More BTR-80 for motorized RGF

[rocky bolt]

Give to motorized battalion of RGF more BTR-80.

For example vehicle list can be changed from:
●x2 BRDM-2
●x1 BTR-80
●x3 BTR-82A
To:
●x1 BRDM-2
●x3 BTR-80
●x2 BTR-82

I'll explain my strange proposal: BTR-82A doesn't fulfil it's main proposal (as it comes from it's name "BTR"="APC") - transport infantry.

In current version of Squad differense betwen motorized and mechanized battalions of RGF is that motorized is better for urbanic maps such as Narva or Falluja, because BTR's can't be "tracked"

But in most situations: mechanized RGF>> motorized RGF.

If you give more BTR-80 in motorized battalion it will be a game changer, because of simple psycology:
●BTR-82A cost 10 tickets and have a cannon that allowes it to fight against APSs and some IFVs. These BTRs usually claimed by armor squads, due to their cost and firepower. It would be a great waste for team to give one of them to an infantry squad.
●But BTR-80 costs 5 tickets (as a MRAP), it's strong enough to fight with enemy infantry and MRAPs, but but not strong enough to fight on equal terms with APC or IFV. Armor squad will take one of them only if they didn't get BTR-82A. But infantry squads can use it as a better MRAP than TIGR, and even fly into an objective with two legs and BTR.

If you remove all the water that I wrote upper: this change will allow infantry squads to use BTR's more often and play more agressive agressive, especially on invasion

(Translation for meme: "Nasty creature that flew into objective")

[whole niche]

It would be a direct nerf for RGF motorized.
BTR-80 does not have stab, does not have HE and generally slower than BTR-82.

Compare it to USMC motorized with 4 LAVs with autocannons and stabs, or chinese motorized with ZBLs with ATGMs.

5 ticket difference cost is negligible. and 1 extra worse APC is not a trade of

[wooden steeple]

It also usually requires a reload to kill a LAV, so it would be hopeless outmatched by these factions.

[rocky bolt]

Motorized RGF even with 3 BTRs-82A not strong enough to fight with 4 LAVs, it's already battalion with weak armor, that's why mechanized RGF is more prefered battalion.
But the idea to give more BTR-80 is to make motorized RGF stronger in attack on "danger for armor" objectives (for example center of map on Gorodok). Cheap armor with low respawn time better, than MRAP, is a perfect fire support for infantry, because you're not afraid to loose it.

Probably give extra LATs for motorized RGF will balance lack of strong armor

[whole niche]

BTR82A is on par or even stronger than LAV because ammo and DPS, but weaker than LAV 6.

BTR80 with MG (even if it's a big one) as far lesser threat than autocannon on BTR82A, because again, no HE. You can't clear building/bushes effectivly without HE.

So, basically this post proposes a nerf to buff motorized?

RGF Motorized is already good. I think i would swap BRDMs for BTR80, as those vehicles are similar firepower and mobility wise, but it would give more troop transport capabilities.

But honestly, RGF motorized is picked often, is good and requires no major changes

[wooden steeple]

There is no advantage in being able to waste many weak APCs, when the own infantry gets terrorized and overrun by 4 autocannon IFVs.

[glossy valve]

I'm all for a REDUCTION in IFVs and more APCs in general for some divisions

the 4 LAV shit needs to go

Combined USMC should be 2 lav, motorized going to 3

with increase in more APCs, with APC crew requirements removed

I'm an armor player as well and I think the 4 LAV shit needs to go

[rocky bolt]

I agree that changing BRDMs to BTRs is a good idea

But i can't tell how often RGF motorized picked on western servers, i only know situation on russian servers, i didn't play on western servers for about half-year.

On our servers usually LAV wins, not BTR-82, and who actually needs BTR-82 when you can pick BMD-4 or BMP-3, which are much stronger.

I think motorized RGF should be buffed, but in different way than just "give them extra 30mm". Adding more BTR-80 could change tactics and purpose of that faction

[rocky bolt]

Battalion shouldn't be universal. If you have open-field map, where you can be dominated by enemy armor from the distance, why don't you pick mechanized or tank battalion?
But on maps where objectives in forests or in cities, BTRs can be supported with HATs in fighting with enemy armor

[glossy valve]

this

Divisions shouldnt just be "You get more IFVs!" "You get more tanks!" "You get more XYZ!"

They should evolve the faction's field mobility and playstyle

I'd be down for less transport trucks and more BTR80s, and for USA as another example, more 7.62 Strykers

This would also require these type of APCs to remove crewman requirements

[wooden steeple]

The point is that weak APCs are just useless in the game. There is nothing a BTR-80 can do better than a BTR-82, except wasting tickets.

