MUTTRAH CITY : LAV or AAVP

[Kingy]

I take it you did well in maths at school Smiddey?

Personally I prefer the AAVP, more armour and is great for clearing out those damn T-building fortresses

[Hunt3r]

I don't really like the AAVP mostly because it's poor ground clearance makes it VERY easy to lose a lot of precious health for when the 30mm MTLB comes up and tries to destroy you.

[CoLdFiRe88]

I like the AAVP in the current configuration of pr. But in the city the AAVP is like trying to drive a train. We used to have LAV's in the map before the last patch. I was wondering how the community felt about having the fun to drive LAV's removed from the map and the AAVP's with their infinity of grenades.

So on muttrah, do we need LAV's Back or Keep the AAVP? or do a 1 of each deal.

AAVP is awful for muttrah; slower, more bulky, tracks dont do well in many tight turns, its just not nearly as maneuverable as LAV.

also the AAVP's weapons arent suited for urban area, the 25mm gun is better than grenade launcher which needs some distance to activate, in a urban city a target might be very close. and it overheats alot more faster than the 25mm, also the light machine gun of the LAV has faster rate of fire and slower overheat than the 50cal, better for taking out inf.

[ShockUnitBlack]

I'd like to see the LAV-AT/LAV-AD make an appearance eventually...

[Ninjam3rc]

Should we make the M1A1/2 amphibious too for the sake we don't have any landing craft

You get my point I think. You don't have landing craft but you have an asset which is amphibious, in reality that asset would not float ashore and yet in reality it would also be among the first assets landed in an assault. LAVs and abrams would move inland while the aavs would most likely return for another wave of infantry rather than head into the fray.

Even though it would be LAV -> Landing craft -> shore irl we can still get the end effect on the asset with no modification. Your quote is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you want to do that then why not make the EFV under the argument that in PRs WW3 scenario the bugs were worked out and it was never canceled due the pressing need for the asset.

[Smiddey723]

I don't really like the AAVP mostly because it's poor ground clearance makes it VERY easy to lose a lot of precious health for when the 30mm MTLB comes up and tries to destroy you.

Why would ground clearance in muttrah even matter? its totally flat

I take it you did well in maths at school Smiddey?

Thanks, i guess thats what i get for posting at 1AM

And yes i did actually

[Rhino]

You get my point I think. You don't have landing craft but you have an asset which is amphibious, in reality that asset would not float ashore and yet in reality it would also be among the first assets landed in an assault. LAVs and abrams would move inland while the aavs would most likely return for another wave of infantry rather than head into the fray.

Even though it would be LAV -> Landing craft -> shore irl we can still get the end effect on the asset with no modification. Your quote is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you want to do that then why not make the EFV under the argument that in PRs WW3 scenario the bugs were worked out and it was never canceled due the pressing need for the asset.

Ye, I do understand your point, I was just making a joke and tbh I agree with your point and its the reason why the logi truck spawns at the year side of the dock with the supply depot too to simulate the backup landing of the initial landing without LCUs but the reason why its not going to happen with the LAV is because the LAV isn't necessary as the AAV fills the same role and much more realistically and adding the LAVs back in would mean redoing the MEC's assets as well in order for them to be able to deal with the slightly elevated threat to keep things balanced.

Also we would never make anything like the EFV which isn't going full into production.

[Ninjam3rc]

While I don't agree that the LAV and AAV fill the same roles, at least in reality, I suppose it is more realistic to have the AAVs get ripped up whenever they head into the city. It seems like the MEC already has a counter with the 30mm mtlb though, if you were to swap one AAV for an LAV that is.

My main problem is the USMC going in so light on all the amphibious assault maps, it makes no sense.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Well, the defence is pretty light too. In real life, the heaviest vehicle that would be employed by a hypothetical Middle-Eastern Coalition against an amphibious USMC assault isn't going to be a pimped MT-LB. They're going to have tanks, SPAAGs, and BMPs, plus they're going to control the entire beachhead when the attach hits (rather than having to book it to docks to head off the first wave of Marines).

[PLODDITHANLEY]

Muttrah I feel represents the 'mopping up stage' gone wrong for the USMC.

[speedhound1-WYD-]

I like the amtracks, they promote greater team work and are yet incredibly lethal in the right hands and in the right situation.

