Strykers?

Deuce6 · Post by **Deuce6** » 2006-03-31 00:39

I know i'm a little biased going to combat in one, but it's a GREAT vehicle. It's pretty much a LAV without the turret. There's a remote weapon system with a mounted 50 cal. (I'm sure that won't be included) It can survive RPG shots with the slat armor, but it's still vulnerable to anti-tank weapons like the AT-4 or an MBT. It can carry an entire squad. A crew of 2, and two fireteams. Although i'm sure there won't be a need for the vehicle commander because in the game the driver is usually both.

Opinions?

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-03-31 00:42

Stryker would be nice for US Army maps (if the devs plan to add any)

In fact, I'd love to see the Stryker

Post by **Happy** » 2006-03-31 00:44

It can also be fitted with the mark 19 automatic grenade laucher. Which can be used in both the direct fire mode and the indirect fire mode (almost like a mortar, basically a lob shot).

Deuce6 · Post by **Deuce6** » 2006-03-31 00:45

Yea of course, but since we don't have Mark 19's in the game, I just left that out.

Deuce6 · Post by **Deuce6** » 2006-03-31 00:46

But yea, it doesn't really have an overpowering presence like a tank or a LAV in the game. But it would be great for a different kind of transport. Especially if you need to get your ENTIRE squad to a certain point. And you could have 4 people out of the airgaurd hatches to defend the vehicle.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-03-31 00:49

Sounds awesome. And they'd be wearing the new Army uniforms ^_^

Deuce6 · Post by **Deuce6** » 2006-03-31 00:50

ack!

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-03-31 00:51

What's wrong with 'em?

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-03-31 01:33

would love to see this put into the game although i wonder if AT class should be allowed to ride it. i read some report saying the interior is quite cramped, just about enough room for geared up soldiers but AT weapons would certainly be a challenge to squezze in.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-03-31 14:21

I think they would be great. I hate the LV thingy, much prefer the Bradly but i do not mind team vehicle differences. eg. US has 3 tracked vehicles while MECS have 2 = dont care
I think the Styker would be great. Provide more protection that a hunvee, but still have good speed as well as fire power. It is perfect - no one can complain it is too strong, or too powerfull (should be only able to take 2 rocket and have a automatic 50 or something similar + smoke grenades).

If possible it should carry 8. A driver and commander/gunner man and a whole squad. It would be so cool if the doors at the rear really opened and you clambered out! But i realise there might be problems due to the crappy ness of the BF2 engine.

ghosty · Post by **ghosty** » 2006-03-31 16:30

Deuce6 wrote:I know i'm a little biased going to combat in one, but it's a GREAT vehicle.

Whats your background? do you have first hand experience in this? If so post some more pics... I would like to learn more about this vehicle.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-03-31 21:58

i would like to know more as well from someone with direct experience on the vehicle, the report for the vehicle performance have been somewhat a mix with some pro and some cons.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-03-31 22:33

I heard they take alot of damage from RPGs

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-04-01 04:52

i see, well if u believe they would fit then i will take ur word for it. A lot of the report of their cramped room comes with a hint of comparison to the old m113 which i have to admit is not wholly fair, so i'll take the word from someone with experience in it.

cerberus: yeah, quite a number of report saying they couldn't survive RPG attacks and IEDs until the addition of the slat panel.

six7 · Post by **six7** » 2006-04-01 05:59

these are the kind of ACSs we need. not those "mini tanks" as they are used in the game. we need APCs with a respawn time slightly greater than transport trucks to carry soldiers around instead of stop and fight. what would the MEC and chinese equivilent be though?

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-01 06:04

It's a shame APCs aren't used for their purpose in the game... they're supposed to carry soldiers and then support them in combat

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-04-01 08:58

It is becuase they are too powerfull. Get rid of the rocket mabey. LAV is pretty much a Stryker but the games make it uber powerful as cerberus said.
Adding the stryker is lightly difficult becuase at the moment the LAV would be alot better due to it's armamnet, therefore it would be almost pointless, albiet slightly increase troop carriing ability.

THis has been brought up before, But i really want to see the Bradly adn Warrior used as a APC not Antiaircraft. THere main purpose was to do that!
Abrams and bradlys could be used in the larger battles and the LAV (no rockets) and Stryker could be used in smaller engements.
Before implementing any new vehicle, alot of thought and even carefull adjusment needs to be done to maintain solid realism and fair gameplay!

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-04-01 15:48

alternatively, we can use stryker as the APC, and to replace the LAV we can use stryker mobile gun system. or ATGM system stryker.

ultimately though i think the only way to make the APC used as APC is to somehow provide incentive for ppl to ferry ppl into combat zone. Mind u that if we're in a match where everyone works as proper team then this is not an issue, public server is full of ppl who DON'T work as a team though so incentive is needed to make it usefull.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-04-01 15:54

I like it