An M113 style APC in Planetside 2

I had a idea for a small, ground based vehicle, similar what the Valkyrie is for Air. I'm in the National Guard (Im a medic) and we use the M113 APC as a medical evac vehicle. I figured such a vehicle would be a nice addition to Planetside 2. (also, M113s are VERY fun to drive)

A small, armored, track vehicle, that can hold: 1 driver, 1 gunner, and 4 troops. Like a slower, but more armored, and bigger Harasser. Due to its smaller size, MAXes cannot ride in them.

It should not "deploy", but members of the owner's squad can deploy into it.

Upgrades include: Armored sides/front/top, mine guard, proximity radar, fire suppression, IR smoke, vehicle stealth, racer chassis, and rival chassis.

Its big benefit is being able to quickly transport small forces to the next attackable location, allowing its users to stall/confuse the enemy defense until friendly Sunderers can move in. Especially in locations that make a Valkyrie ineffective. It will also make itself a smaller target than a Sunderer, making locating it more difficult. I'd like to see it with a high amount of torque, by that I mean it can climb steeper hills than a Sunderer, allowing these small teams to set up in unexpected locations. Such as hills in Amerish (this is optional, I can foresee extreme annoyance with dealing with a team of Infils who have set up a armored spawn in a hard to reach location).

Speed wise, it should be somewhere between a Harasser and a Sunderer. Maybe around the same as a Lightening.

Health wise, without reinforced armor, or hit where its armor isnt reinforced: 1 C4 and maybe 1 AV grenade (the C4 should be able to set it on fire). With reinforced armor: 2 C4.

Weapon wise, it should either have the same weaponry as the Sunderer, and/or its own unique weapon (like a special heavy machine gun). I'd like to keep this vehicle geared towards Anti-Infantry. If it comes up against a Lightening, EST, or even a Harasser, it should be at a disadvantage. This should not be easily made into an effective AV or AA vehicle.

Here are pictures of a M113:



And the medical evac variant:

Look up Planetside 1 Deliverer

1 driver
2 Gunners
2 Passengers
Floats on water
Less armor than a tank, but more than a buggy

Sunderer fills the role far better, why would you create an inferior vehicle?

Also, the M113 APC is a damn metal coffin. There's a good reason they stopped using them for infantry. a 50 cal machine gun can turn it into swiss cheese, and a SABO round turns it into a meatgrinder with the occupants becoming the hamburger.

I used to drive one of those death traps. The only thing it protects you from is small arms.

Sunderer:
1 driver
2 gunners
9 ... NINE passengers
Squad spawn in motion
Deploy for faction spawn
There is no water that's a threat (you can drive under water in this game, even deploy underwater)
MORE armor than a tank.

So... why in hell would we want that piece of crap then?

We should be getting ES-Buggies eventually. Don't think we need more vehicles of the type the OP is asking for, do we?

More transplrt vehicles is ghat last thing this game needs. Rezdployside tKes care of all.

would be nice if we needed to use the transport vehicles we have.

They don't even need to really make the "logistical" portion onerous FFS.

Just make it so you can't spawn at any base that can be point flipped by the enemy, and can spawn on ANY base that has the "lock" icon to enemies.

Bam, you can spawn within 400m MAX of ANY fight.

Would make cutting off territories meaningful since the only way to get reinforcements there would be to Gal drop.

Make it so only sunderer AMS's avail are in same region

Make it so you can only spawn on Squad assets (gal/sundy/beacon) if within 1000m.

Bam, redeployside fixed, everyone can still quickly get to any fight, terrain between bases matters and blockades have value.

M113s are actually very lightly armored. I think they're only capable of resisting 12.7mm HMG fire from the front... otherwise they really only offer protection against small arms.

There are really a few different types of infantry ground transport. We have a few of them in the game already.

Light Transport- The Flash and Harasser are analogs to the ATV and FAV that the military sometimes uses. These have a low transport capability and are very weakly armored (not even protecting riders from small arms fire), but are inexpensive and a bit stealthier than bigger transports.


