Project Reality Forums

Terranova wrote: Also another issue is the fact that these jeeps have really exposed locations. I mean how many times have soldiers rode on the Humvee's trunk through a combat zone and lived to tell about it. All of the players should be inside the jeep, with the only player being close to exposed in the gunner.

I agree completely! The crew ought to be sitting in the interior with the rear of the vehicle closed up for protection! The HMMWVs should at least be able to hold five people (1 in each seat and 1 gunner)

Maybe the Vodnik could hold more to give the MEC an advantage in terms of transportation capabilities.

I think that most shaped charges warheads used in man-portable AT-systems would go right through a hummer, without doing significant damage to the crew unless they where hit directly by the explosive ray generated from the shaped charge. On a side note, the hummer would continue to function unless it was hit in the motorblock or tank. And it would probably only explode if the ammunition it carries where actually hit.

What we need most (apart from crew protection) is a realistic hitbox-system for the heavy jeeps, and AT-systems that functions like they do in reality.

get rid of the giant green squares that bombers have. Jeeps never survive when theres magical aircraft about

BF2 engine sucks, sucks beond belief, it suck, i sucks......

- Has almost no dynamic lights - piss poor lighting
- no real proper hit boxes
- naff naff physics
- optimized about as much as a monkey continuously drinking coffee

Top _Cat the great wrote:BF2 engine sucks, sucks beond belief, it suck, i sucks......

- Has almost no dynamic lights - piss poor lighting
- no real proper hit boxes
- naff naff physics
- optimized about as much as a monkey continuously drinking coffee

Pretty much, I've known this for a while but you'll never know what magic the devs can do if you don't ask.
Incidentally thanks to [R-DEV]KingofCamelot for commenting on the points, though if mirrors aren't possible at least let a rear view be allowed?

weidel wrote:I think that most shaped charges warheads used in man-portable AT-systems would go right through a hummer, without doing significant damage to the crew unless they where hit directly by the explosive ray generated from the shaped charge. On a side note, the hummer would continue to function unless it was hit in the motorblock or tank. And it would probably only explode if the ammunition it carries where actually hit.

Recently italian soldiers sustained an IED attack to a convoy and died. The shaped charge hit the vehicle they was in (Italian equivalent to the HMMW) right under the passenger area and completely destroyed it. Then the vehicle caught fire. I guess that a shaped charge hitting a hummvee anywhere and destroying it is quite realistic...

Hunvee should look more like this: http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/664/6 ... 80478.html

Won't that limit jeeps to 5 men, 4 of which are unable to shoot? Jeeps are only meant to get troops from A to B and handle any infantry they may see on the way, and heavy jeeps like the hummer are supposed to add a certain degree of protection too, but if you want proper protection you want an Armoured Personnel Carrier, commonly referred to as an APC. Yes, that's right, that's what those things were designed for, though the common misconception is that they're just light tanks...

Top _Cat the great wrote:Hunvee should look more like this: http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/664/6 ... 80478.html

Any roof is good for the humvee, also I've done some testing regarding the jeeps and protection.

All the heavy jeeps have BP windscreens, however the cracked glass effect appears just as the bullet hits then disapears just as quickly.

Also I've been test driving the chinese HJ (heavy jeep), and spatial awareness is almost equal to that of the humvee, though the troops appear to be better protected than the hummer (of only lsightly).

I'll be sure to edit my post with this, also I included a some alternatives to section's 2, 3, 4 that could work. Feedback from a dev would be appreciated on it.

Malik wrote:Won't that limit jeeps to 5 men, 4 of which are unable to shoot? Jeeps are only meant to get troops from A to B and handle any infantry they may see on the way, and heavy jeeps like the hummer are supposed to add a certain degree of protection too, but if you want proper protection you want an Armoured Personnel Carrier, commonly referred to as an APC. Yes, that's right, that's what those things were designed for, though the common misconception is that they're just light tanks...

yes they are exstemly effective when used as Armoured Personnel Carrier and not just as a light tank. Ive manny time loaded 1 up with my squad and gone to assault a otupost, stop out side, troops jump out, APC moves into a covering perstion and then troops get onto of the flag. Any one wants to mess they have to get past a APC and troops

Top _Cat the great wrote:Hunvee should look more like this: http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/664/6 ... 80478.html

It would be nice if HMMWVs were more protected. While on this topic, vods should look like this-

and a picture of the back-

Notice how heavily armoured this vehicle is. Also notice the closing doors on the back and how much lower the real vodnik's profile is compared to that in BF2

This might be asking for too much, but look at the armament of the first vodnik *drools*

~some of the vodnik's specifications (sorry its in russian, but the diagrams make sense :mrgreen -http://www.armyrecognition.com/Russe/ve ... russia.htm

These days it's very rare to see people use APCs for transportation purposes, I guess it's partially to do with the terrible viewing angles for passengers, all you can see is a tiny square and often the driver's too ignorant to drive with a gunner in mind, so often all you can see is a wall while they cash in on kills with the cannon. All APCs in BF2 are amphibious so they're the perfect transport vehicle, there's no need to upgade the jeeps just because people fail to see that.

