Project Reality Forums

wow very nice good work.

Holy @#$% that QJC-88 model is AMAZING

are we gonna expect to see automatic grenade lauchers in the future on this puppy?

Beautiful work. Can't wait to take the gunner out from above with a rocket, even better with a knife or C4

good stuff

Kudos to our new members for creating the HMG, it's highly detailed and very appealing graphically. Glad to have you aboard.

Now, I'm not trying to make a debate out of this because as we all know realism almost always has the final say in the matter. But my main point is that as time goes on there are more and more vehicles being introduced into PR are how I would say are... Situational? Or task specific? Rather than adapted specifically for front-line combat.

In example: There has been arguments in the past where some players feel that the TOW HMMWV is being used far more aggressively for tank hunting in game than they should theoretically be. But instead utilized more as a defensive alternative when used in conjunction with other armored assets when such units are present on the battlefield.

But just on a side note (Not referring to the work done on the WZ551A) it just seems odd to me that a modern military force would implement a vehicle like that in a direct and known area of conflict when it has the potential of having more capable firepower upon it. This is the same reason why I even question the U.S. Army for adapting the Stryker with the RWS .50 Cal turret at times.

However, vehicles like these have a purpose. From my basic military knowledge vehicles that are orientated like this play a very passive role in combat. The most practical purpose of a WZ551A (If it is actually used in this manner.) is what I'd consider as being more of a Command Vehicle.

Basically, Command Vehicles sacrifice offensive capability in order to gain additional equipment and utilities. In some cases they're outfitted with a very simple weapon for self-defense or at times nothing at all. This is because they're most likely seen behind the front lines coordinating tactics and logistics between other armored assets using electronics, communication and GPS navigation equipment. Possibly even carrying a small amount of basic but necessary supplies. Things such as first aid, tools, food and water. Maybe even in some cases these vehicles might carry small (But commonly needed.) spare parts in case of a mechanical problem, thus enabling them to offer basic repair assistance to vehicles out in the field.

Simply put, I suppose a vehicle like this is nice to have for gameplay atmosphere and a nice change of pace. But it's functionality in PR and in relation to it's realistic sense may be limited to a point where players would possibly question how practical it really is.

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;948816']QJC-88 12.7mm MG

The QJC-88 is a 12.7mm Machine Gun (MG) that is fitted onto many Chinese Military Vehicles including the WZ551A which is designed to engage both ground and air targets. With it being able to aim 85degs up into the air, helicopters should be very wary of this threat. For now this MG is only fitted to the WZ551A but in the future we plan to fit this MG onto many more Chinese Vehicles.

Not to be a pain, but I'd say a smiliar vehicle that suits the same role would be the ZSU-23-4 Shilka. Although it does not offer the ability to transport troops it's purpose remains pretty much the same as what we're intending in game.

The only real question that we need to ask ourselves is: Does the PLA use the ZSU-23-4 Shilka to this day?

Just so happens that I was lucky enough to stumble over a video of a ZSU-23-4 Shilka. Surprisingly enough it appears to also be Chinese to the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong, but the red flag and the soldiers uniform hints to me that this may be true.). It'd probably be a better alternative, although it doesn't have a troop-carrying capability like the WZ551 and WZ551A.

M.Warren, most of your questions above can be answered by one simple thing, money.

It is a lot cheaper to produce a WZ551A with a HMG turret than it is for one with a 30mm or w/e turret.

China has a huge army, they can not afford to equipped all of there divisions with there most up to date equipment, hence why they have like 4 different MBTs (not sure on the exact numbers) where the ZTZ-99, there best tank is only used so much where the Brits have there CR2 as there only MBT since the Brits have a much smaller army and rely on more upto date equipment all the way though our Army in order to make up for our numbers.

They are also I would like to point out faster than the normal WZ551 since they have a huge chunk of there wait gone from the turret, giving them anouther small advantage.

At the end of the day, the WZ551 and the WZ551A are just APC, (Armoured Personal Carriers) which are there to transport infantry as there main role and not to be a "light tank" which seems to be along the lines of what your thinking. There weapons should only be used in defence and support and not as a main fighting force. the QJC is much better at Anti-Air protection than a 30mm turret, which also gives it anouther little up over the 30mm turret.

As for your command vehicle thing, no its really not used like that. A command vehicle normally has no weapons and his heavily modified with lots more radio equipment etc. This is still just a APC.

So at the end of the day, yes, China would use them on the front lines since they are one, cheaper and 2, faster and 3, give better AA cover which yes might not be a big factor if you have ADV around but you can't always have them everywhere and the more AA the better.