Motorized Transport- Just imagine a big ol' truck or something. Great for cheaply transporting a lot of troops efficiently, but not made for actual combat. Not much armor or weaponry at all. We don't have these in PS2, though due to a lack of a need to actually transport anyone anywhere there isn't currently much reason to throw one in. These could be the "cheap but weak" replacement of the Sunderer which bumps the Sunderer up to be a 750 nanite vehicle.


Armored Personnel Carrier- A step up from a truck, an APC features light armor that is capable of resisting small arms fire and maybe HMG fire from the front. Still very vulnerable to infantry rocket fire, mines, and of course big 120mm cannon. Weaponry is very light as well, usually nothing more than a HMG. Also generally not meant for direct combat, though it's better than an unarmored truck. PS2 doesn't have anything like this, because the role is filled by the Sunderer (being cheaper, stronger, and better armed).


Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle- The MRAP is sort of a side-grade to the APC. It is specially designed to be resistant to mines and other explosives, but is not generally as tough as an APC. Still very vulnerable to the same things an MRAP would be vulnerable to. The Sunderer is supposed to be an MRAP, but is far too strong, well armed, and inexpensive to make the cut.


Infantry Fighting Vehicle- A strict upgrade from the APC, the IFV is much more heavily armored (can resist autocannon from the front and 12.7mm HMG from all sides) and more heavily armed (autocannon, light cannon, and/or ATGMs). This is the type of infantry transport unit that was meant to deliver infantry, and then stick around for the fight, adding to the firepower of the infantry team with its own weaponry. Does not currently exist in the game, due to being outclassed by the Sunderer.


Converted Tank Transport- When you absolutely need your infantry to arrive in one piece, you throw them into a MBT hull. Although slow and less well-armed than an IFV, these transports feature the same protection that MBTs have. The Sunderer most fits into this class, though even then is a bit too heavily armed.


So what are some characteristics of transports that might be applicable to PS2?
Cost- Nanites mostly. Flashes cost 50, Harassers cost 150, and Sunderers are a steal at 200. Lightnings cost 350 and MBTs cost 450.
Armor- A combination of HP and resistance values. Flashes have 1,500 HP, Harassers have 2,500 HP, Lightnings have 3,000 HP, and both Sunderers and MBTs have 4,000 HP.
Weaponry- How heavily armed each vehicle is. This should fit in the vehicle's role (unarmed, self-defense, or combat support).
Speed- How fast vehicles go, with acceleration on the side. Vanilla vehicles (no Turbo) have certain top speeds on level ground, with a Flash reaching 74KPH, a Harasser going up to 96KPH, Sunderers and Lightnings go 69KPH, and MBTs (Prowler at least) go to 59KPH.
Transport Capacity- How many troops (and crew) the vehicle can carry. Flashes carry 2, Harassers carry 3, and Sunderers carry 12.
Utility- What else a transport vehicle can do.

So here's how I would change current vehicles to make room for each of the types of transport vehicle listed above:

Flash
Cost- 50, keep it as is.
Armor- 1,000 HP (reduced) with resistances kept as is. The passengers are exposed to enemy fire.
Weaponry- Remove the Basilisk and Fury. Can't kill MAXes by ramming and will only heavily damage infantry. In general the Flash should only be very lightly armed.
Speed- 75KPH, keep it as is.
Transport Capacity- 2, keep it as is.
Utility- Cloak (improved), and a slow infantry rearming station.
Notes: Mostly kept as is, except slightly weaker and less well-armed. The Flash should simply be an incredibly inexpensive transport option for small squads (sniper, ATGM teams).

Harasser
Cost- 125, slightly reduced.
Armor- 1,500 HP (reduced), with lower resistances. A big change would be that the passengers are exposed to enemy fire.
Weaponry- Remove the Bulldog.
Speed- 100KPH, a slight increase.
Transport Capacity- 3, keep it as is.
Utility- Slow infantry rearming station.
Notes: Reduced in armor, but still allowed to field relatively heavy weaponry. Meant to quickly get a small team of soldiers (sniper, ATGM team) to their destination. Heavy weaponry allows for opportunistic combat, but cannot stay and fight.

