Project Reality Forums

HAAN4 wrote:I am saying that is rarely to see people taking down tanks or APCs.

because, well. maybe the crewmans are To Good. but i guess it is also lack of AT skill.

anyway...

Well if armored vehicles went down seconds or a few mins after coming into the combat zone every time they wouldnt be used. They are armoured and not meant to be destroyed easily but with spawnable kits they wont be work jack.

Well you all conviced my. but things in Click 21 still hard.

AT weopows aren't working fine. evem if entire squad suport it whicht AMMO, Scout they along the battlefield, and evem make suciedes attacks for distrations. and i can also say people run to get back the AT weopows and take care of they has any other valuable ASSET (hunve,TANK). at last before i talked something whicht guys about this.

and APCs keep kiling LOTs of people, it is common to see APCs gunners whicht 25 kills. 30 kills. well... LOTs of people.

when heavy armor become a treat in Retroed maps, things get chaos. it is Impossible to win a fight agaist chinese how have 2 Heavy armor, evem if you going whicht outmost AUSTADING tatics agaist this bests.

a good EX of it is Thudering Steel.

but also it is a problem in evem in Mustrah city, where the hight urbam cenario, make AT lifes easyr but evem whicht it quite hard.

And belive my, Brasilian players are Austething in abushes. it is quite hard to see from where from the bullet how kill you. JAPAM? it can come from anywhere.

I can say it because i has played in other servers, and i have to admit, that CQC happens MUCH MORE in other Server, and enemy infantry are much more visible and expose.

maybe it is a lack of patience. well i don't kwon.

i thick the problem is how hard is to adquire the AT weopows, but not only in adquire. but in Replenish EVER a AT weopow whicht you squad. is realy hard.

because you lost 2 HAT weopows, and it will take SEVERAL TIME TO BE REDDY AGAIN, maybe get faster the respawn?

In click 21, the only thing that kill a tank whicht eficience. is other TANK. truly. people thing is better and safest call Fridely Armor to take care of the job.

HAAN4 wrote: In click 21, the only thing that kill a tank whicht eficience. is other TANK. truly. people thing is better and safest call Fridely Armor to take care of the job.

thats how its meant to be, and is in game...

but it is like you guys say... each server is each server, and there is no way to make something to GOOD for few, and BAD to many.

maybe have a seletion of how many kits are available per map? and how many time take to make ouver the couldown?...

bacause i have to admit.

this sugestion won't work in all maps.

and won't work in all servers.

evem in click 21, AT players will beguin to adquire experience, and make armor life's a HELL.

this also make each map more original, since it have it's own limited kit poll. acording to the server players weekness and streghs, that can make Gameplay more versatily to all tipes of guests.

HAAN4 wrote:I am saying that is rarely to see people taking down tanks or APCs.

because, well. maybe the crewmans are To Good. but i guess it is also lack of AT skill.

anyway...

Please youre jumping off topic a bid here, you said that the LATs have different abilities in Click 21 server if i understood right

APC is in first line a personnel carrier to the battlefield.
Then APC can give own infantry fire support staying behind own infantry and using given scope ability. Using APC that way would hold APC out of range of every LAT, it would also be realistic in compare to army using.
Those people who are against spawnable LAT (like MG or Medic) don’t really want reality in game; they only wish to lonewolf (with a friend) and rape defenseless infantry.

gazzthompson wrote:i see APC's taken down with LATs all the time. and well tanks, they shouldn't be challenged by LAT's

if we're talking about frontal armor, then yes, if back\top\sides then LATs should do damage.
[quote=""'="]H[=ElvishKnight;1142102']Well if armored vehicles went down seconds or a few mins after coming into the combat zone every time they wouldnt be used. They are armoured and not meant to be destroyed easily but with spawnable kits they wont be work jack.[/quote]

true dat, its like on Ejod 2 days ago whole US team decided to go on foot, because strykers usually are just a death trap on it and nobody wanted to use it
[quote="HAAN4""]..[/quote]
man, i understand all difficults in learning foreign languages but install spellchecker for your browser, it VERY hard to read your posts, even more hard because they are pretty long

RPG-Gunner wrote: Using APC that way would hold APC out of range of every LAT, it would also be realistic in compare to army using.

aye, now tell me how to use scope ability if effective range of LAT sometimes equal to view distance? sniping out stryker with RPG-7 from ~300m is not something very hard

Those people who are against spawnable LAT (like MG or Medic) don’t really want reality in game; they only wish to lonewolf (with a friend) and rape defenseless infantry.

those people who support idea of spawnable LAT just wish to lonewolf and rape everything with their LATs
see how weak this argument?

