German military vehicle: LGS Fennek. An Easy addition to SA

[Draco122 411]

Now I'm not opposed to Armored Vehicles HOWEVER they are extremely hard to balance in a game like DayZ where everyone is struggling with firepower. I don't know the gas milage of one these, I know the BRDM-2 can carry upto 77 US Gallons of fuel but I don't know how quick it uses it. As far I'm aware aren't most armored vehicles created during the 1960's to 80's huge gas guzzlers?

 

Perhaps IF they were to add a BRDM-2, one of the weakness's of this vehicle would be an extremely low Miles per gallon, meaning frequent fuel stops are required.

[stielhandgranate 480]

Hmmm wouldn't ordinary civilian cars also fit into that category.

 

 

I doubt LMGS or gpm would do anything to these armored vehicles.

 

Also why would explosives be anywhere near common enough to even warrant being a threat to an armored vehicle.

 

Have they discussed adding rpgs and at4s now ? I thought the loot was to remain relatively realistic.

 

Ordinary civilian cars aren't ambush resistant. LMGs/MMGs can deadline a fennek for involved repairs. A sustained burst on the windscreen can defeat it and expose the occupants to hazards. As well as Grenade launchers and landmines being confirmed, there is a technique for "Stacking" landmines. In Afghanistan insurgents would bury mines in a hole about one meter deep and stack anti tank and antipersonnel mines on top of each other to defeat vehicles like MATVs or MRAPs. If done correctly this could flip a Fennik, rendering it inoperable.

[stielhandgranate 480]

As far as fuel consumption I can conform military vehicles are gas whores from experience. I never encountered a vehicle in military use that didn't need to be refueled after spending 14 hours idling,let alone on missions.

[Draco122 411]

As far as fuel consumption I can conform military vehicles are gas whores from experience. I never encountered a vehicle in military use that didn't need to be refueled after spending 14 hours idling,let alone on missions.

 

Perhaps this would be a common weakness shared amongst military vehicles, having to frequently stop for fuel. And I suppose that even with those thick as hell tires bullets would still render the vehicle immobile if you were to shoot the wheels out with an AKM or other high powered rifle?

[blaf 63]

I think this armored car would be more suitable to both DayZ setting (lets pretend its a V3S) and gameplay:

[CornProducts 315]

Armored cars aren't super great for the game, unless they artificially make them a bit more squishy.

 

I can't tell you how many times I ran someone over with the medical vodznik in an r/mod enabled dayz server. It gets a little to similar to Arma 2 wasteland when you start opening the door to options like armored cars.

[gibonez 3633]

Ordinary civilian cars aren't ambush resistant. LMGs/MMGs can deadline a fennek for involved repairs. A sustained burst on the windscreen can defeat it and expose the occupants to hazards. As well as Grenade launchers and landmines being confirmed, there is a technique for "Stacking" landmines. In Afghanistan insurgents would bury mines in a hole about one meter deep and stack anti tank and antipersonnel mines on top of each other to defeat vehicles like MATVs or MRAPs. If done correctly this could flip a Fennik, rendering it inoperable.

All that would be nice I suppose if any of those things were readily available. I highly doubt lmgs, mines, and grenades will be. They will end up being a rare occurrence and thus not a viable defense against armored vehicles.

Just sounds like something better left in arma.

[B4GEL 175]

I think this armored car would be more suitable to both DayZ setting (lets pretend its a V3S) and gameplay:

 

I always thought these custom jobs from Ukraine would be good in Dayz, boars head and religious iconography optional.

 

[LegitOldSchool 261]

Ordinary civilian cars aren't ambush resistant. LMGs/MMGs can deadline a fennek for involved repairs. A sustained burst on the windscreen can defeat it and expose the occupants to hazards. As well as Grenade launchers and landmines being confirmed, there is a technique for "Stacking" landmines. In Afghanistan insurgents would bury mines in a hole about one meter deep and stack anti tank and antipersonnel mines on top of each other to defeat vehicles like MATVs or MRAPs. If done correctly this could flip a Fennik, rendering it inoperable.

You're still completely ignoring the point. Dayz is meant to be a player VS environment game mostly when near completion, it is meant to get players to fight the zombie threat, not to be a militarized PVP warzone with a side dish of zombie annoyance. Military vehicles have no place in this setting, the vehicles should be common cars and trucks that can easily be repaired and maintained by the general populace, not ones that required an engineering degree to be taken care of. It's already been said that armored vehicles are going to be almost exclusively civilian vehicles that had extensive work done on them with metal plates and a makeshift armoring, maybe even wooden boards.

