Project Reality Forums

It has already been asked a few times, but would it be possible to change the meta of APC/IFV vs APC/IFV combat by making 25mm< AP shells drastically more effective against light armour?

So you would only need a few solid hits on a light armored vehicle to destroy it, say like 3-5 depending on specific conditions.

This would emphasise more careful and tactical gameplay (like we currently have with MBT vs MBT combat) and solve big balancing issues like the BMP-2 cannon being too OP against regular light armour and a lot of other stuff.

With the recent push into realism i think this change would fit rather well.
Why do an update to make MBT armour more realistic but exclude the APCs/IFVs?

The fact of the matter is that every time there has been an attempt to raise autocannon damage, it has been rejected.

Fix APC battles and you can get rid of this garbage deviation that only serves in the 2A42\72's favor.

DogACTUAL wrote:It has already been asked a few times, but would it be possible to change the meta of APC/IFV vs APC/IFV combat by making 25mm< AP shells drastically more effective against light armour?

So you would only need a few solid hits on a light armored vehicle to destroy it, say like 3-5 depending on specific conditions.

This would emphasise more careful and tactical gameplay (like we currently have with MBT vs MBT combat) and solve big balancing issues like the BMP-2 cannon being too OP against regular light armour and a lot of other stuff.

With the recent push into realism i think this change would fit rather well.
Why do an update to make MBT armour more realistic but exclude the APCs/IFVs?

Been sayin this for a long while. APC combat is vBF2-like, still not fixed. But I do disagree on the 3-5, needs to be 10-20 for regular light APCs, just so its not too ridiculous. Maybe 5-10 for LRVs and 15-30 for heavier IFVs.

An apparent symptom of the current mechanics is that it is apparently more appealing to ram a LAV or AAVP with the BTR-60 because their cannon does not work to a realistic extent against other APCs. Experienced this a few times and tbh, they probably did more damage with that than if they attempted to use the gun only.

DogACTUAL wrote:It has already been asked a few times, but would it be possible to change the meta of APC/IFV vs APC/IFV combat by making 25mm< AP shells drastically more effective against light armour?

So you would only need a few solid hits on a light armored vehicle to destroy it, say like 3-5 depending on specific conditions.

This would emphasise more careful and tactical gameplay (like we currently have with MBT vs MBT combat) and solve big balancing issues like the BMP-2 cannon being too OP against regular light armour and a lot of other stuff.

With the recent push into realism i think this change would fit rather well.
Why do an update to make MBT armour more realistic but exclude the APCs/IFVs?

Could you please define "light vehicle" for me for the sake of argument? Because the BMP2 is not a light vehicle. What I consider to be light vehicles are jeeps and similar, and they do go down in a few shots already.

lol 3-5 shots

Imagine BMP2/3 vs UK ****... 1 burst and byebye Warrior/Scimi

Another bullshit "wonnabe on paper realism" that will break the game and result in unrealistic gameplay.

After thinking about it again i realized that 3-5 would not be feasible. My reasoning for that number was across the lines that every shot from a 25mm< is going to penetrate the armour. But of course penetration alone doesn't mean a critical spot inside the vehicle was actually hit.

Since the refractor engine doesn't really allow for models detailed enough to simulate critical spots like fuel, ammo or personnel (afaik), the vehicle has to be able to take more hits to account for potential penetration that doesn't really do much damage other than punch a hole.

So right now something approximately like this would be the ideal model imo:

25-35mm AP against light armour (LAV25, MT-LB, BRDM, VAB, FV 107, FV 101, Fennek, ...):

Frontal armour 6-9 hits

Side and rear armour 5-8 hits

25-35mm AP against medium armour (BMP-1(?), BMP-2(?), BMP-3, M2 Bradley, VBCI, ...):

Frontal armour 10-15 hits

Side and rear armour 5-10 hits

25-35mm AP/HE against unarmored vehicle (car, truck, bike): 1-3 hits depending on vehicle

Imagine BMP2/3 vs UK ****... 1 burst and byebye Warrior/Scimi

That's my whole point. The system we have right now is broken!
As it is right now the warrior sees the BMP first and shoots it for 5 seconds, then the BMP cannon turns towards it and blasts it away, it doesn't even have a chance.

With the model i propose the warrior would get the deserved kill, because even with its low ROF it can take out the BMP fast enough before it engages back.

The IFV/APC with the best strategy and tactics would win, not the one with the highest ROF.

DogACTUAL wrote:The IFV/APC with the best strategy and tactics would win, not the one with the highest ROF.

I agree, but only devs that actually looked into the values can tell us more about how they're connected otherwise you'd be shooting down choppers with 1-3 hits which would be horrible, so then you'd buff their armour but then a LAT wouldn't kill them anymore etc.

DogACTUAL wrote:After thinking about it again i realized that 3-5 would not be feasible. My reasoning for that number was across the lines that every shot from a 25mm< is going to penetrate the armour. But of course penetration alone doesn't mean a critical spot inside the vehicle was actually hit.

I'd be more concerned about the gameplay implications it would have if a single burst can kill an APC outright.

Since the refractor engine doesn't really allow for models detailed enough to simulate critical spots like fuel, ammo or personnel (afaik), the vehicle has to be able to take more hits to account for potential penetration that doesn't really do much damage other than punch a hole.

You could actually do that but I don't think it accounts for the angle you're shooting from, so a shot which hits a spot that would have a fuel tank behind it at a 90° angle will do the same damage a shot at the same spot would do at a 45° angle, regardless of the round penetrating nothing of importance if it were to fly right through the vehicle.

