PDA

View Full Version : v1.1 FV 510 Warrior


Mr_blox
2014-03-22, 14:17
The Warrior IFV is almost completely useless in the last few updates, there are multiple problems with it.

1st The 30mm Cannon sucks against even the lightest APC's, Last night I played 2 rounds in the Warrior (Burning Sands and Shija), In Burning Sands we got the Jump on a BMP-3 hitting him 9-10 times before he even had an idea where we were, the BMP-3 subsequently found us, switched to AP and blew us up in about 2 seconds, After waiting for another Warrior we ambushed a BMP-2, I got 5-6 hits on side armour and then he just ATGM'd us. 2 rounds later its Shija Valley and im in the Warrior again, Both warriors are driving to Shija south when the lead Warrior gets hit by the Chinese wheeled APC, I spot and engage him hitting him between 10-11 times but he manages to run away only smoking after destroying the lead APC, Later on we are attacking infantry in a Barn west of Shija South and we hear the Chinese APC behind us, I fire 6 shots into his gun (the only part of him i can see) then he spots us and wrecks us in around 2-3 seconds, In this engagement I also found another problem, when the Warrior gets hit anywhere but frontal Armour by an Auto-Cannon it rocks around making it impossible to hit anything.

2nd Splash damage on the 30mm HE rounds is non existent, on both rounds i had to get direct hits on infantry to kill them, In 1 case even withstanding a direct hit (was seen by my driver DanTheMan)

3rd problem is the lack of acceleration (the rough 3 seconds you have to wait after pressing forwards for the vehicle to even move), this was ok in previous versions of PR but it has been made worse by the warriors lack of effectiveness against Armour because now you can neither run away or fight

In conclusion the Warrior desperately needs some kind of buff whether that be to armour, gun damage, gun ROF so it can stand a chance of going toe to toe against enemy APC's. I know the ROF is there due to realism but hell in RL the Warrior would have a guy with a Javelin inside to blow the hell out of anything the Warrior couldn't take on itself

K4on
2014-03-22, 14:54
Cheers for your feedback.

Let me reply:
Sounds and driving physics are OK (originally recorded on an military base of real warrior apcs).
Armor is OK in terms of PRs armor classes. Gun Rate of Fire is realisitc, like all other PR vehicles have realistic fire rates.
The fire rate 0.9 to 1.0 debuff was just a result of having wrong information before, that is why we set the ROF to the real life counterpart.

So for PR, you simply don't engage the BMP-3 IFV with and Warrior. Therefore the mappers should give you other assets to counter the balance problems. Like, taking out an BMP-3 by Challenger2 Tanks ;)

Regarding the HE projectiles, the splash is unlike your report exisitng and has same ammount of damage and splash as on other 30mm HE projectiles in the game.

If you want to provide map feedback, like unbalanced layers -> visit the map feedback section.

camo
2014-03-23, 07:34
Just to add to the previous thread
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f254-vehicles/127843-fv-510-warrior.html
I didn't get a chance to write anything.
I agree with Mr Blox in the fact that the warrior really isn't very good atm especially against other apc's/ifv's. While i don't think the rof or damage should be increased is it possible to add atgm's to the warrior? It's not unheard of considering Kuwait has atgm's on their version of the warrior.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/warrior/images/warrior4.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xRRJUyrral4/UBXAdiZ9sqI/AAAAAAAAGTI/-p9ZUm3tcXM/s1600/Bradley_Koweit_army_Army_Recognition_Forum_001.jpg
I'm fully aware the British Warriors don't have any atgm's irl but if Britain was (for some unknown reason) to go to war with China or Russia and the Warrior was found to be useless against their armor surely someone would issue an urgent operational requirement to get the required upgrade to counter the threat.
But that's quite a lot of work so maybe as k4on said maybe some map balancing is needed as its getting very one sided on some maps in terms of apc's.

Rhino
2014-03-23, 07:43
I'm fully aware the British Warriors don't have any atgm's irl but if Britain was (for some unknown reason) to go to war with China or Russia and the Warrior was found to be useless against their armor surely someone would issue an urgent operational requirement to get the required upgrade to counter the threat.
But that's quite a lot of work so maybe as k4on said maybe some map balancing is needed as its getting very one sided on some maps in terms of apc's.

Not really....

The British ideology is that its better to have a guy sitting in the back with a Javelin who can either fire out of the top or get out and silently move up to the target to engage it than to mount them on the big noisy vehicle that has to expose itself to engage, which will most likley result in it getting blown to bits..

As such if Britain did go into a full scale war, it would deploy lots of Javelins and other AT weapons and have the Warriors just transport the infantry up to the fight and engage any soft targets it can help with.

camo
2014-03-23, 08:42
Fair point, but you can't deny something needs to be done in order to provide just a little bit of balance. Maybe increase the number of HAT kits available to the British team to simulate the increase of Javelins that you talk about, or maybe just remove a warrior and add another challenger instead. I almost think you should leave Warriors out of AAS altogether and just have them for INS layers.

Rhino
2014-03-23, 09:17
Yes those, other than removing them from AAS layers are things we are looking at. At the end of the day there is nothing wrong with the vehicle itself, its simply a APC (although its technically classed as an IFV in r/l but that's still just a type of APC) and as such its main role is a taxi.

40mmrain
2014-03-23, 09:49
yes, K4on is right, the Warrior is weak as hell in PR, but this shouldnt change. The asset layers need to change on a handful of maps to reflect the weakness of the Warrior now. That or give the brits more HAT kits than the enemy.

