PDA

View Full Version : M113 on Beirut needs improvements


Psyko
2012-10-27, 22:53
From my own experience i would like to explain that in my perspective the M113 may be suitable for usage on Beirut, but it is underpowered and is mostly ignored for it's downsides.

Movement
M113 Speed and control are actually pretty nice when it comes to armour in PR. there are certainly less manoeuvrable vehicles so that's a positive aspect. however the vehicle is very noisy and attracts attention. Its usually ignored as a mode of transport by infantry squads and usually stragglers who dont join cohisive squads pair up in calm un-enthusiastic ramblings with the vehicle which ultimately just costs the team important tickets. I believe it is not responsable to suggest that an asset is being used improperly and that that is not a good enough reason for it to be removed/reinvented. It is the developer's responsablity to maintain a balance on the map and in my eyes as i have seen before with other vehicles this vehicle is unbalanced.

Weapon
While the .50 cal is powerful in the right hands it hasnt been deployed in a functional way to naturally protect the occupant in PR. Such as the HMG emplacement, it has 3 sides and a top and bottom and is fairly well protected, but even strays can kill the occupant when they are unlucky. The hmmwv has a shield on the front and the G-wagon has a shield all the way around, this is because these are modern versions of these vehicles. On the M113 the gunner is exposed and is a liability to his driver, once the gunner is shot, he is dead, once the gunner is dead the driver has no way to defend himself and has to solo back to base. Even on technicals where the gunner is almost completely exposed, the position of the .50 cal gunner's hitboxes are offset so getting an accurate shot is luckly not as easy as usual. But on the m113 for some reason the gunner is killed far easier than the technical gunner, which to me makes no sense, but from my own gameplay experience with both vehicles im convinced something is wrong.



In my last encounteres using the M113 i drove very quickly past a full squad, there is no surprise that, that is not the brightest thing to do, but what concerned me was how fast it was for regular infantry to insta-kill my gunner. This might be the high rate of fire or the accuracy of the AK74 combined with the exposure of the gunner on the M113. On kozelsk, the technical gunners are quickly dispatched when fired upon by the ak74 and so it appears to me that there is a close similarity between the two.

But .50 cal machines guns are supposed to be mighty and fearsome, and they are in PR, but only at range, because up close they have a risk to the gunner from regular assault rifles. I have always believed that the .50cal in PR is too much of a laser for such a high calibre weapon, and with no bullet drop it has been left to be a laser as a lesser of two evils, but this means there is naturally an inadequate spray in close quarters, and because suppression effect doesn't kick in until after 50feet the weapon pings off surfaces with no secondary effects of any kind. In short it is a one dimensional weapon that is mostly used for sniping with the emplacement, and on a vehicle because of the lack of vertical stability it is neither comfortable to aim with nor frightening to be shot at with.

My suggestions are as follows.

***The suppression effect for .50 cals should be more intense with it's spray at long range wider. with the M113 as a highest priority. Measures were taken in previous releases to widen the grouping for .50 cals, but i believe it is still inadequate. I know the UN use the M113 and it could feature prominently in African maps where there are jungles in the future, but with it's current setup it would be harassed by lone-gunmen prone in ditches at the side of the road.

***The gunner moved lower down in it's seat so he is more protected, because lets face it no person in their right mind would sit like that in a fire-fight. they would keep as low as possible without losing visibility down the barrel.

***Lateral stability (swivelling left and right) should be stabilised gyroscopic-ally for when the M113 turns so the gunner doesn't have to compensate so much.

***consider adding a shield to the gunner if not the sides then the front. make it a challenge to kill the gunner. Grenades make the M113 "black smoke" so it needs some help.

***a scope-in view distance modifier or optic for the M113 .50cal.


I realise at least two of these ideas go against the doctrine of PR, but the vehicle is nice to drive and to look at and adds an extra dynamic to Beirut, but it is grossly underpowered as a weapon of war and it's a laughable disgrace to let it go on this long. Please address these problems between now and the next release as I truly believe it would increase Beirut's game-playability a lot, and the level is a very fun and popular level and should deserve some attention.

