BTR vs LAV

[{7}45|Sgt.Dren]

shooted BTR well over 20 rounds, nothing happened, btr aimed me, couple round and i was dead pretty much (and yes i was using armor piercing)

Iceshark will test it, if he gets help for it

[[AToW]ViperMaul]

Technically these are two different class of vehicles.
I want to entertain the idea of replacing the BTR with something different. Or really drastically increase the cost of the BTR

For example,
one suggestion is to replace the BTR with the BMP2.
Second suggestion to completely remove the AGS from the BTR.

[[1]MFR.BarmyArmy]

The imbalance is no worse than it was in the previous campaign.

Unless ACE or the optics fix has significantly changes the spcs of either vehicle.

BA

[[8]72|JLt.t0m]

I agree with Barmy, tested this a few times with ATOW mod.

It's mainly due to the fire rate.

BTR can pump out in 3sec what it takes the LAV 9sec to do, hence why it seems the BTR two shots the LAV.

Was some odd occurances where both the BTR and LAV could take a massive pounding though, think Iceshark noticed the same thing. Though every time I was in the BTR, this wasn't the case. Noticed it once last campaign with both the BTR/LAV in a 600m firefight in which I lost by being killed out

[[8]72|JLt.t0m]

Also removing the AGS sort of removes the point of switching armies at the end of the campaign. All Nade launchers are on the same par, apart from the BTR not having to reload which could be fixed.

Last campaign and this campaign I checked out all alternatives out there, including mod packs etc with the aim of getting more vehicle varieties on the battlefield. The replacements have a much lower profile than the BTR, optics arent as decent, normally 2 hull gunners, but the biggest problem is ace compatability.

[[AToW]ViperMaul]

I tested and the STOCK BTR had the same amount of Grenades 400 as the ACE BTR.
The only difference I see where the AGS is involved is that the ACE BTR has a faster firing rate. I did some research in removing this rate change. But it took longer than I thought. It is my intent to at least remove this rate change. Let me know if there is more that needs to be done.

[[1]MFR|1Lt.Undeceived]

Are you talking only about the AGS fire rate, VM?

[[AToW]ViperMaul]

I don't quite understand your question.
In my last post, I was talking about removing the AGS fire rate yes.
In my last post I was comparing the armament differences as well as the firing rate.
I did not test anything else like its mobility, or armor strength or ammo strength or range of weapon fire. I didn't test any of those.

In addittion to the the following issue report BTR Limitations / LAV Limitations (http://www.arma-tow.com/forums/project.php?issueid=57)
Well the only thing people have communicated to me is wrong with the BTR is the following:

- ACE BTR AGS has more Grenades than the stock BTR
- ACE BTR AGS has a faster firing rate than the stock BTR
- ACE BTR Has a Konkurs AT missile
- ACE BTR can kill a LAV in 2 or 3 seconds where it takes the LAV 10+ seconds to kill.
- ACE LAV has a locked zoom.

This is what I am told why the BTR is out of balanced and too powerful.
But I am not surprised because I do not think in real life the LAV was meant to kill the BTR. But we are not talking about real life here we are talking about gameplay.

Thus we did the following:
- Removed the LAV locked zoom.
- Removed the ACE BTR Konkurs AT missile
- Researching to Remove the ACE BTR AGS Rate of Fire of the grenade launcher.

My understanding is now the HE type munitions now has an increased effect on Armor for example I hear it now only takes 1 satchel to destroy a LAV/BTR.

Any way. I hear that some people say even if we remove the ACE BTR AGS rate of fire that or even remove the AGS Grenades all together ... some are saying BTR is still better than the LAV because it can kill the LAV in 2-3 seconds.

If this is the position of the majority of players then we may be here for a while.
We cannot do everything.

We have other options.
- Increase the cost of the BTR to 1.5 to even as high as 2 times more than the LAV.
- Restrict the BTR to only 1 on the field versus 2 LAVs in the field.
- Replace the BTR with another APC class vehicle
- Replace the LAV with another APC class vehcile that is more equal to the BTR (Bradely? or other choices?)
- Allow the USMC a APC like vehicle additional to the LAV designed to travel with the LAV to defeat the BTR.


Choose 1 or a multiple of the above options could help better balance all and make it easier on the mod team.

Thoughts everyone?

[[1]MFR|1Lt.Undeceived]

VM, the reason I asked is that I think that Dren didn't mean the AGS fire rate when he created this thread, as the AGS isn't used to combat the LAV / BTR (or am I totally wrong?).

He meant the other gun (30mm). This is where we have the great unbalancement between BTR or LAV (when talking about a combat between both). Due to the much higher and absolutely terrific fire rate of this gun it takes the BTR only a few seconds to kill the LAV, while the LAV needs much more time for it.
This was reported by Jimmy after one of the test battles as well and I saw the situation with my own eyes too: He was firing with a LAV on a BTR for some seconds but after the BTR could find his position, it opened fire and the LAV was killed directly.


So summarizing I'm only talking about the much higher fire rate of the 30mm of the BTR, compared to the LAV's gun, which leads to the kill of the LAV in (best case) 2-3 seconds.
Was this discussed already and I somehow missed it?

[[AToW]ViperMaul]

MFR|1Lt.Undeceived']
So summarizing I'm only talking about the much higher fire rate of the 30mm of the BTR, compared to the LAV's gun, which leads to the kill of the LAV in (best case) 2-3 seconds.
Was this discussed already and I somehow missed it?

