British Army rework.

[lime inlet]

The British are one of the hardest factions to play for a lot of casual players. Britian seems to only benefit on long range maps and this is due to the fact the infantry are forced with either 4x scopes or iron sights which limits their abilities on all maps. Further more the ground vehicle lineup does not reflect modern British military. Yes the models are correct but they all seem like they were setup in the 80s and left that way. No stabilisation or Tow missles which the warrior can have. Even some models have a Bradley turrent attached. So improvements is necessary here. Maybe some unique vehicles like artillery piceses which the royal artillery uses or unique equipment may give them something to work with. British ground forces feel stressful to play a lot of the times because the enemies usually have infantry and vehicle advantage. British vehicles like the Fv107, warrior, challanger all can fire HESH rounds which should do more damage to all targets like it does in real like. And maybe some better damage on the sabot rounds from the Fv107 and fv510 because in reality they could do a lot of damage to a MBT and I think this would allow the British vehicle have more of a fair balance again other faction vehicles and would make it unique to their faction.

[sturdy fulcrum]

None of the british warriors recieved stabilization, TOWs or a Bradley turret. Idk what targets you want HESH to deal more damage to, but HESH sucks IRL as well. It is neither useful against armor nor does it have good area damage performance against infantry.
The warrior could be fixed by increasing ROF to realistic values and increasing damage. There could also be a variant with more addon armor used in Iraq.
The problem with infantry kits could be solved by giving all kits access to iron sights, or even backup holos. This would require a new system though.

[kind remnant]

@sturdy fulcrum acccctuuuualllllyyyyy

There are FV510 "Desert Warrior" variants that received the M242 Bushmaster with 2 Hughes TOW rockets

which essentially is the Bradley Turret(was actually a LAV-25 turret retrofitted for 2 TOW mounts, one per each side)

254 made, sold, and shipped to Middle East

Problem is they are Kuwait Militiary @lime inlet

It's the only Stabilized Variant of the Warrior that isnt the CTAS 40mm

(RARDEN is set to get a stabilized variant, but current time tables are TBD)

[lime inlet]

but in general they need to do something. And i disagree that HESH sucks. It's not this wonder round but it certainly packs more of a punch that other HE shells. Also they coukd just improve the Sabot rounds on these vics as again they do not perform very well. In reality if a FV107 thats got these rounds it should be able to tear through a T-72 but it doesnt. But also there does not a general rework on the vic mechanics in genral

And also we have the introduction of the AJAX which could be added in game

[kind remnant]

AJAX isnt set to opperate in field till near 2030

HESH rounds are rather low in preference due to armor types countering it
It should be a better Wall penetrating HE(so better at anti-cover) as it's defining feature

[lime inlet]

the thing is though i don't really believe squad are going for 100% accuracy. how often do Insurgents in the middle east run technical bmps or T-62. sure it happened but not to the extent as the game. and the game also alters maps for gameplay reasons rather than accuracy

just they need balance. they are not the only faction that does but the only recent change i can think they have done with the BAF is remove mines and add a acog to the combat engineer

[kind remnant]

not 100%, but they are batting for above 90%

access to russian surplus is very accessible in the area

[slate eagle]

Initial operating capacity is in a few months. There are three times as many Ajax vehicles in the British Army (74) than Sprut SDs in the Russian Army (24). The Sprut SDM1 thats supposed to be in game isnt even in service at all or full production.

[slate eagle]

They removed mines for no reason or through bad sources.
They also removed all the Iron sight kits which is also wrong and made worse by the fact OWI cant get the BU sights working but still removed the Irons.

[slate eagle]

No it isnt.

[kind remnant]

no, it is

There are projects in place to update the system that are TBA on time tables, they are more than likely gonna be canceled cause UK can't get their shit together for Vehicle Development 😛

[lime inlet]

i know people in the British military who have already had a lot of access to the Ajax so they just need to put the funding on training more people

[slate eagle]

No it really isnt i have no idea where you are getting this from but i can firmly tell you are 100% misinformed.

[lime inlet]

but besides that. The current state of the game a Ajax would be a nice addition.

Look WPMC Irregualr millitia and insurgents are a mixture of all different militia groups together. so i dont think it would ruin the game

[slate eagle]

Its not the funding its having 50 of the alocated variants for the alloted regiments. We have 74~ Ajax varient vehicles right now they need a specific number of each type for training and issue.

[slate eagle]

This is correct though i agree.

Its ridiculous Russia get the very best of the best when the kit they have in game is the minority of kit used irl. Especially the fantasy Sprut SDM1...

BAF needs at a minimum imo.

Irons returned asap with an apology
Mines returned asap with an apology
Removal of base model armoured warrior as this is not realistic to have in a war zone. Model replaced with more recently OES 3 standard.
CTAS returned until Ajax model made (or paid for, would contribute towards.)
More HAT 3 minimum

Id really like a response from OWI as to why they removed the Irons and Mines.

[kind remnant]

yes, it really was proposed after the cancellation of the CTAS...

idk if it's already scrapped, but it was a thing

probably AJAX squashed the thoughts of this, but never know if the BAF will yoink it like the CTAS and just upgrade the warrior again

[kind remnant]

Irons: Yes please, or make their infantry one of few factions to get combo sights(think ADF veritable zoom but when u Zoom in it just goes to the oversight holo)
Mines: Yes, those bar AT mines everyone mentions would be nice(only having like 2-3 AT mines in game is meh)
Standard FV510: I'd rather keep this unit, and relegate it to lighter Divisions, or upper in the Armored as a weak IFV compliment to the Challengers. Make the UA the more common variant, and the OES 3 with cage armor as the super variant(maybe even attach a MILAN or eventual JAVILIN to one of these 3 variants)
CTAS/AJAX: I'd prefer simply fixing the Warrior and Scimitar by buffing the RoF, Damage, and removing the reload per 6(they are 3 round magazines that are continuously fed as fired, you never 'reload' after six, u top off after 3). This would buff their Light IFV and their standard IFVs. Scimitar also needs frontal armor fix to prevent BRDM from facetanking it
More HAT: No, just fix the NLAW's properties

[lethal lake]

another Brit army rework/buff suggestion 😩

also just a note op, the Warriors the Brits use can't be equipped with TOWs, you probably mistook it for the Desert Warrior that someone else mentioned earlier

and another note, the Scimi and Warrior use the RARDEN 30mm cannon, it DOES NOT have access to HESH at all as HESH is a shell purely meant to be fired out of tank cannons

[sturdy fulcrum]

HESH is much worse than a HE-Frag round IRL, because it has a limited fragmentation effect. It is only useful against targets in closed spaces, like bunkers and buildings, where it can cause overpressure. Against infantry in the open it is probably worse than an HEAT-MP round. Since overpressure is not modeled in Squad and APFSDS is always better against vehicles, it is just worse a HE round. The only thing that could give it some use advantage in the game would be to allow it to deal damage through obstacles.
I dont know what you mean with "tear through" a T72, but Rarden ammunition is no special super ammo. It is an average 30mm round, which might be able to penetrate the side and rear armor of MBTs at short distances. This is however nothing special and basically all 25mm+ AP ammunitions can do that. Which also does not matter in Squad because the tracks prevent autocannons from hitting the hull armor.

[lethal lake]

ideally, HESH should at least be able to better handle and destroy HABs and fortifications compared to HEAT, but obviously both HEAT and HESH arent as good against personnel compared to pure HE or HE-Frag

[sturdy fulcrum]

Yeah that would make sense. But the damage model for fortifications is completely broken anyway, and OWI does not seem to care about it.

[lethal lake]

eh well gotta wait for UE5 to see if it changes i guess

[cedar holly]

British Light gun

[thorn wren]

Haha he's back 🤣

Would be a toy, but not likely to change the wider balance of an entire faction.

[kind remnant]

They equip them with Jav's?

used to use MILANs, we can prob justify their use till we get fully working JAVs

[cedar holly]

matso you could come up with 100 different bullshit excuses as to why you hate

[lethal lake]

nah they dont come with javs either, iinm they use dismounts with javs or nlaws to sorta augment their anti armor abilities

[lethal lake]

this aint it fam, keep it salt free at least

[cedar holly]

tell that to matso, I didnt ask for his disrespect

[thorn wren]

I mean

BAF was fine long ago, they removed some shit, BAF became crap.

That's the context.

New stuff doesn't really need to be added.

It's just to add old things back.

[thorn wren]

And others didn't ask for the abuse in chat that got you mutes.

[cedar holly]

antagonization is met with not many options of response. But sure you win. IM the bad guy.

[thorn wren]

No worries mate. Anyways. Any other idea that isn't a light gun?

[onyx needle]

L119

[kind remnant]

well, diggin deeper. MILAN was an improvised addon 😦

[slate eagle]

This is a very simple and correct way of putting it. I disagree that new stuff shoulsnt be added though as almost every faction in the game has had model reworks and/or multiple weapons/vehicles.

[thorn wren]

Good suggestion.

