My father was in the military. When I was a little kid, I had these miniature toy soldiers and a miniature city. I was playing and moved my tanks inside of the city and my dad passed by me and stopped to take a look.
For some reason what he told stuck in my head as it was my first piece of military knowledge.
He said "You have a problem with your battle. A position is never considered taken until the infantry move in."
Sorry if I over-dramatized the moment :] But I think this is a very fundamental thing.
Is it possible to restrict flag captures to infantry only?
This would serve a few purposes:
1) Create the concept of actually "securing" an area.
2) Leave vehicles no other choice but to do what they are meant to do -- act as a supporting role in an engagement.
We can even break it down logically...
- Guy spawns.
- Guy sees tank, hops inside.
- Guy thinks 'ok, no point in running around looking for flags as I cannot cap them, i'll go for some kills'
- Guy moves towards a firefight to get kills and provides a supporting role as he should.
Another thing this would promote is tanks keeping their freakin distance and being the power that they are.
The final point is, my opinion is that PR should focus on stretching out the frontline in battles. Too often, battles in BF2 deteriorate into damn near hand-to-hand combat. Battles need to be fought at a relative distance( it should be made advantagous).
Rushing the enemy should always be a disadvantage. Common logic would state that if you are doing a head-on assault, you should always have atleast twice as many men as the defenders to offset the amount that die.
Even if you put that concept aside, as frontal assaults depend on much more than numbers, I think we can all agree that battles (even in PRMM) usually turn out way too close even on non-cqb maps. Maybe it has to do with map design as well, but I know for sure that one of the reasons is that vehicles have an incentive on driving out ahead and putting themselves in harm way to get a "flag cap".
My father used to say...
-
Artnez
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2005-08-15 01:44
My father used to say...
Last edited by Artnez on 2005-09-22 12:10, edited 1 time in total.
"Having the piss taken out of you is a small price to pay when others do your research. Thank you gentlemen." - Azametric(IRL)
-
{GD}Snake13
- Posts: 142
- Joined: 2005-09-09 13:52
-
GABBA
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 2005-05-16 16:00
-
HogansHeros
- Posts: 267
- Joined: 2005-09-07 21:19
-
Eglaerinion
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 2004-07-25 16:00
I agree, especially about the engagments that take place in the game and currently with the minimod. I think the problem is just shitty map design, every flag is surrounded by tons of buildings and structures so that you have to get close to attack the defender.
Firefights where people move from cover to cover are seen sporadically because it is more effective to just rush forward. Increasing the lethality of the weapons was a great change already and I can't wait to see some more realistic maps in the future.
Firefights where people move from cover to cover are seen sporadically because it is more effective to just rush forward. Increasing the lethality of the weapons was a great change already and I can't wait to see some more realistic maps in the future.
-
DAWG
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 2005-03-08 01:35
You guys are talking about Pub play, in a coordinated match with competent players the problems you mentioned don't arise. Hell even in pub play this doesn't happen to the extent you are implying. Believe me, you rush across open terrain towards me or any of the other guys I used to fight with and you are dead, may I suggest basic weapon training learn to kill at range and you won't have to fight them at close quarters.
As for tanks not being able to take control points, that's nuts, if you implement the rule that tanks can't capture control points then you effectively render the tank ineffective as anything but a gun. The tank itself is not the problem, the tactics of the people playing is the problem.
BF2 also has an inherent problem, in that it claims to be a squad based Tactical FPS, but it doesn't inspire team play, everyone is running around trying to harvest points to open more unlocks and get a higher rank, which means most people disregard the CO's orders because they know better ( apparently ), they don't care if the side wins or looses, they are only considering themselves and trying to get the gold star.
It has been mentioned elsewhere that the PR team may set up a tournament based on the mod and Believe me the game play and sheer enjoyment of the game are increased beyond anything you will find on a pub server, hell I don't play on pub servers because most of the players are smacktards, who have no idea of tactical awareness.
I understand and sympathize with your points, however this is not something the modders can fix, unless they start performing unlicensed lobotomies on many of these tards in the pubs. If you haven't already, may I suggest you invest some time in one of the tournaments currently active to get a feel for just how good and how different the play will be in a BF2 tournament based on the PR mod try Total-War or Nations At War, these are both smaller tournaments which don't charge on a pay to play basis and are an excellent way of cutting your teeth in competition play).
Tanks can take positions and often do in real life, however the area will not be considered secured until the ground pounders move in and provide the neccessary security required to hold a position, when the position in question is being held properly by a coordinated squad, that solo tank whore who keeps trying to flag hop will soon get real sick of coming face to face with well placed mines and anti tank personel every time he attacks without infantry support.
As for tanks not being able to take control points, that's nuts, if you implement the rule that tanks can't capture control points then you effectively render the tank ineffective as anything but a gun. The tank itself is not the problem, the tactics of the people playing is the problem.
BF2 also has an inherent problem, in that it claims to be a squad based Tactical FPS, but it doesn't inspire team play, everyone is running around trying to harvest points to open more unlocks and get a higher rank, which means most people disregard the CO's orders because they know better ( apparently ), they don't care if the side wins or looses, they are only considering themselves and trying to get the gold star.
It has been mentioned elsewhere that the PR team may set up a tournament based on the mod and Believe me the game play and sheer enjoyment of the game are increased beyond anything you will find on a pub server, hell I don't play on pub servers because most of the players are smacktards, who have no idea of tactical awareness.
