FV 510 Warrior

[Hurricane]

what is your rationale for this statement?

No doubt both vehicles are capable of taking each other out. Considering modern AP munitions fired from 25-40mm autocannons can penetrate almost all armored vehicles short of MBTs (at least with side hits), it becomes a game of "who-spots-and-fires-first-wins".

But this isn't the case in PR currently. I think the game usually finds a very, very good compromise between realism and balancing which leads to some good and fluent gameplay. I mean you even gave all tanks pretty equal stats, despite the fact that an export T72M would be absolutely wrecked by an Abrams or Leopard 2 in the vast majority of scenarios. It is a balancing compromise most of us can live with despite knowing it isn't exactly realistic.

But now with the IFVs you created a situation where on the one hand you adjusted the rate of fire for all of them, which leads to two similar vehicles with vastly different chances when facing each other, but on the other hand don't intoduce a change to balance this out in the least. I don't want identical vehicles in every team, it would take the fun out of the game, no question. It's a fact that some designs have an edge over others. But it would be great if you for example buff the damage of the Warriors gun to the point it creates a damage output over time that is at least comparable to other IFVs.
The alternative way of somewhat balancing this issue in PR's current vehicle warfare would be to buff the Warriors armor, although I believe this would further damage the balancing as it would make the vehicle way too hard with light AT.

[Lord_Enderminion]

camo;1992786']Just to add to the previous thread
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f254-v ... rrior.html
I didn't get a chance to write anything.
I agree with Mr Blox in the fact that the warrior really isn't very good atm especially against other apc's/ifv's. While i don't think the rof or damage should be increased is it possible to add atgm's to the warrior? It's not unheard of considering Kuwait has atgm's on their version of the warrior.


I'm fully aware the British Warriors don't have any atgm's irl but if Britain was (for some unknown reason) to go to war with China or Russia and the Warrior was found to be useless against their armor surely someone would issue an urgent operational requirement to get the required upgrade to counter the threat.
But that's quite a lot of work so maybe as k4on said maybe some map balancing is needed as its getting very one sided on some maps in terms of apc's.

the FV510 Warrior does have a version with MILAN F1 ATGM

[X-Alt]

The alternative way of somewhat balancing this issue in PR's current vehicle warfare would be to buff the Warriors armor, although I believe this would further damage the balancing as it would make the vehicle way too hard with light AT.

Let the Warrior get even more armor, not Namer quality, but maybe 3 LATs (RPG-7VM) from the front, but then the Bradley should get the same treatment considering it mounts ERA, and is even more of a rolling explosion IRL than the Warrior.

[viirusiiseli]

Warrior already has really good armor. It can take on chinese APCs with far superior cannons already

[X-Alt]

Warrior already has really good armor. It can take on chinese APCs with far superior cannons already

In a long range engagement, sure. But when it gets close, I can easily outgun the Warrior and end of story.

[ElshanF]

Warrior Summary:

A big metal box with a shit gun. I like X-Alt's idea.

[Jacksonez__]

the FV510 Warrior does have a version with MILAN F1 ATGM

It's export for Kuwait only iirc. Also why on earth would Britain keep sending basically unarmed IFVs to confront Russian / Chinese APCs if it was real war? Like I think they would learn. Warriors are basically made for shooting unarmed insurgents or minimally armed insurgents, lol.

30mm Bushmaster + 2x ATGM launchers (Kuwait Warrior?)



that looks a proper IFV to me.

[Rhino]

Warriors are basically made for shooting unarmed insurgents or minimally armed insurgents, lol.

Actually they where made to confront a Soviet Invasion and hardly featured in Afghanistan, did in Iraq but that was since they where mainly needed for the initial invasion

And going by recent history our Government is very likley to send the wrong equipment into a modern war thinking its "good enough" and overruling generals who say otherwise, at least until they speak out in public about it

[Jacksonez__]

Actually they where made to confront a Soviet Invasion and hardly featured in Afghanistan, did in Iraq but that was since they where mainly needed for the initial invasion

And going by recent history our Government is very likley to send the wrong equipment into a modern war thinking its "good enough" and overruling generals who say otherwise, at least until they speak out in public about it

Year XYZ, British government be like

"It's know that east uses ATGMs on APCs and IFVs and have high rate of fire on autocannons, let's send our mighty Warrior FV 510 to confront them! What could possibly go wrong? "

I think army generals should play PR and then they might understand how their Warrior blows

Though, I think that Warrior could be more agile? Like if you watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAF8CiUO3Q Just look at 0:30, you can't do that maneuver in game I mean how the driver turns at nice speed and doesn't loose the movement.