Motorized Truck (new)
Cost- 100
Armor- 2,000 HP with Harasser resistances. Passengers (not driver and shotgun seat) are exposed to enemy fire.
Weaponry- Kobalt, Fury (1x)
Speed- 85KPH
Transport Capacity- 12
Utility- Vehicle Repair, Vehicle Rearm, Infantry Terminal and Spawn
Notes: This is the utility vehicle, taking many of the Sunderer's support roles. Also a cheap and speedy infantry transport, though poorly armed and armored. Best for transporting infantry between friendly bases or to an area behind the front lines.

Armored Personnel Carrier (new)
Cost- 150
Armor- 2,500 HP with small arms immunity. Otherwise improved Harasser resistances but worse than a Lightning.
Weaponry- Kobalt, Basilisk, Fury, Bulldog (1x)
Speed- 77KPH
Transport Capacity- 10
Utility- Infantry Terminal, Squad Spawn
Notes: A step up from a truck, though still vulnerable to enemy vehicles and AT infantry teams.

Sunderer
Cost- 150
Armor- 2,500 HP with small arms immunity. Resistances changed to match that of APC, except it gains a 95% mine, C4, and infantry rocket resistance.
Weaponry- Bulldogs removed
Speed- 80 KPH (significantly faster)
Transport Capacity- 10 (reduced)
Utility- Infantry Terminal, Squad Spawn (most of it has been given to the Motorized Truck)
Notes: The Sunderer is significantly changed, with most of its support role being passed on to the Motorized Truck. It is meant to be a sidegrade to the APC, trading weaponry for explosive resistance and speed. Much weaker than it is now (no more Sunderers chasing down MBTs).

Infantry Fighting Vehicle (new)
Cost- 300
Armor- 2,500 HP with weaker Lightning resistances. Essentially a weaker Lightning.
Weaponry- ESAV options, Halberd, plus a lighter Viper variant (2 different weapons).
Speed- 70KPH, same as a Lightning
Transport Capacity- 6
Utility- None
Notes: A Lightning that trades weaponry and protection for infantry transport capability. Still would be weaker than the current Sunderer. This transport would work well when escorted by Lightnings.

Converted Tank Transport (new)
Cost- 400
Armor- 4,000 HP with MBT resistances. Essentially a MBT.
Weaponry- Kobalt, Basilisk, Fury
Speed- 65KPH, slightly faster than an MBT
Transport Capacity- 4
Utility- Shield (like a Vanguard, except stronger)
Notes: A slow and sluggish infantry transport that is meant to deliver infantry to a fight no matter what.

Sunderer is cheap because it's AMS, not because it's transport.

If it wasn't for being the AMS, I believe it'd cost about 400Nanites as it stands.

AMS are crucial to fights, and they WANT them to be spammed.

also, you want WAAAAAAAY to many vehicles.

There's litteraly no benefit in over complicating vehicle choice and identification.

I certainly support diversifying the motor pool in game; I would also like to see NS and ES versions of all vehicles. The ES versions absolutely embodying the factions doctrine, and NS forming a middle ground between all of them and providing a choice to use if that platform and your empires doctrine don't exactly jive with how you like to play.

But this represents alot of development time and energy, which I do not think we will see. New content is likely to happen, but I do not see massive system overhauls as a possibility.

That's why the AMS got moved to the cheap 100 nanite Motorized Truck transport unit. It really can't do anything except act as an AMS or vehicle repair/rearm point.

Specialization is important because it prevents the type of mistake that the Sunderer is, where a single unit fills far too many roles.

The Sunderer became cheap and strong because it was supposed to be an infantry spawn point to sustain infantry fights.
But the Sunderer became too powerful as a combat vehicle for this very reason.

Splitting the Sunderer into two different vehicles would fix this problem.
You get one AMS transport unit that is terrible at combat and is actually less expensive than Sunderers currently are.
You get one non-AMS transport unit that is okay at combat (against anything less than a tank or aircraft).
Battle Sunderer problem solved!

Also more vehicles = more unique cosmetics = more profitsssss!

From a money-making microtransaction standpoint, adding in new vehicles (that hopefully someone will like) is a good way to make money off of older players.

