APC's need to be used as apc's more often.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-01-29 23:23

I'm not sure what you guys could do, but isn't it a little odd that apc's are never used for their role in BF2. I an remember only one time where a whole squad(which I was in) used the APC for transport. I know why they aren't used often, hummers/vodniks and fast atack jeeps are quicker for transport. Sure they can transport more, but how often do that many people want to cram into one vehicle. The amphibous driving and armor make it nice, but few seem to want to use it for it's true role. All it's used for is light armor. I don't know any solutions to this problem other than make maps where it would be easier to be transported in apc's rather than jeeps or simply walking. Maybe apc's could be the medical vehicle so many want to see, or maybe they can resupply. I don't really know what should be done, but something should be.

goodgameral · Post by **goodgameral** » 2006-01-29 23:27

or...
Replace APCs with modified transport trucks with heavier armor, that way, you get some more speed without easy deaths.
Also, when you're a gunner in an APC, there's not much you can do.
The only times I've really used APCs like that is when in Gulf of Oman or another place, we take an APC into the water to attack the carrier. Besides that, theres not many times that I know of like that.

Tom#13 · Post by **Tom#13** » 2006-01-29 23:27

good point, this a realism mod so squads using APCs should be encouraged. i agree we should make it re supply or make it a medi vehicle

Szarko · Post by **Szarko** » 2006-01-30 00:04

Tom#13 wrote:good point, this a realism mod so squads using APCs should be encouraged. i agree we should make it re supply or make it a medi vehicle

or atleast not an anti tank beast... the LAV can easily, in PR, one-hit a tank... mean while one shot to the rear to any apc wont destroy it.... kinda wierd...

would be nice if it was a support vehicle...

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2006-01-30 03:42

yea the prm team PROBABLY knows, but the LAV25 right now is the ultimate anti-tank weapon.

You can one-shot kill any other vehicle in the game with the LAV25 TOW, and you get TWO of them, ready to rock & roll.

And for whatever reason, the LAV25 can take direct tank fire, while many times a tank will be critical first hit after another tank shoots it.

So Therefore: LAV25 = Ultimate AT weapon (MBT) and the MBT is in a light armor role.

This needs to be fixed..

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-01-30 05:26

I own LAVs and LAVs own me, it depends on the first accurate shot.

JUSTLIKEREALLIFEOMIGOSH.

Anyway, yeah. I've posted a bit on how I think adjusting their health will help. I also feel another seat in the back will greatly aid the vehicles. If we could increase the number of troops past 6 a vehicle, I'd recommend that as well.

Right now the APC's seem to have their functionality in order, people just prefer the fast attack vehicles for some odd reason. Also, APCs have been completely removed from the most popular servers on some map sizes, which isn't so good.

Replacing them with heavy trucks is a no-go, the APCs are bent but not broken and trucks wouldn't be on the battlefield anyway.

DEDMON5811 · Post by **DEDMON5811** » 2006-01-30 14:14

Yeah Apcs weapons should be nerfed but increase the armor against tanks so they can atleast survive long enough to drop troops off. and for goodness sakes slow them down a bit.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-30 20:02

I think that the TOWs should be able to kill in 1 hit, and MBT rounds should do the same. If you get a good shot off first (in tank to tank) you usually end up with the kill and a whole bunch of your vehicle health gone. I don't like that, as on maps like steel thunder I hide off of the main roads and in the woods to get the jump on enemy tanks and then after I hit them I lose over half my health because that first sabot didn't do the trick. Even with APCs the TOWs should do the job in 1 hit, but so should the sabot and heat rounds. If both tank guns and APC missiles were made into 1 hit weapons it will let the guy who shoots first get the kill without pointlessly losing over half their health, or in the case of a tank getting the first shot on an APC, getting killed despite their efforts.

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-01-30 20:22

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow']I think that the TOWs should be able to kill in 1 hit, and MBT rounds should do the same. If you get a good shot off first (in tank to tank) you usually end up with the kill and a whole bunch of your vehicle health gone. I don't like that, as on maps like steel thunder I hide off of the main roads and in the woods to get the jump on enemy tanks and then after I hit them I lose over half my health because that first sabot didn't do the trick. Even with APCs the TOWs should do the job in 1 hit, but so should the sabot and heat rounds. If both tank guns and APC missiles were made into 1 hit weapons it will let the guy who shoots first get the kill without pointlessly losing over half their health, or in the case of a tank getting the first shot on an APC, getting killed despite their efforts.

Yes I totally agree. Moderm weapons are intended to be first look first kill. tactics have taken a back seat to slug matches in bf2. Its stupid that a sabot round will take you down to 90 something % damage. What needs to happen is armour thats hit by a round like that with 100% health should get 95% damage, where you wont blow up but the tank/apc you are in will not function then burn until it explodes. This will give you a chance to escape but not fight back with the main gun. Even that is being generous as IRL you would most likely be killed inside the tank after it is hit.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-30 20:28

Yes I think that would work just as well, as long as it's knocked out... it's as good as a kill. Although many times you see people being AT, in which case they get out, and hit you with an AT round... killing you. Still pretty unfair. So perhaps a knockout (of the tank, APC=toast after hit) with a kill (of the driver). Otherwise I would say kill the whole thing (tank and driver) in one hit.

