Charity Case wrote:As things currently stand, mechanized infantry squads are a rare sight, in part due to the insanely powerful HAT, and also due to the fact that a six man squad has to sacrifice one third of it's manpower to operate the APC. Now, if mechanized players on the US Army team have to do the same to use what is basically a glorified HMMWV, then I can see the Stryker becoming a severely underutilized vehicle.
[R-DEV]Katarn wrote:The point about HAT is moot, but that's pretty much all I can comment on. It is my understanding that the stryker will require a crewman kit, and that it is classified as an APC. It may not be able to go toe-to-toe to an IFV, but what it lacks in firepower, it makes up for in maneuverability and speed. It is not an underpowered vehicle, it is just a different type. It won't be underutilized once its function is fully realized by the PR player.
I really don't see how a Stryker has significantly better maneuverability and speed in any circumstance. Afterall, a Stryker is just a beefed up LAV-25 with the turret chopped off and a .50 cal put in it's place. How much faster can it go than that? And how much more manuverability can a wheeled vehicle like the Stryker have over a tracked vehicle that can turn on a dime? In my eyes, it has alot to prove in the upcoming v0.8 installment as physics and logic doesn't seem to be painting a good picture.
A single Stryker is not going to get the job done. There are actually several variants of the Stryker that all work in unison to provide support for infantry, a single type will not accomplish much. The Stryker with the remote .50 caliber usually acts as a troop transport and command vehicle, the Stryker MGS (Mobile Gun System) offers direct line of fire from a large shell, the Stryker FSV (Fire Support Vehicle) offers mortar support for indirect line of fire.
As you can see, the Strykers are well equipped. However, what they are not is well protected against superior munitions... Strykers are the perfect tool for light engagements that are often seen in Afganistan. The worst they'll see is several RPG's (If they get close enough) or possibly recoiless rifles. That means they don't have to worry about tanks, anti-tank guided missles, enemy jets, enemy helicopters. Why? Because the enemy doesn't posess these items.
For the sake of PR, the last thing we need is to see a Stryker is on a MAJOR battlefield like "Kashan Desert" and "The Battle for Qinling". If it isn't made clear enough with the threat of enemy tanks and aircraft that will reduce the effectiveness of the Stryker to zero, then I don't know what to say...
But like mentioned before, placing Strykers in light engagements like on insurgency maps would be it's perfect implementation. The only problem is if it's placed in a map that has AAS against the MEC or PLA.. It honestly has no equal in it's field. Enemy APC's are far too powerful compared to a Stryker and enemy jeeps are far too easy to destroy. So in example, what's left is for a map to be made that is asymmetrical where the U.S. team has posession of Stykers, but the enemy has a geographic advantage instead to make up for it.
On another note, I must agree with Charity Case. Heavy Anti-Tank is supurbly powerful as it should be against anything less than a tank. The problem is basically as he said... HAT destroys all possible efforts to establish a mechanized infantry squad.
Personally the only solution now to Heavy Anti-Tank is not to alter the strength of it or add the warning tone again... But instead to remove it from the kit pool on certain maps that focus on infantry and APC's only. Maps like "Ejod Desert", "Jabal Al-Burj", 32 player "The Battle for Qinling".
Before you go shooting this down, listen up for a moment. Like I said... Remove Heavy Anti-Tank kits from light engagement maps focused around APC/Mechanized infantry only. This means on major battles with tanks present like "Kashan Desert" and "The Battle for Qinling" there WILL be Heavy Anti-Tank even with APC's running around. Afterall it's a major conflict with heavy units rolling around... You should expect the tanks to blow you away if your crazy enough to move out in an APC without armor support.
Besides the amount of teamwork it takes to operate an APC and coordinate with an infantry squad far exceeds some loner guy running out in the middle of nowhere with a Heavy AT to blow it all away in one shot. I truely feel that for the above mentioned maps it should only include APC vs APC engagements and occasional LAT from infantry... If you lose your APC's on "Ejod Desert" your team should get whooped just as bad as losing your tanks on "Al Kufrah Oilfields".
As you can see, it's simple and fair and it preserves the essence of APC's and Mechanized infantry. Unless you're one of those people out there that likes to see an APC get completely blown away within 5 minutes of it respawning, but hopefully you can tell me the realism in that?
All forms of armor should pose a threat to infantry and be taken seriously. APC's at the moment are a joke as Heavy Anti-Tank kits absolutely and completely destroy the aspect of teamwork and coordination on small scale engagement maps. However if you're in an APC on a large scale engagement... You should be considered HAT bait.
