Project Reality Forums

'[R-DEV wrote:fuzzhead;866286']Players still have misconception about APC's carried over from vbf2 that they are essentially "light tanks", which is NOT what we want to see them used as.

Yeah...that

Personally, I am a huge fan of running a squad like the one you put together. I've had great matches where the squad (usually in a Bradley) works together as a mechanized unit. Usually I think it's good to have one guy with a HAT kit. Move in the vehicle, disembark and go on foot with the vehicle supporting or running perimeter defense.

I remember playing Operation Flashpoint CTI where i was usually doing patrols with a M2A2 and 6 soldiers

I don't think there's a problem using an APC as a suppression unit or any other kind of weapons platform if the situation dictates it as a sensible use. There are intended uses and then there's practical life/gameplay. If you have an enemy entrenched and its advantageous to eliminate him with the APC, by all means. If you have squads struggling to get around the map, then obviously use it that way.

Obviously I think the best way is if you have a good Commander directing an APC squad around the map. Then its a matter of someone with the bigger picture prioritizing it.

i saw a program on discovery about a real life scenario that happend in Irak i think where a american teeam was in heavy fighting in an city and thhere the APC or IFV where used as shield for the trops when they where moving and also mainly to transport wounded out of combat

Actually I was checking out vids of canadians in afghanistan and I saw this.

Watch at around 00:40 in and you'll see a LAV APC firing its gun in support of the Canadians who've been ambushed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFjs5sm-yRI&feature=related

And another example of APC use.... 05:25

@PFunk

I don't say it's a bad thing to use the APC as a "light tank" if the situation demands it. But often it's not. Players rather die fighting and respawn on a firebase/rally/carrier and get a chopper/jeep to get to another location, then request APC support to help/evac them.

Usually when there's an APC nearby and I know the location of some troops, I try to get their attention, but APC crews are usually to self-focused to notice the requests.

NyteMyre wrote:Yesterday I had a very nice fight on Muttrah V2.
I was leading a Mechanized Infantry Squad and we did very good.
Our squad had the following set up

1. Squadleader - Officer
2. Medic
3. Engineer
4. Light AT
5. APC Driver
6. APC Gunner.

During the battle, we mainly drove around with the APC to a target area, where we would disembark and cover the APC. Or visa versa where the APC would cover us while we rushed a building. With the support of the engineer and Light AT we could handle a encounter with a MEC BRT and when we spotted a MEC LAT/HAT, we would go on foot and take it out.

Anyway, we did so well that the question rose up in my mind: "Why doesn't this happen more often?"

APC quote from Wikipedia:



In PR itself, APC's are mainly used as a fighting vehicle alone. If you request transport of one, the driver or gunner will usually bluntly ignore your request. Isn't there a way to promote infantry transport by the APC's?



-ps-
Sorry for those who were with me in the squad...i'm bad at remembering nicknames

Nytemyre's layout is a sure way to have a squad with the highest number of points on a team and usually have twice the number of points of other squads. Knowing this, many SLs run this sort of layout and are very successful with it. Whether this usage of the vehicle is reflected in reality or not, I cannot say. In PR it is highly, highly effective. Of course, its success depends on a number of factors that have been addressed in other threads.

For PR to reflect the proper usage of these vehicles the point system has to be tweaked, otherwise they will continue to be the 'light tanks' that Fuzzhead refers to. Personally, I love Nytemyre's layout and I use it all the time. It gives a squad a huge advantage on maps. The key is to keep the APC alive and use it very conservatively, which then makes it approach its use as an APC.

NyteMyre wrote:And another example of APC use.... 05:25
Usually when there's an APC nearby and I know the location of some troops, I try to get their attention, but APC crews are usually to self-focused to notice the requests.

Hence the need for a strong commander who will compel these loner fools to actually pitch in. The way I see it the gun on top of an APC is just like the door guns on a Black Hawk. Support while doing your other job, but don't hesitate to use them if you're there anyway. Though thats just a rough example... imagine a Black Hawk just sitting there firing its guns like a stationary base of fire... that'd be ridiculous. Even so, the use of uber-aggressive tactics with APCs is like a much milder but basically similar transgression.

PFunk wrote:imagine a Black Hawk just sitting there firing its guns like a stationary base of fire... that'd be ridiculous.

This would be a bad time to mention that i've been a BH pilot with 2 gunner on a 16player Kashan once, giving hell to the MEC in the bunkers.

---

Anyway, tweaking the point system won't really help I think. I personally don't go for the highest rank/points in a round. It's not that I think: "oeh, if i do that I get more points".