Edited January 24, 2015 by EchoZeero

[stielhandgranate 480]

You're still completely ignoring the point. Dayz is meant to be a player VS environment game mostly when near completion, it is meant to get players to fight the zombie threat, not to be a militarized PVP warzone with a side dish of zombie annoyance.

 

Again you're misinterpreting a game that has heavy PvP for what YOU want, which seems like a PVE hug fest. Not happening, military vehicles or no. This isn't the Sims online or Altis life, Zombies edition.

 

Military vehicles have no place in this setting

 

Except they do. This is a military war zone and zombie outbreak crisis zone in a world without law and order. The settings isn't "peaceful pacifist town", its "civil war,then zombies". Again, the current V3S is a military vehicle.

 

the vehicles should be common cars and trucks that can easily be repaired and maintained by the general populace, not ones that required an engineering degree to be taken care of.

 

 

Except that military vehicles don't require a degree to maintain and repair. In fact militaries in general don't adopt vehicles that can't be maintained at a high school level. Do you think the enlisted folk at the trans-motor section of a military garrison have two year degrees in engineering? Using IV bags and administering blood transfusions require higher technical training than maintaining light scout cars.

 

 

All that would be nice I suppose if any of those things were readily available. I highly doubt lmgs, mines, and grenades will be. They will end up being a rare occurrence and thus not a viable defense against armored vehicles.

 

All of which would be more frequent than a higher end vehicle. Can't fight an armored car? Don't pick a fight with one. Just like not picking a fight with someone equipped with a rifle when all you have is a flashlight and battery. You are also implying this thing or anything like it would win any encounter it comes across. Go into a town or city, people can slip into a multi story structure and you can't do anything about it. unless you send someone out to pursue them.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Hmmm wouldn't ordinary civilian cars also fit into that category.

 

 

I doubt LMGS or gpm would do anything to these armored vehicles.

 

Also why would explosives be anywhere near common enough to even warrant being a threat to an armored vehicle.

 

Have they discussed adding rpgs and at4s now ? I thought the loot was to remain relatively realistic.

I fail to see how an RPG-7 and maybe some other disposable launcher (M72, RPG-18, etc.) would be unrealistic at all.

 

Not that I believe we need any sort of lightly armored vehicles (though armor plating through vehicle customization should be possible), but having a few anti-tank weapons meant for taking out even basic military vehicles or technicals would be extremely useful.

[Zio_ 7]

I dont think they should add a fennek, If you look at the army bases ingame they have BMP wrecks so if they are going to add a armoured vehicle it should be something like a BMP not a german/dutch fennek. Also things like a M4 or a AUG can only be found in a back hawk crash site so it makes sense.

[stielhandgranate 480]

I dont think they should add a fennek, If you look at the army bases ingame they have BMP wrecks so if they are going to add a armoured vehicle it should be something like a BMP not a german/dutch fennek. Also things like a M4 or a AUG can only be found in a back hawk crash site so it makes sense.

 

BMPs have turrets and cannons. Fenneks don't. Its a light scout so it would make sense if the logic was they were being used as forward observers or sweeping for a larger relief force.

[Zio_ 7]

Yet I still think fennek is not a good choice and does not fit DayZ at all, why add a german/dutch vehicle to the game and imply that their forces were there? Army vehicles that should be ingame should be of a czech or at least eastern european orgin or vehicles that the czech army uses to fit the style instead adding arma 3 vehicles. There are better options then the fennek czech army uses armored iveco trucks etc. If one day there would be a dayz map that take place in germany a fennek would be a great option.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Zio_

[rybec 339]

Yet I still think fennek is not a good choice and does not fit DayZ at all, why add a german/dutch vehicle to the game and imply that their forces were there? Army vehicles that should be ingame should be of a czech or at least eastern european orgin or vehicles that the czech army uses to fit the style instead adding arma 3 vehicles. There are better options then the fennek czech army uses armored iveco trucks etc. If one day there would be a dayz map that take place in germany a fennek would be a great option.

You heard him. OT-64 it is.