Spush
2014-03-23, 09:51
We based a game on reality? You know what happens in reality, asymmetrical battles, don't think the enemy balances out their military hardware with the others so they can have a fair battle :roll:. It would be saying, oh the insurgents lose because they don't have something to counter the Bradly on karbala.

ElshanF
2014-03-23, 10:00
40mm has a point. People are saying in reality a warrior would have a javelin inside it... But in PR we don't even have a Javelin..

Rhino
2014-03-23, 10:19
40mm has a point. People are saying in reality a warrior would have a javelin inside it... But in PR we don't even have a Javelin..

No but the NLAW isn't that different from the Jav other than its missing its party top down attack trick which gameplay wise, wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference.

Prevtzer
2014-03-23, 10:53
We based a game on reality? You know what happens in reality, asymmetrical battles, don't think the enemy balances out their military hardware with the others so they can have a fair battle :roll:. It would be saying, oh the insurgents lose because they don't have something to counter the Bradly on karbala.

What you need to realize is that people play PR because it's a great mix of realism and fun. Making changes just for the sake of realism usually isn't good for the gameplay/ fun aspect of it.

Spush
2014-03-23, 11:01
Which is funny because I do realize that, I have been saying this for years to people. Usually making changes that favors realism is good, same with arcade gameplay aspects. But something that is real, where a warrior is hardly if ever fielded with atgms to counter is something where we go realism over gameplay. Look at all of our vehicles and weapon systems, all of them feature realistic aspects (minus the fire control systems)...

ElshanF
2014-03-23, 11:11
I agree with the extra HAT addition to brits to compensate for the "OP" armor they face however to be really fair the extra HAT should stay next to the warrior.. which probably won't happen.

Rudd
2014-03-23, 11:18
Sometimes the answer is that you aren't supposed to kill it yourself; you're supposed to get help or retreat.

The warrior is no where near as powerful as it has been in the past, but it's still a force multiplier for infantry.

This is why I'm such a fan of using warriors inside my infantry squad rather than seeing warriors sitting by themselves somewhere, Their presence keeps my ammo high, and kits avaliable. The thermal vision is instrumental in identifying threats. The warrior protects my infantry from snipers, other infantry and light vehicles and my infantry protect it from enemy AT and if I have a LAT/HAT then I also protect it from enemy heavier armour.

Throw another friendly tank into the mix from another squad...suddenly you're starting to see complementary combined arms.

It's not easy, its quite unforgiving in fact, but its teamwork. Vehicles don't just need to teamwork with eachother, they need to teamwork with infantry instead of being insular and therefore vulnerable. The number of times I've needed a HEAT shell on the mineret in burning sands...

the BMP is a beast, but the Brits get the extra tank because of that on Burning Sands. Warriors are infantry support vehicles, not tanks.

If there is going to be a balance redress, it'll be with the warrior's support capabilities imo not with its ROF/power/hitpoints (unless someone models a the newer versions)

ElshanF
2014-03-23, 12:15
@rudd The funny thing is the warrior is the most used APC in terms of mechanized I've seen in PR. Of you see mech Inf with btr & bmps etc but they always wonder off somewhere else but because the warrior is the weakes.. it always stays with the inf (from what I've seen)

X-Alt
2014-03-28, 01:45
Honestly, the Warrior needs an improvement. Yesterday, me and a friend in the APC Squad on Shija Valley picked up some INF and dropped them at Rice Paddies, one MG and some INF took them all down. We were engaging a particularly dangerous looking HAT, which we fired at for about 500 years with HE and Coax until he dropped dead. Suddenly, we are hit with a LAT, not tracked and still operable, we position the front armor only to see a Rifleman, again taking an eternity to kill him before attempting an RTB. The RTB did not go well, the same LAT resupplied from the rifleman (which should have been an easy kill should it not have been the sluggish auto cannon) and struck us in the front armor and boom DEAD. If we were in a WZ551, the infantry would have been in 9001 pieces.. We soon used a much more practical, agile Panther and destroyed the same guys, raking up 42 infantry kills plus scaring off their CAS chopper on multiple occasions.. It really does need a maneuverability boost, it is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle after all, not a super expensive coffin..

In the anti-armor role, it is equally disappointing. On Burning Sands, we had a perfect angle on a BMP-3 with tons of distance and with the BMP looking the other way, we popped it with AP rounds for a LONG TIME, only to have it turn and fire an ATGM in our front armor and BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BOOM! IMHO, the NLAW should become lock-on (pretty sure a guy is working on that IIRC) and the Warrior could receive a top seat operable by anyone, so a LAT or especially, a HAT can turn it into a BMP hunter if they choose to co-operate, making the APC or MECHINF squad even more deadly.

/mytwocents

Steeps
2014-03-28, 02:11
The day British armor models are fixed in PR so they don't bounce would be great.

camo
2014-07-30, 05:01
Sorry to bring back an old thread but is there anything we can do?
Could you maybe buff the accuracy of the warrior's cannon?

"Proven accuracy is such that 1 m groups at a range of 1,000 m are achieved on a regular basis."
source Army Guide - L21A1 Rarden, Gun (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2585.html)
Barrel length is also longer than other cannons in game, 2440mm compared to the 1914mm length of the 2a42 cannon that is on the bmp-2.

I had a game on burning sands a few days ago and my gunner was first cussing at the lack of fire rate, and then when we moved up to support the infantry he was struggling to even get shots inside a window from only a hundred metres away due the deviation of the cannon. It may be only a small buff but it could make up a little bit for this vehicles obvious inadequacies in every other department.

Mats391
2014-07-30, 10:19
I think it would only be fair to give the warrior and scimitar better accuracy. Will do that

camo
2014-07-30, 11:16
Sweet that's good news.

