Project Reality Forums

Kashan is such a balanced map that I feel we should return to the heavy anti-aircraft vehicles.

So, instead of the BRDM and Humvee, we would use the Tunguska and the Bradley.


Reasons for this...

- Balance, currently the Humvee anti-air vehicle is better than the BRDM not only in it's anti-air duties, but also in engaging other targets. (I understand engaging ground targets is not the intended use, that's another discussion, fact is it ALWAYS happens in PR, so it's a legit concern.) This is all because the Humvee has a cannon, and the BRDM does not. The cannon can engage aircraft who are good with their flares. And it can also engage and destroy light vehicles and infantry with ease.

- The current layout of vehicles in Kashan 64 is mainly heavily armored tracked vehicles. Sending along some lightly armored cars, to protect them all, doesn't seem right.

- With the Tunguska and Bradley we could enforce the two man crew. Which would mean better quality anti-air coverage than we currently get. And they would be less likely to be used as transport by people and abandoned in the field.


Possible problems with this...

- People confusing them with regular APCs and using them accordingly

- Pwnage with the Tunguska

- Less usage of anti-aircraft vehicles because it requires 2 people


Discuss.

The M3 Bradley isn't at all realistic, it was a concept that was never put into service....

the problem with "Heavy ADVs" is that they do not defend the air they spend more time shooting things on the ground and that's all they end up doing instead of shooting air targets.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:The M3 Bradley isn't at all realistic, it was a concept that was never put into service....

the problem with "Heavy ADVs" is that they do not defend the air they spend more time shooting things on the ground and that's all they end up doing instead of shooting air targets.

Ahh, that's too bad. I always liked that Bradley.

The problem with anti-air engaging ground targets isn't isolated to the heavy ones.

badmojo420 wrote:The problem with anti-air engaging ground targets isn't isolated to the heavy ones.

50cals on the hummer shooting at infantry isn't a big deal, its not really any worse than a normal hummer or a Stryker shooting at the infantry. 2x 30mm cannons firing at 5,000 RPM is a totally different story how ever since it can take out not just infantry with grate ease, but APCs and many other things in a flash.

With a vehicle with so much power it can lone wolf killing anything it likes in its path other than tanks which is not just bad for the enemy team, its also bad for the rest of your team who need air defence while they are getting bombed to **** when your wondering off on your own on the other side of the map shooting at anything that happens to cross your path.

Right now, the best defense from an attacking helicopter on the MEC side of Kashan, would be either the 50cal on a tank, or a BMP. I would even take a scout BRDM over the anti-aircraft BRDM.

The flares are too good. A helicopter can just fly at you slowly letting the flares go out in front and the missiles almost always go to them. I'm not saying it's hard to do AA. It's just that in the Humvee on the US side, this is not an issue, you just unload into this fireworks display that's hovering 200m in front of you. On the MEC side you would have to have a second BRDM with an HMG to be as effective as 1 Humvee.

How about 1 or 2 Tunguskas that don't respawn?

If you make tanks and apcs better for taking out aircraft than the dedicated anti-aircraft vehicles, or you make the anti-aircraft vehicles better at taking out ground targets than the dedicated ground attack vehicles, then you get problems with miss-usage of the vehicles.

When the Tunguska was last on Kashan, weren't the MEC using the wheeled APCs? And we had a lot more Humvees/Vodniks being used because they spawned on the FOBs? Easy pickings for a Tunguska. And the Tunguska would have been more appealing than a wheeled APC, in the eyes of someone looking for a mini-tank. And the worst part of all, 1 person gets to drive and gun. Being a 1 manned gun & drive vehicle, you could react quicker than other armored vehicles that were realistically lagged because of the teamwork of the crew.

It's not surprising that the Tunguska was used against any target it could get it's sights on. But, I doubt that's unrealistic. If you expose yourself to an enemy in war, and it's within his ability to destroy you, he will. Especially in a video game war.

It's the same with TOW sniping. The TOW has 360 degree rotation and crazy zoom, and it's no wonder people jump on that before the more realistic HMG nests when dealing with any enemies. It's just better. Add in the warm-up timers which make it impossible to quickly jump back and forth from emplacements. If you give people a better alternative, they will take it.

But, I don't think the TOWs need to go because they're too good. And I didn't think the Tunguska needed to go either. If people feel secure to jump on an emplacement that completely exposes them, just to get its advantages, then why not give us a second type of HMG emplacement. A 50cal HMG on a tripod with 360 degree rotation. I for one would be on that over the TOW when manpower was limited. Right now the TOW can cover so much area, people naturally gravitate towards it when that is needed.

And since we now have the BMP with it's ATGMs, and other armaments, as well as TOW emplacements, people would have better choices than the Tunguska when it comes to taking out ground targets. And if it required 2 people like the Russian version, that would further prevent the unrealistic usage we used to see. Why take a Tunguska when you can take an APC? Maybe reduce the amount of cannon rounds to prevent it being a good IFV.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:50cals on the hummer shooting at infantry isn't a big deal, its not really any worse than a normal hummer or a Stryker shooting at the infantry. 2x 30mm cannons firing at 5,000 RPM is a totally different story how ever since it can take out not just infantry with grate ease, but APCs and many other things in a flash.