[thorn wren]

Bad suggestion. 🤣 its only good that Hazelnut mentioned it.

It can be a thing they add. Just the aforementioned changes of just....adding.. the shit they lost is probably #0 in terms of todo

[slate eagle]

Just re add the mines and irons asap @frozen anchor

Pls

I personally know people that used them through Tellic and Herrick. Theres images of them and even a video of a stranded C130 being blown to pieces by Bar mines.

[thorn wren]

I never got the whole angle of 'Lets make people have a reason to choose between irons and scopes' and 'Lets make a faction only use scopes in practise'

[slate eagle]

There is literally no reason. Irons stopped being commonly (keyword as irons are still used today) used in every theatre apart from jungle enviroments when the top red dot sight came into service. If the BAF IRL suddenly lost all of there red dots like in squad you bet Irons would be back on mass issue in close quater situations if the Susat buis was deemed insufficient.

[lime inlet]

I'm not suggesting it should be unique to BAF but AP on a 25mm or more would rip apart the sides and rear of a T-72 which would be nice to see in game. At the moment you can just apart take out the engine that's about it

[slate eagle]

Multiple instances of Scimitars killing T62/55s in Iraq

Speaking of the Scimitar/FV107. It needs an armour buff.

[honest salmon]

Its not there was originally a plan to modernise them called the called the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme which intended to keep them in service till 2040, but it was dropped in 2021 in favor of retiring them in 2025 now pushed to 2030.

Currently they are getting a bunch of Ajaxes and Boxers without turrets and no clear replacement of the IFV capacity has been found

[honest salmon]

CTAS Warrior was cancelled as part of WCSPs cancellation. Its the entire reason its no longer in game.

Only way the CTAS survives is its implementation into the Ajax

[lime inlet]

HESH however would be extreamly effective against MBT's without composite and explosive reactive armor. For example a HESH round from a chally into the a T-62 would create massive damage towards vehicles and there is proof of this. I agree that it's not amazing im not trying to convinece people that. All im saying it would be nice to see some in game diversity on the performance and pros and cons of these different rounds. You can fire a 125mm frag round at a Heli in the game and a lot of the time it does barely any damage which is not realistic. So again the game itsnt going for 100% accuracy and i dont think the player base would be against such changes. Just a lot of the vics feel very underpowered. I play a lot of armour and i enjoy playing the challanger but even i know its not the best or the worst but it is very easy to ammo rack and a lot of people just get killed pretty quick. So it would be a nice addition if the tank had round that could help its killing potential. Overpressure mechanic would be really cool but thats a hope for the future of the game.

imagine if the HESH round from the challanger could deal with infantry inside buildings and fortifactions that would force the enimies to change how the play and defend if they knew the other team had a tank with a round that could kill them behind cover

but i dont want this post to be focused on HESH the BAF just needs a full rework. Its not had any updates to help balance or improve, just updates that are removing their equipment.

[lethal lake]

this would require overhauling the damage system towards vehicles as a whole, which will be an arduous task considering the devs already have their hands full with UE5 atm

[lime inlet]

thats why i said thats a hope for the future

[slate eagle]

The very basics should be implemented asap, theyve just fixed the config files after a guy exposed it on reddit so in my opinion readding the Iron sights and Mines is the least they could do for the BAF

[lethal lake]

i was more referring to OPs change of how HESH should work mentioned above, stuff like iron sights, mines, BUIS etc. are relatively straightforward additions

[slate eagle]

Working HESH would be nice but at the same time it would nerf its anti infantry capabilies if the game took into account soft ground.

I want an explanation as to why mines and irons were removed in the first place i just dont understand the reasoning behind it.

[sturdy fulcrum]

Because OWI thinks UK does not use mines and iron sights

For "realism"

[finite blaze]

I don't know about irons but UK like many other western countries thought that AT mines are obsolete in 2000s and in the one point they got rid of them. All those nation has started bringing them back after 2022

[slate eagle]

We still use Irons to this day

And

We still use AT mines

[finite blaze]

I mean every military is using irons, they are not going anywhere

[slate eagle]

But thats catagorically false and i have proven that time and time again. Im honestly bewildered at what else i can do to get them to bring them back.

[slate eagle]

The AT mines have never left service and saw a fuck ton of use in both Iraq and Afganistan

[finite blaze]

It was like 2015 or 2016 when they pulled them out from active service. And UK wasn't alone

[slate eagle]

No they didnt

[kind remnant]

Maybe AP mines, idt AT mines would ever leave

[slate eagle]

Yeh AP mines have gone. We have 740+ inert AP mines for training. Thousands of L9 Bar mines are still stocked.

[chrome arch]

They wouldnt even need to add any new special things to make the brits better. Everything they need is already in the SDK pretty much

AT mines, remote C4 (special?), scimi having 14.5 frontal armor, and realistic fire rate, same with warrior, more NLAWs since they have 2 per squad. So maybe 3? Would be unique and they arent the best HATs.
Milan ATGm instead of TOW
GL for SLs.

And if they want to add new stuff then

MATADOR RWG 90 for Lat with DP warhead

L119 light gun

More caged vehicles (Scimitar)
And maybe a sniper kit with a bolt action rifle.

[finite blaze]

In that point I expect you to be a british pioneer or what ever it is called there

[slate eagle]

Wmik Land rover with a Milan (until Javelin implemented)

L129A1 with the variable optic instead of 6x Acog maybe suppressor

L115A3 would be nice too

[onyx needle]

🫡

[lethal lake]

unless if the NLAW gets top attack and has its pen reduced to 500mm-ish then giving them more NLAWs would be super op

[onyx needle]

I think if they Leave it like it is Rn. It still wouldn’t be that OP

[lethal lake]

leave it as what? with its 900mm pen?

[slate eagle]

I dont get why this would make it not super OP. Top attack would insta kill any mbt without aps. So giving them 3 top attack Nlaw would be more OP than 3 direct attack nlaws with 900mm of pen.

[sturdy fulcrum]

Why would top attack insta kill?

No one proposed that

[slate eagle]

Why would it? Wdym Like in game or irl?

[sturdy fulcrum]

Either

You assume that it would oneshot everything ingame, but this was never part of the proposal

[sturdy fulcrum]

What is this supposed to tell me, except that some arms company marketing department sucks at visualizing their products?

[slate eagle]

Are you being stupid on purpose? I cant tell.

[sturdy fulcrum]

Okay, thank you for the conversation.

[slate eagle]

Anytime

On the subject of the NLAW it needs its range increasing to 800m

[kind remnant]

yeah no, i dont get it either

1 Tandem Round sub 100m would insta kill a tank

so... voodoo gameplay magic
boom
Top Attack now no longer one shots!

[sturdy fulcrum]

A LAW would insta kill a tank, but for obvious reasons it does not do it ingame.

If you expect top attack to automatically oneshot stuff ingame, then this is a logic flaw on your end

[kind remnant]

agreed

[lethal lake]

theres two ways id see NLAW top attack being balanced in squad, either it insta deletes tanks like the NLAW is sorta meant to do irl or it does a fixed amount of damage to the extent that tanks dont end up burning without dealing any component damage (basically cut a tank's health down to 50% or less), regardless if its the former then no doubt i would rather limit the NLAW to just two HAT's in total, for the latter however then the brits can either receive more HAT kits in general (maybe another two at most) or basically make it a LAT kit but only limit it to one per squad and they cant take any other fire support kit (or some other drawback)

as it stands the NLAW is still a HAT weapon with 900mm of pen and without top attack, and it should be limited to two HATs as is (with the exception of the brit AA battlegroup which should get extra HAT kits)

[slate eagle]

Good post. I dont think OWI will change the characteristics of the NLAW.
I do think BAF should get 3 HAT kits per side tho to make up other short falls.
Also
Bring
Back
Mines
Now

[vagrant talon]

I got to say. Whomever in the British military approved the use of those atrocious scopes, should be in prison. I cant believe the British army still use those 80s style Susat scopes.

[thorn wren]

Some units may use the SUSAT but everyone is probably using LDS. They should axe the SUSAT and give back irons or holos.

[static trellis]

The disrespect on the susat 💔

[soft garden]

isn't the landmine still on the engis pack lol

[slate eagle]

Ever used the SUSAT? Its not that bad.
When it was introduced pretty much no other major military (including US) mass issued optics it was revolutionary at the time.

If your a front line soldier you will have an Elcan.

[slate eagle]

Yes its a travesty. Start a petition bring them back imediately

[solemn ridge]

Damn, the BAF is already a cheater faction in the game, more fictional than WPMC. They have the most ridiculous IFV, the CTAS, which is pure fantasy and should only appear in Arma 3. They also have the mythical Challenger 2 from the Gulf War that can supposedly withstand 80 RPG shots! (Which was later debunked by a single tandem in Ukraine.) They even have an up-armored IFV variant of the same IFV, while the BMP-1 doesn’t even have the "P" variant that has existed for 50 years! Damn, at this point, just give them nukes.

Sorry for the rant, but anyone who has played Project Reality knows there’s always some kind of BAF bias in the development.

