That’s what I’m trying to say! Thank you for presenting the problem more eloquently than I could
You are right, you cant even put them unto your vehicle squad right?
Well it does. The SU and a little bit of Germany were the only countries to have units armed entirely with automatic weapons but we can’t just have only them having Assault units.
The other nations did use motorcycles but not as much as Germany and SU.
The Universal Carriers were APCs because their job was to carry a small squad.
To be fair, Italy also used them as dragoons. America, Britain, and Japan also has motorcycle units but they didn’t use them to the same extent as Germany and SU.
At the very least Motorcycle units were more inclined to dismount so it makes sense for that to be Rider’s job.
The 221 may be weak but these sorts of vehicles were not intended to be dismounted. It may be weak but the crew must do their job.
The Flakpanzer I is a very weak SPAA but I would never dismount from it or use it like a taxi, or even a M3 Stuart, because their job is to fight and kill.
You may want to dismount but it is not intended to.
It may have a weak gun and armor but I think it does fit the TD role since it literally can only fight vehicles. Even then, unless the vehicle is damaged or stuck in a ditch they are not meant to be dismounted
I think this game has a good harmony of infantry and vehicles. We have the basic infantry classes. Rider fits the role of dragoons. APC are vehicles that were explicitly meant to carry infantry squads. Vehicles are just any vehicle whose job is to fight.
It’s like how many AA can’t deal with tanks, but they can at least fight infantry and planes. Sure maybe you’d rather have a Tiger 2 on the field instead but that vehicle will do whatever job it can.
say all whatever you wish, I can rephrase yoy can get it: this sd cant turn properly, the other from same family, yes, thatd why I think is better option
the ptrs bike kinda does that though.
but anyway.
i’d like to transfer this squad to become a rider and give it an engineer.
so people can run with combos that they want, even if only has 2 men.
i was going to make a suggestion about it, but OP Beated me to it.
anyway, imo, AA, Armored cars and stuff that aren’t tanks, should be given to riders.
because riders concept is to harass enemy with mobility.
which isn’t, and shouln’t be restricted to bikes.
worth to mention that, it’s a recon vehicle.
recon vehicles weren’t necessarily given to actual tank divisions.
… and cars or wheeled vehicles most of the times are not considered tanks.
like the m8, like the Panzerwerfer halftrack, like the BA-11, like the daimler etc.
even if those can sometimes deal with armored targets.
p.s.
if becomes a rider vehicle, it should get it’s ammo box on one of the boxes as well.
5 Likes
that’s just your opinion though.
and kinda wrong on so many levels.
objectively, it would be a better rider vehicle.
which would be used far more than it normally would if it remained as a tanker vehicle.
the ability to add an engineer to a relatively fast and small arms fire-proof vehicle in it of it self outweights the cons and gives additional functions to it.
Being able to deal with APCs, Light tanks and generally vehicles under the tanker squads opposed as a rider vehicle in which would be able to do the same, but more is a no brainer.
Think about it.
an engineer and an ammo box on it’s surface would automatically makes it an ideal event rider vehicle.
or, ditch the engineer for a medic and you get the best of both worlds.
while it may not be ideal against infantry, it’s mobility still has great uses.
and it’s crew being anything but tankers makes it 10 times better for it’s potential.
now, as far why was implemented, i kinda have to agree with that.
it’s a bit… questionable.
but as long it’s historical, i don’t see why not.
The soviet rocket tank is arguably worse.
and even giving it to the riders may not solve much.
But, most likely bring the model inside enlisted, and eventually make a working version with the MG turret.
as some vehicles were brought from war thunder, and " Enlistified ".
3 Likes
So you’re just disproving your own points? I said the rider isn’t based off dragoons, because half the nations didn’t have them and you complimented that, by saying we don’t have diffrent squads for nations’ doctrines
That is not the point I was making.
How so? If the riders aren’t based off dragoons, then they’re based off scouts, which means they’re in the same category as the 221, which means it should be added to the rider class.
Just like most motorcycles weren’t intended for dismount. But they do in-game.
TDs can do much more. For comparison, if you put a piece of gun well enough in a tank’s engine, it’d disable it, but that doesn’t mean it’s a TD.
And in history it wouldn’t be used as a tank destroyer, because it doesn’t have enough of a gun for that. It’s better suited to engage halftracks and other light targets, as it can only pierce 52-69mm of angled at only 30 degrees armor at just 100m.
