and not even consider implementing such an addition to the mod. [/sarcasm]

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

In a realistic point of view, the WZ551A fulfills the roles of the HMMVs. In terms of PR, think of it as a replacement for the bastardized hobo-mobile (aka, Nanjing *shudder* ).

[hx.bjoffe]

So you're saying it's a placeholder for your own hobo-mobile

[M.Warren]

Okay, so I'll sum everything up to less than a paragraph for the ease of reading. --- So you're basically telling me that the WZ551A is a non-essential vehicular element being placed into PR to provide the diversification of assets and to also take part in the minor combat role of AA Defense.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;966087']I wouldn't say non-essential as transporting infantry around the battlefield is essential which is its main role. But the rest above is correct yes.[/quote]

Which brings us right back around to one of my original points. What is the true and absolute definition of "Transportation" in PR? What is the absolute minimum distance in which vehicular transport is actually considered worthwhile? What is the average distance for vehicular transport actually valued the most?

The idea here is that I am trying to prevent the use of transport vehicles from looking like a bunch of clowns getting into a jam-packed clown car and driving 5 meters from one side of the circus ring to the other and calling it a wrap...

Or something like this instead -


I mean honestly, when you go to visit a friends house you don't grab your keys off the kitchen table, walk out to your car, turn it on and drive if 1/2 way down the block and park in your friends driveway. It's a waste.

[quote="M.Warren""]Infantrymen Travel Distances:
1 - 250 meters = Average traveling distance for infantry units.
250 - 450 meters = Above Average traveling distance for infantry units.
450 - 650 meters = Excessive traveling distance for infantry units.
650 - ??? = Impractical traveling distance for infantry units.[/quote]

See, the point of transport is to truly travel distances of 650 meters and over. Although 650 meters is a hefty distance for infantry to travel, it is the critical maximum distance that they can do so effectively but it is not done regularly. As said, the usual distance is 1-450 meters for infantry. Basically if a squad wants to be transported at a distance of 450-650 meters, it's up to the APC crew to determine if it's worth the effort of transporting such a short distance. Anything 650 meters and over is clearly the APC crews responsibility to honor.

My idea is that any real map that is remotely near emphasizing distance would have flags that are at least 1-2 kilometers apart but I wouldn't suggest more than 3km. To put this into perspective, I've already tested some of this on Kashan Desert to help make sure my statements weren't obscure. (Just in case you may have been thinking I've been going off on some random anti-PR conquest.)

Here's some measurements:
U.S. Airfield Main (Standing by the main entrance/exit to the airfield.) to U.S. Outpost Flag -
This distance is reported to be 2887 meters (2,900 meters basically.) apart. Just about 100 meters under 3 kilometers away.

and

U.S. Airfield Main (Standing by the main entrance/exit to the airfield.) to North Village Flag -
This distance is reported to be 1628 meters (1,600 meters basically.) apart. Just 100 meters over 1.5 kilometers away.

and

U.S. Airfield Main (Standing by the main entrance/exit to the airfield.) to U.S. Army Ops. Base Flag -
This distance is reported to be 452 meters (450 meters basically) apart. Just 50 meters short of being .5 kilometer away.

As you can see, it is fairly easy to run from the U.S. main base to the Ops Base flag. But you clearly wouldn't run to North Village or the U.S. Army Outpost. My point being is that as soon as maps have flag zones have a consistant 1+ kilometers between eachother, the concept of this theorized "Transportation" has almost no weight in the means of average PR maps.

In using Qwai River as a reference, yes some transport may potentially be used (I don't anticipate much.) but what I would estimate that the WZ551A would be used mostly in it's AA Defense role as the distance to be traveled is not significant. But then again, on a map where transport is needed the most such as "The Battle for Qinling" you'll notice that it transports quite well, but will completely lack in the department of self defense. Thus, nearly useless to the squad it's working in conjunction with and so the alternative WZ551 with 25mm Cannon will be used to most (If used at all).

This vehicle features little to no true purpose until a map is specifically designed and completed with the emphasis of Mechanized Infantry in mind for the future PR builds to highlight the WZ551A's supposed and unseen potential. Correct?

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;966087']I wouldn't say that but that depends on how you view it.

