[Suggestion] This is why we need APCs

The Sundy is an APC.

How does this differ from a Sunderer?

we dont need APCs because we have Sunderers for that

but what we need are IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) that fill a role between the Sunderer and Lightning. that way, IFVs would combine a (limited) transport capability for troops with the heavy firepower of a (light) tank. their primary gun could be armor-piercing or high-explosive autocannons, their secondary weapon could be anti-tank missiles

examples from reallife:

An armored transport vehicle with a decent armament?

*Cough* Harrasser *Cough*

It would be nice to have something like this though, but I don't think the game is in DIRE need of it.

I think what he wants is a full size APC with full armor. The sunderer is more like the M113 in that it has not very much armor for protection. A true APC should have heavy armor on all sides including the bottem and top. A limited capacity IFV would also be very nice.

You can have better armor...Blockade
You can have mine protection on the underside... Mineguard

It's a game where balance is important. Stop injecting your real world examples. If you could put all the Defense options on a Sunderer at one time the game would be stupid.

Put the armor upgrades on and the sundy quite literally is the tankiest thing in game. Mount armament of your choice and bam, IFV. What's that? Mobility? With racer its between MBT's and lightnings.

Sunderer is a bouncy truck.

it's a truck.

The Sunderer looks like a bus and can carry 12 people. I would welcome an IFV that only carried 5 and looked more like a fighting vehicle, ie a turreted weapon.

I have an old APC/IFV thread, put a link to it here https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/infintry-combat-vehicle.193177/

Not sure this video is the best argument for an APC/IFV. I don't think the transports really ever used their autocannon once in that video, you just had some guy blasting away with a LMG. Instead they relied on tank support (including that "intimate" support tank) and artillery fire.

It's a lot more than a truck (that would be motorized infantry, not mechanized infantry). It has as much health as a MBT. It also has natural armor resistance that is pretty close to a MBT (in terms of rear armor it actually resist more damage than an MBT without even using Blockade Armor). With Blockade Armor 4, the Sunderer gains about the same side armor resistance as a MBT (57% versus 58%) as well as a ridiculous amount of rear armor (70% versus 30%). Additionally the Sunderer takes less damage from many weapons based on damage type. For example a Phoenix will deal an extra 167% damage to a MBT, but will only deal an extra 100% damage to a Sunderer. AP cannons do an extra 13-15% against MBTs, but the Sunderer actually resists 28% of AP damage.

In other words Sunderers can outtank MBTs in certain situations. Which is pretty ridiculous. Sort of like how the Galaxy is absurdly armored and healthy for a glorified C-130 (which can be damaged, though probably not be brought down, by small arms).

The 20mm Basilisks that it can use are essentially autocannon (real HMGs wouldn't even be able to dent tank armor). Not to mention the 60mm mortars which are surprisingly effective against MBTs in close range.

So what the Sunderer is...
1) Can have more armor and the same health as an MBT
2) Can carry weapons that would be normally carried by an IFV, not to mention having mortars that can outDPS an MBT
3) Can drive faster than an MBT
4) Can cost less than an MBT

I would say the Sunderer isn't even an IFV... it's essentially a short-ranged tank that happens to be able to carry 12 people inside.

sundies actualy have more base health than MBTs (which is why they can survivie 2 c4s and a MBT cannot), so a blockade sundy will have more a good bit more resiliance than even a vanguard. And bassies arent that far behind the damage output of non-prowler tank heat cannons, they might even be a bit ahead, I havnt rerun the numbers after they had the fire rate boost. Admitidly I dont think thats a bad thing, its a three man vehicle (in full combat mode) and has a similar resource cost.

I was under the impression that both Sunderers and MBTs had 4,000HP. The difference is that Sunderers only take an extra 40% damage from C4, while MBTs take an extra 125-150% damage from C4. So if C4 did 100 damage, it would do 140 damage to the Sunderer and 225-250 damage to the MBT.

I think though the problem of a 3-man vehicle taking out a 2-man vehicle is that not all vehicles are the same... some are transports and others are meant for direct combat. Essentially if a Sunderer is caught out in the open by a MBT without an escort, that Sunderer and the infantry inside should be lunchmeat. Vehicle roles should matter more than simply how many people can fit inside.

sundies have 4750 base health, and MBTs have 4000, though you are right on the c4 multipliers. I wasnt thinking they were that big, but lo and behold they were. I guess it makes some sense though, one c4 leaves a tank in dire straits, and one c4 and a rocket is death. A sundy takes 2 c4 and then a bit more heavy firepower (I know 2 c4 and 2 underbarel grenades dont quite do it)

This.

C'mon... you can't be serious. Sure it looks like a truck, but in performance it's nothing at all like a truck. If it helps, you can think of it as an MRAP:

http://4.bp.************/-cCHSiselbfw/T-_QMUig82I/AAAAAAAAEak/ArBco3IV0k8/s1600/Type+CS-VP3_03.jpg

Except that it's about as durable as a MBT and can mount dual 60mm mortars in addition to 20mm autocannon. It's an IFV on steroids if anything, except it has double the carry capacity of modern IFVs.

If it really was a truck like the M35...


Then a single tank shell could probably take it out, and you could pepper it with small arms fire and kill the infantry inside. The Sunderer is clearly not just a military truck. It's far too heavily armed and armored.

This is why infantry traveling with a Sunderer are mechanized infantry, not motorized infantry.

but what hapens when you put 1 against 5 infantry, it gets destroyed, we need a vehicle that can easily kill infantry and fight with friendly infantry, sunder doesn't have the damage to do that in my opinion. a IFV for PS 2 would be highly resistant to non C4/mine anti tank weapon infantry have and be able to mow them down easily, but at the same time not standing half a chance against a lighting or AT esf.

In PS2 most ground vehicles, including MBTs, will be destroyed if they try to engage 5 AT units simultaneously at close quarters. That's just how PS2 is designed in favor of infantry.

What you're imagining is like a MBT with a HE cannon (or some other weapon that's good against infantry), except more heavily armored than a MBT.

The IRL equivalent of this was the WWII infantry tank, which were heavily armored, slow moving tanks that had relatively light AT weapons. But obviously they had no transport capability, apart from tank desant.



There were also the flamethrower tanks, which would be effective at suppressing/flushing out enemy infantry (not to mention roasting them alive), though these weren't normally that heavily armored apart from the Churchill variant:



Both these ideas were eventually scrapped in the real world because of improvements in tank armor and cannon, and that in the real world tank shells are devastating enough against enemy infantry. But because in PS2 you essentially have WWII tanks fighting against infantry using lasers and lock-ons, perhaps there could be a role for both infantry and flamethrower tanks.

Though to have essentially an infantry tank that could also act as a troop transport might be a bit too much.