Project Reality Forums

I like the AAVP in the current configuration of pr. But in the city the AAVP is like trying to drive a train. We used to have LAV's in the map before the last patch. I was wondering how the community felt about having the fun to drive LAV's removed from the map and the AAVP's with their infinity of grenades.

So on muttrah, do we need LAV's Back or Keep the AAVP? or do a 1 of each deal.

Either really.. Most of the time they get tow'd or lat'd and end up a wreck. I probably prefer the aav, although one of each could be an interesting dynamic

LAVs can easily own on public as they are fast and easy for a noob to shoot.

On clan matches or high level public servers (TG at times) AAVP very useful due to lobbing nades into windows from far away with no visual needed. LAV would just get hatted.

I would like to see one of each. Would be nice. However I think for realism reasons the LAVs were removed but Im not sure.

the LAV is mostly used for recon and afaik never used for beach/amphibious assualts, also they arn't used in urban enviroments due to their cramped transportation as well as their low armour values.

killonsight95 wrote:the LAV is mostly used for recon and afaik never used for beach/amphibious assualts

Ye, the LAV-25 is amphibious but it has only been designed to cross rivers, not go though rough seas like the AAVP7A1.

The LAV-25 was only a place holder for a proper amphibious assault vehicle, such as the AAVP7A1.

AAVP7 is epic on Muttrah, since its the only land vehicle that have thermal, so no matter what you encounter pop you're smoke, put Thermal on and own the sh%t out of you're enemy

i thought the MEC have a heavy MTLB that has thermals

I like the LAV-25/AAVP7A1 dynamics honestly. In PR, if not real life, the LAV serves pretty effectively as the USMC's IFV, with a gun much more capable of taking on armour than the AAVP's MK19, while the AAVP has the anti-infantry capabilities.

It's a similar scenario to the Bradley/Stryker or WZ551/WZ551A (the .50 cal one), and it's a good one. I support one of each.

In the future we may see the LAV-25 return to Muttrah bit not in the state where it has to swim upto the shore from the carrier.

40mm + .50 > 25mm + 7.62

Dev1200 wrote:40mm + .50 > 25mm + 7.62

Slow + Noisy > Fast + Quieter

Got to say, i much preferred the LAV on Muttrah

The reason i think the AAV fails quite a lot is because people find it difficult to aim the 40mm. Where as the LAV is just get your target, aim and shoot, the AAV is aquire target, get range aim, shoot and having to adjust range every time you change target can be a ball ache

Smiddey723 wrote:Slow + Noisy > Fast + Quieter

I take it you mean Fast + Quiet > Slow + Noisy?

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:I take it you mean Fast + Quiet > Slow + Noisy?

i guess?

not to sure what the difference is

When using ">" symbol, it means what's left of it is better than what is right of it. Ie:

Fast + Quiet "is better than" Slow + Noisy
aka
Fast + Quiet "Over" Slow + Noisy?
aka
Fast + Quiet > Slow + Noisy

Ex: saXoni > everyone else.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Ye, the LAV-25 is amphibious but it has only been designed to cross rivers, not go though rough seas like the AAVP7A1.

The LAV-25 was only a place holder for a proper amphibious assault vehicle, such as the AAVP7A1.

Seems odd when you think about a map like Beirut and all the russian armor that swims ashore. I realize the whole there's no landing craft argument, but that seems like all the more reason to let them swim ashore as in game they're capable of it and there's no options for LCACs or LCUs.

I am, or course, all for having both vehicles on the map. It is unfortunate there's no way to have proper landing craft in game but I think we should make the best of it.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:When using ">" symbol, it means what's left of it is better than what is right of it. Ie:

Fast + Quiet "is better than" Slow + Noisy
aka
Fast + Quiet "Over" Slow + Noisy?
aka
Fast + Quiet > Slow + Noisy

I always remember 'The crocodile always eats the tastier morsel.'

Tasty Morsel > Shitty Morsel

Ninjam3rc wrote:Seems odd when you think about a map like Beirut and all the russian armor that swims ashore. I realize the whole there's no landing craft argument, but that seems like all the more reason to let them swim ashore as in game they're capable of it and there's no options for LCACs or LCUs.

I am, or course, all for having both vehicles on the map. It is unfortunate there's no way to have proper landing craft in game but I think we should make the best of it.

Should we make the M1A1/2 amphibious too for the sake we don't have any landing craft

The fact is there is very little difference between the LAV-25 and AAVP7A1 and with the limited amount of vehicles I can put on the map while keeping it balanced I might as well have the most realistic vehicle on the map

It's already been said, but LAVs aren't a main line IFV, they're a more specialised reconnaisance platform optimised for a role very different to Muttrah. The AAVP7A1 generally produces a higher quality of play anyway, since its attributes suit infantry support better than the LAV, which honestly (and I will stand by this to the bitter end) always functioned better as a light skirmishing tank.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:When using ">" symbol, it means what's left of it is better than what is right of it. Ie:

Fast + Quiet "is better than" Slow + Noisy
aka
Fast + Quiet "Over" Slow + Noisy?
aka
Fast + Quiet > Slow + Noisy

Thanks, i guess thats what i get for posting at 1AM