ElshanF
2014-07-30, 11:54
Coming back to this, the Warrior a lot or even everyone I know thinks it's terrible now.

Rudd
2014-07-30, 11:57
Well...the warrior is terrible. But if you look at the asset layouts, there's usually something the warrior can team up with. It's a force multiplier not a force in itself.

Mats391
2014-07-30, 12:06
Coming back to this, the Warrior a lot or even everyone I know thinks it's terrible now.

I like them :)

Death!
2014-07-30, 13:49
As stated before, APCs are not tanks. Would you engage a BMP-3 with a Stryker? Hell, no! People need to keep that in mind and team up with infantry and real tanks.

Warriors are mainly taxis.

X-Alt
2014-07-30, 18:21
As stated before, APCs are not tanks. Would you engage a BMP-3 with a Stryker? Hell, no! People need to keep that in mind and team up with infantry and real tanks.

Warriors are mainly taxis.
If the BMP was looking in the other direction, sure!

Death!
2014-07-30, 23:51
If the BMP was looking in the other direction, sure!

It would take a lot of .50 cal fire to put down a BMP-3, even if you hit its backs. Probably overheat it twice.

X-Alt
2014-07-31, 02:17
It would take a lot of .50 cal fire to put down a BMP-3, even if you hit its backs. Probably overheat it twice.
Nah, takes like one overheat.

Steeps
2014-07-31, 03:55
Fixing the tracks at least would be nice.

camo
2014-07-31, 07:15
^ indeed, the bouncing is incredibly frustrating, especially when you end up losing your vehicle from it.

Kerryburgerking
2014-07-31, 12:20
It would take a lot of .50 cal fire to put down a BMP-3, even if you hit its backs. Probably overheat it twice.

It takes roughly ~120 .50 BMG to kill a BMP-3

ElshanF
2014-07-31, 12:52
Before the cannon nerf it was a lot more combat efficient

Mats391
2014-07-31, 13:11
Fixing the tracks at least would be nice.

How is the jumping since recent updates? The disable code for warriors got changed to make them less bouncy. Did it not help?

Mikemonster
2014-07-31, 20:46
In PR we don't fight within the doctrine of any of the armed services that designed and built the vehicles from the ground up.. We fight Special Forces missions with ad-hoc tactics against similar enemies.

It's a direct clash of Realism vs Gameplay, for better or worse. Hence make a realistic asset and the Gameplay will suffer. Make fun gameplay, and you'll lose the 'simulation'.

Of course, we are also playing as invincible players unafraid of death, and in a tiny map with huge limitations on most things vs 'real life'.

Why would Warrior (or BMP) be operating against armour without supporting tanks on each side (and without a supporting section using the Javelin missile)? This is what I'm getting at.

camo
2014-08-01, 08:15
Mats391;2026278']How is the jumping since recent updates? The disable code for warriors got changed to make them less bouncy. Did it not help?

Which update? I haven't used the warrior after 1.2.

Mats391
2014-08-01, 08:24
Which update? I haven't used the warrior after 1.2.

It got fixed in 1.2

K4on
2014-08-01, 08:40
Fixing the tracks at least would be nice.

Any proof video we can work on further? Isn't it better since 1.2?

Alteast on even ground, the Brit vehicles shouldn't bump that much anymore while being tracked.
I Admit that I wasn't able to fix it 100℅, but apart of a very minor shaking the issue got improved a lot...

camo
2014-08-01, 09:29
Did the fix apply to the challenger? Also what is it you did to fix it?

K4on
2014-08-01, 10:57
Python Changes, redesigning the disabling of certain wheels in the track.
Challenger shouldn't bump as much as well, though the terrain sliding isn't still fixed by that.

MADsqirrel
2014-08-01, 12:37
In my opinion the Warrior is the best IFV in city fights. As long as you don't meet any BTR-80A or BMP 2/3 its all fine.
But I admit it is only real fun in a MechInf squad or against insurgents and militia.

Roque_THE_GAMER
2014-08-01, 21:05
i did no read all the pages but i would like to make a suggestion, so im sorry if i messed up something.

I know we don't have a javelin and if is added, half of the community will cry about it like "Omg a lock on AT this is Battlefield 4? bad move devs"

so i think is make a especial kit for the warrior called HATS (heavy ant tank Supot) or other name, its a Nlaw kit with the Nlaw, crewman rifle(yes i forgot the name), a Knife and a Field dressing(really basic so will be useless in combat.)

make it only be requested only the Warrior or same as the crewman kit

Add on the warrior a seat(the last one) which is on the top so he can operate the Nlaw on the top and make like the insurgents technical for balance purpose and add some kind of invisible bullet prove glass to avoid get sniped (sure i know that can be avoid by seating inside but that is a full warrior situation).

and to be avoided used on the field and not inside of the warrior add a hell big of deviation on the sight and use the bug of get inside of the vehicle and get no deviation.

what you devs think?

Prevtzer
2014-08-01, 21:09
i did no read all the pages but i would like to make a suggestion, so im sorry if i messed up something.

I know we don't have a javelin and if is added, half of the community will cry about it like "Omg a lock on AT this is Battlefield 4? bad move devs"

so i think is make a especial kit for the warrior called HATS (heavy ant tank Supot) or other name, its a Nlaw kit with the Nlaw, crewman rifle(yes i forgot the name), a Knife and a Field dressing(really basic so will be useless in combat.)

make it only be requested only the Warrior or same as the crewman kit

Add on the warrior a seat(the last one) which is on the top so he can operate the Nlaw on the top and make like the insurgents technical for balance purpose and add some kind of invisible bullet prove glass to avoid get sniped (sure i know that can be avoid by seating inside but that is a full warrior situation).

and to be avoided used on the field and not inside of the warrior add a hell big of deviation on the sight and use the bug of get inside of the vehicle and get no deviation.

what you devs think?

fkn lol, is that a srs suggestion :lol:

X-Alt
2014-08-01, 23:37
i did no read all the pages but i would like to make a suggestion, so im sorry if i messed up something.