The issue mostly with cosmetics is that once you have something for a slot per vehicle/class, there isn't a whole lot of need to get another one. This is because you can only use one at a time. For instance, once I got new tires for my Sunderer, I wasn't under a whole lot of pressure to get a second set of tires.

Adding in new vehicles with new cosmetic slots means that people (who use those vehicles) will be motivated to make cosmetic purchases. So while I might have already bought tires for my Sunderer, I now will buy tires for my truck, APC, IFV, etc.

As for the question of whether people will like these new transport vehicles enough to buy stuff for them... how many people actually bought Euro Truck Simulator 1/2 again? About 800,000?

Now I agree that these changes probably won't happen, but there might be a business opportunity there!

splitting AMS off sunderer is about the only valid point you have in that entire wishlist honestly.

And it's still not particularly necessary either frankly.

and finally, it simply won't happen this late in the game. It just is what it is.

If two things (which I think would be good for the game overall) happened, I think having more diversity in vehicles really would matter:

1) Resource Revamp II- If nanites really mattered, then getting the right vehicle for the right job would matter too. Right now it usually boils down to taking the strongest/best vehicle no matter how small the job, because nanites are plentiful. But if the revamp went through where both personal and base nanites would be valuable, then taking a 400 nanite heavy transport where a 100 nanite truck would have worked might make a significant difference!

2) Redeployside nerf- Right now really most transport units are irrelevant because of redeployside mechanics. But if redeployside was heavily penalized, then people would be more invested in transport vehicles, maybe finding one that would work for them.

Now whether these two things will ever happen or not... I dunno. And really I think more likely than not we won't see any good changes. But new Dev team with new bosses, so who knows?

I don't disagree there is a pot of money to be made for it, but like you said - probably won't. Maybe in Planetside 3.

It is a shame really, because more defined battlefield roles for vehicles helps solve balance issues (no more One-Platform-To-Rule-Them-All) and would pull in more players to fill the support roles these create. I know plenty of people who want to play war games like Planetside, but don't want to necessarily be combatants - which means more wallets to potentially get mad dosh from.

Battlefield diversity of equipment also adds a more cinematic effect; which makes the game more fun to play. It is only exciting so many times to see a bunch of Scythes ram into a bunch of Mosquitos in epic sky battles or Vanguards shell Prowlers before it becomes the status quo. More vehicles equals more possible combinations - which equals more times seeing something is exciting.

Exactly. If for nothing else, aesthetic purposes. Take this picture for example:



I mean even if lots of the vehicles are similar (say a Leopard 1A1 MBT versus a Leopard 1A3), you get the feeling that the battlefield is actually a battlefield. Could Wargame just have had one MBT per faction (or even one MBT per side in the Cold War)? Sure, it might have. But it wouldn't have been very fun or interesting to watch identical platoons of tanks doing the same thing over and over.

Do you really need two different types of autocannon IFVs which are roughly the same? Nope. But is the game better because you have two variants? Yes it is!

I.. wanna comment:
APC's aren't necessarily so lightly armored; it means infantry isn't expected to fight from the vehicle.
APC's don't tend to have things like autocannons, but if I'm not mistaken there are M113 variants that have exactly that. As well as variants with extra armor possibilities etc. Soo.. lines are a bit blurry. In principle, imo, it is the weaponry and the deployment that differentiates between IFV and APC.
-> What is one thing that you should only find on IFV: Slits for embarked infantry to fire from, whilst still inside the vehicle.
In western & modern IFV's these slits are often gone however.
Still, take an APC, put an autocannon turret on it and.. you have a light IFV.

Proposed changes:
Flash:
agreed on flash; a lawnmower that gets a few bullet holes doesn't drive anymore.
Another option is that the flash and other light vehicles start degrading in performance much faster, not "on fire", but a ligher effect starting at say.. 66% health, getting progressively worse.
I don't think removing weaponry at this point is an option however.
How about a severe trade-off for selecting wraithcloak: halved mag sizes of all weapons, lhalved ammo capacity.
Infantry re-arming station: would this be a station where you can change loadouts, or an ammo box, or resupply infantry consumables? Would it show up on the map ? Hilarious with wraithcloak..