With a vehicle with so much power it can lone wolf killing anything it likes in its path other than tanks which is not just bad for the enemy team, its also bad for the rest of your team who need air defence while they are getting bombed to **** when your wondering off on your own on the other side of the map shooting at anything that happens to cross your path.

Not only the humvees 50cal, but the various types of anti-aircraft missiles are constantly being used against infantry or vehicles.

I don't think a Tunguska would stand much of a chance against a Bradley with a couple TOWs ready to fire. IMO anything less armored should be escorted, so this doesn't seem like an issue to me.

badmojo420 wrote:Not only the humvees 50cal, but the various types of anti-aircraft missiles are constantly being used against infantry or vehicles.

In old versions yes, AA Missiles did load of damage to infantry/tanks. In v0.9, they dont.

badmojo420 wrote:I don't think a Tunguska would stand much of a chance against a Bradley with a couple TOWs ready to fire. IMO anything less armored should be escorted, so this doesn't seem like an issue to me.

If the Tunguska gets the drop on a Bradley, the Tunguska would easily win. Same goes the other way round but the difference is with the Bradley it would need to arm its TOW missiles which takes a few seconds so if you dont have your TOW missiles prepared before you see the Tunguska (and the Tunguska hasn't seen you) then in thous few seconds you need to wait before you can fire a TOW at the Tunguska, the Tunguska has a chance to see you and kill you in a flash since it will have its cannons ready to fire. If the Bradly tries to fire its 30mm cannon at it, by the time its doing any real damage to the Tunguska with it, the Tunguska would have most likley reacted to being shot and fire back 10x as much lead in a flash.

Also 30mm rounds will damage a tank and as such, with that rapid fire it can kill a tank, might take a few seconds of constant fire but its possible and if the tank crew aint seen the Tunguska, the confusion of all these explosions happening all around them is enough to have the Tunguska win the fight, unless its with other tanks.





I agree with you that the current ADVs aint that grate and the flares are too powerful, but adding a all round killing machine to the map isn't going to do it any favours.

Well then let's replace the BMPs & Bradleys with Strykers and BTRs because they could potentially take out a tank if they get the jump on him. They're supposed to be fighting infantry aren't they?

And a good APC gunner will always keep the TOW loaded on Kashan.

Question, does the reduced effectiveness of the AA missile on ground targets in 0.9, mean they have to explode closer to the aircraft to inflict damage?

badmojo420 wrote:Well then let's replace the BMPs & Bradleys with Strykers and BTRs because they could potentially take out a tank if they get the jump on him. They're supposed to be fighting infantry aren't they?

IFV dosen't mean they are designed to kill infantry...

Infantry fighting vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV, also known as (mechanized) infantry combat vehicle, (M)ICV) is a type of armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) used to carry infantry into battle and provide fire support for them.

They wouldn't be armed with Anti-Tank weapons if they where not designed to take out tanks, although its more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon in r/l. MBTs are still the best counter for tanks (other than aircraft).

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1425499']IFV dosen't mean they are designed to kill infantry...

Infantry fighting vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV, also known as (mechanized) infantry combat vehicle, (M)ICV) is a type of armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) used to carry infantry into battle and provide fire support for them.

They wouldn't be armed with Anti-Tank weapons if they where not designed to take out tanks, although its more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon in r/l. MBTs are still the best counter for tanks (other than aircraft).

I should have said "supporting infantry"

My point was that the APCs are intended to transport and support infantry. Something that rarely happens on Kashan. 9/10 times the APCs will drive around without infantry and engage enemy vehicles. Opting to expose the APC in order to fire at tanks or other APCs, rather then the proper usage which would be getting an infantry to dismount to engage the enemy vehicle with a HAT, while the APC stays in cover to support.

My suggestion to remove the APCs was pure sarcasm. Most of us have grown to accept that they will be used in an unrealistic fashion. I just wanted to show that we already have vehicles in PR that constantly get used in a way they were not meant to. But, that doesn't mean they never get used in the proper fashion. And they're more effective when used correctly.(both the APCs and Tunguska)

We can argue all day about this, but it still won't change the fact that the Tunguska is not better than a Bradley. If we still ran LAVs on Kashan, I wouldn't even dare suggesting a Tunguska for all the reasons you've provided. But, PR has evolved past 25mm cannon APC battles. A Tunguska isn't the trump card it used to be.

TBH Rhino later in the game when most of the enemy air assets are down the MEC AAV becomes useless. I have played organized games where I have used the AAV to great effect. But after the jets are down what is there to do? Tanks and other weapons can take out helos much faster than any AAV anyway. The reason why most AAV's sit in main isn't because people prefer a ground attack vehicle, it's because the AAV has too extreme of limited use. Hard to use against aircraft and shit against everything else