Thanks very much for reading and I hope some DEVs agree with some of what I said.


http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq115/psykogundam/techie_gunner_hitbox.jpg
Example of technical .50cal hitboxes

Psyko
2012-10-27, 23:15
Actually, if possible. could I get a mod to change the title to "M113 on beirut needs improvements."

I had a serious attempt at disecting the vehicle but should have been more serious with the title. it just comes accross as provocative and insulting, and thats not what i intended.

Xander[nl]
2012-10-28, 00:00
I agree it needs to change. It's one of the most useless vehicles and PR and let's admit, we all laughed our ass off when we saw one approaching. Instead of shitting your pants at the sight of an APC, like you normally do.

If it isn't too much work, a second M2 Browning gun could be made for the light vehicles like this who would come into CQC more than often, that has a shotgun-like fire mechanism. The animation would still show only one stream of bullets fired ofcourse, but secretely it fires multiple bullets at once so the gunner won't have that much of an issue hitting things. Maybe even add explosive effects to the bullets.

Because let's face it, the .50 in PR is quite a joke to infantry up close (except for techies with their invisible force shield protecting the gunner) and the main reason is that it's so much harder to hit stuff with it in game than it would be IRL. Shooting while driving means an incredible increase of false hit detection and bad hitboxes, not to mention it's next to impossible to compensate the driver's movements.

It needs some buffing for CQC. It should be a weapon that makes you want to run away as fast as possible. But right now, it's easier and more efffective to simply take a shot at the gunner because it's very likely he won't be able to hit you in time anyway.

Stealthgato
2012-10-28, 00:25
The ironsights should be like the .50 on the WZ551, as in when you swing the gun left and right the sights stay aligned. Would certainly help a lot.

Psyko
2012-10-28, 01:17
The ironsights should be like the .50 on the WZ551, as in when you swing the gun left and right the sights stay aligned. Would certainly help a lot.

yep +1


i dont know how Vehicle animations work but i wonder if there is a value to make that a bit more tense and reactive. its also a factor that when the vehicle is moving its not aligned properly and that is a big problem. when you try to get back to the middle point its 1-5 pixels off and that can make the difference. that and when you want to fire accurately you cant track your target as easily as you can with lets say an M16 iron site.

an additional help might be to make the rear site aperture simply bigger by bringing the camera closer to it.

40mmrain
2012-10-28, 06:57
zoom is important. It is impossible to use an unzoomed machine gun at any kind of range, being low to the barrel with a hulldown, with some zoom would probably be useable.

The thing is basically useless, especially on Asad, it's a hindrance there, mostly.

chrisweb89
2012-10-28, 20:30
The ironsights should be like the .50 on the WZ551, as in when you swing the gun left and right the sights stay aligned. Would certainly help a lot.

This really should happen for all the M2s, its just as big of an issue on the humvee.

Stealthgato
2012-10-28, 21:11
Yeah, was thinking that too. Would like it on the Humvees and Land Rovers aswell.

Also don't know about the realism of it, but a scope or zoom on the M113's M2 would go a long way about making it more of a threat.

40mmrain
2012-10-28, 21:57
The M2 on the land rover has a zoom, actually. Makes it actually useful for suppression.

We've discussed this in the binocular removal thread. Where in a game your vision is inherently zoomed out, a small zoom from the default is necessary to actually see things as you would in real life, and no zoom at all leaves you handicapped.

ShockUnitBlack
2012-10-28, 22:05
Not really thing as you can't be handicapped if everybody has the same level of default magnification.

40mmrain
2012-10-28, 22:08
I was about to address that I swear.

In this case, as you are static, or at least a far larger target in vehicles, you are much easier to see, and thus require a small zoom to be on the same level as your opponent.

As a gunner in a vehicle, or static weapon, if both you and your enemy have no zoom, he can see you, but you cant see him. If you both have zoom, he can still see you, but now you can see him. This was a reality addressed by giving the machine gun nests zoom a long time ago, if Im not mistaken they used to have zero zoom, and were 100% worthless.

Psyko
2012-10-29, 03:15
As a gunner in a vehicle, or static weapon, if both you and your enemy have no zoom, he can see you.

