GM's addition of vehicles (The Proper One).

[Aleks 129]

What your suggestion is: Adding some form of vehicle to GM, allowing flanking to be a little faster than just using a standard Grappling Hook.

Script fodder/workshop link: A suggestion by the Pie himself: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2326966706&searchtext=
Another suggestion could be the AT-RT or Speeders.

Any additional information: With the recent addition of LFS to the server, it is needless to say that, we were all excited to try new things out, including myself. As Frisby said himself, he realistically brought a whole bag of toys upon the server and gave some new things to pretty much everyone.

However, one regiment that really missed out on this blessing was GM. 501st had got their new and improved replacement for the dropship, 74th had received a new medical speeder, GC had got the new AT-RTs even though they already have speeders to help scouting.

In addition to the AT-RTs, quite a few regiments have somehow ended up with them. GC, RC, Battalion and all ARC Troopers have access to them, which is one of the cons for GM now receiving them (as enough regiments already have them anyway). Hence why I've suggested some speeders or the steam workshop link above ^.

As shown in the link, the vehicle is a Infantry Support Platform, and as GM is a Frontline/Flanking & SUPPORT (wink wink) regiment, I believe these would be a fine addition to our collection. As also shown on steam, the addons are indeed LFS, making things a whole lot simpler (I think?). These would make our flanking a lot more efficient, quicker and more deadlier than before.

There have been more than enough time within a flank where we've had to turn back half way through due to 501st, RC and ARC all getting to the flanking point before us due to their dropship access, their Head Hunter access, etc. And now with the recent introduction of LFS, I feel as if GM has really drawn the shortest straw here.

Take this in whatever way you gentlemen (and ladies) would like, whether we're bitching or providing a very good argument here. However, in our opinion within GM, we do feel quite left out on having a regimental vehicle. Yes we have a very powerful Flame Throwers (501st have powerful shotguns) , yes we have access to useful Grappling Hooks (as do GC, ARC, RC & Battalion), but these are simply no match against other regiments who have far more superior vehicles to flaunt and advertise to new and eager CTs, therefore your normal reply of, "But you have Flame Throwers and Grappling Hooks!!!" is just not enough. Hence why we would very much appreciate regimental vehicles for ourselves.

Thank you very much for reading.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Aleks

[Hash 23]

+1.

[Bradly 0]

+1

This will incredibly help out flanking and introduce new scenarios during events where GM can contribute a much bigger factor into events by making the EC's retreat from key areas by flaming them out after using the provided vehicles to get behind them quickly

Edited December 22, 2020 by Happenin

[Pingu 33]

+1

Usually when you tell GM to flank they are too slow especially on Cruiser Canyon. 

One downfall as it is with all LFS vehicles is a lot get used way too often as they are new so GM may use it on smaller maps where it is not needed which stresses the server even more for no reason. However all regiments with new things do this atm so I dont see it being much of  a problem

[Nathan 72]

-1 

I hate to be the shitter on this however although I do agree with you needing a vehicle this is not the one. 
 

The reasons why, it is a 2 seater vehicle in which would make it hard for GM as a regiment to flank and do their job with only two people. And using multiple at once is a big no. Especially with the already used amount of ships.

To add onto the seats. Most likely I will be the one who will have to do the work on this and I see no way at all of making more seats without it looking more cramped than the London underground. 
 

If a better vehicle is found or even a model I could perhaps work with is found then it’s a +1 from me 

[Reg 15]

2 hours ago, Nathan said:

-1 

I hate to be the shitter on this however although I do agree with you needing a vehicle this is not the one. 
 

The reasons why, it is a 2 seater vehicle in which would make it hard for GM as a regiment to flank and do their job with only two people. And using multiple at once is a big no. Especially with the already used amount of ships.

To add onto the seats. Most likely I will be the one who will have to do the work on this and I see no way at all of making more seats without it looking more cramped than the London underground. 
 

If a better vehicle is found or even a model I could perhaps work with is found then it’s a +1 from me 

+1

[Hogus 79]

+1 if the vehicle was something else with more seats

[Shepherd 98]

+1 I believe every regiment should get a vehicle with LFS to keep things even. With this, GM get a vehicle and it is not too overpowered either as it has no shields and low armour. It is also very small unlike the UT-AT so I think it would be a great addition to the server.