[glossy valve]

it wastes less tickets 😄

😛

[rocky bolt]

В умелых руках и хуй - балалайка

[wooden steeple]

I think there is something wrong with your keyboard

[rocky bolt]

Yep

[glossy valve]

7.62 stryker is 5 tickets, transport truck is 5 tickets
PARS3 everything is 5 tickets

they have value by being equal in value, just need to expand their use

I love TLF Motorized, it's what other Motorized need to be

it doesnt stack 4 PARS III 25mm

it stacks you all the RWS PARS III APCs u can want

(yes i understand the PARS is weak, im talking composition wise)

throwing more IFVs in than standard Combined arms is a lazy cop out to interesting game design of leaning into division specialties

[wooden steeple]

There is no use case for those APCs. They require crewman, thus they are usually not used as one way transports like trucks, instead the crews use them like IFVs and die to stronger vehicles or AT.

[rocky bolt]

BTR-80 can't do anything better, than BTR-82, but it's just cheaper and better than MRAP.

If your claim is to replace one BTR-82 to BTR-80, as somebody said before, all BRDMs-2 could be changed to BTRs-80

[glossy valve]

I agree, remove the crewman requirement for APCs and their value skyrockets

Leave 50cal RWS APC variants for crewman

[wooden steeple]

It is not better than an MRAP. MRAPs are used to transport infantry such as ATs or CEs around quickly. A BTR80 requires two crewman so it is not suitable for this.

If APCs would be useful as troop transports, then they might have a use case, but with the current META they are simply irrelevant and noob traps.

[zealous ice]

Same , APCs should be utilised as squad vehicle for carrying infantry to fight and provide some kind of support. Hate when all APC are doing lone wolf stuff and Infantry left with trucks to move around battlefield. Maybe only some exceptions like Stryker M2 and Bulldog M2 RWS should be left with requirements to have crewman kits.

[rocky bolt]

It's better than MRAP, because enemy can't kill crew and troops inside, it has 2 machineguns and a lot of smoke rounds.

I don't think that requiring a two crewman kits a big problem, on invasion i often saw how weak armor (BTR-80, MT-LB) sticks together with infantry squads, and i think it's better for armor survival, when dedicated squad operates it.

[whole niche]

I mostly play on 7th rangers or 1strb. RGF is picked fairly often, and RGF motorized is often picked over RGF mechanized (ppl hate tracked logis)

Honestly, i would like to see more IFVs and APCs (or reduced timers), but with much reduced surviability (like 1 HAT hit to make it burn, 3 LATs to completely destroy without burning). I love playing mechanized infantry, but with current vehicles you need another vehicle to effectively destroy them.

[whole niche]

I actually like how it is balanced for USAF and RGF. Motorized, mechanized and light inf feels very different in playstyle

[whole niche]

I want it, but you need 4 LAT hits to destroy anything bigger than truck or MRAP. If devs rebalance LAT/HAT damages to make armor less survivable, i would agree.

[whole niche]

They are not. 5 ticket difference is negligible, any APC is a mobility + ammo box + suppression tool vs enemy infantry + some extra dmg vs vehicles if they have .50 + guns

[zinc copper]

RGF motorized is definitely one of the better units, can kinda just rush at stuff. I think theres better ways to fix it tho

[tame bronze]

This would be good if only the KPVT had good damage against apc and ifv

[stark crow]

tbf it does deal solid damage against lighter APCs which its meant to, unfortunately the fact it has to be reloaded and obviously it only uses a HMG instead of an autocannon will hamstring it against anything else

[glossy valve]

KPVT kills LAV turrets in like 1/2 a second of fire

[stark crow]

good to know i guess?

[glossy valve]

you can get the drop on any LAV and win easy, reload or not

[stark crow]

you could, but id still bet my money on the LAV winning most of the time

[glossy valve]

BRDMs eat LAVs

[stark crow]

im sure they do somewhere, in another universe probably

[full cloak]

Honestly skill issue on the LAVs part

[glossy valve]

if your turret goes down in 1/2 a sec, hard to retaliate

[full cloak]

Skill issue in not seeing the thing

[glossy valve]

BRDM is a tiny thing, and can be pocketed in a corner really good

[full cloak]

Okay?

Imo I think giving the rgf more btr-80s would just be nerfing them tho

[glossy valve]

more BTR80, remove crewman req, good?

[full cloak]

Honestly that's the only way that would make the btr-80 good if it doesn't have a crewman requirement

[tame bronze]

I expressed myself incorrectly. The damage is good, but armor penetration is poor.

[stark crow]

the 14.5mm already has like 42mm of pen no? thats pretty much the highest out of all HMGs to my knowledge, and is better than its actual irl pen (if that actually means much in game)

[tame bronze]

Not the only one. OWI should make a VCO by reworking the system of damage and armor penetration of shells. And then KPVT will be able to fight even with LAV-6 on an equal footing.

[full cloak]

uh huh

[tame bronze]

LAV-6?

[full cloak]

Just give em a 4th btr-82a

Hell maybe give them the Btr-82 that has the 14.5 that just has a chain of it

[full cloak]

Stryker, but the LAV 6 is an upgraded version of the LAV III which is designated the stryker in US service unless if I am mistaken.