Project Reality Forums

Roque_THE_GAMER wrote:i did no read all the pages but i would like to make a suggestion, so im sorry if i messed up something.

I know we don't have a javelin and if is added, half of the community will cry about it like "Omg a lock on AT this is Battlefield 4? bad move devs"

so i think is make a especial kit for the warrior called HATS (heavy ant tank Supot) or other name, its a Nlaw kit with the Nlaw, crewman rifle(yes i forgot the name), a Knife and a Field dressing(really basic so will be useless in combat.)

make it only be requested only the Warrior or same as the crewman kit

Add on the warrior a seat(the last one) which is on the top so he can operate the Nlaw on the top and make like the insurgents technical for balance purpose and add some kind of invisible bullet prove glass to avoid get sniped (sure i know that can be avoid by seating inside but that is a full warrior situation).

and to be avoided used on the field and not inside of the warrior add a hell big of deviation on the sight and use the bug of get inside of the vehicle and get no deviation.

what you devs think?

Just make a seat on top where a someone can operate the NLAW, the end.

X-Alt wrote:Just make a seat on top where a someone can operate the NLAW, the end.

the problem is: people will get the Nlaw only to just use in the field and the amount of Nlaw still low and if the APC get the Nlaw the infantry will get they *** kicked by the tanks and apcs if there is no warrior nerby or dead, thats why they need a special kit for the Warrior.

Roque_THE_GAMER wrote:the problem is: people will get the Nlaw only to just use in the field and the amount of Nlaw still low and if the APC get the Nlaw the infantry will get they *** kicked by the tanks and apcs if there is no warrior nerby or dead, thats why they need a special kit for the Warrior.

There was somebody working on nerfing the HAT kit so (hopefully) two can be fielded. Maybe allow 2x HAT kits just for the Brits, and servers could enforce the rest.

X-Alt wrote:There was somebody working on nerfing the HAT kit so (hopefully) two can be fielded. Maybe allow 2x HAT kits just for the Brits, and servers could enforce the rest.

it was not the ERYX?

No, we are NOT adding Javelin Seats with magic, invulnerable cupolas to the back of the Warrior at all

Also there are no plans to nerf the AT kits.

[R-DEV]K4on wrote:No, we are NOT adding Javelin Seats with magic, invulnerable cupolas to the back of the Warrior at all

Also there are no plans to nerf the AT kits.

why it was added to the insurgents technical?

Roque, you want to give Warriors a HAT that sits on top and is invulnerable to small arms fire? That is one of the worst concepts for a suggestion I have ever seen. I would like to incorporate another seat on top of the vehicle for snipers only. This way when a HAT or LAT kit tries to attack the Warrior the sniper on top can eliminate any AT threats, and we will give him an invisible shield so he doesn't get hurt by incoming fire...because that would be a useless distraction from getting all those awesome frags from on top of a Warrior.

Yea that's pretty damned balanced! I mean the insurgents get to sit on top of their cars with unguided Rockets and small arms so why can't blufor have the exact same thing...only better because it's blufor.

The Warrior is a Infantry Fighting Vehicle correct?

Usually on Burning Sands, they stick in the City with the infantry squads. Not going in the middle of the desert hunting the BMP's, since they will lose. horribly. But, on Shijia the other hand. You are usually not in Cities most of the time with the Warrior.

Is the Warriors fire rate exactly like the Warrior irl?

Murphy wrote:Roque, you want to give Warriors a HAT that sits on top and is invulnerable to small arms fire? That is one of the worst concepts for a suggestion I have ever seen. I would like to incorporate another seat on top of the vehicle for snipers only. This way when a HAT or LAT kit tries to attack the Warrior the sniper on top can eliminate any AT threats, and we will give him an invisible shield so he doesn't get hurt by incoming fire...because that would be a useless distraction from getting all those awesome frags from on top of a Warrior.

Yea that's pretty damned balanced! I mean the insurgents get to sit on top of their cars with unguided Rockets and small arms so why can't blufor have the exact same thing...only better because it's blufor.

cool story bro, so add ability to crouch inside of the Warrior.... oh wait, hard code.

Roque_THE_GAMER wrote:cool story bro, so add ability to crouch inside of the Warrior.... oh wait, hard code.

Just let them sit on top with one of the seats, allow 2 HAT kits on GB and you are good2go.

My point obviously missed the mark. I'll be more blunt. Your suggestion is entirely unbalanced and accords BAF more of an advantage than they already have over the majority of other factions. It's poorly thought out and frankly I hope it never sees fruition, it would be akin to giving the Warrior the ability to have an extra turret.