I hope that answers your questions.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:They are also I would like to point out faster than the normal WZ551 since they have a huge chunk of there wait gone from the turret, giving them anouther small advantage.

Will this actually be modeled in-game? Because the Stryker was claimed to be faster and more maneuverable than other APCs but it handles no differently.

Charity Case wrote:Will this actually be modeled in-game? Because the Stryker was claimed to be faster and more maneuverable than other APCs but it handles no differently.

well so far its the same speed but with more tweaking and providing we dont forget it should be faster when released, but I'm a very forgetful person on these little details, for example I still think the MG is missing the bullet ejection effect

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:...the MG is missing the bullet ejection effect

If it fails to eject bullets then what's it good for then?!?!?!


(Just teasing you - but if it doesn't eject empty casings I'm gonna be sad too - I'm somewhat addicted to them, don't ask )

Paper weight

will it be able to "zoom" or not?
because it wouldnt be realistic would it, as there is no optical sight

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:At the end of the day, the WZ551 and the WZ551A are just APC, (Armoured Personal Carriers) which are there to transport infantry as there main role and not to be a "light tank" which seems to be along the lines of what your thinking. There weapons should only be used in defence and support and not as a main fighting force. the QJC is much better at Anti-Air protection than a 30mm turret, which also gives it anouther little up over the 30mm turret.

Mkay. Well, I wouldn't go on the impression that I'm intending to use it as a "light tank" which is a common misconception. Whenever I crew an APC the role of offering transport has always been and always will be the primary focus whenever possible. Fire support is always a secondary role.

However my concern is that APC's are predominantly used for fire support due to the fact of generally how very little traveling is ever needed. This is just the nature of PR at this time as long as infantry traveling on foot has a maximum practical range of 450 meters. Anything else furthur than that becomes heavily time consuming and potentially risks the infantry squad from being slowed down by engagements and hazards.

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.

Basically what I'm getting at is the main purpose of APC's in PR will never be glorified enough until there is a 2km - 4km map specifically designed with a significant distance between flags and a lack of alternative transports other than APC's.

The problems faced are:
A. 4 kilometer maps almost always have a large transport chopper available. Thus, defeating the purpose of any emphasized use of an APC via the use of swift air transport and delivery of supply crates on drop off. Such as Kashan Desert and The Battle for Qinling.

B. 2 kilometer maps that are theoretically "Mechanized Infantry" orientated almost always have flags within a 450 meter distance of the next flag or a main base. Although 450 meters may seem far, it can be traveled in what I'd estimate in less than 2-3 minutes*.

<Note *: Now being a veteran to Squad Leading, I simply cannot count how many times I've ordered a squad of 5 to proceed 250 - 450 meters to an objective. Especially at times when I've noticed 10-15 people standing around main base waiting for a vehicle to spawn/transport them. Not because the distance was far, mind you. But they were simply lazy. I feel that running a distance of 250 - 450 meters is capable of being done when necessary. It may be slightly time consuming but I can tell you personally that it's better to simply spend the time moving on foot than to stand around waiting for a vehicle to:

1. Designate a pick up/drop off point.
2. Reform with Infantrymen and wait at pick up point.
3. Mount up at pick up point.
4. Get transported.
5. Dismount at drop off point.
6. Disperse back into formation and proceed to objective.

Just trying to point out that the time and effort consumed to prepare for combined teamwork between Infantry and APC's must not outweigh the benefit of overcoming obstacles and the distance traveled.>

My belief is that APC transport will become a realized necessity in PR when travel distances and flag zones are spaced apart in excess of 800 meters and on. Even on EJOD Desert and Muttrah City where Mechanized Infantry has some of the greater potential of occurring, you still see infantry units advancing from flag to flag on foot. Why? Simply because the travel is that short enough for infantry to flag hop without the hassle and complications of coordinating transport.

Like stated, I didn't want to make a debate out of it as I just wanted to clarify some things that may have been misinterpreted or remained unmentioned in my last post. I feel that data must be presented to legitimately evaluate to prove if certain vehicles/assets are worthwhile.

My questions are:
1. Would a vehicle that is this transport orientated be this necessary for the maps and travel distances that are already existent in PR? Especially when it could possibly replace already existing (and far more practical) vehicles that are more effective in their secondary role for the team by defeating enemy units when not being used in it's primary transport role.

2. We only have 32 players per side. Having 2 of those players in vehicle of questionable practical use consumes manpower. Having 2 of these vehicles means 4 people have been consumed from the team, which could have been contributed to an Infantry Squad. Is this worthwhile for such a vehicle of questionable use?

