Page 193 of 194

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Sun 19 Feb 2017 14:29
by HrcAk47
Bougnas wrote:Did USA actually use the V-150 variants at all? Apparently they always used the V-100 only.


Negative. And it should not be an APC. Eventually a transport for 2-man recon.

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Sun 19 Feb 2017 20:17
by Killertomato
Bougnas wrote:Did USA actually use the V-150 variants at all? Apparently they always used the V-100 only.


The V-100 was basically for USAF security police and MPs only after Vietnam.

Deltas should realistically have M151s or humvees for ground transport.

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Sun 19 Feb 2017 22:34
by wargamer1985
Killertomato wrote:
Bougnas wrote:Did USA actually use the V-150 variants at all? Apparently they always used the V-100 only.


The V-100 was basically for USAF security police and MPs only after Vietnam.

Deltas should realistically have M151s or humvees for ground transport.

M151 FAV for 10 CP wheeled transport and M1025 Mk. 19 and M1025 M134 as 15 CP wheeled transports. This dream needs to come true (but, in my heart, I know it never will)

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Mon 20 Feb 2017 06:05
by QUAD
Light motorized transports should have less availability but be 5 cp OR good optics. Obviously some need to come out of recon tab as well.

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Mon 20 Feb 2017 11:50
by HrcAk47
QUAD wrote:Light motorized transports should have less availability but be 5 cp OR good optics.


Why?

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Mon 20 Feb 2017 18:55
by QUAD
HrcAk47 wrote:
QUAD wrote:Light motorized transports should have less availability but be 5 cp OR good optics.


Why?


They deserve to be represented ingame but are clearly different from APCs. They would be hyper cost efficient but not AP efficient. (Say 10 units of Dragoner in their current rover that's in recon tab.)

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Mon 20 Feb 2017 20:48
by Guggy
Ehhh nah I don't agree. I mean that could be a gimmick sure, but it's so easily argued for that to become the norm by citing realism that it'd just kind of screw things up.

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Mon 20 Feb 2017 21:11
by HrcAk47
QUAD wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:
QUAD wrote:Light motorized transports should have less availability but be 5 cp OR good optics.


Why?


They deserve to be represented ingame but are clearly different from APCs. They would be hyper cost efficient but not AP efficient. (Say 10 units of Dragoner in their current rover that's in recon tab.)


So, a recon bumrush of cheap, fast, soft vehicles with machineguns, miniguns and grenade launchers after they have offloaded their infantry?

Yeah, this can easily go bad.

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Mon 20 Feb 2017 22:47
by QUAD
It could be really fun too, and would get melted by an autocannon. Plus you wouldn't really be able trade in attrition at all.

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2017 02:09
by Killertomato
Autocannon? It would get melted by small-arms fire, or another AGL, or any vehicle with any armor whatsoever.