[Jack. 94]

-1

I'm fine with GM getting a vehicle, but this 2 seater swamp speeder doesn't feel like the right one.

[Clopter 84]

-1

Do agree that GM need some mode of transportation but don't think this would be it, something like the AT-RT would be good for GM since its more of a get from point A to B vehicle but this vehicle looks and feels more like a variant of a tank than anything else.

[Hash 23]

Just a quick pointer for those -1ing because of the 2 seated vehicle, he did also suggest AT-RTs and/or Speeders for us too.

[Nathan 72]

2 minutes ago, Hash said:

Just a quick pointer for those -1ing because of the 2 seated vehicle, he did also suggest AT-RTs and/or Speeders for us too.

thats even worse. One seater. Each ARC. Battalion, GC and GM using it would not be good for the server

[Hash 23]

Just now, Nathan said:

thats even worse. One seater. Each ARC. Battalion, GC and GM using it would not be good for the server

I saw no reason for GC even getting access to them when they already have speeders anyway but, I see your point.

[Aleks 129]

I must agree a 2 seater vehicle wont be the best but at the moment we couldnt think of any fast moving transport vehicle

[MILK 0]

+1

 

[Silent 148]

+1 for AT RT    -1 for the suggested vehicle

[Solaire 143]

2 hours ago, Silent said:

+1 for AT RT    -1 for the suggested vehicle

This

[Bean 80]

Big +1 to GM getting a new vehicle that supports our flanking but people do raise good points about the seating capacity of the vehicles suggested as i'm sure neither people or the server would appreciate 10 ISPs driving around everywhere. We need a mobile vehicle with a decent seating capacity so i don't think the AT-RT is a good choice either.

[Archer 43]

-1

GM Already have Enough Equipment

Not Every Regiment has LFS [ Example: CG, DU ] 

Your Flamethrower is already Good Enough to take out a Bunch of EC's and Piss em Off

And you have a Grapple Hook

A Vehicle isnt Needed, CE Can transport

 

[Bobby Bands 68]

As Nathan said, I hate to be someone who shits on other people wanting more vehicles for their fun, but I don't think GM should get a vehicle, at this stage we might as well go with giving CT SO if everyone is going to start getting vehicles. All throughout the time GM have never had a vehicle, there is no need for them to get one now. Even then if you quickly want to flank and RC are flanking just get in their ship, I've done it before and will continue to do it, might as well as it helps other people. But again, I don't think GM should be getting one.

[Evilgejf 43]

+1 Everthing said above and remember we can grapple onto vehicles but seats are cool

[Victor 218]

Neutral

Well although it would seem cool for GM to get a vehicle and all but if that's the case then every regiment will ask for a piece of that cake. I also don't agree with a 2 set vehicle but if there are more set vehicles then sure GM deserves it

[Bean 80]

Admittedly, we'd need a pretty special vehicle to actually fit our playstyle and actually be useful as an AT-RT or a BARC would be useless for GM and we'd never get chosen to use them anyway unless we begged battalion extra hard or if there were shortages of ARC, GC, RC or battalion.

And i doubt we'd be granted any special vehicle like a dropship or something anyway and even if we did like others have pointed out, other regiments would just want them too.

 In terms of regiments that don't already have LFS,  I'd say GM is still the most worthy of a new vehicle in that we are constantly mobile and a quick transport vehicle would benefit us more on the fontlines than it would to largely static regiments like DU or CG(in events) but no vehicles really fits our playstyle and our loadout is already too strong for any big exciting vehicle so just having a new vehicle for the sake of it is pointless.

Tl;dr: GM shouldn't just have a vehicle for the sake of it.

[Archer 43]

Not every regiment has LFS Vehicles, GM doesn't need more Special EQ.

The Grapple Hook and Flamethrower and RTC are Powerfull enough

 

[JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 304]

Archer stfu

Ima freeing with Silents statement tbh just take the ATRT and I’ll support but no with this

-1 for the suggested +1 for silents one