[static trellis]

What a load of yap yap.

[slate eagle]

1. CTAS isnt in game
2. Challenger 2 wasnt in the Gulf war
3. BMPs irl are literal shitboxes with the same protection as a tin of tuna
4. Bias is strongly agaisnt the BAF in Squad

You were wrong on all accounts and made yourself look stupid. Do you want to try again?

[solemn ridge]

1. Did they remove it? Good, please also remove it from the Jensen range.
2. You clearly missed the jokes. Next.
3. Yes, and read what a BMP-1P is, and what makes it a "P" compared to the ancient ones.
4. No, it is not. BAF is already good now, it only needs an iron sight.

[soft garden]

BAF kinda is not fun to play idk if you noticed

no stabilisation fuckin sucks

[vagrant talon]

Its the lack of Mildots and that the scope have a chunky black bar in the middle that make me think of old WW2 scopes

[soft garden]

don't need mildots use the zero

[vagrant talon]

Apologies.

[vagrant talon]

"don't need mildots use the zero"
Are you that person in every chat who just say have to write something to be heard?
Instead of reading the conversation and adding something intelligent to it.

[soft garden]

I feel that comment was oddly accusatory
I'm just saying practically you can use the zero and mildots are nice but aren't necessary in this case
Nothing to say about how it makes you think I'm not here to change your mind
I'm just saying it don't suck that bad

[slate eagle]

Clueless

[slate eagle]

Its a mass issued optic made in the 80s bro i dont know what else to tell you lol

[vagrant talon]

Is it still a British standard issue scope today? Or maybe the game is based around 2010

[slate eagle]

Its issued to rear line troops like medics/logistics/artillery. Anyone near the front has an Elcan.

[wicked monolith]

Sissy’s are still more common throughout the whole armed forces

Susats*

don’t think we have a bough budget to give every troop an elcan😅

Enough

[lethal lake]

the BMP-1P upgrade is essentially 50 years old blud, if the BMP-1 is ancient then the 1P would be in the same category as its ancestor

and also officially speaking the CTAS is not in any brit battlegroup, whether the CTAS is still in jensens is irrelevant if youll never encounter it in an actual match

[soft garden]

https://tenor.com/view/three-glasses-gif-24249833

[solemn ridge]

That's the point, blud. At least add the BMP-1P, which has already existed for 50 years, rather than the BMP-1 OEM from the Yom Kippur War. An old fags ATGM is surely not enough, but it's definitely better than the ancient Malyutka

[lethal lake]

but why, the only factions using the BMP-1 are the insurgents, militia and MEA, and so far there have been barely any complaints regarding why theyre still using the regular BMP-1, for the most part it does its job well enough which is primarily being used in an anti infantry/emplacement role with the 2A28 gun

and the malyutka is still a solid atgm in game considering MCLOS still works similarly to SACLOS in Squad

[solemn ridge]

Bruddah, how can you say 'the ONLY faction' and then mention three factions?..

[lethal lake]

factions dude, i said factions

[latent quiver]

https://tenor.com/view/minor-spelling-mistake-thanos-thanos-snap-dust-gif-16037423944121739362

[slate eagle]

Your main counterpoint to me saying the BMP was a shit box implied that the P was better protected. I called you clueless because the P didnt include any armour upgrades at all.

The biggest addition the P got was a Konkurs that has to be fired outside of the turret...

[static trellis]

Yeahhh telll himmm

[kind remnant]

I wouldn't mind ifv's with more open top guns

But first fix the fucking open top guns! Lav top guns still broken 💔

[slate eagle]

open top Milan FV510 for me 🤔

[kind remnant]

I was corrected and read into it that it was a field mod retrofit and not standard 😦

[slate eagle]

Thats fine i can cope with a field mod

[lime moon]

I think the Brits should have all their laws with AT4s

[lime moon]

Bro how can you be this confidently incorrect

You are mixing it up with the bmp-2d

The bmp-1p mostly had changes to the turret and replaced the malutka with a konkurs.

And the challenger 2 was interdouced a while after the Gulf war

[lime moon]

Plus why are we even crying about a BMP-1P here, the only faction that I could see using it is the MEA

[north python]

I have played more than 2 thousand hours on equipment and there is nothing worse than the British infantry fighting vehicles.

CTAS was the only machine that balanced the odds against the other factions

[lime moon]

It's a fucking shame the MoD killed the program

I guess the next best thing to add is the ajax or buff British AT by giving them more HATs and removing the law/replacing the law with more AT4s

[solemn ridge]

Which part am I talking about armor upgrades? I said variants. Okay, I follow you. For the sake of armor upgrades, there are BMP-1D or even the Saddam II variant, which has better armor. My point was never about armor; it was about the lack of diversity among BMP-1s, even though they are used by three factions. Yet, you guys here are asking for fantasy armor for BAF.

[solemn ridge]

Never once did I say BMP-2 in this Discord channel before. Don’t strawman. I used BMP-1P as an example since people are asking for more variants of the single Warrior that only the BAF uses. Meanwhile, there are three factions using the BMP-1 OEM.

[slate eagle]

Are you mentally ill?

What fantasy armour am i asking for also?

[lime moon]

Okay who cares that there are 3 factions using the bmp-1?

The MEA isn't probably using the original bmp-1 as their BMP has a stabilizer

[solemn ridge]

Alright, this reply is genuinely to help you, not me, because I'm concerned about your ability to read. What do you think about the word "yes" in my sentence? Is it disapproval or confirmation of the previous statement you made?

[slate eagle]

ok lets run through this slowly

i made the statement that BMPS are literal shitboxes with no protection, then you smugly replied LoOk aT WhAt MaKeS ThE P MoDeL

The P model had nothing to do with protection at all

just a konkurs launcher

[solemn ridge]

i can do the same brother

[slate eagle]

You tried your best to be the BMP varient specialist and got confused lmao

[solemn ridge]

Again, you missed the points I made. If you approved the Warrior open-top Milan, then why not the BMP with Konkurs?

[slate eagle]

Youre a meme

[solemn ridge]

Now you're using an ad hominem. Okay, again, for the sake of your ...., let's agree on the open-top BMP Konkurs and the Warrior Milan. Agree?

[slate eagle]

Your a meme brother, you made a meme argument based on meme knowledge now you are trying to shift the goal posts onto a Konkurs equiped BMP you thought was something else lol

[lethal lake]

well the BMP-1D does exist to be fair, but is relatively rare nowadays since it seems to be more of a field upgrade back in the soviet-afghan war, comparatively speaking the Warriors do have additional armor that is always installed whenever it is deployed into any combat theatre, similar to the Chally 2 and every other Brit armored vic, and some of those armor packages for the Warrior (mainly the OES 3 package) arent in the game atm and would go a long way to improve the Warrior armor wise against other IFVs

so by no means its any sort of fantasy armor, even the CTAS as fantasy esque as one may percieve is based on the real functional prototype of the WCSP upgrade so theres at least some basis in reality there too

[lime moon]

To be fair to owi the MoD canceled the CTAS a month after OWI put it in the game

[lethal lake]

yeah thats just hilarious and ironic, but now there are potential options to buff the Warrior, either give it the best armor package it has, or just add the Ajax which would probably end up being functionally similar to the CTAS bar the lack of dismounts and maybe improved armor

[solemn ridge]

I was using the BMP-1D as a reference because I don't know what this Syrian-upgraded BMP-1 armor from 12 years ago is called, but it does look like the BMP-1D.

[lethal lake]

from what i can find that seems to be a field modification by the syrian army too, i dont know how much of it seems to be inspired by the BMP-1D but to me adding applique and slat armor is a particularly common modification to armor in times of conflict for obvious reasons

so not wholly inspired by the same vehicle with a similar modification but i digress

[solemn ridge]

Well, then I guess they just need to name it BMP-1 UA.

[lime moon]

Again I don't see the reason for all these bmp-1s the original bmp-1 was widely distributed/exported

[solemn ridge]

Yes, but the original can also be upgraded manually, just like what happened in the Middle East

[solemn ridge]

I said "BMP with Konkurs" just for you, to make it easier for you to understand, so you won't whine anymore about the BMP-1P.

[lethal lake]

would only make sense for the MEA, but again do they really need it considering it isnt even their primary IFV, and most armor upgrades for the BMP-1 are field mods, unlike the Warrior which are actual proper armor packages to be used in combat

[solemn ridge]

I guess they do need it. The devs should pay for their sins from PR. While it helps a lot with the new subfactions vote, I think it's fair to give MEA an upgrade of the BMP-1 that we've all been hoping for since ages ago. (can you win mec with this?)

[lethal lake]

but thats PR though, i dont see how its relevant to the MEA in Squad even if its supposed to be a spiritual successor to the MEC

[solemn ridge]

The PR reference was just me emphasizing my first point—that there’s always been bias toward BAF. So yeah, it’s kinda frustrating when people keep asking fantasy things for more Brit stuff (like the Ajax and CTAS).

