Project Reality Forums

I don't think you understand Firepower01 - The game cannot reflect real life penetrations of weapons, force makeups, doctrines, fire control systems, mobility advantages or engagement ranges hence the vehicles are balanced to roughly match each other.

I doubt there are many IFV's that would stand up to their opposition's firepower (I am talking about NATO IFV vs Russian/Chinese). Hence if 'realistic' values were added, the armoured battles in PR would be very short and not very good fun..

One example would be the Scimitars that knocked out an Iraqi tank in 1991 (they were providing flank protection for the main armoured force). The Iraqi tank charged them as it withdrew from it's parent unit which had been over-run. The Scimitar recce tanks usind the Rarden worked in sequence to fire at it, then move when it aimed their way. Eventually they put enough fire on it to kill it (although took a few .50 hits through their thin armour). Can you imagine this situation in any way being represented in PR? This is what I mean regarding the simulation of the warfare these vehicles would typically find themselves in when deployed against the conventional enemy forces present on the maps in PR. Barrel length/muzzle velocity doesn't come into it!

If an IFV is doing anything but suppressing, you have to ask 'If I want to represent this realistically, where is the tank platoon that should be in it's place?'

This isn't intended as a criticism of PR, just aimed to provide some perspective to the 'realism' suggesters in general. Everyone has a varying perception of realism. Nobody takes the actual 'proper' use of the equipment into account, nor how that equipment would be fielded and in what numbers.

For what it's worth, this extends to Infantry combat and especially air combat in PR.

I'm not really sure how half of your post really related to what I said. You say that vehicles are balanced to roughly match each other yet the Warrior has been significantly nerfed with it's RoF being dropped down to realistic levels. I'm merely suggesting buffing it's damage to compensate for the lack of RoF it now has compared to other IFVs. I don't know if the RARDEN's AP rounds outperform the AP rounds of other comparable auto-cannons though.

The RARDEN's AP rounds are very similar to those used by the 2A42 (BMP-2) in terms of muzzle velocity and projectile weight.

Do they both AFV utilize APFSDS-T rounds (or a variation of them), though? Because, the most prevalent AP round, to my knowledge, used in the 2A42 cannon is the AP-T round.



Here it is. If this is indeed the case then it doesn't make sense how the AP-T round does more damage than this one -

I'm assuming 3UBR8 AP-T for the 2A42 and L14A3 APDS-T for the RARDEN, which are the rounds represented in-game.

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:I'm assuming 3UBR8 AP-T for the 2A42 and L14A3 APDS-T for the RARDEN, which are the rounds represented in-game.

Yeah, I just checked out the Grozny map and the BMP-2 is using 3UBR8 rounds.

Can I just say that this game, to some extent, tries to replicate vehicles as they would be in real life. That being said instead of complaining so heavily about the assets you have, use your brain to determine how to use the vehicles.

All I hear in this thread is that the warrior sucks in comparison to all other apcs and that many people have tried taking on BMPs and losing as a result.

That being said, why don't you just change your tactics? I don't think every vehicle should be balanced in this game, otherwise what's the point in having different factions with their individual weapons and armaments?

The warrior shouldn't be used to engage enemy APCs, all you have to do is to simply avoid contact with them; and it's easier to do than you think. It's all about vehicle positioning bearing in mind terrain and friendly/enemy positions.

Yes, we all know that the warrior now sucks, blither blather. Just get on with it guys, it's still a good anti-inf vehicle. And on maps where other APCs/IFVs are more of a threat, you have many other assets that can easily destroy them. I mean, look at burning sands, the brits get two tanks (two pretty good ones imo). A good asset commander understands the limitations of their vehicle.

TL R get on with the game guys and adapt - that is what militaries do in real scenarios...

Also: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e90_1328943063

Being as I started this thread I will clarify a few things, I know in the Warrior you shouldn't go BMP hunting, but sometimes its simply unavoidable that you will clash with one

Now in both of my accounts on Burning Sands we were not going after BMP's rather we were covering infantry when a BMP moved into our sights, Now 1st The Warrior is slow of the mark and is pretty loud so not much chance of running, so your left with engaging.

As I said in my example we got a fair few hits on the BMP's before they even saw us but yet still wrecked us in a matter of seconds when they did locate us, now it seems that there is no way to give Warrior a firepower buff but perhaps an Armour buff may be possible, the simple fact of the matter is at the moment the BMP is as good or better than the Warrior in every way to the point where even if the Warrior starts combat in an advantageous position it still gets destroyed unless the enemy APC/IFV crew is completely incompetent

or perhaps the LAT from the infantry squad could have engaged it for you?

your APC can give the infantry the kit, and resupply it easily.

I'm pretty sure all the infantry were hiding to save them selves as often happens, this is the problem with people saying just stay with infantry, if the infantry your supporting don't have AT or just runs to save themselves your screwed, with the fact that the LAT and HAT also take a warmup time to be accurate a requested kit may not be sufficient either

true, but this is why the GB get an extra MTB and the MEC get more APCs

Mr_blox wrote: the simple fact of the matter is at the moment the BMP is as good or better than the Warrior in every way

Isn't that how war works? Some militaries have better equipment than others.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:true, but this is why the GB get an extra MTB and the MEC get more APCs

I found the BMP's pretty op against tank tho.

Bmp2m best ifv/apc in pr

Danger_6 wrote:Isn't that how war works? Some militaries have better equipment than others.

I'm pretty sure a Warrior can wreck a BMP-2 easily though. In PR, no chance.

Hurricane wrote:I'm pretty sure a Warrior can wreck a BMP-2 easily though. In PR, no chance.

what is your rationale for this statement?

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:what is your rationale for this statement?

Quality of the optics, accuracy of the RARDEN autocannon is better, armour of the Warrior should exceed that of the BMP. Also, to my knowledge the most prevalent 30mm AP round in use by the Russian military is the APBC-T round not the newer discarding sabout rounds, but I'm not sure about this one, so might as well disregard it.

Without access to classified data I doubt we can say for sure, but the Konkurs-M and Arkan systems are not likely to leave a Warrior unscathed.

mat552 wrote:Without access to classified data I doubt we can say for sure, but the Konkurs-M and Arkan systems are not likely to leave a Warrior unscathed.

That's a valid point. I even completely forgot about the ATGM, since most of the time in PR BMP-2s don't have them lol

Mr_blox wrote:Being as I started this thread I will clarify a few things, I know in the Warrior you shouldn't go BMP hunting, but sometimes its simply unavoidable that you will clash with one

Now in both of my accounts on Burning Sands we were not going after BMP's rather we were covering infantry when a BMP moved into our sights, Now 1st The Warrior is slow of the mark and is pretty loud so not much chance of running, so your left with engaging.

As I said in my example we got a fair few hits on the BMP's before they even saw us but yet still wrecked us in a matter of seconds when they did locate us, now it seems that there is no way to give Warrior a firepower buff but perhaps an Armour buff may be possible, the simple fact of the matter is at the moment the BMP is as good or better than the Warrior in every way to the point where even if the Warrior starts combat in an advantageous position it still gets destroyed unless the enemy APC/IFV crew is completely incompetent

Transpose your Burning Sands account into the Fulda Gap, circa late 80's, and you appreciate why the Warrior was designed the way it is (no stabilised optics, dismountable AT weapons). By ambushing you used the warrior 'properly' according to it's doctrine, what was missing was the AT squad, the on-call artillery called in by your missing recon Scimitars/Scorpions and several platoons of Challenger 2 tanks! Although you would imagine Rarden would eat any unsuspecting IFV that slipped through the net.