[therandomredstone 431]

leave these stuff to mods developers when dayzSA support mod.

why? the reason these forums are here are to share stories, information and ideas. Do you know how many Ideas the devs had gotten from their community?

[krazypenguin 174]

Firstly, just to clarify something mentioned earlier - in real life, civilian vehicles offer no protection to bullets, even small arms ones, and are in no way whatsoever bullet proof.  Only in stupid Hollywood movies and TV shows do cars absorb bullets.

 

Whilst a bullet hitting the engine of a car might well be stopped by the sheer bulk of metal in the engine and thus not continue into the passenger compartment, that does not count as bullet proofing since in the process it would wreck the engine of the car.  It's simply absorbed the bullet.  Note that whilst modern cars might have a lot of components under bonnet which are not essential to the core function of the car the ones in the game are decidedly more basic.  You hit the engine on one of these Lada\Trabant style cars and it's pretty much game over.  Moreover, that's the engine, which is a big chunk of metal.  The actual chassis of a car is very thin metal and a bullet will go in, through and out the other side.  As an example, anyone remember the Top Gear Christmas special a few years back where they start in Iraq?  Clarkson fills the door panel of a Mazda MX-5 with sand and a guy shoots it with a pistol - the bullet goes through the door (and sand) and then through the other door too.  In the process it breaks up and tears chunks off the door which would really mess up any occupant.  Cars are death traps when bullets are flying.

 

With regard to what are effectively APCs being in the game, my head says that it is entirely logical and probable that in a Chernarus sytle situation (as I understand it, a lowish tech level military\civil conflict which then goes nuts as people become infected and turn into "zombies") there would undoubtedly be the odd APC left lying around.  

 

Some would be abandoned intact by crews who simply panic and flee, others would run out of fuel and be abandoned and others would break down and simply be left by the side of the road or pushed into ditches.  And, of course, others might be knocked out due to light damage which kills or incapacitates the crew or otherwise causes them to abandon the vehicle when it is either still basically serviceable or otherwise easily repairable.  These, and many other similar situations, happen all the time in real life.

 

However, what also usually happens is that these vehicles are stripped, over and over again, by all partes until everything of value or use is gone.  By the time our characters stumble across them they should never, IMO, have fuel, guns or ammo (certainly not vehicle mounted ones anyway) and almost always have some sort of either damage or missing parts.  Players should never, in this game, be able to weaponise these vehicles, certainly not the turrets on them and really even crafting firing ports in them should not be possible.  This isn't the fricking A-Team.  If these vehicles were to be added getting them up and running should be an unbelievably difficult and time consuming process and keeping them running should need HUGE amounts of fuel, which should be very hard to find.  At present the game is not set up for this sort of prolonged activity, and the ability to dupe\exploit\server hop to store quantites of the bits you might need would mean large groups would easily be able to get the vehciles running without going through the challenge properly.

 

Meanwhile, over in my heart, there's a resounding NO!  I do NOT want APCs in the game, I do not want the sort of people that thinks it's funny to take their fully armed crew into Elektro to torture and murder bambis to in future be able to drive what is effectively an invincible tank into the middle of the town and mow people down, or just cruise up and down the coast slaughtering new spawns without any possibility of taking damage.  And no, anti-tank weapons, explosives, mines etc..are NOT the equalizer here - common sense is.  Whilst these things might enhance the game experience of players who get off on killing defenceless people, they would utterly ruin the experience for everyone else.  Bad idea.

 

TL:DR - want something with more armour than a car or truck?  Go play Arma.

[rybec 339]

Let me pick you apart a little.

Players should never, in this game, be able to weaponise these vehicles, certainly not the turrets on them and really even crafting firing ports in them should not be possible.  This isn't the fricking A-Team.

Using firing ports hardly counts as being the A-Team. Neither is using a mounted MG. On vehicles with mounted guns (not cannons) the crew would be horribly exposed. If you've played any FPS ever you'd know that being stationary and exposed means you're dead, so it'd be more likely people would'nt even use mounted guns.

 

 If these vehicles were to be added getting them up and running should be an unbelievably difficult and time consuming process and keeping them running should need HUGE amounts of fuel, which should be very hard to find.

Having the vehicle only able to refuel at only a few known places would make refueling a very very tedious process. Know there's a gas guzzler driving around? If they don't have a few jerry cans they're going to go to one of X number of places. Sit in a nice spot where you can see the pump and pluck the first guy that hops out to refuel.

