Project Reality Forums

This doesn't have the option to be used as a light tank since its main version has a 7.62 PKT as its primary weapon, especially if it features on maps with vehicles that have bigger guns.

The .50 version we can only hope fires normal rounds so its only effectiveness will probably be on M113s/BRDMs and under.

your doing something wrong if you use it as a light tank, the only light tank ingame are the BMP-3 and Scimitar

In terminology yes, in PR, anything with a cannon is used - and is highly effective - as a light tank.

[R-DEV]dbzao wrote:Yes, let's remove all vehicles or else there's a possibility they won't be used the right way.

No one ever said that, in fact thats far from the solution.

Maxfragg wrote:your doing something wrong if you use it as a light tank, the only light tank ingame are the BMP-3 and Scimitar

The Scimitar is actually a Recon vehicle, in r/l it hardly ever gets caught up in engagements the 30mm cannon is really for defence. Sometimes its used as a supporting vehicle and an assault vehicle but its pretty damn rare tbh since its main job is to dive in behind enemy lines before anyone else and recon the area.

[R-DEV]dbzao wrote:Yes, let's remove all vehicles or else there's a possibility they won't be used the right way.

That complaint is getting old, really... you are complaining about PLAYERS doing something stupid after we give them the tools.

We can mod the game not the players, so get over it and try to play with people that will actually use it the right way instead of just bitching about it.

I'm afraid we have a small misunderstanding here, you are right - the pr dev team should not, and will never be, responsible for the way players play. On the other hand, no one said they should be, and I don't think anyone was actually complaining. you should therefore see previous posts in which this "old complaint", as apparently you like to call it, was stated as a way to spread consciousness of a gameplay related problem that might well be a pr-specific sort of cheating or perhaps even griefing. the guys that visit these forums are obviously the guys that take project reality, the way it's being developed and the dev's ideas behind the development of assets, more seriously than most other players, spreading consciousness of this misusing of important assets might perhaps stop players from doing so, and that's worth the shot, wouldn't you agree?

cheers,

Wakain

dtacs wrote:He means in relation to the Strykers purpose. Transport infantry > they dismount > support them with fire and a means of protection.

It does the same thing yes, except in a more crude fashion.

MT-LB wasn’t designed for troop transport. It is armoured and amphibious artillery tractor/recovery vehicle/cargo transporter/engineering vehicle. It has been used as troop transporter, yes, but it’s not what it was built for, I have to reiterate. The gun is only for defence, and, acoording to Wikipedia, it was known to be used as artillery batteries shield, but not much more. In game, you won’t use it as APC when you have more mobile and heavier armed BTR.

theUg wrote:MT-LB wasn’t designed for troop transport. It is armoured and amphibious artillery tractor/recovery vehicle/cargo transporter/engineering vehicle. It has been used as troop transporter, yes, but it’s not what it was built for, I have to reiterate. The gun is only for defence, and, acoording to Wikipedia, it was known to be used as artillery batteries shield, but not much more. In game, you won’t use it as APC when you have more mobile and heavier armed BTR.

You may be right, but it depends how the DEV's implement it. If it holds infantry and there are no other transports available on the map, it will be used as such.

If it drops supplies/repair crates, it will be used as a support vehicle the way the Soviets designed it.

If it can tow tracked vehicles or...blah blah blah, the list goes on. We'll see when it all comes together.

theUg wrote:MT-LB wasn’t designed for troop transport. It is armoured and amphibious artillery tractor/recovery vehicle/cargo transporter/engineering vehicle. It has been used as troop transporter, yes, but it’s not what it was built for, I have to reiterate. The gun is only for defence, and, acoording to Wikipedia, it was known to be used as artillery batteries shield, but not much more. In game, you won’t use it as APC when you have more mobile and heavier armed BTR.

Stuff is not always used the way it was designed to be used.

Off the current topic:
Great model, should offer some variety to the mix. But, browsing around the web, i found this:

Now why don't we got this low-rider with the wide tracks, then we can be riding around in style like these Iraqis.

theUg wrote:MT-LB wasn’t designed for troop transport. It is armoured and amphibious artillery tractor/recovery vehicle/cargo transporter/engineering vehicle. It has been used as troop transporter, yes, but it’s not what it was built for, I have to reiterate. The gun is only for defence, and, acoording to Wikipedia, it was known to be used as artillery batteries shield, but not much more. In game, you won’t use it as APC when you have more mobile and heavier armed BTR.

Comrade, maybe you don't know it, but even new regulations for army units of so called "new type" provide description for structure of unit using MT-LBV-M as APC. Google "Отдельная мотострелковая бригада (на МТ-ЛБВ-&#1052 " for example.

It's just fact since first Chechen campaign - some MT-LBs are used as APCs, even Caspian marines brigade has number of MT-LBM 6MB with turret from BTR-80A as their APCs.