I dont think so. if your both on equal footing, visibility is also equal. what you said doesnt make sense, or maybe i didnt understand you correctly?

Two .50 cal gunners facing each other see each other exactly the same as each other.

Walmarx
2012-10-29, 17:13
I dont think so. if your both on equal footing, visibility is also equal. what you said doesnt make sense, or maybe i didnt understand you correctly?

Two .50 cal gunners facing each other see each other exactly the same as each other.

I think he means that in the case of Infantry vs. .50 gunner, be it an emplacement or vehicle, you are inherently higher-profile than a lone gunman.

Also, didn't I read somewhere that we are getting Acogs for .50s in 1.0?

Heavy Death
2012-10-29, 18:32
I alway operate 50cals with tracers. Always. :D

Smiddey723
2012-10-29, 19:00
Agree with everything Psyko has said in the OP. Was giving the M113 another go after a long time of not using it at all and i (gunner) got killed by a BRDM in the first second of a fight leaving the APC just to get shot up.

Psyko
2012-10-29, 20:21
I think he means that in the case of Infantry vs. .50 gunner, be it an emplacement or vehicle, you are inherently higher-profile than a lone gunman.

Also, didn't I read somewhere that we are getting Acogs for .50s in 1.0?

ah yes, well thats part of my initial argument. so i agree. Assault rifles on Full auto kill the gunner because once you hit the head hitbox the gunner is "wounded" in one shot (dead in vehicle)

Also if the head hit-box is about a half a foot above the player's camera while standing, doesn't it stand to reason that not only is the head hit-box higher in the gunner's seated position, but also the shoulders and upper arms which are attached to the gun are also elevated thus, target is much more exposed.

In all, i think the possibility exists that the hit-boxes might be higher than we think they are.

Mikemonster
2012-11-03, 16:45
The .50 is underpowered mainly because of the lack of destructible physics I think.. Imagine being fired at by one of those in real life, I don't think you'd feel happy behind a thin brick wall.

Always thought that the M113 is employed as an APC anyway, not an IFV. Presumably if you are going to use the .50 it should be as a mobile HMG? I.e. fire support (which doesn't work well in PR because of the lack of penetration/destrctible buildings).

Hunt3r
2012-11-09, 03:42
M113 seriously needs an ACAV shield, this crap where the gunner is basically useless in a real fight against inf needs to go.

50 cal is missing stopping power against armor, and isn't as good as something like an M240 coax from a tank against inf.

ExeTick
2012-11-10, 19:01
m113 is only used for medical evacs now I think. and maybe some fire support from a distance with mortars in it. but its completely useless in PR.

today me and one more were in btr70 on beirut and we totally wrecked those 2 M113s. we were standing between them with our apc. they were shooting and we were laughing.

would be cool to see m113 mortar carriers in this game :)

Stealthgato
2012-11-11, 02:47
today me and one more were in btr70 on beirut and we totally wrecked those 2 M113s. we were standing between them with our apc. they were shooting and we were laughing.

Well that's because the BTR-80 is immune to .50, doesn't matter how much you improve the M113 - it won't damage the BTR-80 if it doesn't have a bigger gun...

ExeTick
2012-11-11, 08:53
didnt know it was BTR-80^^ well that says everything:)

seems like M113 is only good to be a mortar carrier. that 50cal up there is not so good against other apcs, I think it can kill BDRMs fairly easy.

but it would be sexy to see it as a mortar carrier :)

Navo
2012-11-11, 10:47
It's not supposed to kill other vehicles. It's supposed to transport troops.

Wakain
2012-11-11, 10:49
then again, it isn't supposed to take on other vehicles.

edit: damn, ninjaed! :p

Mikemonster
2012-11-11, 17:18
Increase the view distance to 2000m to reflect reality and then find out if it needs a shield vs infantry..

Otherwise use it as a small-arms proof taxi, not a gunbus! :P

Ghost1800
2012-12-04, 14:13
It's not supposed to kill other vehicles. It's supposed to transport troops.