I just don't think it's desireable. Pre 1.3 Tank combat was dumbed down to "Who has ATGM? Who doesn't?" and "Who manages to hit one of the silly weakspots modeled on the tanks?". so the game had your idea in place, it was stupid and I'm glad that stuff is now gone.

So right now something approximately like this would be the ideal model imo:

25-35mm AP against light armour (LAV25, MT-LB, BRDM, VAB, FV 107, FV 101, Fennek, ...):

Frontal armour 6-9 hits

Side and rear armour 5-8 hits

25-35mm AP against medium armour (BMP-1(?), BMP-2(?), BMP-3, M2 Bradley, VBCI, ...):

Frontal armour 10-15 hits

Side and rear armour 5-10 hits

25-35mm AP/HE against unarmored vehicle (car, truck, bike): 1-3 hits depending on vehicle

You realize the autocannons fire 200 RPM and up with the exception of the RARDEN? If I take the Puma with its "slow" 200 RPM, that's still above 3 rounds a second and means a 2 second kill on the light vehicles and a 3 second kill on the medium ones.
The Russian 30mm shoots 7.5 rounds a second, and since you're calculating with 15 rounds(of 25mm) for frontal armour on the high end that means everything with 30mm kills every other vehicle(that isn't a tank) in not even 2 seconds.

Again, I don't think any of this is desireable whatsoever. It takes a lot more than a second for a vehicle to stablize enough so that the gunner can fire accurately in most cases, and it's just silly to rob people of the fighting chances they have nowadays. You move, you die, so what's the point of moving then? With your values it's easily possible for a stationary LAV to outgun 2 BTR80As or BMP2s or BMP3s even despite of their superior cannon(and better armour >BMPs).
In the same manner I complain about 7.62 and 5.56(up close) being too deadly for healthy infantry combat, it's the same thing right here. Smoke is worthless now because by the time you see a target and it deploys you're dead. Repairs are almost meaningless(except for muh ground damage) because one vehicle dies and the other sits at full HP.

That's my whole point. The system we have right now is broken!
As it is right now the warrior sees the BMP first and shoots it for 5 seconds, then the BMP cannon turns towards it and blasts it away, it doesn't even have a chance.

It's actually more balanced these days than it ever was. And it's not the Devs fault the Brits decided to build the RARDEN as retarded as they did. The problem with IFV and heavy APC balance in PR is mostly related to all of them having the same armour - whereas damage output differs greatly. I've outgunned a VBCI on front with a BTR-80A showing side armour and while I don't think the VBCI is 30mm protected frontally, the BTR-80A is at most 12.7mm-proof on its side. If armour would play the role ingame it plays in reality in a meaningful way a lot of the balance issues with the slow as f NATO cannons would cease because the Russian vehicle arsenal puts power and agility(small profile, amphibious) over precision and protection(Bradley and Puma are probably better protected than half of the Russian T-72 arsenal). It's fixable, but it does require work.

I get your point but imagine a BMP2 and a Scimi get head on, the BMP will fire 5 rounds in the same time the Scimi fires 1.

This will result in high ROF APC just rushing everything to get a head on fight.

Stop the argument about the details for a sec and just answer this:

Do you think APC combat needs to be more fatal?

All the counter arguments i received make some good points, it really is a tricky issue balancing APC/IFV combat.
Although i would say a BMP can already just rush a british APC like that because in my proposed model all cannons are buffed by the same factor, all that would change is how long the BMP would take to destroy the british APC.

Maybe better balance could be achieved by changing armour values up a bit additionally to the cannon changes? But to be honest in my research i came across many bold claims of specific vehicles having really good resistance against 30mm frontally but then there are reports of the same vehicle getting destroyed by 50.cal to the front. So i don't know if you can really trust official sources that much, they tend to stretch the truth a good bit to fit their interests.

To answer the question, yes APC/IFV combat needs to be more fatal imo.

Maybe a bit (20%)

fecht_niko wrote:lol 3-5 shots

Imagine BMP2/3 vs UK ****... 1 burst and byebye Warrior/Scimi

Another bullshit "wonnabe on paper realism" that will break the game and result in unrealistic gameplay.

Low number of shots is actually in UK APC's favor because UK APC has no overheat nor deviation(nothing extremely noticeable anyway), so they have decent chance of winning by landing 3-5 solid hits at long range instead of being sprayed down by high deviation autocannons at basically any range. (keep in mind maps are already "balanced" by UK generally having a lot more APC, Russia/MEC side typically lacking FLIR on BTR and MTLB 30mm, plus the pseudo-atgm Stormer that can destroy APCs easily; the likes of MTLB with 30mm should also have much weaker armor)

Could also change it so APC turrets count as "rear" armor for the sake of damage, so higher accuracy APCs with decent aim can do better while BMPs...etc. would still lack the accuracy to hit them reliably at mid/long range.

Would not make much difference in a fair close range fight because BMPs already win that.

Allahu Akbar wrote:Could also change it so APC turrets count as "rear" armor for the sake of damage

Turrets generally have more armor though, would be a bit unrealistic. Of course they do have optics and other vital stuff for the operation of the APC or its turret so eh

It would be interesting to decrease apc/ifv armour vs auto cannons a bit, and maybe a like it was said another way to balance fast firing vs slower firing cannons would be accuracy, but not to an extreme amount, just to make it harder to hit hull down vehicles. Everything I've hear about bmp2 guns is they aren't the most accurate.

Yes, this approach seems very reasonable. But i would still prefer if they actually made cannons significantly more effective against armour, not just a bit. So you would really notice a big difference.