If you bring APC's in it gets very diffuclt. I personally have spent hours trying to work out which is best for game play e.g you have a humvee and a abrams , no argunments their BUT what do you have inbetween? - there are over 5 diff options for US, i will not list but they are like stryker, bradley...

The problem is: you dont wnat the vehicles to be too similar or overly powerfull/ weak. WHEN YOU HAVE a game where their is an obvious choice for choosing a vehicle, well then you have made a "bad" game (i means not "obvious" relating to sit but to jsut vehc abilities).

THE FACT IS THAT: YOU CAN HIT/ it is almsot imposible to hit anything while a hunvee is drvign at speed. The main gunner has enough trouble all read and the guys on the back cant really shoot sides ways that well adn often most threats pass in a matter of seconds. THIS MEANS being able to shoot out of a hunvee is almost pointless unless it drives slowely, whihc they never do!

APC provide proction again 50cals, sometime 20+ mm rounds and RPG's. So they are great for all round troop protection.

ALL I WANT is a vehicle that is fast but provide protection for ALL its occupents aginst small rounds (7.62 ), i dont wnat a huge APC, i JUST wnat to get from A to B safely (alive and almsot no health loss) AND this means being protected aginst the average enemy who carries an AK.

To just remind me and all, THE main question is: should heavy jeeps provide better protection to all the passengers and the imflication adding this or not adding has?!?

six7 wrote:Notice how heavily armoured this vehicle is. Also notice the closing doors on the back and how much lower the real vodnik's profile is compared to that in BF2

At which point does a 'heavy jeep' become an 'armoured personnel carrier'? Judging by the armour on that it fits in the latter character, remember jeeps aren't supposed to rule the Battlefield, and you've got to remember a lot of maps rely on the fact jeeps are fairly weak, putting super Vodniks in will be overkill.

THat is a good point Malik. But by just adding a dew stationary 50cals this can be solved, 50 cals should punch through nay heavy jeep! But APC's are still completely protected against them. THere is your difference MAlik!

The Vodnick that is shown, is in no way a super vodnick. The fisrt point is that it is longer than the BF2 version and therefore looks less tall.
I personaly believe that vodnicks should be able to carry 7, 2 in the front, 1 gunner and 4 in the back. A humvee should be able to carry 2 in the front, 1 gunner, and 2 in the back.
This reflects the size of the vehicles, however i would not mind if the vodnick did have only 2 in the back instead of 4 though.

Also when a RPG hits a truck it should kill the occupents that it hits e.g. the driver seats or rear troop compartement BUT it would give all the other occupents time to escate THUS avoiuding an absolute blood bath. the heavy jeep should then be un usable there after - THUS AGAIN making it far weakier than an APC.

sorry about Sp.

Malik wrote:At which point does a 'heavy jeep' become an 'armoured personnel carrier'? Judging by the armour on that it fits in the latter character, remember jeeps aren't supposed to rule the Battlefield, and you've got to remember a lot of maps rely on the fact jeeps are fairly weak, putting super Vodniks in will be overkill.

Its not overkill. I bet .50 bullets could peirce it. Vodniks are either armed with 14.5mm cannons (overkill) or a 7.62 mm mg (could probably do very little to a HMMWV). One SRAW would take it down and 1-2 RPGs. I would just like it to be immune to anything below .50 and have a back door so the soldiers were more protected. I would also liek to see it look less like a minivan

I think APC cannons should not be manned by the driver. It would force the APC to at least have to people, and maybe actually be treated more like a carrier than a devastating small tank . I could care less if tanks have 2 crewmen, but with APCs it is a must. If you argue that its too hard to get a decent gunner, then you shouldn't be using an APC as it is supposed to carry and provide covering fire for infantry-nothing more.

It actually looks a lot like the image you posted if you take a closer look.

OK a serious question now.
Lets assume the Devs could alter HJ's so they provided better protection.

Humvee - http://www.obtainium.org/justfred/pinz/mp%20humvee.jpg
http://www.magnum6delta.com/Database/VvV6/HUMVEE.gif (even G.I. Joe can get it right so why couldn't DICE? lol)

Vodnik - http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/7931/g ... sru.th.jpg
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/220/ga ... ia0.th.jpg

NJ 2046 - http://www.sinodefence.com/army/transport/nj20462lg.jpg
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/transport/nj20467lg.jpg

Now based on these pics each armies respective vehicle appears much better protected than they are in-game, however paasengers most likely would not be able to fire their weapons.

So, Would you (as a passenger) be willing to give up your ability to fire your weapon (unless mounting the turrey) and be restricted to just a passenger if you had greater protection?

Malik, look again. It is far too tall and narrow. The vod IRL is shorter and much wider
~yes solitas, I would give up my shooting ability for extra protection.