A couple of things can happen: A) They're out of fuel and they're screwed. All it turns into is a waiting game of who is more patient. How much do you want to kill them and take it? How much do they want to keep it?

B)They have enough fuel to book it and leave either to reposition and you know where they are with them only having an idea where you are, or they risk running out of fuel nowhere near a fueling point. That'd be very bad for them.

 

 At present the game is not set up for this sort of prolonged activity, and the ability to dupe\exploit\server hop to store quantites of the bits you might need would mean large groups would easily be able to get the vehciles running without going through the challenge properly.

Sure they're going through the challenge properly. They're not making these parts appear out of nowhere. Exploits regarding equipment and items shouldn't be factored into whether content should be added or not.

If someone has friends and they work together to accomplish a goal it's a damned shame if it upsets you that teamwork makes things happen.

 

Meanwhile, over in my heart, there's a resounding NO!  I do NOT want APCs in the game, I do not want the sort of people that thinks it's funny to take their fully armed crew into Elektro to torture and murder bambis to in future be able to

If you've been in any of the cities like Elektro, Cherno, Berezino, new towns like Novo, you'd know that buildings form a maze of twists and turns in the city with areas you could only get through at shoulder width. Don't you dare tell me it'd be hard to lose a vehicle when you dip in and out of these inaccessible areas they only way could follow was dismounting and trying to follow on foot. Dismounting to follow would give a player plenty of time to get his ass out of danger from his pursuers. Driving a vehicle while turned in would be truly impossible to watch where you go from a viewport.

Cities are a vehicle's worst nightmare.

 

drive what is effectively an invincible tank into the middle of the town and mow people down

APCs are not tanks, and even tanks are not invincible. While there are people inside they may be protected, but they'll have to get out to do anything short of running over some idiot sticking his nose to the center line in a road

 

, or just cruise up and down the coast slaughtering new spawns without any possibility of taking damage.

Still not an issue. Don't run on the coastal roads or the beach if you can't hide at a moment's notice from some vehicle passing by. Stick to the woods which line the coast of literally everywhere you can spawn and good Lord, it would seem the vehicles don't patrol in the woods. They're going to stick to the roads. If for some reason you have to be in the open at the coast just hide behind a bush until they pass.

 

And no, anti-tank weapons, explosives, mines etc..are NOT the equalizer here - common sense is.

I couldn't agree more. Don't pick a fight with something you can't deal with. Although launchers would be a fun addition.

 

 Whilst these things might enhance the game experience of players who get off on killing defenceless people,

Which is a very large portion of the population, having a vehicle or not.

 

they would utterly ruin the experience for everyone else.  Bad idea.

The only people it would ruin the experience for would be solo players who run around with no regard for their safety. There really is nothing wrong with giving people a tough goal with a fairly worthwhile reward.

 

TL:DR - want something with more armour than a car or truck?  Go play Arma.

I do play Arma. It's quite fun.

 

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Players should never, in this game, be able to weaponise these vehicles, certainly not the turrets on them and really even crafting firing ports in them should not be possible.

 

And no, anti-tank weapons, explosives, mines etc..are NOT the equalizer here - common sense is.

I think allowing firing from the exposed positions (i.e. where the turret would lie) on lightly armored vehicles you could technically call APCs wouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

We should certainly be able to fire our guns in positions throughout regular vehicles as well as helicopters, though. Even the occasional pickup truck with an available MG to mount on it wouldn't be all that bad, although IMO I wouldn't go any further with land based combat vehicles than this. If people want armored vehicles then they should have to improvise them with metal sheets and whatnot at the cost of reduced speed/higher fuel consumption and reduced visibility.

 

AT weapons and whatnot wouldn't be the equalizer (I certainly don't want to see every man and his dog with an RPG-7) but regardless of how far they decide to go with vehicles I still think we should get some general AT weapons of all kinds. They're useful against all vehicles, and single shot disposable AT weapons and RPGs can still be used for infantry support even with a completely absence of vehicles. Mines, IEDs, and whatnot also have more practical applications than just anti vehicular use. That just happens to be a bi-product of them.