[lethal lake]

ok but in some aspects the Brits do need a buff, and this whole suggestion thread is about discussing exactly that, if you dont like it by all means start a new suggestion thread about buffing other factions

[lethal lake]

and the Ajax isnt some sort of fantasy, its literally being delivered to and used by British units in the UK at the moment

[lime moon]

The fuck are you even talking about

[solemn ridge]

Yes, it's not purely fantasy (Ajax). But as I said, there should be a timeline limit for this game. I swear, I would also disagree if someone asked for the Kurganets or Boomerang for RGF.

[lime moon]

The Russians have the latest variant of the sprut in game and the PLA has their latest camo, well I don't think this is an excuse to add ultra modern equipment to Squad, I think it's okay to add the Ajax to the game as it provides a much needed buff to British armor (in a similar vein to how they changed the PLA camo).

[lethal lake]

the Ajax have been suggested for obvious reasons, the brits lag in firepower with the Warrior, hence the Ajax has been suggested numerous times to complement it in that regard.

And to my knowledge theres barely any kurganets and bumerangs made, they have more in common with the CTAS than the Ajax. Also, there is simply no need for the RGF to get them, they have plenty of AFVs in those departments already

[solemn ridge]

The Sprut-SDM is unnecessary to add, the older variant, at least the one from 2010, would already be enough. They should nerf that thing, or add t-80 for better mobility. As for the PLA, to be fair, they've never been in a war. If they had one in the 2010s, they might have had a different camo already.

[solemn ridge]

Lack of firepower? Yeah, they definitely have that in the game, same with the Turks. But that doesn't mean they need to add the latest modern version of their IFV, which only entered service in the 2020s. They could tweak it by adding the Land Rover GMG from Project Reality, or maybe there are newer ones from the 2010s.

[lime moon]

That doesnt really help their predicament

Calm the fuck down bro

[lime inlet]

@solemn ridge but why do you keep saying fantasy?

The game doesn't go for 100% realism

The insurgents get a technical with a bmp turret. Do you think every middle East terrorists groups have these? No

Do every terrorist have T-62s? No

It's there for balance

I dont really see a issue with adding ajax or any other varients of warriors or fv107s

As there a multiple varients out there that they could use

The original post is about the fact the BAF are pretty shit in this game

Only good on maps like talil where it's long range and flat

And even then if you are against a Russian tank regiments or modern armour groups they are always at a massive disadvantage

No stab. Manual reload every 5 shots

Not ATGM

I'm not saying they need all these things

But they need to do something to help the balance

They could be by improving their vics or infantry capabilities

Honestly the last thing the game needs right now is another bmp varient

Including the bmds and Chinese ZBD there are already lots of bmps to enjoy in the game

I also find it hard to believe that you would say BAF don't need a buff. Doesn't sound like you play the game at all really

@solemn ridge can you actually point out why the BAF don't need a buff in game. I'm curious to know what you think

[lime moon]

100% calling its cause he got steam rolled once and now thinks the faction is OP

[lime moon]

@lime inlet heres his point right here

[lime inlet]

But that's a poor reason

CTAS isn't in the game

And the ifv's how are they ridiculous? I mean they are ridiculously shit for sure

The warrior only thing it has going for it in game is that it has probably the best damage resistance

But even then it still gets beat pretty easy

If you know ammo rack spots they have no chance

Warriors only seem to win armour fights if the only Vic was clueless or didn't have enough ammo. You run into anything with a tow and there's a good chance your dead. You have no chance against mbts and the warrior is so easy to swarm with infantry because it's lack of a stab

I once had a really good game in a warrior. I got 117 kills but it was on Talil invasion against the insurgents. My teams infantry was able to deal with the T-62s and bmps so we just sat way at the back and just picked them off.
But that was only possible because that game the insurgent side wasn't playing very good and my friendly infantry was able to take out all their armour all game. And this does not happen often. Even though it was a good match the high amount of kills was only because of the other side was not organised or communicating to each other which is there problem. But it also highlighted the major issues with the faction in game for me. I wasn't able to push pretty all game due to the fact they infantry had a lot of At constantly trying to flank us so we had no option but to sit all the way back and just fire

[solemn ridge]

Yes, CTAS was left out of the action, but there are people here asking for it to come back, which I strongly disagree with. The reason is that the Brits are already strong as a faction. They have a good enough IFV in the game; as you mentioned, they have the best armor resistance besides the AAVP, if I'm not mistaken. To balance the lower fire rate, their RARDEN is the highest-damage autocannon in the game.
If they still want to add more another ifv for the BAF, just add the Scorpion with 5 tickets.

The IFV is already good and realistically fitting for the BAF. It has been that good since the old PR.

[lime inlet]

I don't disagree that they have good armour and good damage autocannons

But It doesn't make them balanced

But the argument of whats realistic and what's not isn't really relevant

Squad isn't going for full realism

Maybe it's there goal

But it's not the current state of the game

They don't do well against all other factions

They do need a rework

Doesn't necessarily mean a buff

But a rework is needed

Why else would everyone always vote against playing BAF

Play servers with a dedicated player base

And you will quickly see no wants to play BAF because they are shit in game

A lot of victories are only due to the fact the other team played badly

Which does not reflect a good faction

It means it has problems

[solemn ridge]

If you said rework, that also includes some nerfs, like making the Chally 2 and Warrior more noisy and slower, so they can be heard from miles away, while also adding buffs like the AWP, a GMG jeep, and a non-scope option, just like in PR. I believe that could be balanced and fair

[lethal lake]

the turkish faction is a story for a different suggestion thread, right now this is about the brits and as annoying as it may seem that every other post is about buffing the brits (which i too find tiring after a while) there is substance to the issue.

the ajax was proposed as a suggestion to improve the brits lack of IFV firepower, it is by no means an absolute as others have already brought up buffing the Warrior in several different ways including improving the RARDEN, giving it more modern and heavier armor packages, and even proposing adding the MILAN even if it was an obscure field mod for the Warrior, regardless IFV wise the brits are sorely lacking.

Also, the land rover armed with a GMG does not address the above issue, while i do think the brits lacking any sort of fast light vic is apparent, especially when they have vics like the Jackal, Coyote and Land Rovers like you mentioned, they wont help improve the armor situation with the brits, even if the GMG (and other NATO grenade launchers) had HEDP rounds that can pen armor

[lime inlet]

I'm against any nerfs to the challenger

It's already terrible

Easiest tank to ammo rack

I main armour

Only thing good about the challenger is that all 4 seats are inside and it had the most ammo

Apart from that

It's weak as hell

[solemn ridge]

We are trapped in the paradigm of whether the game should be balanced towards realism or balanced by adding buffs to satisfy players. Because if we're only talking about balance, BAF is balanced and more than good enough compared to Australia, Turkey, or Canada, for example. That's why, to me, the whole purpose of buffing BAF comes from players with personal agenda

[lime inlet]

But where's the personal agenda?

I purposed it because I actually play the game regularly and can see the issue

There ifv's lose to all other ifv's

The tank is whack

[solemn ridge]

Come on, mate, we know BAF isn't the easiest tank to ammo rack. It's good enough, but if we want more realism, the right term would be nerf, not buff, for the Chally 2.

[lime inlet]

And the infantry all have 4xs

Aside from the T-62 and the m60 which are much older tanks the chally is very easy to kill

It's a lot of fun to be against because if you know where to shoot they are incredibly easy to deal with

Just like how recently the Leo was buffed because it always gets ammo racked

Challenger has the same issue in game

It's wayyy easier to ammo rack a challenger than a T-72 which isn't very realistic

[lethal lake]

but its not though, like even server stats show that brits are the least likely picked faction, with only factions like the MEA, TLF and PLANMC being picked less than them, like sure the brits arent the absolute worse conventional faction, but theyre far from being great, especially when IRL they have plenty of interesting equipment that could easily make them picked just as much as the RGF or US army

[lime inlet]

Exactly

That is the general experience no one wants to play them because they know you are giving yourself a disadvantage before the game has started

No faction should feel like that

I know balancing isnt easy but each faction should have obvious pros and cons

[solemn ridge]

I mean, everything that BAF could offer is already in the game. What else?