But then we come back to the complicated debate about vehicles. If we start saying armored cars should be in a slot separate from true tanks, then we can go down the line of various different vehicles. Should they be moved too?
So these vehicles get to be in a different spot and the Panzer 2 can be in the tank slot. The Panzer 2 is a tank, it has all the qualities of a rotating turret, fully armored, cannon. But what if people don’t want those vehicles in a separate slot because of their power, then what’s the point of a separate slot anyway? Is the slot just for weak vehicles? That’s the entire point of the BR system in the first place. So why does it make a difference if in BR 1 you could either use a Panzer 2 or a Sd.Kfz.221?
That is why I prefer my simpler system.
1 Like
Well, you could have an argument if there was a BR -1, but there isn’t.
Because the 221 is a wasted vehicle, which would be much better suited for the rider role.
With how previous versions were implemented this would be an event APC.
1 Like
The same can be said for many weak vehicles, but you play as them when you feel like it. It’s just another vehicle for history and variety. It’s easily destroyed anyway so even if someone spawns as it just destroy it and the next person gets a turn with the vehicle slot.
I would love if this game was larger and there were 10 vehicles per side then we could have so many different vehicles all out at once. But for the foreseeable future I think the system is ok. As I say, whether you spawn as a Panzer 2 or Tiger 2.
I could propose an alternate idea where a team can theoretically spawn a third vehicle if one of the vehicles in the field is too low BR, but then one can say why bother if it will be destroyed quickly anyway.
That’s why I think it’s not a big deal if this vehicle is in the slot.
That was wrong too because upgraded half-tracks were not used to carry infantry squads
Neither were the Soviet or German TT "APC"s. Whether or not they did never mattered
Like arguing with a brick wall, that was not my argument
I’m trying to say what happens if we go down the road of moving armored cars
forgot to mention.
you may want to add additional info for developers.
that could always help.
Anyway,
The vehicle ( if made an event vehicle ) should be given to the following squad:
axis_tunisia_biker_1 which it’s the technical Squad ID name of the BMW R75 squad in the game.
( Now, it may sound trivial, or stupid to specify, but judging by some of the latest files, there could be more riders or vehicles coming. so… it may be helpful. or not. )
the ammo box can be added to the back rear box on the node " ex_decor_02 ":
( which it’s how developers " do it " as far bikes go. they pick a node, and it becomes a usable ammo box. )
Also known as Staukiste. which translates more or less to: stowage bin / storage box
8 Likes
To be honest, this new vehicle is just as disappointing as the T-60 skin we got for Victory Day, which only had some silly childish markings on it. That said, this event is still pretty good. Compared to the Victory Day event, it brings really solid weapons for both the US and Germany.
If the American event tank doesn’t get high-explosive rounds, it will end up being an even worse BR5 vehicle than the IS-2, no kidding.
Overall, what makes the D-Day event stand out from Victory Day is purely its weapon offerings, not the vehicles.
This new ride reminds me of that Soviet motorcycle with an anti-tank rifle. Both are downright terrible.
I main Soviet vehicles, but I actually don’t mind Germany getting this unit. At least it creates some friendly military rivalry, and it could set a precedent for riders operating four-wheeled vehicles.
Honestly, why would I drive this thing when I can just take the Panzer II C instead? Are they seriously giving us a so-called “tank” that’s even worse than the TT? This has got to be a joke.
I really wish they would at least mount a machine gun on it.
I’m totally baffled by this addition. Why pick such a lackluster vehicle as the event reward? They might as well just turn the riders on the TT into regular armored troops.
I’d much rather see proper cavalry vehicles added to the game.
Forget all the historical purists. Fun gameplay should always come first. Content that isn’t fun has no place here.
I wanna play it before i critique to harshly, but having a machine gun would give a much needed boost if possible.
1 Like
The gun on this thing (historically/real world anyway) is a very different animal than the one on the Panzer II.
I know that. I just mean its combat performance as a tank is worse than the Panzer II C. It’s simply not worth using when you can drive the Panzer II C instead.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but you have to keep in mind that there are only 10 players per team, and 4 of them are already mechanized.
Adding two more scout cars would mean even fewer players focusing on objectives. If you end up with campers or snipers on your team, you might be the only one actually pushing and playing the objective.
So yeah, not a bad idea, but I don’t think it’s very practical in 10v10 matches.
1 Like