project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > News / Announcements > PR Highlights > PR Dev Journal Archives > 2009
18 Dec 2017, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-14-2009, 02:22 PM   #131
Deadfast
Retired PR Developer

Deadfast's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to Deadfast Send a message via Skype™ to Deadfast
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
...the MG is missing the bullet ejection effect
If it fails to eject bullets then what's it good for then?!?!?!


(Just teasing you - but if it doesn't eject empty casings I'm gonna be sad too - I'm somewhat addicted to them, don't ask )
Deadfast is offline
Old 03-14-2009, 02:37 PM   #132
G.Drew

G.Drew's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to G.Drew
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

Paper weight





[R-COM]BloodBane611: I do like the old school rape...However, it's a bit awkward to be a white boy blasting the old school in public....
G.Drew is offline
Old 03-14-2009, 03:43 PM   #133
single.shot (nor)
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

will it be able to "zoom" or not?
because it wouldnt be realistic would it, as there is no optical sight

War is a huge matter for a nation. it's the field of life and death, destruction and survival, and such matters cannot be left unstudied. - Sun Tzu
single.shot (nor) is offline
Old 03-14-2009, 08:32 PM   #134
M.Warren

M.Warren's Avatar
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
At the end of the day, the WZ551 and the WZ551A are just APC, (Armoured Personal Carriers) which are there to transport infantry as there main role and not to be a "light tank" which seems to be along the lines of what your thinking. There weapons should only be used in defence and support and not as a main fighting force. the QJC is much better at Anti-Air protection than a 30mm turret, which also gives it anouther little up over the 30mm turret.
Mkay. Well, I wouldn't go on the impression that I'm intending to use it as a "light tank" which is a common misconception. Whenever I crew an APC the role of offering transport has always been and always will be the primary focus whenever possible. Fire support is always a secondary role.

However my concern is that APC's are predominantly used for fire support due to the fact of generally how very little traveling is ever needed. This is just the nature of PR at this time as long as infantry traveling on foot has a maximum practical range of 450 meters. Anything else furthur than that becomes heavily time consuming and potentially risks the infantry squad from being slowed down by engagements and hazards.
Infantrymen Travel Distances:
1 - 250 meters = Average traveling distance for infantry units.
250 - 450 meters = Above Average traveling distance for infantry units.
450 - 650 meters = Excessive traveling distance for infantry units.
650 - ??? = Impractical traveling distance for infantry units.
Basically what I'm getting at is the main purpose of APC's in PR will never be glorified enough until there is a 2km - 4km map specifically designed with a significant distance between flags and a lack of alternative transports other than APC's.

The problems faced are:
A. 4 kilometer maps almost always have a large transport chopper available. Thus, defeating the purpose of any emphasized use of an APC via the use of swift air transport and delivery of supply crates on drop off. Such as Kashan Desert and The Battle for Qinling.

B. 2 kilometer maps that are theoretically "Mechanized Infantry" orientated almost always have flags within a 450 meter distance of the next flag or a main base. Although 450 meters may seem far, it can be traveled in what I'd estimate in less than 2-3 minutes*.
<Note *: Now being a veteran to Squad Leading, I simply cannot count how many times I've ordered a squad of 5 to proceed 250 - 450 meters to an objective. Especially at times when I've noticed 10-15 people standing around main base waiting for a vehicle to spawn/transport them. Not because the distance was far, mind you. But they were simply lazy. I feel that running a distance of 250 - 450 meters is capable of being done when necessary. It may be slightly time consuming but I can tell you personally that it's better to simply spend the time moving on foot than to stand around waiting for a vehicle to:

1. Designate a pick up/drop off point.
2. Reform with Infantrymen and wait at pick up point.
3. Mount up at pick up point.
4. Get transported.
5. Dismount at drop off point.
6. Disperse back into formation and proceed to objective.

Just trying to point out that the time and effort consumed to prepare for combined teamwork between Infantry and APC's must not outweigh the benefit of overcoming obstacles and the distance traveled.>


My belief is that APC transport will become a realized necessity in PR when travel distances and flag zones are spaced apart in excess of 800 meters and on. Even on EJOD Desert and Muttrah City where Mechanized Infantry has some of the greater potential of occurring, you still see infantry units advancing from flag to flag on foot. Why? Simply because the travel is that short enough for infantry to flag hop without the hassle and complications of coordinating transport.

Like stated, I didn't want to make a debate out of it as I just wanted to clarify some things that may have been misinterpreted or remained unmentioned in my last post. I feel that data must be presented to legitimately evaluate to prove if certain vehicles/assets are worthwhile.

My questions are:
1. Would a vehicle that is this transport orientated be this necessary for the maps and travel distances that are already existent in PR? Especially when it could possibly replace already existing (and far more practical) vehicles that are more effective in their secondary role for the team by defeating enemy units when not being used in it's primary transport role.

2. We only have 32 players per side. Having 2 of those players in vehicle of questionable practical use consumes manpower. Having 2 of these vehicles means 4 people have been consumed from the team, which could have been contributed to an Infantry Squad. Is this worthwhile for such a vehicle of questionable use?

3. What effect will this have to asymmetrical/symmetrical balancing for damage caused by .50 caliber weaponry against certain APC's? Such as the BRDM, Stryker and BTR-60? Or possibly the more formidable IFV class APC's with larger cannons?