At the end of the day, China do use these quite a bit and they are made because they are cheaper and faster than the normal 25mm cannon version, main bit here is that they are cheaper but they still fill there main role of transporting infantry which is the main role we want them to do in PR.

We have already seen in PR, that APCs are used more for transport and less as a light tank when they have a lighter weapon and even thou yes, normal APCs with a larger cannon can be very effective at both transporting and supporting infantry, and there is no reason why players can't do this ingame, just many get distracted by the power of the cannon and for some reason, infantry squads are less inclined for the most part to use a APC with a cannon as transport than one with a 50cal. Try driving upto a random infantry squad that is not using mumble etc and even if they are very far from an objective they will 4/5 times not hop in.

But anyways, that is not the main point this is being brought in, that's just one of them. One of the main things is that having more different weapons, even if slightly different, will add anouther dimension to the game play of the mod.[/quote]

Seems odd to me on how there's a connection between armament and it's transportation usage.

If I recall properly from bearing witness to situations transpiring in game. --- I don't see people going out of their way to use Strykers for transporation more simply because it has a remotely operated .50 caliber MG on it instead of a 25mm automatic cannon. Matter of fact, I see people using APC's less that are inadequately armed because some people actually value their lives in game and know better than to put themselves in danger.

What I do remember bearing witness to is myself, fuzzhead, dbzao and a handful of dedicated team players running Strykers and combined infantry squads on Ramiel. That's who made use of them. Not some sort of subliminal message derived from a shortage of firepower convincing players to use them as what's deemed fit in the name of PR.

[quote="Sgt.Smeg""]Lol Rhino, I thought you guys only wanted to put this in game to confuse or upset M.Warren.

[sarcasm] I mean, c'mon, who wants to see more variations of weapons mounted on vehicles in PR? If you thought about it for a minute, you'd totally remove this immediately and not even consider implementing such an addition to the mod. [/sarcasm][/quote]

I suppose you're an individual who enjoys straining yourself to scrounge up every little bit of effort to bring teamwork to a public server. But only to be met headlong by the introduction of incapable vehicles to PR in the process for the sake of realism and supposedly necessary diversity in the field which could be easily fulfilled by more effective alternatives.

After enduring the annoyance of communicating and organizing with a squad outside of your own you attempt to deliver them safely to a combat zone. Upon approach you come under fire and the first thing that hit's you is a Light Anti-Tank munition. Turns out that the Light Anti-Tank munition you were hit by is made of high explosive charge. --- Just like every other LAT available... Thus, killing the first occupant of the vehicle which is the fully exposed gunner in the top turret.

Now that you're defenseless and your vehicle is running on 4 of 6 wheels you manage to drop off the squad you were transporting. Seeing as that your vehicle has come to a complete stop and has lost all of it's inertia to keep moving, you now find yourself stuck and unable to drive away to save yourself. Just so happens that while you are pleading to the Commander (if there actually was one) for a Logistics truck to bring you repairs (and the commander replying that we do not have anyone at this time doing such a task), an enemy APC comes around the corner after hearing that you were in the area and proceeds to gun you down dead on the spot.

But then again I guess this was your fault, for trying to teamwork with other squads, be a good APC driver and assist your team with your rightful duties. It just so happens that according to PR logic you were in the wrong because your APC was shot at while trying to transport troops. After all you're not allowed to get shot at while transporting troops, because that'd mean you're too close to the front lines; the same front lines which you're not supposed to be close enough to in order to be getting shot at to begin with.

Makes perfect sense right? /Sarcasm

So much for keeping it short. I guess things cannot be explained thoroughly in a paragraph of 20 words or less. Although I wish things were just that easy at times.

[Rhino]

well, if transport distances for maps is your main concern then the only way to really fix that is with new maps but really, unless you have only 2 flags on a 4km map, your really not going to find yourself getting transported more than 3km and even if it was only 2 flags, you would most likly have to dismount 1/2 way to engage oncoming units.

Its probaly best that you just wait unti this thing is released until you start to give this kinda feedback on it thou really, your feedback seems to be more about APCs in general and maps rather than this thing and if so I suggest you make a new topic on it.

[Incomplete Spork]

In a realistic point of view, the WZ551A fulfills the roles of the HMMVs. In terms of PR, think of it as a replacement for the bastardized hobo-mobile (aka, Nanjing *shudder* ).