Harasser:
insane that the buggy can currently survive a 120mm tank round; that it takes 3 rpg's to destroy, etc.
However, less health: sure.
Worse resistances: kinda vague.. kinda important to know just how nerfed it will be.
I think it should get an extra transport seat (driver, gunner, 2 transportees), but I want to disable all "repair while driving" in game.

Motorized truck: wouldn't it be awesome if having a "repair tool" was not sufficient to repair an mbt from 5% health and you needed a "repair truck" or something.. not gonna happen; so:
Another "engy change": vehicles receiving significant damage interrupts repairing.
You have a lot of vehicles; too much I think even. But no worries: shoud all factions have a motorized truck? Should all factions have an IFV? etc..

Sundy: 95% infantry rocket resistance? Hell no.
You want anti-C4 stand-off armor? Fine.
You want mine resistance? V-shaped hull? Fine.
Add rocket resistance= infantry immune.
In addition, infantry rockets (the lock-ons) are currently grouped with a huge amount of weapons, including mbt AV secondaries (except vulcan), and most AV-max weapons.

Anyway: vehicles in the line-up:
truck,
APC,
Sundy,
IFV,
Converted tank transport (-> can get more transport capacity IMO; oh well)

Sundy is forr all factions; keeps the current utility options & bulldogs.
Besides that, every faction gets two from the list; 1 below, 1 above "sundy".

Technically IRL the difference is how heavy your weaponry is; the limit I think is 20mm. If an armored troop transport has weaponry less than 20mm, it is an APC. If it has weaponry of more than 20mm, it is an IFV.

I think that mostly applies only to direct-fire weaponry... so an M113 with a 40mm grenade launcher might still be considered an APC and not an IFV.

So you're right that you could take an M113 and throw on a 25mm autocannon and it would switch classes to an IFV. And likewise you could take an M2 Bradley, remove the ATGM and autocannon, and it would become an APC. Armor isn't technically part of the definition, although in general you find that heavier weaponry is paired with heavier armor.

In PS2, most weapon calibers have gotten bigger. The 12.7mm Kobalt is our equivalent of a 7.62mm LMG. The 20mm Basilisk fills the same role as our 12.7mm HMG. And the 75mm Viper kinda does the same thing as our 25-30mm autocannon. So the old 20mm dividing line between IFVs and APCs wouldn't directly apply to PS2 anymore.

Yes, basically everything you said is EXACTLY what I said: protects you against small arms, but AV weapons can damage it. As for .50 ripping it to shreds, the .50 is like the worst weapon in this game. Pretty much all vehicles are effectively armored against it, my APC would be no different. A .50 would damage it, but not a lot, certainly less than it would a harasser. This isn't real life. If that was the case then 1 Rocket would destroy a Sunderer/ESF/Harasser/anything lesser than a EST, then 2-3 rockets would end it.

As for inferior. It would be as inferior to a Sunderer as the Valkyrie is to the Galaxy. Under your logic, we shouldn't have Valkyries because Galaxys are superior, yet we have Valkyries.

This vehicle is not ment as a mobile spawn point, but a way to move a fire team ahead of an attack to soften up the enemy. Flashes aren't effective because usually its only 1 guy on it; and outside of very coordinated teams, you wont see a Flash-rush to a base. Harassers dont work because they are ment as hit and run vehicles, they can only carry a small 3 man crew, any weapon can damage them, and noone can spawn on them. And no, the Sunderer isnt the "superior" vehicle for what Im meaning for this one. Sunderers are HUGE targets, slow as hell, not very maneuverable, and can be difficult to drive over rough terrain.

Sunderer's are NOT slow LMFAO

Huge target? who cares? It can soak more damage than anything but a GALAXY!

And Sundies also only cost 50 more nanites than a Harasser, so even price point wise there's no room for this new APC

And yeah, Valkyries are currently pretty effing pointless in the game TBQFH, tho it IS at least a more available (more terminals) and costs less


This vehicle is 150% redundant. It's not just redundant, but the options that already exist do everything better anyways.

So NO, they should ABSOLUTELY NOT waste their EXTREMELY LIMITED dev time on this nonsense.

I don't even really want them doing ES buggies TBQH, but at least those will have some fun new abilities to make them worthwhile.