3. What effect will this have to asymmetrical/symmetrical balancing for damage caused by .50 caliber weaponry against certain APC's? Such as the BRDM, Stryker and BTR-60? Or possibly the more formidable IFV class APC's with larger cannons?

It is clear that the WZ551A is the same vehicle chassis as the WZ551 which seems to have much more effective armor against .50 caliber weapons. This APC appears to be identical to its counterpart and not a vehicle of it's own class (Like the BRDM is specified as a Recon Vehicle whereas the WZ551 is an actual APC like the Stryker.).

Don't get me wrong, I love new game content. But we need to ask ourselves are we just watering it down and/or complicating it in the process?

Well written as always, Warren.

M.Warren wrote:
1. Would a vehicle that is this transport orientated be this necessary for the maps and travel distances that are already existent in PR? Especially when it could possibly replace already existing (and far more practical) vehicles that are more effective in their secondary role for the team by defeating enemy units when not being used in it's primary transport role.

For smaller maps in PR, where travelling by foot is generally the superior option. I see APC's like the WZ551A being integrated alongside it's 25mm counterpart. Not replacing it. Because you're right, taking a map like Qwai for example, APC's are predominately fire support due to the extremely short travel distances.

M.Warren wrote:
2. We only have 32 players per side. Having 2 of those players in vehicle of questionable practical use consumes manpower. Having 2 of these vehicles means 4 people have been consumed from the team, which could have been contributed to an Infantry Squad. Is this worthwhile for such a vehicle of questionable use?

I believe there use will be far less questionable with PR moving towards larger (slower paced) maps where having Mech.Inf units will be a requirement for success. There are several 4km maps in development for future releases.

M.Warren wrote:
3. What effect will this have to asymmetrical/symmetrical balancing for damage caused by .50 caliber weaponry against certain APC's? Such as the BRDM, Stryker and BTR-60? Or possibly the more formidable IFV class APC's with larger cannons?

All up to how we audit the maps to include this kind of variant. The actual damage of 50cal rounds vs various forms of APC armour won't change.

In the end mostly it will come down to:


Am I safer walking or traveling in the APC? Questionable, because with worse weaponary on the apc, it will be an interesting HAT/rpg etc magnet, where as infantry can cover better, but then depends on the map.


Do I trust the crew? Some people won´t listen to your transport requests, or will take you on one hell of a ride.


Will we as an APC crew wait in the hope that someone will ask or even want our help, or do we go off and try to engage the enemy in the most effective way?

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;963574']For smaller maps in PR, where travelling by foot is generally the superior option. I see APC's like the WZ551A being integrated alongside it's 25mm counterpart. Not replacing it. Because you're right, taking a map like Qwai for example, APC's are predominately fire support due to the extremely short travel distances.

Good news to hear. I'll admit that I can see the WZ551A being particularly useful on Qwai River with low flying helicopters, infantry being in close proximity and a limited view distance.

I was concerned that it would potentially replace it's alternative configuration which would have a negative impact on gameplay in my opinion. As long as it's mixed in with it's similar units, I feel that's would be in good measure. It's far better to have a spectrum of useful assets than having a single asset type with limited capability.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:I believe there use will be far less questionable with PR moving towards larger (slower paced) maps where having Mech.Inf units will be a requirement for success. There are several 4km maps in development for future releases.

Yet again, good news to hear. I'm glad maps are being devised with Mechanized Infantry specifically in mind. It's clear that between game types, scenarios, flag zones, geography and theaters of combat all have an influence on it's implementation.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:All up to how we audit the maps to include this kind of variant. The actual damage of 50cal rounds vs various forms of APC armour won't change.

That'll do.

By the way, thank you for your honest and gentleman approach on the matter. Usually most of my comments have been met with heated responses as if I'm attempting to convict someone for high treason. Words may be thrown around from time to time and fingers pointed, but hey it's all for the better.

Please tell me you intend to build the Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System after this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzi8cBiHfGM[/youtube]

M.Warren wrote:Good news to hear. I'll admit that I can see the WZ551A being particularly useful on Qwai River with low flying helicopters, infantry being in close proximity and a limited view distance.

I was concerned that it would potentially replace it's alternative configuration which would have a negative impact on gameplay in my opinion. As long as it's mixed in with it's similar units, I feel that's would be in good measure. It's far better to have a spectrum of useful assets than having a single asset type with limited capability.

It did say a few times in the first post that this would not replace the WZ551

glad you understand where we are coming from now