[lime inlet]

Problem with BAF is that it's pros are it's negatives

[lime inlet]

That's not true though

It's funny to me how people are against any sort of modification to BAF because of realism

[lethal lake]

not exactly man, like seriously just sift through some of the BAF buff posts and youll see what the brits lack, heck just scroll back up this suggestion thread and just read what people have already suggested

[solemn ridge]

The problem doesn't lie with the armor; it's with the infantry kits. If they only added more non-scoped variants, it would bring players back to vote for BAF. Regular players don't care much about vehicles

[lime inlet]

Despite many factions in game which aren't real factions and some use equipment that was never widely used

[lime inlet]

I do agree the main problem is infantry

But I do not agree with nerfing challager

It really does not need any nerfs

It needs it's ammo rack reduced like the Leo

[lethal lake]

regular players arent all solely infantry players, and improving armor will obviously help those who play armor but will also have knock on effects towards infantry gameplay too, infantry and armor dont just work in isolation

[lime inlet]

Simple solutions like improving the autocannons against armour targets would be a welcomed improvement

It's more realistic and doesn't add anything new

Also removing manual loading for the fv510 and fv107 is also needed

[solemn ridge]

There you go, that's my point. What does it need reworking for? Is it to balance towards realism or just to satisfy certain players? Does it need a buff because it doesn't get enough votes, or because it's not balanced to please players? Let's be real—most people choose Insurgents over BAF not because of the IFV or tank, but because of the infantry. So, leave the vehicles aside and focus solely on the infantry. Try bringing back iron sights, and if that increases the votes, then that's it—everything's fine

[lime inlet]

But that's not the only issue is it

It's one of the main ones for sure

But if you actually talk to People why they don't choose BAF it is not the reason what you said

Most people will tell you it's the faction overall

BAF is not the only one

But my original point I said on this post was the fact that they are making changes but no changes have happened to BAF except removing CTAS and mines

[solemn ridge]

We're repeating the same discussion. I remember when the Turks were considered bad because they had no HATs, and people suggested adding the Kaplan, etc. That didn't really solve the balance in terms of realism; it was just to please players so they could say it's balanced

[lime inlet]

Yes but still people don't pick turkey

People play it more because of the December weapon buff which does make the usable same with MEA but they are not in a good state

People don't want to play turkey either

Also that was one of many reasons why Turkey is bad

The lack of hat was just the one that annoyed people most

But they still have shit vics

They got a decent tank faction if the team can use the 3 m60s together but that hasn't redeemed the faction

Just people occasionally might want to vote for the tank battalion on the turks because of 3 tanks

But still people mostly avoid this and when it is played they still get destroyed by one T-72 and some inf so it's not an improvement

[lethal lake]

did you just ignore my previous statement, the brits are picked less and server stats back that up, whether its because of their infantry being lacking or their armor being underpowered is besides the point, theres no need for an either or in this situation when its obvious that theres several factors that play into the brits being weaker than other conventional (and even unconventional) factions, so instead of just fixing them one by one and hoping each fix will somehow make them slightly better instead an overarching fix that includes improving their infantry and armor would go a long way to make the brits that much better and improve their viability in game so that they may see more use compared to what it is now

[lime inlet]

The point of this is to see an improvement on all factions

At the end of the day there shouldn't be a faction that the player base never wants to play because of multiple issue

They should be picked based on map, layer etc

On NMA server we chose Turkey and brits because we know they are shit and it's rewarding if you can beat the other team

But factions should not be like this

[lethal lake]

well ideally all factions should be equally viable regardless of the map and mode, but thats a nigh impossible task, however making them all viable in certain aspects would help a ton nonetheless

they dont have to be good at everything, but if they can be good at several things that would suffice too

[lime inlet]

yeah. i understand its a difficult task for the developers. i made this post to hopefully make them more aware

on NMA a lot of the devs play that server. i have already asked them question about this

and they are aware of the major underperformance of BAF and how unpopular they are

so hopefully this means that they do plan to try and improve them

[lethal lake]

well hopefully i guess, there is a lot of significance with the brits since theyre one of the oldest factions to be added into Squad after the US Army, RGF and Insurgents, and obviously the fact that its the brits and are rather recognizable to their irl counterparts, with their current state in Squad being lacklustre is rather disappointing so any sweeping changes and buffs theyd get would help immensely

[solemn ridge]

The whole thing about faction reworks is, again, a paradigm: are we going to buff things to balance based on realism or just to satisfy players? Because if we do buff BAF, there will be another faction that gets picked less, even if it's already good enough. The discussion will only end once certain players who are loud are satisfied, even though the balance was already fine Since the beginning

[lime inlet]

i get your point steryx.but the problem is you keep referring that the British are balance which leads me to believe you have either not played the game much or you have very little exprience with BAF

ive never heard anyone say they are fine

everyone complains about them just like the turks and MEA

only difference turks and MEA have seen small improvements

but the BAF nothing

improving them isnt going to make other factions bad all of a sudden

most people vote for the same factions because they know they are better

BAF doesnt because people who play the game know of the struggles of winning a match. espsecially invasion as BAF

[onyx needle]

Opinion : Don’t add BMP-1P to MEA, don’t add Milan Warrior

Give warrior better armor and higher Fire rate and ability to pen Tanks from the side

Give British SL a GL

Give them a 3rd hat

• 1 LAW

Make scimitar better

Add L9 Sniper rifle. Remove that shitty SUSAT marksmen thing

Add back mines and +1 C4

Add Land Rovers and a Mastiff

Milan ATGM instead of TOW

Mk-19 As Placeholder for now

Bayonets

Spartan APC

Add BMP-1P for Ukraine 🇺🇦😃👍

[lethal lake]

look, its already clear that there are other factions that are selected less than the brits, however at the moment the brits need changes and buffs because
a) they have not been updated in a long while
b) their current gear (be it infantry or armor) is lacking or even powercreeped by other factions and;
b) their significance as one of the oldest factions in game

The devs cant simply rework and buff every faction that needs it, obviously that takes a lot of work figuring out what needs fixing and how to go about rectifying it, but at the very least they can attempt to focus on improving one or two factions at a time so that they get comprehensive improvements rather than every faction getting minor buffs here and there. And at the moment, the brits are getting their limelight to be improved for the aforementioned reasons above.

Now how the devs should go about buffing them is basically the reason this thread exists, and most buffs would revolve around making the gameplay feel better, hence why the Warrior is such a hot topic, the RARDEN as it is sucks and there have been plenty of discussions on how to improve it, but there must be limitations with regards to the buffs, hence the realism aspect will anchor the buffs so that while it will be better, it wont be to the extent it overshadows everything else. For instance, the Warrior's RARDEN famously lacks a stabilizer which significantly hinders its on-the-move accuracy, giving it a stabilizer would help it and would be the easiest course of action, but will end up being unrealistic and maybe even overpowered, so instead some have suggested to make the RARDEN be more stable while firing on the move, not to the extent of it almost acting like it has a stabilizer, but just stable enough it can let some shots off onto a target to some degree of accuracy

[onyx needle]

Ohhhh shit. Long ahhh Paragraph

They should mostly use whats in the SDK Rn and Tweak some values

Also add a TEA BOX on the ammo crate

[lethal lake]

should give a stamina buff when in combat

[lime inlet]

i think a kettle would go a long way

[onyx needle]

Yes

[lime inlet]

unlimited stam

[onyx needle]

Bayonet is Must have tho

[lime inlet]

yeah for sure

[onyx needle]

80% can be done already btw

[lime inlet]

would be funny to bayonet charge

[solemn ridge]

Its balance lies in realism and can be compared to existing BLUFOR factions in terms of armor. For the infantry kit, it only needs a non-scoped rifle, just like every other faction has. This is what is called balance, not a buff

[solemn ridge]

They have it in PR

[solemn ridge]

Opinion:
Disagree. Also, nerf the Warrior and Challenger shell damage, make it louder and slower, add more ammo.

Remove the SL bipod.

Make the Scimitar faster and nerf its armor.

Agree. Add the L9 sniper rifle and remove the SUSAT marksman scope.

Agree. Add back mines and +1 C4.

Add Land Rovers and a Mastiff.

Use the Mk-19 as a placeholder for now.

Add bayonets.

Add the Spartan APC.

Add the BMP-1U for Ukraine.

[onyx needle]

Nerf the armor??? It can stop 14.5mm to the front IRL

Also Gripod are very british. No need to remove them

Also remember the Chally has no .50 cal CMD MG. So it’s already a Bit weaker

[solemn ridge]

Warrior is already the most protected IFV, beside bradley in the game. What armor needs to be add?

[kind remnant]

that should be the standard Warrior variant

The warrior should dominate in a standing match, atm it doesnt

if u catch the warrior on the move or flank it, it should lose

The standard un-armored warrior should be reserved for a lighter divisions, probably the Support one

but the UA variant should be the standard

Rate of Fire needs increased, a long with a slight damage profile adjustment

AJAX is not the solution, it doesnt even have a Turret'd version out yet, and the IFV variant will be out in/post 2025 , putting it way outside the timeframe

Buffing the Turret also buffs the Scimitar

[solemn ridge]

Even for non-UA, it's already better than any other Blufor, though.