I know we don't have a javelin and if is added, half of the community will cry about it like "Omg a lock on AT this is Battlefield 4? bad move devs"

so i think is make a especial kit for the warrior called HATS (heavy ant tank Supot) or other name, its a Nlaw kit with the Nlaw, crewman rifle(yes i forgot the name), a Knife and a Field dressing(really basic so will be useless in combat.)

make it only be requested only the Warrior or same as the crewman kit

Add on the warrior a seat(the last one) which is on the top so he can operate the Nlaw on the top and make like the insurgents technical for balance purpose and add some kind of invisible bullet prove glass to avoid get sniped (sure i know that can be avoid by seating inside but that is a full warrior situation).

and to be avoided used on the field and not inside of the warrior add a hell big of deviation on the sight and use the bug of get inside of the vehicle and get no deviation.

what you devs think?
Just make a seat on top where a someone can operate the NLAW, the end.

Roque_THE_GAMER
2014-08-02, 00:21
Just make a seat on top where a someone can operate the NLAW, the end.

the problem is: people will get the Nlaw only to just use in the field and the amount of Nlaw still low and if the APC get the Nlaw the infantry will get they ass kicked by the tanks and apcs if there is no warrior nerby or dead, thats why they need a special kit for the Warrior.

X-Alt
2014-08-02, 01:06
the problem is: people will get the Nlaw only to just use in the field and the amount of Nlaw still low and if the APC get the Nlaw the infantry will get they ass kicked by the tanks and apcs if there is no warrior nerby or dead, thats why they need a special kit for the Warrior.
There was somebody working on nerfing the HAT kit so (hopefully) two can be fielded. Maybe allow 2x HAT kits just for the Brits, and servers could enforce the rest.

Roque_THE_GAMER
2014-08-02, 01:43
There was somebody working on nerfing the HAT kit so (hopefully) two can be fielded. Maybe allow 2x HAT kits just for the Brits, and servers could enforce the rest.

it was not the ERYX?

K4on
2014-08-02, 08:02
No, we are NOT adding Javelin Seats with magic, invulnerable cupolas to the back of the Warrior at all :lol:

Also there are no plans to nerf the AT kits.

Roque_THE_GAMER
2014-08-02, 14:01
K4on;2026637']No, we are NOT adding Javelin Seats with magic, invulnerable cupolas to the back of the Warrior at all :lol:

Also there are no plans to nerf the AT kits.

why it was added to the insurgents technical?

Murphy
2014-08-02, 18:04
Roque, you want to give Warriors a HAT that sits on top and is invulnerable to small arms fire? That is one of the worst concepts for a suggestion I have ever seen. I would like to incorporate another seat on top of the vehicle for snipers only. This way when a HAT or LAT kit tries to attack the Warrior the sniper on top can eliminate any AT threats, and we will give him an invisible shield so he doesn't get hurt by incoming fire...because that would be a useless distraction from getting all those awesome frags from on top of a Warrior.

Yea that's pretty damned balanced! I mean the insurgents get to sit on top of their cars with unguided Rockets and small arms so why can't blufor have the exact same thing...only better because it's blufor.

matty1053
2014-08-02, 20:06
The Warrior is a Infantry Fighting Vehicle correct?

Usually on Burning Sands, they stick in the City with the infantry squads. Not going in the middle of the desert hunting the BMP's, since they will lose. horribly. But, on Shijia the other hand. You are usually not in Cities most of the time with the Warrior.

Is the Warriors fire rate exactly like the Warrior irl?

Roque_THE_GAMER
2014-08-02, 20:14
Roque, you want to give Warriors a HAT that sits on top and is invulnerable to small arms fire? That is one of the worst concepts for a suggestion I have ever seen. I would like to incorporate another seat on top of the vehicle for snipers only. This way when a HAT or LAT kit tries to attack the Warrior the sniper on top can eliminate any AT threats, and we will give him an invisible shield so he doesn't get hurt by incoming fire...because that would be a useless distraction from getting all those awesome frags from on top of a Warrior.

Yea that's pretty damned balanced! I mean the insurgents get to sit on top of their cars with unguided Rockets and small arms so why can't blufor have the exact same thing...only better because it's blufor.

cool story bro, so add ability to crouch inside of the Warrior.... oh wait, hard code. :roll:

X-Alt
2014-08-02, 21:37
cool story bro, so add ability to crouch inside of the Warrior.... oh wait, hard code. :roll:
Just let them sit on top with one of the seats, allow 2 HAT kits on GB and you are good2go.

Murphy
2014-08-02, 23:34
My point obviously missed the mark. I'll be more blunt. Your suggestion is entirely unbalanced and accords BAF more of an advantage than they already have over the majority of other factions. It's poorly thought out and frankly I hope it never sees fruition, it would be akin to giving the Warrior the ability to have an extra turret.

Prevtzer
2014-08-02, 23:50
Just add an ATGM to the Warrior :lol:

X-Alt
2014-08-03, 00:24
My point obviously missed the mark. I'll be more blunt. Your suggestion is entirely unbalanced and accords BAF more of an advantage than they already have over the majority of other factions. It's poorly thought out and frankly I hope it never sees fruition, it would be akin to giving the Warrior the ability to have an extra turret.
An extra turret would give the crew protection, unlike my solution that exposes the HAT operator (like IRL) to enemy small arms fire. Perhaps making a modified version of the GB faction that only is run on maps where the enemy vehicles\IFVs are equipped with ATGMs.