I’m sorry but isn’t it project reality?
In the moment infantry acts against armored vehicles like in WW2.
Listen friend:
In our time every army squad has one or more LAT.
APC is a taxi to battlefield not a tank. APC should not engage enemies without infantry support.
APC or IFV give fire support for infantry actions from distance. The only APCs which can drive into CQB distance are heavy APC like Ahzarit, Namer and maybe Puma, which are not in game yet.
In game you can use the zoom of your APC and provide fire support staying out of range of a LAT, also out of 300 meters. If you don’t lonewolf and have own infantry before you, you don’t need to fear the enemy LAT. If you got a hit, you can retreat and repair.
Please use right tactics in the game; please transport your mates first, before you engage enemies.
LAT against infantry is not a big deal, MG is much more deadly.

meh, another "proper PR tactics"\theoretic advisor who thinks that everyone who disagree with him is a lonewolfer\non-user of tactics

I’m sorry but isn’t it project reality?

lets ban you on all servers once you die somwhere, it will be so real
its still game which needs balance
bye, cant see any reason to continue discussion on this with you

Really, I'm not so sure about whether it's the fact thatthe LAT kit would be available to squads, it's more the fact that it would be able to come constantly from rallies in an unstoppable end. I'm sure certain AT weapons aren't that uncommon on squad levels, but in all fairness, BF2 squads are really fireteams, and should only be considered "squads" due to the extra men they have that can spawn in.

I would approve of allowing 4 LATs per team with the current request system, because it:

1) Encourages squad preparedness.
2) Creates the need for a supply line within the team.
3) Makes it a slightly more common occurrence on the battlefield, and can therefore become the versatile indirect fire it is against hard infantry target as well.

Jonny wrote:This guy has the right idea, I suggest you listen to him DankE.

An APC is not a tank, its an armoured personnel carrier. Its for carrying people & equipment. Thats it. Nothing more. It has a gun for self defence only, not for attacking anything. It carries infantry for attacking things.

If the gun was disabled much more easily then it might be used for transport a lot more. Wider use of mumble would also help here.

True this is project REALITY and i dont see any gameplay reasons that would perhibit the use of APCs like they are used.

Jonny wrote:This guy has the right idea, I suggest you listen to him DankE.

An APC is not a tank, its an armoured personnel carrier. Its for carrying people & equipment. Thats it. Nothing more. It has a gun for self defence only, not for attacking anything. It carries infantry for attacking things.

If the gun was disabled much more easily then it might be used for transport a lot more. Wider use of mumble would also help here.

Right. But giving more AT weapons would lead to exactly the opposite. No one wants to be transportet if the chance to face the dead screen is greater than on foot. Therefore APC will only be used as light tanks.
Limiting the maingun is a much better idea. I still like the WASD idea ...

Jonny wrote:
If the gun was disabled much more easily then it might be used for transport a lot more.

I really can´t see the logic here.

Alex6714 wrote:I really can´t see the logic here.

Cant see it either, if a APC gun gets disabled it pretty surely goes back for repairs more or less immediately whitout stopping for anything

I think the damage system of the APCs should be revisted tbh.

Maybe it should be made that just hitting bits that aren't hugely important results in minor damage, like 3-4 lat hits. But hitting important bits, Tracks, Wheels, Turret, wherever fuel or ammo is stored etc should meet with major damage, resulting in death or disabling in 1-2 hits. This rewards skill, and might be more realistic. This would also create a good case for having MUCH MORE LAT kits on the battlefield.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:I think the damage system of the APCs should be revisted tbh.

Maybe it should be made that just hitting bits that aren't hugely important results in minor damage, like 3-4 lat hits. But hitting important bits, Tracks, Wheels, Turret, wherever fuel or ammo is stored etc should meet with major damage, resulting in death or disabling in 1-2 hits. This rewards skill, and might be more realistic. This would also create a good case for having MUCH MORE LAT kits on the battlefield.

I see your point, and i wouldn't mind a system like this. It's just that there will be unrealistic scenarios where an APC takes a direct hit from an anti-tank round and all 8 guys inside are completely unharmed. In real life if the troop compartment took a hit, sure the APC would most likely drive away fine, but the troops inside would be wounded or dead.

If it was possible to make the passengers inside an APC somewhat vulnerable to large explosions or armor piercing rounds, then i would agree with APCs taking less damage. But right now, the most vulnerable part of an APC (the soft bodied passengers/crew) is not portrayed in PR.

(plz dont take my words as fact, i'm not familiar with the armor piercing abilities of AT weapons, or the thickness of APCs armor. maybe the troop compartment can take a hit and still protect the passengers. but i doubt it)