Don't Be Silly!

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-03-17 22:42

Anyone else think it's totally rediculious that when there is something that people don't like, they want it completely removed from the game instead of reworking it towards realism? Like when people are like "we should take out all the airplanes tank and APCs!!" (thats exaggerated... i hope) instead of thinking "we should rework what maps tanks are on or apcs" and the like. I guess this is just a rant, but I see it all too often. It just shows that the person isn't thinking things clearly.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-17 22:56

If you are refering to my post then you must realise i am asking for WEELED APC's to be less powerfull and fewer than there tracked counterparts.

If i shoot an APC's tires with my IFV's cannon, i expect it to be imobile.
Lone APC's rerly anoy me when there are tanks willing to protect them - yet they speed off in serch of an enemy tank or APC to ram.

The APC's should have no anti-tank capabilitys at all, including the cannon should not effect Tanks!

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-03-17 23:05

Yarr, get rid of the APCs and aircraft! I don't like them!

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-03-17 23:29

Pence wrote:If you are refering to my post then you must realise i am asking for WEELED APC's to be less powerfull and fewer than there tracked counterparts.

If i shoot an APC's tires with my IFV's cannon, i expect it to be imobile.
Lone APC's rerly anoy me when there are tanks willing to protect them - yet they speed off in serch of an enemy tank or APC to ram.

The APC's should have no anti-tank capabilitys at all, including the cannon should not effect Tanks!

when i read the posts about completely removing the sniper class and comletely removing the aircraft it made me post this, but your post helped a little bit =P

i completely agree with you APC's having no Anti tank capabilities.... also i havent seen APCs ram tanks before on PR? i didnt know that was a problem.

but your thing with the IFVs cannon making the APC imobile, then if you shoot a tanks treads with a rocket they should be imobile too!

i would just like to see what POE did, and have different varients of APCs and such, one with only a cannon, one only for transport (no weapons) , and so on.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-18 00:36

Modern MBT's and other armoured vehicals have Tracks that offer resistence to weapons, they are supposidly quite hard to take out compared to tanks of 10-20 years ago.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2006-03-18 02:10

Modern MBT's and other armoured vehicals have Tracks that offer resistence to weapons, they are supposidly quite hard to take out compared to tanks of 10-20 years ago.

Yes, and the LAVs have tires that can run flat, or without the tire at all ...

Much more durable than your average car's tire.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-03-18 02:30

beta wrote:Yes, and the LAVs have tires that can run flat, or without the tire at all ...

Much more durable than your average car's tire.

Almost all military weeled vehicals have that. I still think if i shoot the weel's they should buckle and imobilise the vehical.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-03-18 02:56

more variations on apcs would be nice. a light class of apc could be faster and aimed more for transport and anti infantry work (lav 25 & btr 90) while the heavy apcs could be more heavily armed with anti tank compatability and more ammunition (bradly & bmp) the bradly and bmp are both much more widly used than the lav anyway...

acadiancrusader · Post by **acadiancrusader** » 2006-03-19 04:31

Riki_Rude_BTYC wrote:Anyone else think it's totally rediculious that when there is something that people don't like, they want it completely removed from the game instead of reworking it towards realism? Like when people are like "we should take out all the airplanes tank and APCs!!" (thats exaggerated... i hope) instead of thinking "we should rework what maps tanks are on or apcs" and the like. I guess this is just a rant, but I see it all too often. It just shows that the person isn't thinking things clearly.

i agree 100%

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-03-19 05:16

Marines need the AAV for their APC. The LAV-25 can realistically carry four marines.