Murphy
2014-08-03, 05:46
Dismounting would be the ingame solution, but that doesn't always goes as planned naturally. I understand it to be one of the very few short comings the Brits have when it comes to equipment on the whole, which adds to the diversity of tactics and overall strategy needed for said faction. Adding an ATGM to make the Warrior exactly on par with other vehicles in the same category would indeed make things more equal but so does putting an ATGM on the Challenger and M1 Abrams. That doesn't really add anything new it just removes the unique feel each vehicle has. You talk as if a Warrior could never win a fight vs another APC/IFC, that's not true.

Roque_THE_GAMER
2014-08-03, 16:56
Dismounting would be the ingame solution, but that doesn't always goes as planned naturally. I understand it to be one of the very few short comings the Brits have when it comes to equipment on the whole, which adds to the diversity of tactics and overall strategy needed for said faction. Adding an ATGM to make the Warrior exactly on par with other vehicles in the same category would indeed make things more equal but so does putting an ATGM on the Challenger and M1 Abrams. That doesn't really add anything new it just removes the unique feel each vehicle has. You talk as if a Warrior could never win a fight vs another APC/IFC, that's not true.

if the enemy gunner is dumb enough yes is possible.

ElshanF
2014-08-11, 00:23
Can the devs not re buff the gun a bit ? Fire rate & accuracy ? Or at least do it for the scimi. The scorpion is much better against enemy armour than scimitar which is funny saying it's a lot older

Rhino
2014-08-11, 00:46
Can the devs not re buff the gun a bit ? Fire rate & accuracy ?

From page two of this topic:

Mats391;2026040']Sorry to bring back an old thread but is there anything we can do?
Could you maybe buff the accuracy of the warrior's cannon?

"Proven accuracy is such that 1 m groups at a range of 1,000 m are achieved on a regular basis."
source Army Guide - L21A1 Rarden, Gun (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2585.html)
Barrel length is also longer than other cannons in game, 2440mm compared to the 1914mm length of the 2a42 cannon that is on the bmp-2.

I had a game on burning sands a few days ago and my gunner was first cussing at the lack of fire rate, and then when we moved up to support the infantry he was struggling to even get shots inside a window from only a hundred metres away due the deviation of the cannon. It may be only a small buff but it could make up a little bit for this vehicles obvious inadequacies in every other department.

I think it would only be fair to give the warrior and scimitar better accuracy. Will do that

Or at least do it for the scimi. The scorpion is much better against enemy armour than scimitar which is funny saying it's a lot older

Both are pretty much the same age. They where both developed from the CVR(T) series of vehicle series which was developed between 1967 and 1969, with both the Scorpion and Scimitar being developed within that time. The Scorpion was accepted into the British Army in 1970 and the Scimitar in 1971 so only a year apart in age at the most. The Scorpion was only retired sooner as it simply wasn't as flexible as the Scimitar.

The Scorpion is also meant to be much better vs armour, hence it has a much larger, 76mm gun to he Scimitars 30mm gun, but a 76mm gun with a 6 rounds per min fire rate isn't so useful when your trying to suppress infantry and isn't as good as an all rounder as the 30mm RARDEN cannon. This is in fact the exact reason why I made the Scorpion for PR:F: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-pr-highlights/116836-pr-falklands-v0-192-released.html

On that note the Scimitar and Warrior both use the exact same RARDEN cannon so it wouldn't be right to give the Scimitar any better firepower than the Warrior, its main advantages over the warrior in terms of firepower is its size and speed, as per r/l.

KillJoy[Fr]
2014-08-28, 21:48
On burning sands British apc's have ANY change against BMP's, if you manage to kill one you have to prepare a crafty plan because you've got only 1 chance.

ComradeHX
2014-08-28, 22:11
;2031354']On burning sands British apc's have ANY change against BMP's, if you manage to kill one you have to prepare a crafty plan because you've got only 1 chance.

That's because British tanks are straight up better than MEC tanks since T-72 both have longer reload time and has no ATGM.

Whenever I play Burning Sands; I try to be one of first four to join the IFV squad to grab the BMPs. And I feel bad for anyone getting the leftover T-72.

Firepower01
2014-09-14, 07:31
I don't know very much about armored cannons but wouldn't the longer RARDEN cannon increase muzzle velocity, and therefor increase the penetration for it's AP rounds? Maybe if that's the case it could be reflected with a AP damage buff.

Mikemonster
2014-09-18, 21:35
I don't think you understand Firepower01 - The game cannot reflect real life penetrations of weapons, force makeups, doctrines, fire control systems, mobility advantages or engagement ranges hence the vehicles are balanced to roughly match each other.

I doubt there are many IFV's that would stand up to their opposition's firepower (I am talking about NATO IFV vs Russian/Chinese). Hence if 'realistic' values were added, the armoured battles in PR would be very short and not very good fun..

One example would be the Scimitars that knocked out an Iraqi tank in 1991 (they were providing flank protection for the main armoured force). The Iraqi tank charged them as it withdrew from it's parent unit which had been over-run. The Scimitar recce tanks usind the Rarden worked in sequence to fire at it, then move when it aimed their way. Eventually they put enough fire on it to kill it (although took a few .50 hits through their thin armour). Can you imagine this situation in any way being represented in PR? This is what I mean regarding the simulation of the warfare these vehicles would typically find themselves in when deployed against the conventional enemy forces present on the maps in PR. Barrel length/muzzle velocity doesn't come into it!