[solemn ridge]

Should dominate according to what criteria

[kind remnant]

It has a lower Fire Rate than standard IFVs ingame, it has no stabilization, and it's speed is on-par with Tracked IFVs
It's weakness should be mobile fights and flanks, face a warrior in the face and you should lose

[solemn ridge]

For the lower fire rate, it is what it is. That's just how it was made by the manufacturer

[kind remnant]

no it isnt

ingame RoF is not IRL RoF

[solemn ridge]

hmm??.. its match what reality is

Perhaps if the Squad wiki isn't updated, then I'm wrong

[kind remnant]

also Reload mechanic isnt correct, as operators are trained to top off the magazine every 3 rounds

6 round magazine, 3 round clips

[solemn ridge]

Nerf the damage because the velocity doesn't match reality

[kind remnant]

Velocity=/=Damage

that's just range

[solemn ridge]

well brother.... it is

[solemn ridge]

That's just basic physics

[lethal lake]

the Ajax is the turreted version with the CTAI 40mm, unless if youre referring to something else, also afaik there is no proper IFV variant of the Ajax intended for british service as of now, the closest thing to an IFV would be the Ares but thats only armed with a .50 cal RWS which makes it more of a heavy APC

[lethal lake]

hes not wrong per se, damage isnt solely affected by velocity, it can be affected by the mass of the projectile too, velocity would better determine the penetration capability and then theres the topic of post pen effects which isnt really present in game, for Squad's sake all of that would make things far more complex hence the damage has to be simplified

[kind remnant]

let me rephrase, the only delivered variants do not include the AJAX

[lethal lake]

they are being delivered though, theres a vid about it too

https://youtu.be/c3-G0f5FHSQ

[lime moon]

No more LAWs they should have more AT4s

[onyx needle]

its common tho

they should add the LASM tho

with 1kg of TNT warhead

should 1 tap hesco

[slate eagle]

I guess its all relative to time scales from 10-18 you have LAW HE, LAW AT, MATADOR, AT4 CS, Spike NLOS (Trailer) Javelin, NLAW recently the Carl Gustav has come back into service too.

[slate eagle]

They are indeed i have seen them

Also seen a Boxer with a Javelin fitted to the RWS

[lime inlet]

i have too

[slate eagle]

@solemn ridge you dont even have the game do you lol

[lime moon]

Considering how often he references PR yeah probably

[slate eagle]

Its just hes been making claims from the start that somone who actually plays the game woul not say. Also hes a member of the 777 arab server which is a well known PR discord and doesnt share any of the ton of Squad server discords i do including the arab ones.

I think ive seen him asking when the Free Weekends and when Squad is on sale in the General chat too...🫣

[lime moon]

Lmao

[thorn wren]

Its a game, not a simulation. Which means realism takes a back-seat to fun.

If one of the factions in the game is not fun to play, implement some creative liberties and make it fun. Or just remove it from the game, if it truly becomes a trap pick.

[vagrant talon]

Maybe players are annoyed that a bad era of BAF was implemented in they game.

[lime inlet]

if you go look he said that people only want a buff to BAF because of personal ageneda XD

because i forgot everyone who plays squad is British 😂

[solemn ridge]

Do you even read what you write? Do you really need to slander someone just to win an argument on the internet? Is that how you live your life, blud?

[solemn ridge]

I reference PR Because it's a written fact that the same developer has always had a bias towards the BAF faction. And this cycle has continued in Squad.

[lime moon]

It hasnt continued in squad

[solemn ridge]

You're right, this is only a game. That's why the game has already buffed the BAF (British Armed Forces) with no regard for realism. For example, the Warrior has 1300 velocity damage, and the Challenger has a speed limit similar to the Abrams in the game, which is totally unrealistic. The BAF has been buffed to the point where it distorts reality, just like the T-72's reverse speed.

[lethal lake]

at this rate I'm not even sure if you've actually played the BAF at all or this is just some elaborate bait

[lime moon]

You're baiting at this point

[spice warren]

Tbh it's something with NA servers. Hivemind just goes "BAF shit" and don't pick em.

BAF is picked pretty often on RU and EU servers

[solemn ridge]

I did play as BAF. Not often, but I did. It's not bait; that's how the game is written. Instead of saying that, why not prove me wrong by showing that the BAF especially the Warrior and Challenger are not buffed beyond realism? As I’ve already proven above

[spice warren]

Not against, but something more than "buf muh breets bad"

I want factions to be authentic and have their playstyle and quirks.

I don't want non authentic weapons and vehicles to be used. Like, giving CTAS is like giving RGF T-15. It's a prototype that's not in service

And brits have their quirks - no stabs for vehicles but very beefy, so they play more from positioning. No ATGMs on IFVs, but have a man-portable ATGM (NLAW). This pushes players to play mechanized infantry and play slower and more methodical than other factions.

I'd give more NLAWs (4 or 5 per team), but reduce its dmg by 1/3 (so damage of 2 LATs).

[lethal lake]

Nobody's proposing for the CTAS to return though, and even if they are it's mainly as a temporary measure until the Warrior can be improved

[spice warren]

What improvements does warrior need? What shall it recieve, that will not remove BAF quirk?

Giving ATGM or stab will make it just another IFV.

[lethal lake]

I'm not really interested in reiterating the possible changes available for the Warrior since you can easily scroll up this thread or even read other similar threads and see it for yourself, but there's plenty that can be done to improve the Warrior besides just giving it an ATGM (which is a valid addition even for its obscurity) or giving it a stabilizer which for obvious reasons is unrealistic

[solemn ridge]

Small comparison Warrior IRL vs. In-Game: Rarden 30mm Turret, ONLY for now

Real Life:
Velocity: 1,070 m/s.
Rate of fire: 90 RPM, 3 rounds/mag.

In-Game:
Velocity: 1,300 m/s (more range/damage).
Rate of fire: 90 RPM, 6 rounds/mag (more firepower).

[lethal lake]

ok great, now you are aware that certain stats in Squad have been bumped up regardless of what weapon it is (mainly with regards to autocannons but other weapons have been similarly bumped up in stats), and also the RARDEN can be topped up as often as possible without delay (or some delay depending on how tired the loader is) which isn't present in game, but the fact it can hold 6 rounds is an actual fact since it's trying to show that there's 2×3 round clips loaded at any moment in time

[solemn ridge]

You're right, other autocannons also have some buffs compared to reality, but not as extreme as the Rarden (CMIIW). For example, the old Shipunov in Squad has around 1,000 velocity, which is only 40v more than in real life. Meanwhile, the British Rarden has 200+ velocity more in-game than in real life, along with a different magazine/clip system.

[lethal lake]

The RARDEN in game absolutely does not have 200 RPM more rof than it's irl counterpart, now that is just a lie

[solemn ridge]

😂my bad, not rpm but velocity

[lethal lake]

Even with regards to velocity there are examples that are in line with the RARDEN, the M242 bushmaster used by 5 different factions in game has 285 m/s higher velocity compared to it's irl variant (1385m/s Vs 1100m/s), yet that is not an issue?

Look, your stance on the Warrior is acceptable, if you think it's somehow good enough than more power to you, I and many others however don't think the same and find it lacks greatly compared to it's peers, and you can do your best cherry picking little bits of stats here and there but nothing will convince me that the Warrior is perfectly fine and does not need a buff. Heck, if it was perfectly fine why did the devs bother adding the CTAS in the first place, a clearly better IFV than the original Warrior, it can't simply be that the devs decided the BAF needed more variety in the IFV department just for the sake of it

[solemn ridge]

Well, that's an issue. For example, regarding the Browning, it really needs to be balanced for nerfs—it's a problem. We know that BTRs can be taken out by .50 cals in real life, but increasing the .50 cal's velocity, which leads to greater armor penetration and damage in-game, is absolutely unnecessary. I think it's because the BTR used to go up against the Stryker in older layers, which is why they're buffing it unnecessarily

[lethal lake]

But we aren't discussing about .50 cals, this is about the RARDEN and other autocannons, stop going off on tangents my dude

[solemn ridge]

You ask why the devs added CTAS before. Well, as my first comment suggests, it's because there is a BAF bias in development

[lethal lake]

Now this is an incredibly reductive opinion, by that logic why did the devs add the BMP-2M and BMP-3 for the RGF when the BMP-2 was perfectly adequate? Is that not russian bias being conducted by the devs?

[solemn ridge]

You honestly believe that the BMP-2 is adequate while the BMP-2M has existed in real life for decades, and you're trying to compare it to the super-modern Ajax? I could make the same argument for the Warrior UA variant and the Bradley TOW variant.

[solemn ridge]

Yes, the Bushmaster also needs to be nerfed. It's a problem, thx for pointing out. Perhaps it's always been a BLUFOR bias then? Not sure.

[lethal lake]

I'd heavily suggest you do quick fact checks before posting anything, the BMP-2M has existed at best for more than a single decade, not several decades like you seem to imply, heck irl its supposed to use Kornet-Ms (not represented in game for reasons I'm not wholly sure) which were introduced in 2012, you can't be out here boldly telling me this vehicle has been in service for decades when it's relatively new compared to other armor available.

And I have not been comparing anything with the Ajax at all for the past hour or so in this pseudo discussion, all we have been talking about is the RARDEN and you've somehow figured out a way to skirt around the topic yet again.

