[Gameplay] Logistics

[McBumLuv]

Well... that doesn't have anything to do with Muttrah then, does it


Tanks don't actually climb that much better than current trucks in pr do, only the fact that they're tacked keeps them from rolling as easily.

If you want to find an instance where this would actually be a problem with my points already said, please go ahead, I'd like to see.

[McBumLuv]

Originally Posted by jeeao

Even if it manages to get up there. Repair crates (as far as i know) would slide down in some scenarios.

Sorry, I missed that. Though we first of all don't know how these crates will be deployed, as an asset or as a crate. And then again, you can always drive down the hill in your tank to get the repairs... The whole point of these updates are to make tanks less independent, as they are atm. All you need is a magical engineer, like General Dragosh, to hop along and you can get fixed from a tank shell that's demobilized your tracks in less than a minute by walking up to it and pressing your fire button.

[jeeao]

McLuv do you have some sort of grudge against me? If you read previous posts you would have seen someone mentioned the fact that choppers can be dangerous if trying to move into hostile territory just to drop a crate on a tracked apc. Tanks DO have more torque and HP when it comes to driving up hills from a stop. You can try driving up hills with trucks with initial momentum and then from a stop.

[jeeao]

Originally Posted by McLuv

Sorry, I missed that. Though we first of all don't know how these crates will be deployed, as an asset or as a crate. And then again, you can always drive down the hill in your tank to get the repairs... The whole point of these updates are to make tanks less independent, as they are atm. All you need is a magical engineer, like General Dragosh, to hop along and you can get fixed from a tank shell that's demobilized your tracks in less than a minute by walking up to it and pressing your fire button.

Once again, if a tank is tracked on a hard to reach area. The crate would slide down in some scenarios. As to the last portion, thats why i mentioned the suggestion of a modified wrench rather than remove it all together.

[McBumLuv]

Originally Posted by jeeao

McLuv do you have some sort of grudge against me? If you read previous posts you would have seen someone mentioned the fact that choppers can be dangerous if trying to move into hostile territory just to drop a crate on a tracked apc. Tanks DO have more torque and HP when it comes to driving up hills from a stop. You can try driving up hills with trucks with initial momentum and then from a stop.

No I don't have a grudge against you, though I'm sorry i'm making you feel that way. I haven't had a great day, schools started again and exams are coming, and I put more emotion than I should in my posts when disagreeing with you,


Though you are right to some degree that a tank that is disabled on a mountain top (in kashan as an example) is extremely hard to get to, it isn't impossible. Yes, there might be that one in a thousand times that you are disabled on a cliff unpassable by the trucks. Though I have yet to see how this rolls out in the release. An easy solution to the problem would be to give choppers one repair crate too, but have it have an ammo counter like the supply packs. This way, while choppers will be much faster than trucks and can get to harder to reach areas, they would only be able to remobilise the tank so it can go back for more repairs. That, along with the higher risk choppers often take in getting to Hot zones like this, would balance it out well.

Your suggestion isn't so bad as it does raise an issue.

[badmojo420]

Isn't the point of all these changes to make the supporting units more important? To take away the ability from a tank to repair itself in unrealistic speed and conditions. I've seen video from afghanistan where a humvee got stuck or broke down in a hard to reach area due to the terrain. And they just left it. Sure some Taliban came and burned it up later. But, no lives were lost and only one asset was lost. I can see this becoming the case on maps like Korengal where humvees can get to areas a supply truck couldn't dream of. Sure you could give a helicopter a repair crate, but to be realistic you would have to land to simulate dropping off an engineer team. And then your risking a helicopter in a hot zone, for a vehicle that is already under fire. I'm surprised nobody has suggested using the Engineer trucks for repairs. But, that wouldn't be much of a change to the normal system. And it's just as unrealistic to assume that little truck contains a repair team with spare parts and tools for every vehicle on the battlefield.

I see a lot of people complaining that this will take people off the battlefield and put them into trucks driving around. But in the system we currently have 1 engineer is required per tank, unless they are moving as a convoy. Take Kashan Desert for example. 2 MBTs roll out together having one engineer between the two. And then another squad takes another MBT with its own engineer. And then the last one has its own as well. So theres 4 tanks, 3 engineeers, 8 crewman. 11 Total. Now in the new system, Lets pretend those 3 engineers all take supply trucks, and totally ignore the tanks. Those 3 guys run supplies to the front line and then get a call for "Need repairs" so in a couple minutes a supply truck is off course, and at the MBT that needs repair. Drops a crate, and goes back to his supply runs. Tank fixed, and the player isn't being wasted by sitting there looking at the side of a tank for a few minutes. It's true the engineer usually mans the 50cal, but that seems more like a viewing position for the driver, then a dedicated seat. You can't even go inside the tank if you're being fired upon, and the driver can swap positions and the tank is silent when he isn't driving, which i've seen a few squads use to their advantage.

I have high hopes for the changes, but we'll have to play .85 before we will know for sure.