If an IFV is doing anything but suppressing, you have to ask 'If I want to represent this realistically, where is the tank platoon that should be in it's place?'

This isn't intended as a criticism of PR, just aimed to provide some perspective to the 'realism' suggesters in general. Everyone has a varying perception of realism. Nobody takes the actual 'proper' use of the equipment into account, nor how that equipment would be fielded and in what numbers.

For what it's worth, this extends to Infantry combat and especially air combat in PR.

Firepower01
2014-09-19, 02:15
I'm not really sure how half of your post really related to what I said. You say that vehicles are balanced to roughly match each other yet the Warrior has been significantly nerfed with it's RoF being dropped down to realistic levels. I'm merely suggesting buffing it's damage to compensate for the lack of RoF it now has compared to other IFVs. I don't know if the RARDEN's AP rounds outperform the AP rounds of other comparable auto-cannons though.

M42 Zwilling
2014-09-19, 11:09
The RARDEN's AP rounds are very similar to those used by the 2A42 (BMP-2) in terms of muzzle velocity and projectile weight.

Souls Of Mischief
2014-09-19, 11:42
Do they both AFV utilize APFSDS-T rounds (or a variation of them), though? Because, the most prevalent AP round, to my knowledge, used in the 2A42 cannon is the AP-T round.

http://s16.postimg.org/750rafj39/Cv2_XW.jpg

Here it is. If this is indeed the case then it doesn't make sense how the AP-T round does more damage than this one - http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p162/APFSDS/IMG_8261-1.jpg

M42 Zwilling
2014-09-19, 12:17
I'm assuming 3UBR8 AP-T for the 2A42 and L14A3 APDS-T for the RARDEN, which are the rounds represented in-game.

Souls Of Mischief
2014-09-19, 12:56
M42 Zwilling;2035316']I'm assuming 3UBR8 AP-T for the 2A42 and L14A3 APDS-T for the RARDEN, which are the rounds represented in-game.

Yeah, I just checked out the Grozny map and the BMP-2 is using 3UBR8 rounds.

Danger_6
2014-09-19, 18:47
Can I just say that this game, to some extent, tries to replicate vehicles as they would be in real life. That being said instead of complaining so heavily about the assets you have, use your brain to determine how to use the vehicles.

All I hear in this thread is that the warrior sucks in comparison to all other apcs and that many people have tried taking on BMPs and losing as a result.

That being said, why don't you just change your tactics? I don't think every vehicle should be balanced in this game, otherwise what's the point in having different factions with their individual weapons and armaments?

The warrior shouldn't be used to engage enemy APCs, all you have to do is to simply avoid contact with them; and it's easier to do than you think. It's all about vehicle positioning bearing in mind terrain and friendly/enemy positions.

Yes, we all know that the warrior now sucks, blither blather. Just get on with it guys, it's still a good anti-inf vehicle. And on maps where other APCs/IFVs are more of a threat, you have many other assets that can easily destroy them. I mean, look at burning sands, the brits get two tanks (two pretty good ones imo). A good asset commander understands the limitations of their vehicle.

TL:DR get on with the game guys and adapt - that is what militaries do in real scenarios...

Also: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e90_1328943063

Mr_blox
2014-10-03, 14:31
Being as I started this thread I will clarify a few things, I know in the Warrior you shouldn't go BMP hunting, but sometimes its simply unavoidable that you will clash with one

Now in both of my accounts on Burning Sands we were not going after BMP's rather we were covering infantry when a BMP moved into our sights, Now 1st The Warrior is slow of the mark and is pretty loud so not much chance of running, so your left with engaging.

As I said in my example we got a fair few hits on the BMP's before they even saw us but yet still wrecked us in a matter of seconds when they did locate us, now it seems that there is no way to give Warrior a firepower buff but perhaps an Armour buff may be possible, the simple fact of the matter is at the moment the BMP is as good or better than the Warrior in every way to the point where even if the Warrior starts combat in an advantageous position it still gets destroyed unless the enemy APC/IFV crew is completely incompetent

Rudd
2014-10-03, 14:53
or perhaps the LAT from the infantry squad could have engaged it for you?

your APC can give the infantry the kit, and resupply it easily.

Mr_blox
2014-10-03, 17:00
I'm pretty sure all the infantry were hiding to save them selves as often happens, this is the problem with people saying just stay with infantry, if the infantry your supporting don't have AT or just runs to save themselves your screwed, with the fact that the LAT and HAT also take a warmup time to be accurate a requested kit may not be sufficient either

Rudd
2014-10-03, 23:50
true, but this is why the GB get an extra MTB and the MEC get more APCs :)

Danger_6
2014-10-04, 01:30
the simple fact of the matter is at the moment the BMP is as good or better than the Warrior in every way

Isn't that how war works? Some militaries have better equipment than others.

KillJoy[Fr]
2014-10-04, 12:44
Rudd;2037537']true, but this is why the GB get an extra MTB and the MEC get more APCs :)

I found the BMP's pretty op against tank tho.

ElshanF
2014-10-04, 15:33
Bmp2m best ifv/apc in pr

Hurricane
2014-10-15, 10:45
Isn't that how war works? Some militaries have better equipment than others.

I'm pretty sure a Warrior can wreck a BMP-2 easily though. In PR, no chance.

Rudd
2014-10-15, 10:53
I'm pretty sure a Warrior can wreck a BMP-2 easily though. In PR, no chance.

what is your rationale for this statement?

Souls Of Mischief
2014-10-15, 11:31
Rudd;2039251']what is your rationale for this statement?