The only time I first heard about this was yesterday in a conversation with IceShark and the words he used was 2-3 seconds for the BTR to kill an LAV. I have never read this part of the issue in an official bug report until now. Therefore I never researched it.

Two questions

Wasn't this the same problem with the 30mm in last campaign?
Comparing the ACE BTR with the Stock BIS BTR 30mm cannon, what seems to be the change?

[[1]TB|Cpt.iceshark]

yes there was a difference between the btr and the lav and yes it was in favour of the btr.
but right now the difference has grown bigger,
and has come to an point were the lav starts shooting at the btr and the btr can turn around and kill the lav.
this is something that was not the cause in the previous campaign

[[8]72|Lt.t0m]

No, the difference has not gotten bigger. Infact it has gotten smaller.

From my tests, BTR @ 600RPM kills a LAV in ~4sec
However the LAV does the same @ 200RPM in about ~9sec

Now lets go back to C1 here. I was under the understanding that switching sides was meant to be a fix for balance issues, which is why the US (at the time) stuck it with the btr.

Now let's check the C1 values.

BTR kills the LAV @600RPM in ~4sec
LAV kills the BTR @200RPM in wait for it ~14sec

We stuck it with the BTR last campaign. We went through the problem of nailing the BTR only to have it turn around, destroy the LAV then ride off.

Hell, there was even an occurance last battle where the LAV nailed my 100% BTR in a few seconds flat (the time it took me to do a 180 with my turret to see the guy). It was hitting me from behind, it hit a sweet spot. I'm pretty sure ACE has hitboxes for vehicles, and where you hit it plays a massive role.

Distance also plays a role. I've spent 100AP rounds nailing a LAV at 800M to kill it.

In my opinion, removing the BTR or giving the US a better armoured equivelant is totally unfair, especially seeing how the side switch was intended to 'Fix' the gear imbalance.

[{8}95|Maj.Hitman]

From what I've heard, it was the same in the last campaign. The BTR was superior to the LAV and therefore we were forced to use the LAV only as a defensive weapon.

Keep in mind, I'm no tanker though.

[[8]72|Sgt.Regi]

Are the TOW humvees available, they can do a load of damage to the BTR, one shot style, so wouldn't it make more sense to use tactics with the Humvees then complain about balance issues, when there is no easy way to go about change.

As far as i know we dont have access to SPG-9 UAZ's, so that evens it out a fair way.
But you are never really gonna get complete fairness, hence as some guys have said, the swapping of armies.

[[8]72|SSgt.Overlord]

72|Sgt.Regi']Are the TOW humvees available, they can do a load of damage to the BTR, one shot style, so wouldn't it make more sense to use tactics with the Humvees then complain about balance issues, when there is no easy way to go about change.

Thats why the US has the HMMWV TOW in the 1st place. To combat the BTR and we used it on BTR in C1 a few times to great effect. Stop bitchin about fairness when you guys had the same thing last Campaign. Not our fault you dont know how to use it...

That being said I always wanted the BTR to have the Rate of Fire limited to 300RPM as the 600RPM is overkill. None of the balance team agreed (least the guys I talked to)

[[AToW]ViperMaul]

72|SSgt.Overlord']
That being said I always wanted the BTR to have the Rate of Fire limited to 300RPM as the 600RPM is overkill. None of the balance team agreed (least the guys I talked to)

I just noticed this myself with a quick 20 min research on Google. The most the BTR 30mm cannon should be is 550rpm max. However, since the normal modes are 200 and 300rpm then back in C4 if I knew then what I know now I would have suggested this change the last campaign. Especially for GamePlay and 300rpm of 30mm compared to the LAV 200rpm 25mm is a fair and realistic enough advantage. In short I do believe 600rpm is overkill for this such a tournament. But it is also my understanding that the Balance team made a decision and also it is my understanding that on separate occasions, according to Barmy, both generals have mentioned the desire to play with the same equipment as possible to that of the previous campaign.

ACE made a major change to the AGS grenade launch and this fix is to revert that change.


With that said, I have completed a MOD change.
I returned the AGS / MK19 rate of fire back to BIS levels.
This is fixed in the next AddonSync update.

[[1]MFR|1Lt.Undeceived]

72|SSgt.Overlord']Stop bitchin about fairness when you guys had the same thing last Campaign. Not our fault you dont know how to use it...
Relax, dude. :) We will get a compromise sorted out.

[[8]72|Lt.t0m]

Im pretty sure that the compromise is the TOW? Unless you're talking about the AGS rof in which case it is a bit insane for all automatic GLs

[[AToW]ViperMaul]

72|Lt.t0m']...Unless you're talking about the AGS rof in which case it is a bit insane for all automatic GLs
All automatic GLs ROFs are now reverted back to BIS levels. AddonSync is now updated. You can all can test and verify.

[[8]72|Sgt.Regi]

TOW is the compromise, that thing is bloody deadly, and as the Ukranians dont get the spg-9.

If everything was to be completely fair the US shouldn't get the M2 hummers, as we cant access the UAZ machine gun variant. But personally i dont think it matters, you just adapt your tactics to be more biased to your strengths rather then your weaknesses.

If everything is completely the same their is no feeling of different armies. Same reason why i think there should be a change from the little birds, army identities :) Plus if you wanna go completely fair, US shouldn't have an osprey. But like i said, make everything to samey and it gets a bit boring

[[8]72|Lt.t0m]

All stuf to be consider for C6 I believe, hopefully will be more ACEified mods out there giving more options for both armies. Maybe Op arrowhead too. Should be good.