[stielhandgranate 480]

 

Meanwhile, over in my heart, there's a resounding NO!  I do NOT want APCs in the game,

 

1. The Fennek isn't an APC. It's classified as an Armored Scout, like a Humvee or MATV.

 

 

I do not want the sort of people that thinks it's funny to take their fully armed crew into Elektro to torture and murder bambis to in future be able to drive what is effectively an invincible tank into the middle of the town and mow people down

 

That could be done with any vehicle as "bambi" is slang for fresh players. How do flashlights and jeans fight off a fully loaded V3S with a troop bed of cowadoody players?

 

And no, anti-tank weapons, explosives, mines etc..are NOT the equalizer here - common sense is.

 

I agree. The common sense to to break off and hide when you hear a vehicle and go somewhere it can't follow you like thick forests or urban terrain.

 

Whilst these things might enhance the game experience of players who get off on killing defenceless people, they would utterly ruin the experience for everyone else.  Bad idea.

 

While where at it, lets add some reps from the brady campaign to the dev team and remove anything that could be used to kill fresh spawns like guns and pointy things, because that is something that happens and has since day one of standalone. The thing is an Armored car actually counters this, as the "spends a game session camping somewhere with a sniper rifle" players that have been around since the mod can be ignored safely, while not being offensive in nature.

 

TL:DR - want something with more armour than a car or truck?  Go play Arma.

 

want a game where no defenseless player is in danger of geared players gunning down,torturing,killing them from forced exsanguination or eating them? Don't play Dayz.

[krazypenguin 174]

You know, I am always open to listening to other people's thoughts and ideas and I am more than happy to change my own if presented with a decent argument.

You guys haven't done that yet.

[stielhandgranate 480]

Thats too bad you think so. Agree to disagree and move on then.

[rybec 339]

You know, I am always open to listening to other people's thoughts and ideas and I am more than happy to change my own if presented with a decent argument.

You guys haven't done that yet.

That's a shame, sounds like what a quitter would say.

[thedogfoodyayho 295]

Yet I still think fennek is not a good choice and does not fit DayZ at all, why add a german/dutch vehicle to the game and imply that their forces were there? Army vehicles that should be ingame should be of a czech or at least eastern european orgin or vehicles that the czech army uses to fit the style instead adding arma 3 vehicles. There are better options then the fennek czech army uses armored iveco trucks etc. If one day there would be a dayz map that take place in germany a fennek would be a great option.

We're not in the Czech Republic. Chernarus (population: Chernarussian) is near the Georgia/Russian border area and was infact a part of the Russian empire and later Soviet Union until 1991 (Arma lore) The terrain is based of an area in CZR where the developers grew up, but Chernarus isn't anywhere near the CZR. The CDF (Chernarussian Defense Force) used T-72s, BMPs, BRDMs, and (Almost defiantly, but they weren't in ArmA) BTR Variants,  With the soldiers carrying AK-74 and AKM rifles supported by PKMs and RPKs, (So basically shit the Soviets left behind) as opposed to the BVPs (Just BMP copies) OT-64s, Sa Vz.58s and UK.59s of the Czechoslovak army. (The Czech's did/still use T-72s and BRDMs though)

 

I don't get why people think light armored cars are OP. Notice thing thing doesn't have a turret, so if someone wants to shoot at you, they have to mount a gun on it and stick half their body out. Also, armored cars would probably be 1st person only, and as anyone who has played Red Orchestra will know, it's very easy to sneak up on a tank that doesn't have a floating camera above it.

 

In regards to destroying them, there used to be talk of IEDs in DayZ, back in like mid 2013, and they even showed them off in a stream. (They worked like grenades) but It seems they have been scrapped, though they would be perfect (although they were made from camp stove gas... not to effective) and a Molotov (Which imo needs to be added) broken over they engine will burn it out. (This is how finnish troops destroyed Soviet tanks during the winter war)

Also, I really don't see why people are so opposed to Launchers - I guess they don't understand the difference between Anti-tank and high-explosive rounds, or that these things are virtually useless past 150-200m.

 

But for an armored car, i'de like to see a Police/Headquarters BRDM or BTR, or a BTR-152 closed top, all lacking a turret. I machine gun could be added above one of the hatches on the roof. Google these vehicles before you call OP. Or, open-topped vehicles, like the original BTR-60, or a BTR-152/BTR-40. basically only good against people on the road in front of you.

[krazypenguin 174]

Thats too bad you think so. Agree to disagree and move on then.

 

Indeed, I'll leave you guys to it. All the best.

 

That's a shame, sounds like what a quitter would say.

Sounds like what a child would say.