They have to hide behind the shirt tails of the infantry until all is clear which is (mainly) the job of the Cobra.

Also, come on people they aren't as slow or unmaneuverable that is implicit in some posts here.

speed

[Pronck]

I would love it to see a combination of both AAV and a LAV. Let's see what the results will be then.

[Sgt.BountyOrig]

LAV-25, you cant get shot out by small arms.

[Elektro]

vbf2 LAV model was too mainstream



Hipster PR

[Rudd]

LAV-25, you cant get shot out by small arms.

bug..

will be nice to see what happens to this discussion when thats fixed

[Hunt3r]

I'd honestly like to see a heavy duty full on assault version of Muttrah, with extremely heavy dug-in defenses by the MEC at the beach, BMPs, ZPUs, T-72s, the works, and the USMC would have 3-4 Cobras and the squad leaders/CO would be able to call in as many as 3 strikes of ship artillery on 10 minute intervals. The MEC would have to have the large majority of it's troops manning ZPUs, HMGs, tanks, IFVs, and SAM sites. However, if the MEC fails, their only assets will be one T-72, 2 BTRs, 2 MT-LBs (1 would be 30mm, another would be Shturm ATGM carrier), and a single BMP. If the USMC manages to capture the docks, they would receive around 3 LAVs, and 3 M1A1SAs. Also, AAVs would stop spawning. Only one Cobra would respawn, along with 3-4 Hueys.

The USMC is screwed if they can't break through MEC defenses, the MEC is in for a tough fight if the USMC breaks through and captures the beach and docks.

I'd like to call it... Muttrah City... Assetwhore edition.

[AnimalMother.]

I'd honestly like to see a heavy duty full on assault version of Muttrah, with extremely heavy dug-in defenses by the MEC at the beach, BMPs, ZPUs, T-72s, the works, and the USMC would have 3-4 Cobras and the squad leaders/CO would be able to call in as many as 3 strikes of ship artillery on 10 minute intervals. The MEC would have to have the large majority of it's troops manning ZPUs, HMGs, tanks, IFVs, and SAM sites. However, if the MEC fails, their only assets will be one T-72, 2 BTRs, 2 MT-LBs (1 would be 30mm, another would be Shturm ATGM carrier), and a single BMP. If the USMC manages to capture the docks, they would receive around 3 LAVs, and 3 M1A1SAs. Also, AAVs would stop spawning. Only one Cobra would respawn, along with 3-4 Hueys.

The USMC is screwed if they can't break through MEC defenses, the MEC is in for a tough fight if the USMC breaks through and captures the beach and docks.

I'd like to call it... Muttrah City... Assetwhore edition.

just hope that the one lone infantry man on the USMC side is good so he can cap the flag


back to the discussion, i like having the AAV7s over the LAVs. Dunno why really just do, offers a better infantry and APC experience imo. Will be nice as well once the AAV7 driver bug is sorted out

[xambone]

Wow my first post not to be locked, yay for Xambone!

Rhino, I'm glad to know you might consider bringing back the LAV to Muttrah, we play that map 24/7 and most times the AAVP goes unused and we are getting ***-raped by the beast and btr's. Could have LAV spawn at docks with logi truck and keep it to just 1, that way you dont need to open up to more modifying on the MEC side.

However, if you thought about swapping the AAVP's out or spawning two LAV's at repair at docks...then you could give the MEC a very realistic for the location a BMP, or MTLB with the TOW on it. Also that btr with the AA on the roof. One thing that would be extra nice is a respawnable mec jeep., that thing is a game changer and I can't believe that the whole city only has one jeep. but thast just icing on the cake

[killonsight95]

the reason the AAVP's don't get used is because they're under the ship and take forever to get on land, I think that they should spawn on the land once docks has capped and if docks are capped only then they should start spawning on the carrier.

[PoisonBill]

the reason the AAVP's don't get used is because they're under the ship and take forever to get on land, I think that they should spawn on the land once docks has capped and if docks are capped only then they should start spawning on the carrier.

Good idea, but that does also require that you can get to them fast and easy. There is no spawnpoint at docks so a FOB or helicopter transport would be needed. It is quite easy to fix either situation, but some public rounds which are just silly could prevent that.