Is there any rhyme or reason to the vehicle pool?

[ShockUnitBlack]

Before I ask, I'll admit it right now - I love asymmetry and things having order to them, being a huge fan of designing theoretical RTS factions for modders, which is essentially why I can't not ask this question, this being my favourite mod ever -

Is there any real, overarching design plan with PR's vehicle pool?

EG - In vBF2 everybody had a tank, APC, SPAAG, and two types of transport vehicles, just like in PR where all the conventional forces have marksman rifles, etc. Anyway, I'm wondering if the same goes for PR's vehicles on a sort of larger scale.

According to the design legend for the Dutch forces (using them as an example), they get five APCs, three jeeps, a tank, a truck, etc, etc. Does the same go for the USMC or Russia for example, or are their respective assets simply getting plunked down when they're finished? Russia, again as an example, seems to have a lot of vehicles filling the same purpose, the vanilla BTR-80, MT-LB, and BMP-3 all serving their APC role, with the lattermost one being significantly more powerful than its brethren.

Thanks in advance.

[Conman51]

It really is map specific, the way it should be honestly

[Infantry4Ever]

On Fallujah west there are 4-5 humvees 3 apcs 2 tanks and 2 logistic trucks(i think).
It works really good when there are atleast 30 players on each side.
It all depends on the map.

[Trooper909]

On Fallujah west there are 4-5 humvees 3 apcs 2 tanks and 2 logistic trucks(i think).
It works really good when there are atleast 30 players on each side.
It all depends on the map.

I think he means the actual roster of assets as a whole.

[Bringerof_D]

it's so every faction can go onto any map and have a realistic load out. Its sort of like, "would the russians put this vehichle into this environment?" maybe not. What is the situation, Major confrontation or just a light skirmish or a show of force?

[Spec]

Yea, he means the total roster. And I think they just add vehicles that these forces have in real life (if they exist IRL and the data can be obtained), and that they commonly field or would field in a large-scale operation. For factions with MAs and easily accessible information, that might be more vehicles overall, and for fictional factions it's a bit random, I guess. I don't think there's any plan that each faction should have X tanks, X APCs, X IFVs, X Jeeps, X trucks etc. Just that every faction should have at least one type of every vehicle they need.

[mat552]

As near as I have been able to determine, each map is approached as a case by case basis, some receiving a great deal of input from the actual map creator, some none at all. When a map is submitted, the asset layout it comes standard with, indeed in some cases the asset layout it was intended for (Fools Road, as an example, was, if I recall, never intended to host the British faction, especially not for multiple versions), are not usually the layout the DEVs choose to package with a map.

Frequently these changes accompany new versions in which overhauls to vehicles or even basic game mechanics. Consider Ejod Desert. When it was first released, it contained MBTs and all manner of support vehicles. As the scope of PR increased, Ejod became "smaller" each release, until it was no longer suitable for even skirmish play by the standards set forth by the developers, when it was removed.

In addition, the assets developed for a given faction dictate what that faction will receive a great deal more than any common sense or logical deployment would. Muttrah, in all likelihood, would feature MEC T62s, T72s, or T80 MBTs, entrenched within the city to provide firing positions on the bay. The USMC would similarly not choose to attack such a fortified position without meaningful air support, provided either by a significant Arc Light style campaign or by employing precision munitions from standoff range, TLAMs, JSOWs, and the like.

Asset layouts are focused around balancing the player experience, not replicating what forces would bring to a given battle in real life. In many maps, this takes the form of exacting balance, placing direct analogues for force projection against each other. Tanks on one side are found in equal measure on the other, equal APC counts, and so on and so forth. In rare situations, balance is acheived by giving one side a different set of assets than another, usually geared towards encouraging a specific range of tactics. The prime example of this design philosophy was pre-change Qwai, which featured a Mechanized Chinese side with Tanks, IFVs, and no air vehicles. On the opposite side were the US Army, lightly armed and armored, featuring multiple helicopters and a mere handful of APCs and one or two precious Humvee mounted TOW Missile launchers. A well played Chinese round of Qwai was an unfathomable tide of destruction, focused furiously at a woefully undergunned and thinly spread opponent. A well played US round of Qwai was an amusing battle between a giant swatting at a gnat, the US capturing and securing a position before being whisked away to the next phase of the battle, leaving the Chinese to arrive some minutes later, baffled at the lack of enemies to fight. It was glorious.

Hope that helps.

Edit: Oh, that's not what you meant. Yea, assets are introduced when they're finished, not a patch before, there isn't any order to it.

[wuschel]

As near as I have been able to determine, each map is
The prime example of this design philosophy was pre-change Qwai, which featured a Mechanized Chinese side with Tanks, IFVs, and no air vehicles. On the opposite side were the US Army, lightly armed and armored, featuring multiple helicopters and a mere handful of APCs and one or two precious Humvee mounted TOW Missile launchers. A well played Chinese round of Qwai was an unfathomable tide of destruction, focused furiously at a woefully undergunned and thinly spread opponent. A well played US round of Qwai was an amusing battle between a giant swatting at a gnat, the US capturing and securing a position before being whisked away to the next phase of the battle, leaving the Chinese to arrive some minutes later, baffled at the lack of enemies to fight. It was glorious.

Well described. It was certainly the most enjoyable assymetric conventional balanced map I have seen so far in PR.

[Psyko]

from what i'v seen in the last couple of years...

the old **** gets chucked, and the new stuff gets implimented. (eg:vodnik-BMP)
We have gotten to a stage where (see above threads) people have begun complaining about having more vehicles on maps than infantry. its an interesting development. its got me thinking that the maps might be getting overcrowded with nonessential assets. im not sure yet anyway. see how it goes in the next few months i guess.

[Snazz]

the vanilla BTR-80

It's not vanilla.

PR's BTR-80:


BF2's BTR-90:

On Fallujah west there are 4-5 humvees 3 apcs 2 tanks and 2 logistic trucks(i think).

Haven't seen any tanks spawn on Fallujah in 0.95. Just 2 AAVs, a Bradley and a LAV-25. But it is a good example of multiple APC variants on the same map.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Meant the normal BTR-80 over the 80A.

Anyway, for me, the ideal way of organization would be similar to this, using the US Army's and MEC's land vehicles as example...

US Army/MEC

Main Battle Tank - M1A1/T-72
IFV - Bradley/BMP-3
APC - Stryker/BTR-60
Heavy Multi-Purpose Vehicle (enclosed gunner) - HMMWV with Crow Weapon System/BRDM-2
Light Multi-Purpose Vehicle - Normal HMMWV/Unsure, maybe the old Vodnik
Light AA Vehicle - Avenger HMMWV/BRDM-2 Gaskin

Etc.

[Wakain]

that would be quite a symmetrical slugfest, in pr it seems to be preferred to give each side an advantage in a certain way like a heavy attack helicopter for the blufor, thus giving them an advantage at countering heavy opfor armor, and a heavy AA vehicle for the opfor to allow them to screen their armor, thus creating teamwork where multiple players depend on each other for protection.

can't name a specific example here, but you get the idea

[ShockUnitBlack]

Again, this isn't map-specific, I'm only talking about a faction's overall pool as a whole. I'm also, of course, only applying this to the conventional factions.

[HeXeY]

Variation, makes the game less repetetive and therefore more fun for longer

[Celestial1]

Meant the normal BTR-80 over the 80A.

Neither of those are vanilla models. The BTR-80A is the BTR-80 model with a replaced turret, the body of the vehicle is the same.