Thanks, I wasn’t aware, about damn time they fixed it.
1 Like
Moving the Namers down does not spawn a lineup for them. They need to be buffed.
The APS is no longer bugged.
And let me remind you that its main gun is from BR 9.7 while it only has 4 missiles.
1 Like
Having absolutely 0 autocannon ammo in reserve really kills its survivability. The moment you get hit in the turret, your vehicle is effectively out of combat. Puma and VBCI have ammo box in the hull to make up for it. CRV is going to suffer a similar fate to the namer though, 348 rounds in the turret and that’s it.
2 Likes
The Namer is most certainly better than the Puma and other similar IFV, but they’re all pretty underwhelming. If only the Namer had an ammo box like the Terminator.
1 Like
Not sure I’d call it better than the Puma VJTF. They both have armor that can’t stop any APFSDS. But the Puma has much better mobility, much better optics, and ammo in reserve.
Pretty much the only thing the Namer has over the puma is the excellent side depression for some cheeky spots, slightly more spacious if enemy has bad aim, and APS.
Side by side, the VJTF is better than the Namer at a lower BR. Namer would be good if it had accurate armor.
Edit: Puma also has AHEAD to shoot down air targets with its IRST. Namer only has regular HE. The firepower of the Puma is also straight up better.
1 Like
Just to be clear, I’m speaking about the Tsrikhon, which has an APS. It’s often slept on but is very competitive against other IFV. The APS even keeps Terminators at bay.
Not exactly. The Namer has far superior kinetic performance against autocannon fire as well as superior chemical protection. Frontally, the Namer Tsrikhon is close to immortal for a Terminator, unlike the Puma.
It would be nice if it got an AHEAD round.
While the Puma’s firepower is better for its autocannon, it isn’t the main weapon of either vehicle. As a SPIKE launching platform, the Namer holds its ground better thanks to the Siman 4’s composite, even if it’s underwhelming, and the APS. If you play the vehicle at a distance from capture points while slinging spikes, it outperforms the Puma a lot.
The same is true of the BMPT, aside from the ammo box, which have always been opposed to being added.
My opinion on the BMPT since the Dev server is that it should get darts and Kornets to bring its weapons and armour more in line and go to 11.7/12.0.
I don’t really have an opinion on the Namer as I neither have it and Israel not being played much don’t fight it often. As for the SPIKEs in general, even if they are unreliable kills (which has not been my experience being hit by them) they are extremely annoying as they offer very little chance to defend unless you see them launch or are in a tank with APS, and at the very least a hit from them means a significant repair time.
For info, I have both namer, and I do like them both. While the hull is excellent against autocannons, if the guy in front of you isn’t stupid, he’ll just instantly ammo rack your turret with his autocannon.
The maps where you can do that are extremely rare. You first off pretty much need to roll the map type with a single cap point in each spawn. Then you need a map fitting that playstyle. Sands of Sinai big, Tunisia big, or Arctic big comes to mind. If you roll any other map or gamemode type like Rhine which will be like the 90% of your matches, Puma will be better.
It has two 2A42 30mm autocannons on a platform as durable as the T-90M. The Terminator with 0 buffs should be 11.3
It can’t stop darts without sheer luck.
If you don’t see them launch, how is that any different than not seeing a tank fire at you? Pay attention.
And seriously, use your smoke grenades.
This is true, which is why the Namer needs an ammo box. It is currently Anemic.
Correct. It is far too situational for its true doctrine of absorbing hits.
I’m likely Biased because I don’t like playing the Puma, but with all the IFV spam you see at 11.3, it just feels better to have armor against autocannons. The Puma just isn’t very durable.
2 Likes
Regardless the point still stands its better than other 10.7 IFV’s its a compression problem. The worst 10.7 is the CV90 MK.IV followed by the Vilkas. We dont need the Namer going down we need other vehicles going up in general.
Only 1 of which shoots at a time, unless they changed it, so I fail to see how that is a significant advantage to having one gun, and at least in test drive it still takes seems to often take the same time to swap guns as change the belts in a BMP… I’m assuming that’s a bug.
Tanks cant shoot you without exposing their turret and tank rounds don’t home in on you and hit you once you are back behind a hill.
Which requires you to know it was launched.
This is just my 2 cents on the issue, I’m not trying to claim the BMPT isn’t broken currently, just pointing out why I think they decided to put it at a lower BR.
As said, the Namer has some serious issues, the lack of mobility is a big one. Both Vilkas and CV functions better in their intended role of fast recon/flanker. You don’t have the Namer so you probably don’t realize just how sluggish the damn thing is.
The Namer has 18 hp/t with a terrible transmission of 54kph forward, 23kph reverse. This is worse mobility than the T-64A(a tank notorious for being a snail.) You can’t flank with it, and you can’t sprint early to good positions with it.
The CV90 Mk.IV is at 27 hp/t… with a transmission going 70kph forward, 45 in reverse.
All in all, the CV90 Mk.IV and Namer absolutely deserve to be at the same BR. The CV having 6 Spikes instead of the Namer only having 4 also helps the CV.
2 Likes
Corners.
Two guns to shoot from is also very strong. And you say “can’t shoot at the same time” as if I don’t know that. I have a 2KD in it while just holding W the whole time. It’s monsterously overpowered. The high firerate also makes the 30mm slip into tank armor at random.
Neither can the Namer.
Smoke and change direction. It’s really easy.
You use this statement as if tank shells aren’t the same way. Surviving an engagement requires you to know you’re fired at.
It’s because they wanted money. That’s it. The Terminator’s overpowered nature proved extremely profitable. Moving it to 10.7 was an excuse to say “we tried”.
Again no its a compression issue we dont need more compression and we dont need a well armored IFV like the Namer being 10.7 it should get an ammo box bit it shouldn’t be 10.7 end of story
It’s not well armored. The 10.3 BMP-2M autocannon can instantly ammorack it at 2000m by simply shooting the turret.
The large boxy turret also makes it very susceptible to catching 120mm APFSDS spall in the ammo belt. Not that it matters because both the CV and Namer armor essentially doesn’t exist against 120/125mm.
The CV90 Mk.IV is literally better than the Namer in near everything that matters for these types of vehicles.
It seems you dont understand basic english but when i said end of story i didn’t ask for your opinion on why you think it should go down. I simply don’t care because you have no interest in valid changes, we need less compression not more.
This is a public forum, mate; people are free to answer you even if you don’t like it, especially when you post incorrect statements like that. If you can’t handle that, you should get off the internet for a bit.
Hey i didn’t make the terrible suggestion that you’re bad in the Namer you did that, i simply said we dont need more compression