PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - The balance issue with multi-gunned vehicles
View Single Post
Old 2011-07-27, 06:55 AM   [Ignore Me] #20
Re: The balance issue with multi-gunned vehicles

Much like in RL IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) have provided problems in design. The M2 Bradley is severly under armored compared to a M1 Abrams which at the front is like 3 feet thick i believe. The bradley is only around 20 mph faster than an Abrams and is severly out gunned by an Abrams. So SOE kinda hit the nail on the head their ground transports are fast, under armored compared to tanks, and out gunned by tanks...

Now some countries have tried using TPCs (tank personal carriers) which would be like taking a Abrams gutting it of its cannon and making room for a squad of grunts. If SOE wanted to make ground transports more viable they would make them better armored but not over a tank, make them able to keep pace with a tank, and make the armament so it is useful. Since you can specialize your vehicle maybe they could have anti tank versions, anti personal versions, and anti air versions.

The purpose of IFVs were mainly to take pace behind the tanks and would dismount grunts as needed in support of the tanks, meaning flushing anti tank soldiers out of hard terrain like caves or urban areas. The bradley was created in fear of russian tanks crossing over. What you would mainly find in a IFV for the longest time was anti armor infantry. Armored troop transports were made to be able to fight in a tank battle and still function. Other than that troops would travel in things such as humvees or duece and a halfs depending on what military era you looked at.

I think the only way to truly keep people from using mossies or tanks as transports is to limit the equipment players can have when in them. In a RL abrams tank, the crew qualifies with a 9mm pistol (they do qualify with an M16 as its basic and everyone is a rifleman but they dont use them and not sure if any are kept in a M1 Abrams) and they dont wear IBAs (bullet proof vests) they have a slimmer version of it that isnt as equiped to stop a 7.62mm round, they dont wear ACHs (army kevlar combat helmet) they wear a different type of helmet which supports communication i believe. They wear a fire retardant suit (they actually call it a flight suit) not the usual ACUs (army combat uniform with the digital camo which blends with nothing). So I propose that any operators of any vehicle have to fit a similar loadout. If you wanna drive a tank or gun a tank then thats your role, your not going to jump out and clear buildings. Now the driver for a IFV should fill the same role but the grunts in back can be fully armored and equipped ready to dismount and put foot to ass.

Last edited by cashfoyogash; 2011-07-27 at 07:11 AM.
cashfoyogash is offline  
Reply With Quote