APC is not a taxi for whole team.
I really hate when admin kick you from server if you don't want to transport squads, exposing your stryker to enemy APCs and HATs. He doesn't care what there is 4 people, who we are supporting. So I can repeat it for hundred times.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
...

'[md wrote:MadMak[rus];1395759']APC is not a taxi for whole team.
I really hate when admin kick you from server if you don't want to transport squads, exposing your stryker to enemy APCs and HATs. He doesn't care what there is 4 people, who we are supporting. So I can repeat it for hundred times.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
APC Is Not a Taxi For Whole Team.
...

Transporting Troops and getting Hit by HAT's etc are not mutually exclusive to each other.

You dont have to drop troops excactly where they ask to go, use your own judgement and Discretion to keep a balance of getting troops as close to their desired location and keeping your vehicle alive.

Are you honestly saying a Armoured PERSONEL CARRIER is not a taxi for troops?

Tim270 wrote:...

Are you honestly saying a Armoured PERSONEL CARRIER is not a taxi for troops?

It is used to transport squad from main base to battlefield and support them with fire, but not leaving them alone and rushing for overs. It is linked to squad as Mech Inf or whatever the squad name is.

[R-DEV]Nosferatu wrote:MT-LBM 6MB with turret from BTR-80A as their APCs.

That’s the key. Give it decent gun, and people shall use it as light tank (I know, I know, “old complaint”) instead of transporting troops, building bridges, or dropping crates.

And I do understand the desire to get a good use out of these vehicles after they had been standing around thousands upon thousands since 1964, so they wouldn’t invest as much in new BTR-90 etc.

All in all I think it would be good for the mix, if balanced (like I said, slower than BTR, but drops supply crates etc.). And in general, for troop transport Russians need more UAZes, Tigr at some point, scrap unarmed BRMD (leave it for MEC and Militia). Does PR have troop trucks? It should be distinguished like in FH: troop trucks are covered, ammo/supply trucks are open bed with boxes and crates inside.

theUg wrote:Does PR have troop trucks? It should be distinguished like in FH: troop trucks are covered, ammo/supply trucks are open bed with boxes and crates inside.

Umm... yeah PR has troop trucks... they're uncovered to distinguish between the covered supply trucks... I don't think the Russians have troop transport trucks on any map, if thats where you're getting at. There may be a couple on Silent Eagle, but I can't remember completely.

theUg wrote:That’s the key. Give it decent gun, and people shall use it as light tank (I know, I know, “old complaint&#8221 instead of transporting troops, building bridges, or dropping crates.

Nobody said that there will be only one type of MT-LB and that will be 6MB.

All in all I think it would be good for the mix, if balanced (like I said, slower than BTR, but drops supply crates etc.). And in general, for troop transport Russians need more UAZes, Tigr at some point, scrap unarmed BRMD (leave it for MEC and Militia).

Right now Tigr is nothing more than MoD's covergirl, when there will be enough of them in troops AND their role would be described in regulations then we'll have something to talk about.

Does PR have troop trucks? It should be distinguished like in FH: troop trucks are covered, ammo/supply trucks are open bed with boxes and crates inside.

I don't get it, did you actually played PR?

ZephyrDark wrote:I don't think the Russians have troop transport trucks on any map, if thats where you're getting at. There may be a couple on Silent Eagle, but I can't remember completely.

I think there should be more, as grunts move about in trucks in droves.

[R-DEV]Nosferatu wrote:I don't get it, did you actually played PR?

Duh. It’s just I haven’t seen those for ages with all the new maps and old maps gone
(me wants Mestia back ). I think only place I’ve seen troop trucks on was on Barracuda a year ago.

'[md wrote:MadMak[rus];1395784']It is used to transport squad from main base to battlefield and support them with fire, but not leaving them alone and rushing for overs. It is linked to squad as Mech Inf or whatever the squad name is.

you don't have to taxi the whole team around, as long as you taxi one squad around and cooperate with it in the way you described, the whole team has a benefit from that. however, if the distances are large(as in 4km maps) you might as well be a sport and give those other guys a ride.

mongol-horde wrote:isnt it weird to call cartepillar chassis that is produced since time when stryker wasnt even drawn on paper a stryker type thingy?

Well the discription was all in gangsta speak so I have no idea what he was on about
Also the stryker was the only thing I could think of to compire it to tbh as I couldnt see a port hole for the MG so assumed it was remote ok?

Love the writeup Nos......

[R-DEV]DankE_SPB wrote:Ruff ryders would choose MT-LB for ability to afford 2.8m wide trenches and 1.1m vertical obstacles. And did I mention that it's amphibious?

So... Can it negotiate 1.1m vertical obstacles in-game?

-REad

[R-DEV]DankE_SPB wrote:Available in Project Reality soon, ask at local Opfor main bases.

But aren't Russians blufor on some maps as well


Looks really good!