Just add an ATGM to the Warrior

Murphy wrote:My point obviously missed the mark. I'll be more blunt. Your suggestion is entirely unbalanced and accords BAF more of an advantage than they already have over the majority of other factions. It's poorly thought out and frankly I hope it never sees fruition, it would be akin to giving the Warrior the ability to have an extra turret.

An extra turret would give the crew protection, unlike my solution that exposes the HAT operator (like IRL) to enemy small arms fire. Perhaps making a modified version of the GB faction that only is run on maps where the enemy vehicles\IFVs are equipped with ATGMs.

Dismounting would be the ingame solution, but that doesn't always goes as planned naturally. I understand it to be one of the very few short comings the Brits have when it comes to equipment on the whole, which adds to the diversity of tactics and overall strategy needed for said faction. Adding an ATGM to make the Warrior exactly on par with other vehicles in the same category would indeed make things more equal but so does putting an ATGM on the Challenger and M1 Abrams. That doesn't really add anything new it just removes the unique feel each vehicle has. You talk as if a Warrior could never win a fight vs another APC/IFC, that's not true.

Murphy wrote:Dismounting would be the ingame solution, but that doesn't always goes as planned naturally. I understand it to be one of the very few short comings the Brits have when it comes to equipment on the whole, which adds to the diversity of tactics and overall strategy needed for said faction. Adding an ATGM to make the Warrior exactly on par with other vehicles in the same category would indeed make things more equal but so does putting an ATGM on the Challenger and M1 Abrams. That doesn't really add anything new it just removes the unique feel each vehicle has. You talk as if a Warrior could never win a fight vs another APC/IFC, that's not true.

if the enemy gunner is dumb enough yes is possible.

Can the devs not re buff the gun a bit ? Fire rate & accuracy ? Or at least do it for the scimi. The scorpion is much better against enemy armour than scimitar which is funny saying it's a lot older

ElshanF wrote:Can the devs not re buff the gun a bit ? Fire rate & accuracy ?

From page two of this topic:

[quote=""'[R-CON"]Mats391;2026040']

camo_jnr_jnr" wrote:Sorry to bring back an old thread but is there anything we can do?
Could you maybe buff the accuracy of the warrior's cannon?

"Proven accuracy is such that 1 m groups at a range of 1,000 m are achieved on a regular basis."
source Army Guide - L21A1 Rarden, Gun
Barrel length is also longer than other cannons in game, 2440mm compared to the 1914mm length of the 2a42 cannon that is on the bmp-2.

I had a game on burning sands a few days ago and my gunner was first cussing at the lack of fire rate, and then when we moved up to support the infantry he was struggling to even get shots inside a window from only a hundred metres away due the deviation of the cannon. It may be only a small buff but it could make up a little bit for this vehicles obvious inadequacies in every other department.

I think it would only be fair to give the warrior and scimitar better accuracy. Will do that[/QUOTE]

ElshanF wrote:Or at least do it for the scimi. The scorpion is much better against enemy armour than scimitar which is funny saying it's a lot older

Both are pretty much the same age. They where both developed from the CVR(T) series of vehicle series which was developed between 1967 and 1969, with both the Scorpion and Scimitar being developed within that time. The Scorpion was accepted into the British Army in 1970 and the Scimitar in 1971 so only a year apart in age at the most. The Scorpion was only retired sooner as it simply wasn't as flexible as the Scimitar.

The Scorpion is also meant to be much better vs armour, hence it has a much larger, 76mm gun to he Scimitars 30mm gun, but a 76mm gun with a 6 rounds per min fire rate isn't so useful when your trying to suppress infantry and isn't as good as an all rounder as the 30mm RARDEN cannon. This is in fact the exact reason why I made the Scorpion for PR:F: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... eased.html

On that note the Scimitar and Warrior both use the exact same RARDEN cannon so it wouldn't be right to give the Scimitar any better firepower than the Warrior, its main advantages over the warrior in terms of firepower is its size and speed, as per r/l.

On burning sands British apc's have ANY change against BMP's, if you manage to kill one you have to prepare a crafty plan because you've got only 1 chance.

'KillJoy[Fr wrote:;2031354']On burning sands British apc's have ANY change against BMP's, if you manage to kill one you have to prepare a crafty plan because you've got only 1 chance.

That's because British tanks are straight up better than MEC tanks since T-72 both have longer reload time and has no ATGM.

Whenever I play Burning Sands; I try to be one of first four to join the IFV squad to grab the BMPs. And I feel bad for anyone getting the leftover T-72.

I don't know very much about armored cannons but wouldn't the longer RARDEN cannon increase muzzle velocity, and therefor increase the penetration for it's AP rounds? Maybe if that's the case it could be reflected with a AP damage buff.