Project Reality Forums

Scot wrote:I really think, if you get the APC to be able to go at walking pace or running pace, then it would be useful as Infantry support, but now they are mainly used as Outlawz suggested, which I don't like, which I why I go engineer and mine the **** out of places, and also get LAT and shoot you. APCs don't shoot on the move in PR. So they stop, 1 LAT to the rear, kablammy.

this is true

although I'm sure we understand that speed coding is harder than we first think since the tank's slow reverse is iirc not intentional as IRL tanks can reverse pretty fast.

Perhaps if the APCs normal speed was reduced to just above walking pace and then use the sprint function to allow them to move quickly?

I dislike the current way in which APCs in PR are used I feel that it is one of the few areas where PR is still played slightly 'nilla ish even by experienced and normally disciplined players.

'= wrote:H[=Viper;866884']1. Squadleader - Officer
2. Medic
3. Engineer
4. Light AT
5. APC Driver
6. APC Gunner.

This is the way it should be done!

not even taht!!!!...waht i like to do w/ my clan mates some times are get 2 of my caln mates driving/ gunning the APC in TS w/ me in another squad..AND i lead my own infantry squad (6 ppl)..is more efficient like taht..no wasted space

not even taht!!!!...waht i like to do w/ my clan mates some times are get 2 of my caln mates driving/ gunning the APC in TS w/ me in another squad..AND i lead my own infantry squad (6 ppl)..is more efficient like taht..no wasted space

agreed, this is my ideal way too... not always possible but if i can help it this is how i run a mech inf squad.. and if your really lucky and have 3 good squad leaders together on TS, you can run with the following:

Squad Name: Mechanized Infantry (3 Squads)

Squad Acrynm: MECINF & MECAPC

Squad Role: Assault Infantry

Squad Size: Recommended 18 (minimum 10)

MECAPC (squad 1)
1 x APC #1
1 x APC #2
1 x Jeep / Support Truck

MECAPC (squad 1) Kit Loadout:
4 x Crewman
2 x Engineer

MECINF (squad 2) Vehicle Loadout:
Riding on board squad 1 APC's

MECINF (squad 2) Kit Loadout:
1 x Officer
1 x Medic
1 x Rifleman AT / Anti-Tank (depending on enemy armor presence)
1 x Automatic Rifleman
1 x Rifleman / Grenadier
1 x Rifleman / Marksman

MECINF (squad 3) Vehicle Loadout:
Riding on board squad 1 APC's

MECINF (squad 3) Kit Loadout:
1 x Officer
1 x Medic
1 x Rifleman AT / Anti-Tank (depending on enemy armor presence)
1 x Automatic Rifleman
1 x Rifleman / Grenadier
1 x Rifleman / Marksman


This configuration can be quite deadly (and hella fun) although prety rare. But running with 1 full squad of 6 and a squad of 2 in the APC can be very effective, key is good comms between the 2 squads.

sakils2 wrote:Armoured personnel carrier

Huh?

Armoured, not armed.

Armoured means that it has armour protection.

Armed means that it has mounted weapons.

What I'm suggesting is an APC without meaningful weapons, with maybe an IFV or two to serve as 'light tanks' on certain maps.

To Fuzzhead:
What's a solution that could work in public servers?

just surround tanks arround a hummve and call it an extra armoerd apc =P

what you could do is make the gun realode faster or more powerfull with more peaple in the apc? therefor wanting the apc drivers to have full apc's and transport?

bloodthirsty_viking wrote: what you could do is make the gun realode faster or more powerfull with more peaple in the apc?

Some awesome REALITY right there.....

/sarcasm

gclark03 wrote:What's a solution that could work in public servers?

Well a lot of public servers have public TS running, examples include TG, 10th community, =ETU=, T&T etc and these are actively advertised on those servers web page and often on the server itself.

Its up to the players to download teamspeak and get on there before you load into the server.

Solid Knight wrote:The issue it really that people tend to group armor and people tend to group infantry into separate squads. Communication is too slow between the two so the APC drivers do their own thing.

Agreed, fault with the BF2 VOIP system, there is no way to speak SL to SL, and since squads are limited in size you can't have a full squad with the armor members on the same channel. Too bad we can't hear other SL's on the Command channel, would be one of the greatest improvements to the game since PRM!

Maps in PR:

*(24)

Maps that have tanks:

*(5)

Kashan
Qinling
Basrah
kozelsk
Fools road

Maps that have APC's/IFV's:

*(16) All except -

Ghost Train
Barracuda
Archer
Bi Ming
7 Gates
Tad Sae
Sunset

Out of those 16 maps, APC's are the biggest dog on the map. More lethal than even attack helicopters, which they have good odds of taking down if they get the drop. I take a cobra on Muttrah and I am happy to get 9 kills maybe. I get an APC and I have 36 and no deaths by the time the maps over.