[Rudd]

We can't go down the 'If it was realz war they would do X' because that would be a license to implement whatever the hell we like ingame.

Did that for the F35 and the butthurt around here was palplable.

Indeed the game is MORE interesting with weaker assets, Balance can be accopmlished with modified asset layouts instead of trying to make each action basically the same with different colours.

[Rhino]

I think army generals should play PR and then they might understand how their Warrior blows

As I said above, its more the politicians that are deluded to thinking we have the "best equipment in the world" and there is no point in upgrading it and refuse to listen to the Army saying they need new stuff and instead only look at cutting our current stuff

[Nitneuc]

What about the CTA 40 mm upgrade ?
This new gun tech sounded like quality stuff to me. Could definitely bring new perspectives to the Warriors (and EBRC on this side of the channel).

[Murphy]

The Warrior kinda sucks against other Armour, it's know and has been accepted by the vast majority. It sucks that a BMP can roll up oblivious to your position and still come out on top 75% of the time, but people still manage. I'm not saying leave it alone because we can make due with what we have, but there is already plenty of counters for a BMP and the only squads getting wiped are fools who don't have AT for one reason or another. I believe the Warrior is still a very effective machine if you work around the short comings. Sure, most BMPs are like a Ferrari compared to the Warrior but I have scored many, many victories against the lighter armed APC/IFVs (BTRs have to dump a lot of ammo to kill a Warrior).

I always felt part of PR was picking your battles, instead of just rushing headlong to confront the opposing APC/IFV why not sit tight a bit and let your teams AT do their job. There should be at least one guy whose sole objective is to blow up the enemy APC/IFV/MBT, HAT kit life. Every Infantry squad with enough members has a source of LAT, and a coordinated team will also have TOWS and (depending on map/layer) heavier assets to take care of the issue (CAS/MBT).

I feel like this is akin to asking for the AAVP to catch a buff because it can't kill other APCs. It's not the role of said vehicle.

[Lord_Enderminion]

Not really....

The British ideology is that its better to have a guy sitting in the back with a Javelin who can either fire out of the top or get out and silently move up to the target to engage it than to mount them on the big noisy vehicle that has to expose itself to engage, which will most likley result in it getting blown to bits..

As such if Britain did go into a full scale war, it would deploy lots of Javelins and other AT weapons and have the Warriors just transport the infantry up to the fight and engage any soft targets it can help with.

Javelins G/L's are Salcose MANPADS not ATGMs

[M42 Zwilling]

The FGM-148 Javelin is an ATGM and not a SACLOS MANPADS

[Rhino]

Javelins G/L's are Salcose MANPADS not ATGMs

its actually SACLOS, no e on the end, and yes there was the British Javelin surface-to-air missile which was the successor to the Blowpipe surface-to-air missile but this is no longer used by the British armed forces, been replaced by the Starstreak Missile and as Zwilling said, I was referring to the American FGM-148 Javelin ATGM, which the British use in large numbers as their main man portable ATGM system in r/l.

FGM-148 Javelin:


Javelin surface-to-air missile:


Blowpipe surface-to-air missile:

Which is also coming in the next instalment of PR:Falklands:



Starstreak LML:


Thanks.

[Rudd]

What can we say? Javelin is a good name for a missle of any variety.

[X-Alt]

its actually SACLOS, no e on the end, and yes there was the British Javelin surface-to-air missile which was the successor to the Blowpipe surface-to-air missile but this is no longer used by the British armed forces, been replaced by the Starstreak Missile and as Zwilling said, I was referring to the American FGM-148 Javelin ATGM, which the British use in large numbers as their main man portable ATGM system in r/l.


Thanks.

Gib the HVM a SACLOS Starstreak, less crying confirmed, hehe.