APC Change

[Cassius]

Also I do not see how it is unrealistic that the APCs covers. Unless you have a lot of ground to cover, like on Kashan, APCs get you to a hotzone, but once you are there the apc does the shooty stuff. Still TS is required to call in the APC where he is needed the most and to pick up troops who lost their rally from a nearby FB to reinforce.

[Maxfragg]

removing the current APC is not the best idea, since they are simply used in RL, but replacing them as major transport with lighter "stryker class" apcs would not be the worst idea

[Cassius]

Like I said above, if you do not have like 1000m to cover it isnt realistic that you call in an apc for a 300m ride. APCs are for transporting troops. But once in combat, the troops are out of the apc fighting. Most situations in the mod combat situations where you have hostiles nearby and you are out fighting. Only way I see apcs being used more on maps like jabal for transport is by eliminating rally points, but then players would try to get ore firebases up.

Making them transport only would only leed to squads hogging them, the way squads snatch humvees and vodniks.

Avertize Teamspeak instead. If I want a right for my squad the apcs on TS were more than eager to give it to me and cover later on, but the truth is, I did not require apcs for a ride that often.

[Hotrod525]

U.S.Marines dont go anywhere whitout there LAV25, U.S.Army dont go anywhere whitout there Bradley, Canadian Army dont go anywhere whitout LAV25/3... pretty sure all Army around the world use Armored Personnel Carrier as Infantry Fighting Vehicle...

Let me explain, each time i play whit an APC i ask to all those squad if they need a lift, they always said no, so ok, i just keep whit them, giving them cover, using my armor as a movable wall.

Ok i must admit its not the way its suppose to be in PR (grab people drop them, go back take people drop them ETC...), but even in real life they use APC as Land Assault Vehicle... The 25MM cannon is kinda like the best weapon to give a chance to you're troops to push foward whit heavy suppress fire to cover them.

So you might complain about "Armored Light Tank" but at the end, if you're following you're infantry, hunting down BTR6 and keep pushing foward whit you're team, i dont see why we should complain, that is the real way LAV are used. They drop they're infantry and they push foward.

[sentinel]

Before 0.85 came out there was alot talk about the same thing, the promise to the apc transporting to work was that there wouldn't be helos, IFVs, tanks or tows in maps where there would be apcs with 14.5mm or 12.7mm mgs doing transport... But now we got everything in every map or just huge pile of transport trucks.

[Tirak]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Before 0.85 came out there was alot talk about the same thing, the promise to the apc transporting to work was that there wouldn't be helos, IFVs, tanks or tows in maps where there would be apcs with 14.5mm or 12.7mm mgs doing transport... But now we got everything in every map or just huge pile of transport trucks.

It's a mentality thing. APCs don't like to hang around infantry because they lose their speed advantage and can't dictate the engagement on their terrain, and Infantry don't like to hang around APCs because they're located too easily and will attract things that like to munch on APCs and Infantry. You rarely get a Mechanized Infantry Platoons in PR because people don't think the right way. That said, when Mechanized Platoons do show up, they are highly effective.

[sentinel]

Yes it would be a affective way to do combat if there wouldn't be tanks and tows in there area. In qwai we have to wait that we get 2 tow/tank down reports before we can start loading people into apcs, in that time infantry has already walked their objectives, safely.

And I would prefer that the sides would have more similar counter part to face, not crappy btr-60 against LAV, or there would be atleast only half the number.