Why should apcs stick next to infantry? There is no logical reason when they are the most lethal killing machines on the map. They are mostly immune to LMG fire (the next biggest killer) unlike troops and even helicopters. A single APC can cause more ticket loss to the enemy team than anything else atm.

It takes 1 bullet to kill a HAT gunner. HAT infantry are vulnerable to every other weapon on the battlefield. This means that APC's have to generally worry about 2 guys in a 2000x2000m area, who they have a good chance of killing if he isn't in a perfect position. LAT is useful once again in the most ideal circumstances if the driver goes straight into an ambush.

When there's no enemy tanks and nothing else that can kill it, APC's have logically become the biggest predator on the field.

CAS you forgot the mines

The mines that sit above the surface in plain sight... Believe me I didn't (forget) about them. It's the same problem of the APC having to do something in order for it to get killed, whereas an engineer or HAT soldier has 32 guys that are actively trying to find and kill him. When it takes 7 seconds of being still (and that means not trying to aim at it while its moving) to successfully hit an APC with a rocket, that means all the APC must do is not stay still for 7 seconds.

(Anecdotal); I've seen it in where me and another HAT would fire at a moving APC 600m away on Kufrah, miss, and have the BMP-3 close onto us before we have another rocket reloaded. It's likely that we suck, but the fact is that the driver probably knows the limitations of the HAT and made a smart tactical decision.

Point: If you make weapons slow to operate, the best response is to move and fight them extremely fast.

Fast, powerful, and accurate weapons make the conflict slow down. Compare games where you are armored like a refrigerator like Gears of war and Halo to Arma, OF2 etc. In WWI half a continent was turned into a massive trench-line because people know that if you get in the open you are gonna die.

Then they invent tanks that are immune to gunfire and wonder of wonders, the fight starts up again. Tanks didn't have exceptional firepower, in fact it was smaller than most artillery of the day. It was because they were not concerned about getting hit by bullets that they could move. Once a weapon is no longer hurts you, you are free to move in an area that it covers.

your right and medics too your right there under them and but they ignore you cause your not in his so called "squad"

CAS_117 wrote:The mines that sit above the surface in plain sight... Believe me I didn't (forget) about them. It's the same problem of the APC having to do something in order for it to get killed, whereas an engineer or HAT soldier has 32 guys that are actively trying to find and kill him. When it takes 7 seconds of being still (and that means not trying to aim at it while its moving) to successfully hit an APC with a rocket, that means all the APC must do is not stay still for 7 seconds.

(Anecdotal); I've seen it in where me and another HAT would fire at a moving APC 600m away on Kufrah, miss, and have the BMP-3 close onto us before we have another rocket reloaded. It's likely that we suck, but the fact is that the driver probably knows the limitations of the HAT and made a smart tactical decision.

Point: If you make weapons slow to operate, the best response is to move and fight them extremely fast.

Fast, powerful, and accurate weapons make the conflict slow down. Compare games where you are armored like a refrigerator like Gears of war and Halo to Arma, OF2 etc. In WWI half a continent was turned into a massive trench-line because people know that if you get in the open you are gonna die.

Then they invent tanks that are immune to gunfire and wonder of wonders, the fight starts up again. Tanks didn't have exceptional firepower, in fact it was smaller than most artillery of the day. It was because they were not concerned about getting hit by bullets that they could move. Once a weapon is no longer hurts you, you are free to move in an area that it covers.

Amen.

I often hear people complain about the APCs' lack of stabilization system to fire on the move, but I seldom notice anyone say anything about the fact that the HAT takes 7 seconds of not moving at all to shoot without killing yourself. The only time I've feared dying in a APC is when I'm on kashan where I know there are bigger badder fish around, the tanks.

There's is also 1 problem with INF working with APCs currently in PR though, DEVIATION! Most of the time, also speaking from my experience, the HAT gunner knows that he can get the rocket on the way even if enemy (supporting) INF spots him because he knows that the rifles will take at least a few seconds to become accurate. This totally renders INF support irrelevant in the sense that they can provide anti-tank protection for the APCs, which all goes back to support the fact that the APCs are most effective working as mini-tanks than a INF support vehicle.

To be honest I think you can quite easily maintain both roles ingame, moving troops if they call for it/need support but being a hunter the rest of the time.

Deviation and set up times to be reduced on the LAT and HAT, or at least reducing set up time and time to reach minimum deviation.