Accept it isn't as organized and nobody will use it for transport because it requires a crewman kit and you cant have the communication like a humvee.

[Expendable Grunt]

Heavy_Z, when are we going to see your hobo-mobile of doom? It looked pretty sweet.

It's a pity this can't simply be added via server side, so we could get a check out right away.

.9 HO!

M.

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

Lol, when I mentioned "Hobo-mobile", I was referring to the Nanjing we've had for a while from vBF2... This "blessing" upon humanity from EA:


VN3 is this sexy beast:



Which will be rolling into action... soon

But now we are getting off topic, back on to the original conversation.

Accept it isn't as organized and nobody will use it for transport because it requires a crewman kit and you cant have the communication like a humvee.

How do you know for a fact that "nobody will use it for transport"? That's a rather bold statement without even seeing this thing in action. Are the APC's currently in game not used most of the time for transport?

[Buren]

Excellent work on the chinese .50 cal! That modell just beats everything.

So when's the M113 for the MEC? (no not the BTR-x0)

[Aquiller]

Hey, I love Nanjing (and I suppose everyone in CATA2 also ). If I would find myself in unknown difficult terrain with lots of obstacles and hills - Nanjing is the best way to go through.

But, of course - VN3 > Nanjing.

[PR.IT Stek_WAR]

i like it a lot....tanks guy

[Incomplete Spork]

Are the APC's currently in game not used most of the time for transport?

NO! They just roll off to do their own thing not caring about giving anyone a ride at all. Occasionally you will get a decent apc squad but 90% of the time they hop in and leave base immediately.

Even though this has a smaller gun I know the dill dong apc crews will just take it to try to kill everything.

[Mary.au]

I agreee with Incomplete Spork, at least to some extent.

With the influx of new players at the moment, you'l find that people grab an apc and rush in hunting for things to kill, with entire squads left running to the front lines. Because the players are realtivly new they therefore don't even effectivly know how to use the apc, and get it killed promptly.

I would encourage the PR Devs to advise Server Admins to make APC transportation more of a server rule that needs to be enforced. Im not sure of the best way to do this, maybe a handbook for Server Admins of recommended rules?

[Pure_beef]

Im with Spork on this one, the apc's usually just try shoot stuff

[rough77]

question: where's the advantage for this model in reality?

[Mary.au]

question: where's the advantage for this model in reality?

I would assume it would be both cheaper, both for the weapon and the ammunition.
Also less training would be needed to use the gun.
The vehicle itself would be lighter as a result of a lighter weapon and ammunition.
The gun itself can aim higher and therefore hit more aerial targets.

Correct me if I am wrong please

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

No, like I said earlier, it serves basically the same roles as HMMVs in the American army in the real life Chinese Army. The main reason for this configuration isn't exactly just because it's easier to use or cheaper and lighter (Though it is less expensive and lighter). The added weight of having a 25mm cannon has insignificant effect on land maneuverability, only on amphibious operations is the weight difference between the two variations noticeable.

The main reason for this configuration is the flexibility it offers by being able to engage air and ground targets as well as targets garrisoned in higher positions. Another reason for this configuration is because in some situations going in with a 25mm cannon is like going after flies with... well, a cannon, but simply using the 7.62 coax lack the fire power (IE urban setting/ close infantry support)

Also, to further calm this fear that the WZ551A is going to replace the 25mm variant, there will be at most a ratio of 2:1 between the WZ551 and WZ551A in terms of PR. IRL the ratio of WZ551 to WZ551A would be higher, but the ratio of 2:1 is justifiable in PR because most of the maps focus on infantry despite the presence of armored vehicles. Chances are, the WZ551A would be most prevalent on infantry layer of maps.

[Incomplete Spork]

it serves basically the same roles as HMMVs in the American army

Isn't that for the VN3?

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

VN3 is a recon vehicle IRL

[McBumLuv]

So... everyone's happy? The VN3 will be like the BRDM-2, in other words, a speacialized vehicle, and not one to take over any squad transportation function.

The WZ551A will be more of a squad oriented vehicle, I'm guessing? Like a humvee, it won't require specialised squads destined solely for it's crewing. Regardless of it's implications to gameplay (which weren't even mentioned in the OP), the model is georgous. Nothing's been said about it's spawn time yet, or what else it will offer in-game that will affect it's gameplay. So why critisize already?