Martini · Post by **Martini** » 2006-01-30 20:28

I know I would use it more if:

- it was faster.
- it fired smoke nades a fair distance to assist infantry.
- it held a whole squad.
- had a decent stereo in it.

Well maybe not the stereo, but when I'm a SL I know I want a fast moving infantry oriented vehicle to get me to an insertion point.

Rush to the objective->Lauch smoke nades->provide cover for the squad with the 50.cal->> it wouldn't get much better than that.

Mmm, yes and it needs a vanity mirror, I keep getting camo in my eye.......

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-30 20:31

Uhh, you forgot the 50" plasma TV and the wetbar... get it together please

.

Yes I think if possible it should hold a full squad, but it still needs to be a formidable AT weapon, that way it can augment a squad, that will get more shooters, as a result of the APC being the squad's 'heavy weapons specialist'.

Martini · Post by **Martini** » 2006-01-30 20:52

True, true,

Giving it smoke nade lanchers (similar to support smoke nade launcher in SF) and letting it keep its TOW launchers would make it more dynamic, I know I can do a better job covering the squad if I can give them concealment and effective cover fire from the vehicle.

Plus with added speed and lots of smoke (gotta love smoke) you won't need to engage MBT's.

I think people want alot out of this vehicle but want it to be a troop transport at the same time. Realistically thats not possible or it would be some uber weapon on the battlefield. There would be alot of vacancies in the MBT seats.

Faster, more dynamic (smoke nade launcher thing) and with more capacity is how people are going to end up wanting to use this machine.

Or, just sub it out with the bradley fighting vehicle, I like the bradley much better, plus it compliments the abilities of the M1A2 more effectivley.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-01-31 19:13

I think that the the cannon on the apcs should be nearly useless against heavy armor. The TOW's on it should blow the tank up only with a hit from the rear and top, critical(set it on fire) with a hit to the side, and only drop it to about 1/3 health with a hit to the front. A tank on the other hand should not blow up an apc with one hit, but set it on fire(that way the people inside can bail out). The apc maybe should go faster, and the smoke nades are a must.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2006-01-31 23:05

Good topic

The LAV-25 in game needs much work, as do all the armoured vehicles.

As far as I know, TOW missiles are freakin' deadly, saw some video of their effects, devastating, there's no way a tank will be driving away after being hit by one of those, if the tank was still moveable, the crew would be dead.

The armour on these things isn't the greatest for a vehicle to vehicle killer, the 25mm rounds it fire could penetrate it's armour and kill the crew/passengers. So a MBTs cannon would kill anything inside.

This is definately one thing PRMM has to work on, when in vehicles, especially armour, when you're hit by a APFSDS round, you will most likely be killed by the concussive force or the shrapnel or you tanks armour.

AT soldiers shouldn't be able to hop out (shouldn't be able to drive in the first place,

) a tank and still be able to function. If they were very lucky they would climb out, bleeding, and VERY disorientated and most likely get shot by the other vehicles co-axial MG ... not hop out and side strafe around while launching AT missiles ...

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-01 10:49

i think what need to be worked out as well is the fact that it is VERY unrealistic for an anti tank soldier with a massive Eryx and SRAW to be hopping out of a tank with their load.

I mean seriously, tank crews can't even bring an assault rifle without serious trouble into the cabin, much less an AT missile. And this has been discussed before, but there's a chance that APFSDS round will just punch right through the APC like paper and not hitting any of the APC's passenger or volatile material.

another reason why the APFSDS shouldn't instant kill the APC is to make the tankers feel the need to change their shell type, else no one will ever use the HEAT round since the APFSDS pretty much instant kill everything else save for vodnik.

also has been discussed before, add a concussion effect to a direct hit from a tank shell and any of the heavy warhead to simulate the concussion blast.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-02-01 19:55

The kit problem might be solved with a tank pilot class.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-02-01 20:24

A tanker class is a good idea that many people have brought up and seem to like.

Perhaps the sabot should just bring the tank to the critical condition where it is on fire and can't function? So that if you want the kill from a tank you need to use the HEATs.

Stu007 · Post by **Stu007** » 2006-02-01 20:56

SABOT / TOWs should hardly damage a tank imo, especially a M1A2 which can resist 120mm shells fired twice as fast.

unless thats what TOWs are for?

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-01 22:40

the thing is chobam armour is originally made to resist HEAT round, and the T-90s r equipped with ERA if i am right. Also, the APFSDS were meant to defeat HEAT resistant armour and ERA protected tanks with ease. APFSDS are likely to punch through clean on lightly armoured targets with little spalling, but on a tank with heavy armour, the spalling will probably be almost as destructive as the penetrator.

i've not read enough of the result of HEAT rounds on light targets, but i'd imagine that the blast jet from the shaped charge would turn the interior that it penetrates into inferno, whereas if the APFSDS smacked the vehicle you'll have a clean hole on the armour and another on the other side with whatever in between quite screwed. Unfortunately BF2 has no specific vehicle parts dmg system so we can't model the dmg to the component as the round punch through.

and TOW's battle record are impressive enough that i'd imagine even the Abrams would be in one hell of a world of hurt when they get smacked by one. also, i know that the abrams proved highly resistant and capable of deflecting hits from the penetrator used in T-72s during dessert storm, but i've not heard of a recent performance report against the newer models they utilize in the T-90s model.