[space]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

Isn't the point of all these changes to make the supporting units more important? To take away the ability from a tank to repair itself in unrealistic speed and conditions. I've seen video from afghanistan where a humvee got stuck or broke down in a hard to reach area due to the terrain. And they just left it. Sure some Taliban came and burned it up later. But, no lives were lost and only one asset was lost. I can see this becoming the case on maps like Korengal where humvees can get to areas a supply truck couldn't dream of. Sure you could give a helicopter a repair crate, but to be realistic you would have to land to simulate dropping off an engineer team. And then your risking a helicopter in a hot zone, for a vehicle that is already under fire. I'm surprised nobody has suggested using the Engineer trucks for repairs. But, that wouldn't be much of a change to the normal system. And it's just as unrealistic to assume that little truck contains a repair team with spare parts and tools for every vehicle on the battlefield.

I see a lot of people complaining that this will take people off the battlefield and put them into trucks driving around. But in the system we currently have 1 engineer is required per tank, unless they are moving as a convoy. Take Kashan Desert for example. 2 MBTs roll out together having one engineer between the two. And then another squad takes another MBT with its own engineer. And then the last one has its own as well. So theres 4 tanks, 3 engineeers, 8 crewman. 11 Total. Now in the new system, Lets pretend those 3 engineers all take supply trucks, and totally ignore the tanks. Those 3 guys run supplies to the front line and then get a call for "Need repairs" so in a couple minutes a supply truck is off course, and at the MBT that needs repair. Drops a crate, and goes back to his supply runs. Tank fixed, and the player isn't being wasted by sitting there looking at the side of a tank for a few minutes. It's true the engineer usually mans the 50cal, but that seems more like a viewing position for the driver, then a dedicated seat. You can't even go inside the tank if you're being fired upon, and the driver can swap positions and the tank is silent when he isn't driving, which i've seen a few squads use to their advantage.

I have high hopes for the changes, but we'll have to play .85 before we will know for sure.

The comments Ive made about taking people off the battlefield, has referred to the transport apcs. They need 2 guys, each with crewman kits, so it takes almost a squad off the battlefield, and into what will basically be an uparmoured and slow humvee, as it will only have a .50 cal

[badmojo420]

i know spacemanc, i was replying to the people saying 32 people isn't enough for a dedicated logistics player/squad. Pointing out that we are already wasting just as many people, and arn't gaining anything but tank repairs from them.

[jeeao]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

Isn't the point of all these changes to make the supporting units more important? To take away the ability from a tank to repair itself in unrealistic speed and conditions. I've seen video from afghanistan where a humvee got stuck or broke down in a hard to reach area due to the terrain. And they just left it. Sure some Taliban came and burned it up later. But, no lives were lost and only one asset was lost. I can see this becoming the case on maps like Korengal where humvees can get to areas a supply truck couldn't dream of. Sure you could give a helicopter a repair crate, but to be realistic you would have to land to simulate dropping off an engineer team. And then your risking a helicopter in a hot zone, for a vehicle that is already under fire. I'm surprised nobody has suggested using the Engineer trucks for repairs. But, that wouldn't be much of a change to the normal system. And it's just as unrealistic to assume that little truck contains a repair team with spare parts and tools for every vehicle on the battlefield.

I see a lot of people complaining that this will take people off the battlefield and put them into trucks driving around. But in the system we currently have 1 engineer is required per tank, unless they are moving as a convoy. Take Kashan Desert for example. 2 MBTs roll out together having one engineer between the two. And then another squad takes another MBT with its own engineer. And then the last one has its own as well. So theres 4 tanks, 3 engineeers, 8 crewman. 11 Total. Now in the new system, Lets pretend those 3 engineers all take supply trucks, and totally ignore the tanks. Those 3 guys run supplies to the front line and then get a call for "Need repairs" so in a couple minutes a supply truck is off course, and at the MBT that needs repair. Drops a crate, and goes back to his supply runs. Tank fixed, and the player isn't being wasted by sitting there looking at the side of a tank for a few minutes. It's true the engineer usually mans the 50cal, but that seems more like a viewing position for the driver, then a dedicated seat. You can't even go inside the tank if you're being fired upon, and the driver can swap positions and the tank is silent when he isn't driving, which i've seen a few squads use to their advantage.

I have high hopes for the changes, but we'll have to play .85 before we will know for sure.

You find it more realistic to drive to a run-down tank and drop a crate from an unlimited supply and have it repair the tank within a vicinity?

[Blakeman]

Wasn't it also stated that in this next version that loss of vehicles would take off tickets?

What this really means is that tanks/apcs/etc won't go where the logistics can't reach them, which might be half the point of the logistics in the first place. If you go on top of the mountain, don't expect the truck to be able to get to you.

I feel these changes will make fronts more centralized as the team can't break off into little 'sub armies' as easily as in current and past versions. If you go off on your own, you really aren't going to get a lot of support both combat and logistic wise.