It is clear that the WZ551A is the same vehicle chassis as the WZ551 which seems to have much more effective armor against .50 caliber weapons. This APC appears to be identical to its counterpart and not a vehicle of it's own class (Like the BRDM is specified as a Recon Vehicle whereas the WZ551 is an actual APC like the Stryker.).
Don't get me wrong, I love new game content. But we need to ask ourselves are we just watering it down and/or complicating it in the process?

Take the Blue Pill or take the Red Pill?

M.Warren is offline
Old 03-14-2009, 08:59 PM   #135
Jaymz
Retired PR Developer
Supporting Member

Jaymz's Avatar
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

Well written as always, Warren.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Warren View Post
1. Would a vehicle that is this transport orientated be this necessary for the maps and travel distances that are already existent in PR? Especially when it could possibly replace already existing (and far more practical) vehicles that are more effective in their secondary role for the team by defeating enemy units when not being used in it's primary transport role.
For smaller maps in PR, where travelling by foot is generally the superior option. I see APC's like the WZ551A being integrated alongside it's 25mm counterpart. Not replacing it. Because you're right, taking a map like Qwai for example, APC's are predominately fire support due to the extremely short travel distances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Warren View Post
2. We only have 32 players per side. Having 2 of those players in vehicle of questionable practical use consumes manpower. Having 2 of these vehicles means 4 people have been consumed from the team, which could have been contributed to an Infantry Squad. Is this worthwhile for such a vehicle of questionable use?
I believe there use will be far less questionable with PR moving towards larger (slower paced) maps where having Mech.Inf units will be a requirement for success. There are several 4km maps in development for future releases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Warren View Post
3. What effect will this have to asymmetrical/symmetrical balancing for damage caused by .50 caliber weaponry against certain APC's? Such as the BRDM, Stryker and BTR-60? Or possibly the more formidable IFV class APC's with larger cannons?
All up to how we audit the maps to include this kind of variant. The actual damage of 50cal rounds vs various forms of APC armour won't change.

"Clear the battlefield and let me see, All the profit from our victory." - Greg Lake
Jaymz is offline
Old 03-14-2009, 09:34 PM   #136
Alex6714

Alex6714's Avatar
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

In the end mostly it will come down to:


Am I safer walking or traveling in the APC? Questionable, because with worse weaponary on the apc, it will be an interesting HAT/rpg etc magnet, where as infantry can cover better, but then depends on the map.


Do I trust the crew? Some people won´t listen to your transport requests, or will take you on one hell of a ride.


Will we as an APC crew wait in the hope that someone will ask or even want our help, or do we go off and try to engage the enemy in the most effective way?

"Today's forecast calls for 30mm HE rain with a slight chance of hellfires"

"oh, they're fire and forget all right...they're fired then they forget where the target is"
Alex6714 is offline
Old 03-14-2009, 10:32 PM   #137
M.Warren

M.Warren's Avatar
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz View Post
For smaller maps in PR, where travelling by foot is generally the superior option. I see APC's like the WZ551A being integrated alongside it's 25mm counterpart. Not replacing it. Because you're right, taking a map like Qwai for example, APC's are predominately fire support due to the extremely short travel distances.
Good news to hear. I'll admit that I can see the WZ551A being particularly useful on Qwai River with low flying helicopters, infantry being in close proximity and a limited view distance.

I was concerned that it would potentially replace it's alternative configuration which would have a negative impact on gameplay in my opinion. As long as it's mixed in with it's similar units, I feel that's would be in good measure. It's far better to have a spectrum of useful assets than having a single asset type with limited capability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz View Post
I believe there use will be far less questionable with PR moving towards larger (slower paced) maps where having Mech.Inf units will be a requirement for success. There are several 4km maps in development for future releases.
Yet again, good news to hear. I'm glad maps are being devised with Mechanized Infantry specifically in mind. It's clear that between game types, scenarios, flag zones, geography and theaters of combat all have an influence on it's implementation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz View Post
All up to how we audit the maps to include this kind of variant. The actual damage of 50cal rounds vs various forms of APC armour won't change.
That'll do.

By the way, thank you for your honest and gentleman approach on the matter. Usually most of my comments have been met with heated responses as if I'm attempting to convict someone for high treason. Words may be thrown around from time to time and fingers pointed, but hey it's all for the better.

Take the Blue Pill or take the Red Pill?

M.Warren is offline
Old 03-15-2009, 01:17 PM   #138
asianator365

asianator365's Avatar
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

Please tell me you intend to build the Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System after this.

asianator365 is offline
Old 03-15-2009, 01:19 PM   #139
[R-DEV]Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Warren View Post
Good news to hear. I'll admit that I can see the WZ551A being particularly useful on Qwai River with low flying helicopters, infantry being in close proximity and a limited view distance.

I was concerned that it would potentially replace it's alternative configuration which would have a negative impact on gameplay in my opinion. As long as it's mixed in with it's similar units, I feel that's would be in good measure. It's far better to have a spectrum of useful assets than having a single asset type with limited capability.
It did say a few times in the first post that this would not replace the WZ551

glad you understand where we are coming from now

[R-DEV]Rhino is offline
Old 03-15-2009, 01:20 PM   #140
asianator365

asianator365's Avatar
Default Re: [Vehicles / Weapons] WZ551A with QJC-88 12.7mm MG

YouTube - Future Weapons : Stryker Mobile Gun System
asianator365 is offline
Closed Thread


Tags
127mm, apc, ifv, qjc88, vehicle, vehicles, weapon, weapons, wz551a, zsl92a
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2015, Project Reality.