Quality of the optics, accuracy of the RARDEN autocannon is better, armour of the Warrior should exceed that of the BMP. Also, to my knowledge the most prevalent 30mm AP round in use by the Russian military is the APBC-T round not the newer discarding sabout rounds, but I'm not sure about this one, so might as well disregard it.

mat552
2014-10-19, 00:55
Without access to classified data I doubt we can say for sure, but the Konkurs-M and Arkan systems are not likely to leave a Warrior unscathed.

Souls Of Mischief
2014-10-19, 09:50
Without access to classified data I doubt we can say for sure, but the Konkurs-M and Arkan systems are not likely to leave a Warrior unscathed.

That's a valid point. I even completely forgot about the ATGM, since most of the time in PR BMP-2s don't have them lol

Mikemonster
2014-10-22, 21:25
Being as I started this thread I will clarify a few things, I know in the Warrior you shouldn't go BMP hunting, but sometimes its simply unavoidable that you will clash with one

Now in both of my accounts on Burning Sands we were not going after BMP's rather we were covering infantry when a BMP moved into our sights, Now 1st The Warrior is slow of the mark and is pretty loud so not much chance of running, so your left with engaging.

As I said in my example we got a fair few hits on the BMP's before they even saw us but yet still wrecked us in a matter of seconds when they did locate us, now it seems that there is no way to give Warrior a firepower buff but perhaps an Armour buff may be possible, the simple fact of the matter is at the moment the BMP is as good or better than the Warrior in every way to the point where even if the Warrior starts combat in an advantageous position it still gets destroyed unless the enemy APC/IFV crew is completely incompetent

Transpose your Burning Sands account into the Fulda Gap, circa late 80's, and you appreciate why the Warrior was designed the way it is (no stabilised optics, dismountable AT weapons). By ambushing you used the warrior 'properly' according to it's doctrine, what was missing was the AT squad, the on-call artillery called in by your missing recon Scimitars/Scorpions and several platoons of Challenger 2 tanks! Although you would imagine Rarden would eat any unsuspecting IFV that slipped through the net.

Hurricane
2014-10-22, 22:44
Rudd;2039251']what is your rationale for this statement?

No doubt both vehicles are capable of taking each other out. Considering modern AP munitions fired from 25-40mm autocannons can penetrate almost all armored vehicles short of MBTs (at least with side hits), it becomes a game of "who-spots-and-fires-first-wins".

But this isn't the case in PR currently. I think the game usually finds a very, very good compromise between realism and balancing which leads to some good and fluent gameplay. I mean you even gave all tanks pretty equal stats, despite the fact that an export T72M would be absolutely wrecked by an Abrams or Leopard 2 in the vast majority of scenarios. It is a balancing compromise most of us can live with despite knowing it isn't exactly realistic.

But now with the IFVs you created a situation where on the one hand you adjusted the rate of fire for all of them, which leads to two similar vehicles with vastly different chances when facing each other, but on the other hand don't intoduce a change to balance this out in the least. I don't want identical vehicles in every team, it would take the fun out of the game, no question. It's a fact that some designs have an edge over others. But it would be great if you for example buff the damage of the Warriors gun to the point it creates a damage output over time that is at least comparable to other IFVs.
The alternative way of somewhat balancing this issue in PR's current vehicle warfare would be to buff the Warriors armor, although I believe this would further damage the balancing as it would make the vehicle way too hard with light AT.

Lord_Enderminion
2015-07-29, 22:13
camo;1992786']Just to add to the previous thread
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f254-vehicles/127843-fv-510-warrior.html
I didn't get a chance to write anything.
I agree with Mr Blox in the fact that the warrior really isn't very good atm especially against other apc's/ifv's. While i don't think the rof or damage should be increased is it possible to add atgm's to the warrior? It's not unheard of considering Kuwait has atgm's on their version of the warrior.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/warrior/images/warrior4.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xRRJUyrral4/UBXAdiZ9sqI/AAAAAAAAGTI/-p9ZUm3tcXM/s1600/Bradley_Koweit_army_Army_Recognition_Forum_001.jpg
I'm fully aware the British Warriors don't have any atgm's irl but if Britain was (for some unknown reason) to go to war with China or Russia and the Warrior was found to be useless against their armor surely someone would issue an urgent operational requirement to get the required upgrade to counter the threat.
But that's quite a lot of work so maybe as k4on said maybe some map balancing is needed as its getting very one sided on some maps in terms of apc's.

the FV510 Warrior does have a version with MILAN F1 ATGM

X-Alt
2015-08-09, 00:19
The alternative way of somewhat balancing this issue in PR's current vehicle warfare would be to buff the Warriors armor, although I believe this would further damage the balancing as it would make the vehicle way too hard with light AT.
Let the Warrior get even more armor, not Namer quality, but maybe 3 LATs (RPG-7VM) from the front, but then the Bradley should get the same treatment considering it mounts ERA, and is even more of a rolling explosion IRL than the Warrior.

viirusiiseli
2015-08-09, 13:48
Warrior already has really good armor. It can take on chinese APCs with far superior cannons already

X-Alt
2015-08-09, 16:19
Warrior already has really good armor. It can take on chinese APCs with far superior cannons already
In a long range engagement, sure. But when it gets close, I can easily outgun the Warrior and end of story.

ElshanF
2015-08-10, 13:02
Warrior Summary:

A big metal box with a shit gun. I like X-Alt's idea.

Jacksonez__
2015-08-10, 13:38
the FV510 Warrior does have a version with MILAN F1 ATGM

It's export for Kuwait only iirc. Also why on earth would Britain keep sending basically unarmed IFVs to confront Russian / Chinese APCs if it was real war? Like I think they would learn. Warriors are basically made for shooting unarmed insurgents or minimally armed insurgents, lol.

