Project Reality Forums

Is it possible to have Driver position into AAV ? its more realist and its allowing a more effective use of new stabilisation system

You're right but it would take away even more infantry troops that are very necessary.. Its good as it is

Aye we need more boots on the ground. Were it a 64 man team, I think the DEVs would make it a 2-man vehicle.

ye, main reason why its a 1 man vehicle is simply cos we cant get as many players on the game to be able to really man them with 2 players each.

One manned AA are fine as they are for the already mentioned reasons.
In fact that would be perfect if they couldn't destroy a 2-seated APC that easily.

possible fix : slight decrease of AA gun's damages against armored vehicles ?

im sure it can penerate APC armor

Nitneuc wrote: possible fix : slight decrease of AA gun's damages against armored vehicles ?

Realism?

Btw, why do we have the stabilization on AAV's?? Its just really annoying

Waaah_Wah wrote: Btw, why do we have the stabilization on AAV's?? Its just really annoying

Agreed.

I drive like drunken, left to right, every time I try to use it...

lmao i hate the AA driving. I was drunk one day and drove with the thing and I was just laughing my *** off.

the 2 man aa might balance things, sounds like something for the testers to try.

HughJass wrote:lmao i hate the AA driving. I was drunk one day and drove with the thing and I was just laughing my *** off.

the 2 man aa might balance things, sounds like something for the testers to try.

Dude I wasn't even drunk and I did the same thing.

And what happened to the 128 players online hack threat?

this would solve that kind of problems.

Deadfast wrote:Agreed.

I drive like drunken, left to right, every time I try to use it...

Me too

Here a little pimped AA while driving around like drunk

the AAV driving sucks i though it was better before, i cant even go in a straight line now

The AAV is a deadly vehicle both to air and ground. I mean, over a T-90 or a Tunguska I will have the Tunguska any day. I know people who have taken tanks down with them... And against infantry the cannon rocks...

I think 2 seats would be a good addition to it. 2 extra people away from the battlefield is fine imo.

Right now the AAV is the solo vehicle of death and pwnage.

Alex6714 wrote:The AAV is a deadly vehicle both to air and ground. I mean, over a T-90 or a Tunguska I will have the Tunguska any day. I know people who have taken tanks down with them... And against infantry the cannon rocks...

I think 2 seats would be a good addition to it. 2 extra people away from the battlefield is fine imo.

Right now the AAV is the solo vehicle of death and pwnage.

dont listen to him! He just want AAV this way cause its gonna be more difficult to organise AA defence on map, and he could just pwn n00bs from helicopter with no fear

and i Cant understand what's the problem with AAV V/S Tanks? 1 tank hit immediatley kill the AA vehicle.

at1as wrote:dont listen to him! He just want AAV this way cause its gonna be more difficult to organise AA defence on map, and he could just pwn n00bs from helicopter with no fear

and i Cant understand what's the problem with AAV V/S Tanks? 1 tank hit immediatley kill the AA vehicle.

I can´t see it nerfing AA too much.

My second favourite vehicle on kashan is the tunguska though, because it is teh beast.

AAV's certainly need the directional compensation feature altered and reverted back to as it was previously. Whereas the turret maintains it's direction in relation to the chasis.

And yes there shouldn't be a 2 man AAV. I myself have spent rounds as a dedicated AAV, and if you know all the enemy air assets are already gone you kinda end up twiddling your thumbs for 20 minutes. Along with running like a girl at the first sight of armor. I don't think 2 people are going to have the patience to sit around waiting for the next air targets to arrive.

Besides, that M1 Tunguska is something fierce. That high rate of fire is certainly a beast against the M3 Linebacker in comparison and just mows down infantry. I wish that the M3 Linebacker did atleast act like an APC where you can actually transport troops with it like an LAV-25 Pirana. After all, that's what it is, an IFV with 4 Stinger missles on the side instead of 2 TOW missles.

Humm... Now that's not a bad idea all of a sudden. Give it AP ammo for selection 1 and HEAT for selection 2. After all, the M1 Tunguska does mow down alot of everything by sheer rate of fire. Atleast give the M3 Linebacker AP ammo so it can confront other armor abit. I don't think this would make it overpowered, afterall the MEC have a BMP-3 which would shred most other APC's. Maybe alittle bit of asset balancing would be in order for this alteration. Who knows?

The Tunguska is possibly too overpowered but I also believe that it's necessary.

Many times I've taken out scores of infantry, AAVs, hummers, APCs and even a tank.

Being able to manouver and co-ordinate your hand-eye movements at long ranges usually equals win. Tanks or APC's find it much harder to it a moving target at extreme ranges.

lool, even in F16... Tonguska will kill you...