IFVs do have big autocannons mounted for a reason, that reason being infantry support. Mechanized infantry is trained to operate with IFV support. I wouldn't really want to see APCs that are just glorified trucks with some more armor bolted on. As it is now, APCs/IFVs work very well when employed in ways that they get employed in real life. They are also more vulnerable when operating alone, as opposed to operating with infantry support.

The main problem is getting people to expect APC transport, and getting APCs to transport people.

daranz wrote: The main problem is getting people to expect APC transport, and getting APCs to transport people.

And infantry to support APC's.
Forgot to mention, but when I drive/gun a APC, I like to stick close to a squad, but most of those squads find it a nuisance and think i'm there to steal kills and most of the time move away from the APC.

1. Squadleader - Officer
2. Medic
3. Engineer
4. Light AT
5. APC Driver
6. APC Gunner.

This is the way it should be done!

The reason why i dont like to be a member of an infantry squad when in APCs is the attack marker. Seriously, that thing is invaluable when APCing.

I do on the other hand try to transport inf as much as a can, but they often have humvees/trucks to drive in so they dont get in...

I just ran a mixed APC Infantry squad on Seven Gates on the British side of the 10th Mountains Server.

The layout was

1. SL (Scandicci)
2. APC Gunner (Deathflesh)
3. APC Driver (Lord Alroar(
4. Engineer (Gabes)
5. Medic (PeteGlory)
6. Rifleman (Chunga)

I kept the APC back until we had targets and we were relatively sure that there were no serious threats to the APC. I put attack markers on the hostile troops moving to River Fort, the APC would roll up, engage the attack marker and then move back. This sort of use of the APC is extremely effective. Later we assualted and secured the outpost using the APC at a medium standoff distance that softened up the objective with high explosive rounds while we walked up to take the flag. We got to the top of the Outpost structure and there were just a bunch of dead Opfor. The guys in the squad have to be disciplined. The APC driver has to stay put and only engage when the SL and squad members have identified targets and are sure that the APC is not over committing itself.

Why move slowly and support infantry, when you can do 60 Km/h and kill enemies on the go and run over a poor ******* here and there and no AT can get a shot on you and you probably killed all the guys that had the five AT kits in existence anyway.
Anyone thought of that?

[R-COM]Outlawz wrote:Why move slowly and support infantry, when you can do 60 Km/h and kill enemies on the go and run over a poor ******* here and there and no AT can get a shot on you and you probably killed all the guys that had the five AT kits in existence anyway.
Anyone thought of that?

You can move fast supporting infantry... The point is to work together. You do not always need to be 10 meters away from the allied infantry to support them. And, I enjoy a lot having a APC or Tank supporting me when I play infantry or to support a infantry squad when I play armor.

[R-COM]Outlawz wrote:Why move slowly and support infantry, when you can do 60 Km/h and kill enemies on the go and run over a poor ******* here and there and no AT can get a shot on you and you probably killed all the guys that had the five AT kits in existence anyway.
Anyone thought of that?

...

1. They can hear you coming and prepare.
2. The LAT guy is always the one you cant seem to run over.
3. The LAT guy is usually the one you dont see at all.
4. It has speed to get infantry to positions and to escape, not for speedracer
5. Hard to avoid mines at 60kph around blind turns.

APCs and IFVs are for mechanized infantry, not for going off on their own and 'pwning newbs'.

I have noticed that many vehicles do not use a hull down type of placement and often sit on top of a hill/mountain/ridge where they can easily be seen.

[quote=""'[R-COM"]Outlawz;866979']Why move slowly and support infantry, when you can do 60 Km/h and kill enemies on the go and run over a poor ******* here and there and no AT can get a shot on you and you probably killed all the guys that had the five AT kits in existence anyway.
Anyone thought of that?[/quote]

Exactly!

[quote="Blakeman""]...

1. They can hear you coming and prepare. If everything happends quickly they will never get the chanse...
2. The LAT guy is always the one you cant seem to run over. Not when im the LAT guy
3. The LAT guy is usually the one you dont see at all.
4. It has speed to get infantry to positions and to escape, not for speedracer It also has the speed and firepower to quickly kill off an enemy squad before they realise what hit them.
5. Hard to avoid mines at 60kph around blind turns. Not really...

APCs and IFVs are for mechanized infantry, not for going off on their own and 'pwning newbs'.

I have noticed that many vehicles do not use a hull down type of placement and often sit on top of a hill/mountain/ridge where they can easily be seen.[/quote]

In red

APCs are used as IFV's in PR because they firepower they so vastly outgun most AT.

Basically it's a byproduct of the long standing Infantry/Armour imbalance.