Project Reality Forums

On most maps, a lot more people use crewman kits for driving around in vehicles, whereas the engie kit is more of a specialized kit used for things like blowing bridges, repairs, and laying mines.

so, I think it would be more LRL if crewman became a standard kit, and engie was a requestable.

Currently the problem others and I have is spawning in apc, dying due to lag or having to get out and spam kit request, get blocked for 2 minutes, wait around trying to find a request point, finally finding it, and requesting and having to wait another minute just for a simple crewman kit, that on a big map like kashan, 50% of all people should have anyway.

thx guys.

edit: should have made a poll

edit 2: MADE A POLL

um,

are you asking for a kit that you can just spawn in on an APC and drive away into the sunset(city)...


if so,then i give the disapproval (not that it matters)

yha the crewman kit should become standard, i use the crew man kit the most not that it is hard just go up to the side of a tank and ask.

but..you can already do that. you just have to spawn and then go through the hassle of waiting for a kit.
maybe we can take away the apc spawn
or just make a delay on the driver, like everyone is talking about and has been suggested millions of times.

see other thread for details

agreed , I'm sick of seeing engineers running infront of tanks and tossing mines

NOPE

I approve. If you spawn in an area with no vehicles around you can grab something else.

I have to disagree, Engineer is very useful now that Most kits are requestable that have explosives.

Maybe a compromise, Keep the engy but remove the AT mine and make a special Engy kit that deals in AT operations(Explosives Engineer? Same as Engy just one extra AT mine?), And add the crewman.

maybe just add the crewman kit as standard?

I vote no. Mostly because then people could leave APCs way back wherever as forward spawns, and then if they wanted to move them, just spawn back in as engineer. The way it is now, if you want to go retrieve an APC, it's a mission. You have to spawn somewhere you can request the kit from, and then hitch a ride out to the APC.

There are other reasons as well of course, this is just the first one that sprang to mind.

pasfreak wrote:maybe just add the crewman kit as standard?

So you want to bring up the current number of kits to 5? Brilliant Idea! That will give the Insurgents an extra kit to regain their edge on basrah! Dude no sarcasm here i think it would be awesome if it would give me back my kick *** insurgents!

JP*wasteland.soldier wrote:I vote no. Mostly because then people could leave APCs way back wherever as forward spawns, and then if they wanted to move them, just spawn back in as engineer. The way it is now, if you want to go retrieve an APC, it's a mission. You have to spawn somewhere you can request the kit from, and then hitch a ride out to the APC.

There are other reasons as well of course, this is just the first one that sprang to mind.

Thats why I think that there should be separete APC's and IFV's

APC's should be a spawn point , have minor armanent ( HMG\GPMG is enough ) .
IFV's shouldn't be a spawn point , should provide more firesupport .

kits may be requestable from both . Number of passangers - probably 2+6 for APC's and the same or 2+4 for IFV's

APC's
US Army - Stryker
USMC - AAV
MEC - BTR-90
China - current one
GB - Saxon

IFV's
US Army - Bradley M2A3
USMC - LAV-25
MEC - BMP-3
China - ?
GB - Warrior

GB should have a Mastiff or Bulldog in that case.

Nah.

Of course there are situations where there are APCs/Tanks/whatever in the middle of nowhere for some reason and it`s hard to get there with a crewman to bring them back into the action, but it`s always the fault of somebody that has been the crewman (driver) of that vehicle and he is the one to blame...not the idea of a requestable crewman.

no man. i mean no way!! having like 5 engis in a whole team just doesnt work out. and since the rench is being removed from crewmen kit, it makes the crewmen kit more useless(well as a standard kit) and the engineer kit more usefull!! sorry but my vote is no.

could you make it something you dont have to request?

Longbow* wrote:Thats why I think that there should be separete APC's and IFV's

APC's should be a spawn point , have minor armanent ( HMG\GPMG is enough ) .

IFV's shouldn't be a spawn point , should provide more firesupport .

kits may be requestable from both . Number of passangers - probably 2+6 for APC's and the same or 2+4 for IFV's

APC's
US Army - Stryker
USMC - AAV
MEC - BTR-90
China - current one
GB - Saxon

IFV's
US Army - Bradley M2A3
USMC - LAV-25
MEC - BMP-3
China - ?
GB - Warrior

I'd say:

APC

Army - Stryker
USMC - AAV
MEC - BTR-80 (the 90 has an autocannon, which puts it into the IFV class, where as the '80 has a 14.5mm MG. Or possibly go for something not Russian)
China - ZSL92A (same main body as current, partially enclosed 12.7mm or 7.62mm MG)
GB - FV432 "Bulldog"

IFV

Army - M2A3 Bradley
USMC - LAV-25
MEC - BTR-90 (as much as I'd love to see the BMP-3 in game, I am aware of the balance challenges it presents, what with the 100mm gun capable of firing ATGMs as well as 30mm and 7.62mm coax guns)
China - ZSL92 (Current one)
GB - Warrior

me say:


APC

Army - Stryker
USMC - LAV-25 and AAV
MEC - BTR-90 (with a weak armor)
China - ZSL92A (same main body as current, partially enclosed 12.7mm or 7.62mm MG)
GB - FV432 "Bulldog"

IFV

Army - M2A3 Bradley
USMC - none
MEC - BMP-3(dont care about balance , just thing that a bradley can fire both missils at the same time, with make him better than the bmp3)
China - ZSL92 (Current one)
GB - Warrior