I could make the same argument for the Warrior UA variant and the Bradley TOW variant.
Really? Cmon now this is just being dense

[solemn ridge]

I guess I had some slips today. No problem, as long as they're not substantial. I confused the BMP-3M, which has been around since 2005, with the BMP-2M. Still, the BMP-2M has been around for over a decade. So, why did you bring up the BMP-2M out of nowhere, while the Warrior UA variant has already existed

[lethal lake]

I brought up the BMP-2M (and BMP-3) as an example of your logic being applied to the CTAS since you clearly implied that the devs had some sort of British bias when adding it into the game, when it could also be implied that the devs viewed the existing Warriors in game as being weak and sought to add the CTAS to be the change required to improve the BAF's firepower IFV-wise.

At this point it feels like I have to explain every little bit and context for each thing I say and I'm unsure how I could present and explain details without it being dodged or misconstrued

[solemn ridge]

That's not how it works. For the sake of argument, let's say the devs have a bias toward the RGF and think the RGF doesn't have enough firepower. What would that imply? They would definitely bring in the BMPT, T-90M, or T-15—modern RGF vehicles that haven't been added yet.

In fact, they haven't even added the Boxer to the Aussie Army, leaving them with just a single ASLAV.

So, even if I were an Aussie, I would say that BAF has a bias from the developers.

[lethal lake]

in 8.0 the RGF received the T-90A, BMP-2M, BMP-3 and BMP-1AM, would that not be implied as bias by your line of thinking regardless if they're mere sidegrades?

And the Boxer is slowly being delivered to the Aussie army and at the time the Aussies were added into Squad the Boxer was still in production hence its omission from Squad, whether it should be added is a topic for another place, but by no means this would lead to it being some sort of fantastical British bias

[thorn wren]

@solemn ridge , you do seem to have some idea that PR and Squad are the same developers... they aren't.

The CAF faction which is of importance because OWI is Canadian, is a good faction because there aren't any bad factions other than maybe TLF, ADF and BAF.

Anyways, these arguments have ripped this conversation extremely far from the topic.

BAF needs a buff because the game is incapable of letting the current realistic equipment exist. Thus it needs some things to make it more competitive.

Please give suggestions on how to do that.

[solemn ridge]

And why did they only add it in version 8.0 when it had existed long before the Ukraine war? I wouldn’t be surprised if they add the T-80 in the future. Is it necessary? No. But does it reflect reality in the 2010s? Yes

[solemn ridge]

You're right, it wasn't 100% the same devs as PR. But certainly, some core modders/devs were from PR.

[thorn wren]

I think most of the old guard from PR are gone

But yeah, Brit bias isn't a relevant concern

What would you suggest adding to BAF?

Or would we need wider game changes?

[lethal lake]

because instead of me simply chalking it up to russian bias it could be that they were added to coincide with the battlegroup aspect of the game? also it has nothing to do with the war in ukraine, the models for all the vics have existed long before it even happened so I'm not sure why you had to bring that up at all

[solemn ridge]

As long as they leave out the CTAS in the game for now, I would say the current bias is not concerning. But the fact that there was a moment when they considered adding it shows some bias toward BAF.

[lethal lake]

regardless this is going off topic again, the thread is about discussing changes to improve the BAF

[thorn wren]

I think CTAS was a bad guess at most. But it does recognise a need for something.

[lethal lake]

they did add the CTAS, theres no considerations to it, it was present in the game for a solid 2-ish years and it messed up the balance of the BAF back then just as bad

[solemn ridge]

Since you asked what kind of improvement, there's no need for a buff—only balance. The balance should give BAF the same opportunity to use iron sights and mines. Anything beyond that, especially armor tweaking, is an unnecessary buff meant to satisfy the urgent desires of some players

[lethal lake]

ok fair enough, but if you do end up playing the BAF i implore you to go and use the Warrior against another peer battlegroup and report back your success with them

[spice warren]

I always do SLing when BAF is picked (because i enjoy this faction) and always do mech inf squad. Warrior and bulldog are amazing as a part of inf squad, not as separate entity.

[soft garden]

Warrior saddens me

[slate eagle]

Its a victim of the game balance i guess. Yes the gun rpm and lack of stabiliser is shit.

However irl you have a long range accurate gun with a good thermal (gen 3 iirc) optic on every vehicle with a serious amount of armour and its pretty fast for its size.

The Russian vehicles lack thermals for the most part and have literal paper armour. A single round from the Warrior would go through the front of a BMP and out the back. The BMPs cannon is woefully inaccurate and if fired on the highest rpm setting with the hatches shut will suffocate the crew. They lack thermals and have shitty optics.

Alas in the game we cant have all the Russian vehicles able to be destroyed by a small burst of .50cal fire so here we are...Warrior cannot use its irl perks but the BMP gets buffed until its a superweapon.

[solemn ridge]

The Warrior isn’t saddened; it’s always been like that since the beginning. That’s why this game already buffed the Warrior with 200+ higher velocity rounds, resulting in more damage and armor penetration. It also has 6 clips with no delay between magazines, while in reality, it only has 3x2 clips per magazine.

The armor, while theoretically good, has never been tested against a real conventional army. All we have is the same myth that’s been around, like the Challenger surviving 70 RPG hits in Iraq. But that myth was debunked in Ukraine, where it was reduced to atoms. The Warrior’s true armor capacity is still yet to be proven.

[soft garden]

Do you know what saddening means
The lack of stabilisation sucks and having to reload every six rounds, or reload when switching ammo types, is annoying
I don't like gunning on the Warrior

I'm saying it saddens me

[sturdy fulcrum]

Which game balance? Ingame the Warrior is inferior to every other IFV except maybe the BMP-1

Just like 90% of british equipment, while the faction has nothing to compensate.

[lethal lake]

have you tried out the Warrior, still waiting for your debrief when used against the RGF or PLA at least

[lethal lake]

and also im not sure if you noticed but in game the warrior may have "6" round clips, but there is a noticeable delay from having to reload each clip, which tells me that you have not tried it yet, pretty disappointed ngl

[soft garden]

BMD-1

Easily the worst oh how I despise it

[solemn ridge]

Are you genuinely waiting for my debrief? Lol. Wait until the weekend, then hopefully, the server chooses it.

[lethal lake]

well yeah, at the moment im under the assumption that you have not used the Warrior at all considering the statement you made earlier, and youre giving opinions on something that you havent even tried, therefore i cant actually take any of your opinions or suggestions about the Warrior with any meaningful substance

[solemn ridge]

You guys are taking it too personally now. Like, who the hell cares about my opinion? And why would I care about yours either? From the very beginning, I made substantial arguments based on game data and real-life data that fit the timeline, of course. None of you could debunk the fact that the Warrior has always been in a buffed state. I won’t repeat what I said—if you forgot, that’s your problem.

[slate eagle]

Squad balance makes the warrior perform worse than it would irl agaisnt Soviet era counterparts.
You are correct that the BAF has nothing else to compensate.

[lethal lake]

You're giving opinions on something you havent played, the opinion making isnt a big concern to me, but actually suggesting that the Warrior is in a fine state without actually playing it is literally laughable, at this point Im actually doubting if you play the game if your idea of giving suggestions is merely looking at the stats and then cross referencing it to irl data

You're entitled to your opinion, and if you wanna make suggestions by all means go ahead, but all of that will hold absolutely zero weight if you've never tried whatever you're crafting your opinions/suggestions about

[slate eagle]

You are just repeating propaganda, bullshit and clearly lack ingame squad experience just like everyone in this thread has noticed.

The Warriors Rarden is fed with 3 round stripper clips.
It doesnt have 3 clips per magazine or 6 clips that would equal 9 and 18 rounds ready to fire respectively.
The Rardens feed tray accepts 2x 3 round clips meaning 6 are ready to fire, the feed tray can be constantly topped up while firing. I hope this clears things up for your lack of knowledge.

[slate eagle]

Are you stupid? The Challenger has taken many documented RPG7 RPG29 and Milan rounds even a 105mm from a T55 pointblank with no detremental effect to the vehicle. More or less the same can be said for the Warrior tanking a 120mm hesh to the rear and RPGs to the sides.

The fact your reposting Russian propaganda images of a Challenger 2 that could have been hit or filled with explosives just shows it is you who is posting with emotion and has an axe to grind.

I pitty you and will contribute to buying the game for you if you are so hard up.

The feed tray accepts 2x 3 round clips you literal mong. You just said it took 6x clips lmao

[slate eagle]

No ones taking things personally.

You just waded in here and made multiple incorrect statements that outed you as to not having the game and not having a single clue what you are talking about.

Now you are back tracking on every single one or shifting the goal posts.

"I MADE SUBSTANTIAL ARGUNENTS BASED ON GAME DATA AND REAL LIFE DATA"

CTAS isnt in game so you obviously dont play it.

Challenger 2 wasnt in the Gulf so you are clueless there.

BMP-1 is a shit box and the P varient you stated was better protected actually is identical to the BMP-1 protection wise.

