I have said these suggestions don’t work as is and would need to be apc to be meaningful additions. Idk how I’m sidetracking.
Sounds like ur running away from an argument you know you lost
Ok let me for one moment engage your lousy argument. A uni carrier bares some characteristics of an APC which, a jeep does not.
It is armoured (tanky - a jeep can be disabled by small arms fire), it has armaments, which a jeep does not, it is tracked, so it is less manoeuvrable (which a jeep is more manoeuvrable) and by a large is slower than a jeep.
Say for arguments purposes, we put a big gun (it goes big bang for ur monkey brain) on the back, sure they are the same in this way, but for all the other features they are not the same and for good reason
Definition: Armoured personnel carrier… don’t think a jeep is very armoured
Utility: It might carry people, but a rider class is more appropriate for this as its only purpose is to do so
Edit: what argument? I am simply educating the lower classes who are not capable of logical / reasonable thought. Run back to your ROI definitions which u so easily confused input and output AND did not respond to u absolute cretin
I don’t think the tech tree apc are very armored either. So that argument doesn’t rlly hold up.
Why are you trying to make additions u deemed as only br 1 not stronger? Apc does everything riders do and more. So why not make these apc instead of rider.
they are more armoured… they cannot be disabled by small arms fire and usually are not destroyed by one RPG shot. Yea… try again “little buddy” - a jeep is wrecked from any of the above - so yes… yes it does hold up
Like I said… an APC is limited for balancing purposes.
No additions present here… its a basic utilisation of existing assets. Run that through ur ROI formula
Edit: I have already said why they should be separate as different classes serve different functions and so should be used different / do very different things. I don’t want to say u have a skill issue from using rider 1, but u would benefit from a tutorial or 2
You can have the jeep have armor stats. Still made of metal at end of day. Use ur imagination little buddy
Much better than saboteurs but improving squad gameplay i think not… would just be people rushing the vehicle to a destination like some idiots use apc’s.
There are vehicles at the start of the match in some maps that are good for them… rider 2 squad on tractor plant or steel mill would be heavily nerfed.
ironically both of those maps have placed vehicles.
2 Likes
Imagination… try using ur brain. Sheets of metal and armour are different things and can repel shells, shrapnel etc.
For the sake of realism how would this make any sense? An APC is an APC which is at least rooted in some history… a jeep is a transportation vehicle. I just cannot win
u only drawback to rider 1, which is why i use them in occasional battles, and they are not a go-to is because the squad size is small. Rider 2s would have the benefit of hopefully 4-5 members, so could be used in more scenarios
1 Like
The only thing required is small arms not being able to penetrate. Which requires a single millimeter of steel. These also had variants with appliqué armor
Dude, just mind your own business. Look at what happens to my suggestions every time you show up to say, “It’s not profitable” or “It’ll take too long to develop.” Just look at the mess you’re making. On my suggestions, people actually offer ideas, explain why, and don’t spam the thread with stupid comments.
What do you have to offer? What do you suggest for the game? Aside from acting like Gaijin’s spokesperson, but man, Gaijin doesn’t give a shit about you—they don’t need you to tell them if something’s okay or not. You’re just cringy; you must spend your life watching who posts a suggestion and then go copy-pasting your nerdy, four-eyes rants.
Krieg-Maschine didn’t agree with one or more of my suggestions and he explained why to me, without acting like Gaijin’s guard?
Get the hell out of here, stop commenting, look at the state of a simple player who loves his game and is proposing an idea, and you have the nerve to tell me “I AM THE ENEMY” of the game on top of that!
You’re cringy, man
1 Like
I gave you a counter suggestion. Read before responding in the future.
then buddy make a post and suggest to make jeeps APCs, but at it stands and as I have consistently pointed out to you:
- a jeep is not an APC
- a jeep should not be an APC
Sure, there were heavily armoured jeeps which should feature as an upgrade to the vehicle of a rider 2 class, just like an upgrade to any other vehicle, but does not amount to making the argument that an armoured jeep is an APC. it is an armoured jeep
With aapplique armor it is by definition an apc lol
I’ll reply to all your messages; I’m taking the time to focus on you
Literally every single one of ur points is addressed by something I already said lol
Chat GPT is a magical thing:
That said, soldiers in the field sometimes added improvised armour, which is essentially appliqué armour:
- Steel plates bolted onto doors, sides, or the front
- Salvaged armour from damaged vehicles
- Sandbags, logs, or extra metal sheets used as protection
These modifications were especially seen in:
- Recon units
- Military police units
- Convoy escort roles in high-risk areas
However, these were:
- Not standardized
- Often discouraged because they stressed the suspension and drivetrain
So basically yes apc can be done with a jeep
Wow nonstandard issue equipment in enlisted. That’s never been done.
go write a suggestion arguing that jeeps should be APCs. See how far u get bud
Guys, forget it—he’s ruining the chat. Even the mod is stepping in.
1 Like