Ya, I dunno, I almost think taking any wheeled vehicle is a better choice due to how noisy and AT magnetic the thing is. Hell, I would prefer to walk over getting in the clown box car.

gipakok
2012-12-04, 14:40
M113 are not used for combat for a looooong time in the IDF. It is only used for transport, ambulance support , carrying a mortar or using a SPIKE NLOS Tamuz missile (http://www.tsahal-miniature.com/tm_repertoire/m113/Tamuz.jpg)

40mmrain
2012-12-04, 18:36
Well that's because the BTR-80 is immune to .50, doesn't matter how much you improve the M113 - it won't damage the BTR-80 if it doesn't have a bigger gun...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/M163_VADS.JPEG
bigger gun? Israelis could really use one of these on beirut and iron as AAVs

wikipedia tells me the israelis even have stinger pods on theirs, even if that is only wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machbet

lol the reference is dead.

sweedensniiperr
2012-12-04, 20:30
they have MA on IDF so they know what's going in and not.

as for people saying it's bad for trans, it protects against small-arms. it isn't supposed to be used in fighting AT ALL. Remember the word APC, people in PR rarely knows what it means...

40mmrain
2012-12-04, 22:41
APCs in real life are mostly for fire support, and perform recon, and interdiction all the time.

if they were just to ferry people, you'd be better off with light vehicles like humvees, theyre cheaper, easier to crew, faster, etc.

In fact, replacing the IDF M113s with .50 humvees would be great..

Psyko
2012-12-05, 22:10
Ya, I dunno, I almost think taking any wheeled vehicle is a better choice due to how noisy and AT magnetic the thing is. Hell, I would prefer to walk over getting in the clown box car.

i thought you were dead

Firepower01
2012-12-18, 10:50
Make them like this:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3960/m113.jpg

And give them a zoom equal to the amount the FOB M2s get

Mikemonster
2012-12-18, 18:16
Mmmmm.. Imagine scopes on the HMG's :)

Smiddey723
2012-12-18, 22:06
And give them a zoom equal to the amount the FOB M2s get

Thats far too much zoom, it needs a little zoom like the land rover

Stealthgato
2012-12-18, 22:24
Thats far too much zoom, it needs a little zoom like the land rover

That's too little :P

Firepower01
2012-12-19, 10:58
Mmmmm.. Imagine scopes on the HMG's :)

http://www.army.mod.uk/images/central-panel/hmg_410px.jpg

They do exist

fabioxxxx
2012-12-19, 11:40
Yo ! dev my dawg, i will have one of these

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/4/578053c3-db11-4580-9466-bdf7c5ac253a.Large.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JuWxGTUlxio/TbmXe-Tp_JI/AAAAAAAAACI/Ba6d9G-8tbE/s45/trollface.jpg

Kothra
2012-12-19, 13:24
APCs in real life are mostly for fire support, and perform recon, and interdiction all the time.

Not really, no. Transport is the primary function.

Though a lot of vehicles are often labeled as APCs out of laziness, convenience, ignorance, etc.

Mikemonster
2012-12-19, 17:51
http://www.army.mod.uk/images/central-panel/hmg_410px.jpg

They do exist

Yes but not in PR you silly goose!

Out of interest, whilst on the subject, why is the aim on the HMG 'blocky' so to speak? The barrel/weapon sort of 'jumps' in blocks if you're sighted in and slewing the gun (in PR).

Truism
2013-01-10, 05:50
The unfortunate reality is that some armies field outdated equipment which is as much a liability as an asset. The M113 was considered a liability by Australian commanders in Vietnam shortly after entering service for the very reasons this thread exists. It had its turret modified for more protection and firepower. Ultimately, it has never been particularly well liked in Australia and was not deployed in the GWOT because ultimately its a 50's design that had completely outlived its useful life by the 80's.

Whether or not you like it, the M113 is an outdated, inadequate pile of crap which is primarily kept and deployed because of the low capital investment involved. A reality based mod should reflect that when people try to use it for direct fire support, whether they are bluefor or not.

KiloJules
2013-01-10, 17:13
Out of interest, whilst on the subject, why is the aim on the HMG 'blocky' so to speak? The barrel/weapon sort of 'jumps' in blocks if you're sighted in and slewing the gun (in PR).

Often wondered myself...even thought it was sth wrong on my end for quite a while.