Do yourself a favour and leave, the best thing that has happened here is you have been exposed as an idiot and the thread has got 13 more likes 🤡

[solemn ridge]

Of course, there will be bias. You're pointing out that the Challenger can withstand multiple hits, but that's against farmers in Iraq. We also have proof that a single tandem fiber optic round could disable the Challenger somewhere in Kursk. I'm not parroting any propaganda—it's actually you who's parroting it. Also, what does this have to do with the game? The Challenger 2 already has the best armor in the game. Theories written on paper sometimes don't match the reality on the ground

[solemn ridge]

CTAS is surely in the game; it's parked there in Jensen Range. They can bring it back to the subfaction anytime they want. That's why I'm here to remind anyone for not putting fantasy over this game.

The Challenger 2 Gulf War version is actually a meme among tankies. You honestly don't understand satire. Do you really believe I was suggesting a nuke for BAF?

Which comment did I ever make saying the BMP-1P has better protection, armor, or durability anywhere in this Discord?

Stop using strawman arguments. I think this is the second time I'm reminding you

[slate eagle]

If it has nothing to do with the game then why bring it up? Its obviously propaganda given the huge cut in every video showing a challenger getting hit in Ukraine lmao

[lethal lake]

The Chally 2 has acceptable armor in Squad for an MBT, but stopping your analysis there is really telling that you haven't actually played or go against the Chally 2 in game

[slate eagle]

CTAS is akkkktually in training range 🤓 get a load of this idiot lmao.

Challenger 2 gulf war edition is not a meme you just made it up because you cannot come up with anything better you imbecile.

You literally said in reply to me saying the BMP is a tuna tin "READ UP WHAT MAKES A BMP-1P A P"

You are an imbecile.

🤡

[solemn ridge]

Hahaha, I hope you're not translating that 'P' there as protection. Again, which part did I say the P variant has more armor and protection? Don't run away, darling, because now you're putting words in my mouth

[solemn ridge]

I did go against the Chally, it's the best-armored tank in this game.

[lethal lake]

Unless if you're hitting the turret cheeks all the time then I'll believe you lmao

[slate eagle]

I stated the BMP is a shit box with tin armour. If you were replying to that why did you tell me to read up on what makes a P a P?

Unless you were implying it had better armour there is literally no other reason to state that?? Are you ill?

[slate eagle]

You dont even have the game bruh lmao

Ill bet you only started playing PR when it was released for free and you didnt have to buy BF2 lol

[solemn ridge]

Are we going to repeat this again? How did you miss the first word of my sentence there? Which part am I disagreeing with you on in that number 3 part?

[slate eagle]

Explain what you were implying by replying to me saying the BMP was a tin can. Why did you specifically reference the BMP1P to counter my claim??

[solemn ridge]

You're right, I didn't buy BF2 back then, I used a keygen back then.

[solemn ridge]

Because it was never about armor. Since the very first comment, I never mentioned it as upgradable armor. It's the Konkurs that has better penetration against other vehicles, that's it—nothing more. If you interpreted it wrong, then that's your problem

[solemn ridge]

Could be. It means the chally crew are better player, and it doesn't mean they have a worse tank. Perhaps it's my skill issue, which is why I'd point at myself before blaming the assets in the game. It's not the machine that's wrong, it's the player

[lethal lake]

I'd suggest you have a view at where the ammo rack is for the Chally 2 from the front, and once you have the game you'll appreciate the convenience of it's placement if you end up constantly fighting against it

[onyx needle]

CAP

[solemn ridge]

Guess if those Iraqi farmers knew where the ammo rack of the Chally was, we would never have this prolonged debate.

[onyx needle]

U try to use too many IRL things. That’s Not how squad works

[lethal lake]

Honestly considering your supposed struggles against the Chally 2 I have my money on those Iraqi farmers doing more damage to a Challenger than whatever tank you end up playing with.

Also can we stop with all this irl talk, this is about Squad, not what supposedly happened in Iraq 2 decades ago

[solemn ridge]

Dang, blud. I don't know whether you're trying to mock me or the Chally 2. Because damn, the Chally 2 wasn't that bad. It's factually harder to kill than its counterparts, but that doesn't mean it can't be killed just not as easily as some people here might expect.

[lethal lake]

It's incredibly straightforward to kill a Challenger 2 in game, I'm unsure why you're making it much more complicated than it already is, regardless if its just unluckiness or skill issues on your end

[slate eagle]

Major shift of the goal posts right here lmao.

Do you actually have the game

Seriously

[solemn ridge]

The hell do you mean? Is my entire team also having a skill issue trying to kill this supposedly easy tank? Maybe. But I got wrecked while also killing the Chally several times

[slate eagle]

Its easy to kill in game.

Whats your steam name? @solemn ridge

[solemn ridge]

Since it would be a funny thing to say after all of this. Yes, I don't have the game, I lied the entire time

[slate eagle]

You thought the ctas was ingame still lmao

[lethal lake]

Any team can struggle killing any vehicle in game, whether your team at the time lacked the skill is beyond me, but if you're going to chalk up the Chally 2's capabilities based on that event then boy do I hope your experience with the Warrior will be just as good so that you won't end up being overly frustrated

[slate eagle]

Whats your steam?

[solemn ridge]

Don't get fcking personal, mate. You're acting creepy now

[slate eagle]

Its no different to discord your posting from 😅 steam isnt your passport number lmao

It will show if u have squad tho.. 🤡

[solemn ridge]

You're creepy as hell🤡

[slate eagle]

This guy doesnt actually have the game lmao 😅 😅 😅

[solemn ridge]

Nah, I'm fine. My main vic is the ZU-23. Anything besides it becomes easy to cope with.

[lethal lake]

your main vic is an AA emplacement?

[lime moon]

You don't own the game

Do you?

[slate eagle]

He does on Free Weekends

[solemn ridge]

Of course, not the emplacement ones the one with the truck, since it has Lower recoil than the BMPs/MTLB ones. Playing it like a man, facing enemy armor head-on, is my style. and you know what?, it cant penetrate warrior at all, others ifv can be penetrated by it

[slate eagle]

Bruh

[lethal lake]

what

[solemn ridge]

what?

[lethal lake]

you tell me man now im even more confused than before

[slate eagle]

Its simple. He grabs AA techi and fights Warriors head on

[solemn ridge]

I believe the ZU-23 has better recoil in the truck variant than in the MTLB ZU and BMP variants.

[slate eagle]

You then go hunting FV510s right?

[solemn ridge]

Of course not, Wrinkle. It can't penetrate the Warrior at all. Any IFV like LAVs, ACVs, BMPs, and perhaps the Bradley can be penetrated by it. CMIIW

[slate eagle]

Bruh

[solemn ridge]

yes, you win. gg

[lime moon]

So you admit it?

[onyx needle]

He admitted it?

Lets wait for a CAN ANYONE BUY ME SQUAD PLS IM SO POOR WAH WAH WAH in #squad-general

[lime inlet]

i dont play NA servers

[lime inlet]

the challanger does not reach simialr speed as the abrams. unless your driving on a straight road downhill. ive played all the mbts and i can say the challanger isnt the slowest but does not compare to the abrams or leo.

[lime moon]

Yeah but Britain was OP in this other game

[lime inlet]

yeah i understand. ive played project reality

but i dont think its fair to reflect that game onto squad

different mindset and goals and different game

Steryx just is stuck in another game tbh

also at the end of the day this game is for fun and for people to enjoy. I don't really see a issue with adding more equipment and vics. People seem against the ajax but at the end of the day its only ther for people to enjoy and have fun

you cant please everyone. Some people are going to want only realism and minimal vics and others would want as much as possible.

I dont really see the point on being so limited on what the game offers

im not saying the solution is to keep adding new stuff all the time

but why be so against something like a ajax. at the end of the day its not really going to have a big impact on the game and the overall expreience

If its too focused on realism the game will just be full of every soviet vic model under the sun and people will still complain about it

[slate eagle]

It wasnt though it just had a more realistic portrayal than Squad. Eg Thermals on all vehicles, Irons, working back up sights, mines etc etc

[lime inlet]

i think people forget that Britian do have access to very modern equipment. it may not be in its millions but they do have it

which would give them the edge over your standard Russian infantry unit

[lime moon]

I was joking :P

[slate eagle]

We cant have Javelin cos "instant delete key" 🫣

[slate eagle]

I know 😅 👍

[lime inlet]

Javelin would be good

[slate eagle]

I dont think they will add it, the quote i made was from a dev chat a while back

Which is why we wont see the BAF with more AT vehicles any time soon seen as how we launch them from pretty much every platform we have

[kind remnant]

what

[kind remnant]

huh

<@&101483014839611392> I cannot truly tell if Steryx is breaking server rules for intentionally Rage Baiting people here with the insults and goal post shifts in his argument 😦 can I get clarification on this?

[lime moon]

At this point its the best thing to do

I.e kick or ban him

Hes not here to argue in good faith

Only baselessly claim that the "British Faction in game is overpowered" somehow

Even though it aint

Their only good vics are the .50cal bulldog, .50call Foxhound, and the Chally 2.

And they lack in pretty much everything else

[slate nova]

Don't break squad code of conduct, that is a good way to be shown the door here.

[lime moon]

😭

[slate nova]

Since people can't behave. This has been locked.