30mm Bushmaster + 2x ATGM launchers (Kuwait Warrior?)

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/Kuwait_Warrior%20(b).jpg

that looks a proper IFV to me.

Rhino
2015-08-10, 13:40
Warriors are basically made for shooting unarmed insurgents or minimally armed insurgents, lol.

Actually they where made to confront a Soviet Invasion and hardly featured in Afghanistan, did in Iraq but that was since they where mainly needed for the initial invasion :p

And going by recent history our Government is very likley to send the wrong equipment into a modern war thinking its "good enough" and overruling generals who say otherwise, at least until they speak out in public about it :p

Jacksonez__
2015-08-10, 14:44
Rhino;2090459']Actually they where made to confront a Soviet Invasion and hardly featured in Afghanistan, did in Iraq but that was since they where mainly needed for the initial invasion :p

And going by recent history our Government is very likley to send the wrong equipment into a modern war thinking its "good enough" and overruling generals who say otherwise, at least until they speak out in public about it :p

Year XYZ, British government be like

"It's know that east uses ATGMs on APCs and IFVs and have high rate of fire on autocannons, let's send our mighty Warrior FV 510 to confront them! What could possibly go wrong?:o"

I think army generals should play PR and then they might understand how their Warrior blows :D

Though, I think that Warrior could be more agile? Like if you watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAF8CiUO3Q Just look at 0:30, you can't do that maneuver in game :D I mean how the driver turns at nice speed and doesn't loose the movement.

Rudd
2015-08-10, 14:53
We can't go down the 'If it was realz war they would do X' because that would be a license to implement whatever the hell we like ingame.

Did that for the F35 and the butthurt around here was palplable.

Indeed the game is MORE interesting with weaker assets, Balance can be accopmlished with modified asset layouts instead of trying to make each action basically the same with different colours.

Rhino
2015-08-10, 15:17
I think army generals should play PR and then they might understand how their Warrior blows :D

As I said above, its more the politicians that are deluded to thinking we have the "best equipment in the world" and there is no point in upgrading it and refuse to listen to the Army saying they need new stuff and instead only look at cutting our current stuff :p

Nitneuc
2015-08-10, 16:26
What about the CTA 40 mm upgrade ?
This new gun tech sounded like quality stuff to me. Could definitely bring new perspectives to the Warriors (and EBRC on this side of the channel).

Murphy
2015-08-10, 19:41
The Warrior kinda sucks against other Armour, it's know and has been accepted by the vast majority. It sucks that a BMP can roll up oblivious to your position and still come out on top 75% of the time, but people still manage. I'm not saying leave it alone because we can make due with what we have, but there is already plenty of counters for a BMP and the only squads getting wiped are fools who don't have AT for one reason or another. I believe the Warrior is still a very effective machine if you work around the short comings. Sure, most BMPs are like a Ferrari compared to the Warrior but I have scored many, many victories against the lighter armed APC/IFVs (BTRs have to dump a lot of ammo to kill a Warrior).

I always felt part of PR was picking your battles, instead of just rushing headlong to confront the opposing APC/IFV why not sit tight a bit and let your teams AT do their job. There should be at least one guy whose sole objective is to blow up the enemy APC/IFV/MBT, HAT kit life. Every Infantry squad with enough members has a source of LAT, and a coordinated team will also have TOWS and (depending on map/layer) heavier assets to take care of the issue (CAS/MBT).

I feel like this is akin to asking for the AAVP to catch a buff because it can't kill other APCs. It's not the role of said vehicle.

Lord_Enderminion
2015-08-21, 02:09
Rhino;1992787']Not really....

The British ideology is that its better to have a guy sitting in the back with a Javelin who can either fire out of the top or get out and silently move up to the target to engage it than to mount them on the big noisy vehicle that has to expose itself to engage, which will most likley result in it getting blown to bits..

As such if Britain did go into a full scale war, it would deploy lots of Javelins and other AT weapons and have the Warriors just transport the infantry up to the fight and engage any soft targets it can help with.


Javelins G/L's are Salcose MANPADS not ATGMs

M42 Zwilling
2015-08-21, 02:13
The FGM-148 Javelin is an ATGM and not a SACLOS MANPADS :-P

Rhino
2015-08-21, 02:53
Javelins G/L's are Salcose MANPADS not ATGMs

its actually SACLOS, no e on the end, and yes there was the British Javelin surface-to-air missile which was the successor to the Blowpipe surface-to-air missile but this is no longer used by the British armed forces, been replaced by the Starstreak Missile and as Zwilling said, I was referring to the American FGM-148 Javelin ATGM, which the British use in large numbers as their main man portable ATGM system in r/l.

FGM-148 Javelin:
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276351/Article/images/20690947/5833425-large.jpg

Javelin surface-to-air missile:
http://i.imgur.com/C2dduWC.jpg

Blowpipe surface-to-air missile:
http://i.imgur.com/ybbjIDP.jpg
Which is also coming in the next instalment of PR:Falklands:
II_Ma1m3n_A


Starstreak LML:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/16994/45114026.jpg

Thanks.

Rudd
2015-08-21, 20:32
What can we say? Javelin is a good name for a missle of any variety.

X-Alt
2015-08-21, 22:51
Rhino;2092294']its actually SACLOS, no e on the end, and yes there was the British Javelin surface-to-air missile which was the successor to the Blowpipe surface-to-air missile but this is no longer used by the British armed forces, been replaced by the Starstreak Missile and as Zwilling said, I was referring to the American FGM-148 Javelin ATGM, which the British use in large numbers as their main man portable ATGM system in r/l.


Thanks.
Gib the HVM a SACLOS Starstreak, less crying confirmed, hehe.