I understand and sympathize with your points, however this is not something the modders can fix, unless they start performing unlicensed lobotomies on many of these tards in the pubs. If you haven't already, may I suggest you invest some time in one of the tournaments currently active to get a feel for just how good and how different the play will be in a BF2 tournament based on the PR mod try Total-War or Nations At War, these are both smaller tournaments which don't charge on a pay to play basis and are an excellent way of cutting your teeth in competition play).
Tanks can take positions and often do in real life, however the area will not be considered secured until the ground pounders move in and provide the neccessary security required to hold a position, when the position in question is being held properly by a coordinated squad, that solo tank whore who keeps trying to flag hop will soon get real sick of coming face to face with well placed mines and anti tank personel every time he attacks without infantry support.
Last edited by DAWG on 2005-09-22 20:12, edited 1 time in total.
-
Artnez
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2005-08-15 01:44
Last I heard this mod wasn't geared towards coordinated matches.DAWG wrote:You guys are talking about Pub play, in a coordinated match with competent players the problems you mentioned don't arise. Hell even in pub play this doesn't happen to the extent you are implying. Believe me, you rush across open terrain..and bla bla...
Tanks are only supposed to be one thing... a big gun. The infantry are the ones that do the brunt of the work.
Why is this?
Because you never see a freaking flag post sitting on a street curb that you need to take (especially 5 of those flag posts within a 5 mile radius)..
It's either a building, or an oil field, or a bridge, or a river crossing... not just a flag poll.
Nearly every military objective has to do with securing an area. Tanks cannot secure an area, they can only support the infantry in doing so (for reasons I truly hope you understand).
And for reference:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/U ... trine.html
United States Army Tank Doctrine wrote: The fundamental mission of the tank platoon is to close with and destroy the enemy. The platoon's ability to move, shoot, communicate, and provide armored protection is a decisive factor on the modern battlefield. It moves, attacks, defends, and performs other essential tasks to support the company team or troop mission.
"Having the piss taken out of you is a small price to pay when others do your research. Thank you gentlemen." - Azametric(IRL)
-
DAWG
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 2005-03-08 01:35
This shouldn't become an argument, if you read my post again you will realise that I agree with the points you make, those things do happen in BF servers. My point is that I disagree with your resolution of the problem. The fact that you state street corners don't constitute control points is simply unrealistic. Choke points and strategic positions are not always buildings and bridges, the way terrain lays out can form a strategicaly advantageous position, the game attempts to simulate this by making them control points, when in reality they should simply be advantageous areas to station troops. The game ( BF2 ) is flawed it does indeed have too many control points which are pointless, in reality they are only made important by the fact a flag was positioned there, for no good reason.
Removing the ability of a tanker to add to an attacks bleed down on the flag, will inevitably leed to tanks becoming somewhat obsolete. Let's face it a tank standing at range lobbing shells at a base is a prime candiate for anyone with an anti tank weapon and the notion to use it.
The only other aspects I would mention is that you feel that Project Reality was not meant to be a coordinated game, BF2 is supposed to be a team game, it is because people go for glory and personal gain rather than do whats best for the team is not a game flaw it is a player flaw.
Originally Posted by United States Army Tank Doctrine
The fundamental mission of the tank platoon is to close with and destroy the enemy. The platoon's ability to move, shoot, communicate, and provide armored protection is a decisive factor on the modern battlefield. It moves, attacks, defends, and performs other essential tasks to support the company team or troop mission.
The above paragraph only strengthens my point, tanks are used to do all jobs on the battlefield, an infantry unit will have a hard time securing or defending a position against an enemy Armored assault unless they have armored support helping to secure and defend the area. Tanks need infantry? Certainly! Infantry needs Tanks? Absolutely! The only way to do what you ask is to make it so that a flag can not be captured unless there is a mixture of unit types in the cap supporting each other. The game itself can only simulate so much even in a reality mod, the rest is up to the players to play by the rules or play the rules. Like I say, try some coordinated play, ask anyone here who is a member of a tournament or clan, BF anything is so much better when you play it with a plan in mind and guys who do their job regardless, rather than dissapear into the mist looking for a quick kill or capture to get them a few points closer to Sergeant and that next unlock.
Don't take my comments out of context, I am not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying I am right. Rather I am putting my views accross in relation to a problem you have perceived within the game. Everyone here may think I talk shit and you are perfectly correct in your assessment, if that is the case, then I conceed the point and congratulate you on a well structured argument for solving the problem of base jumping and Rambos. Peace man, we may end up fighting on the same side some day and ultimately it will be upto the mods as to how or whether they fix this problem.
Removing the ability of a tanker to add to an attacks bleed down on the flag, will inevitably leed to tanks becoming somewhat obsolete. Let's face it a tank standing at range lobbing shells at a base is a prime candiate for anyone with an anti tank weapon and the notion to use it.
The only other aspects I would mention is that you feel that Project Reality was not meant to be a coordinated game, BF2 is supposed to be a team game, it is because people go for glory and personal gain rather than do whats best for the team is not a game flaw it is a player flaw.
Originally Posted by United States Army Tank Doctrine
The fundamental mission of the tank platoon is to close with and destroy the enemy. The platoon's ability to move, shoot, communicate, and provide armored protection is a decisive factor on the modern battlefield. It moves, attacks, defends, and performs other essential tasks to support the company team or troop mission.
The above paragraph only strengthens my point, tanks are used to do all jobs on the battlefield, an infantry unit will have a hard time securing or defending a position against an enemy Armored assault unless they have armored support helping to secure and defend the area. Tanks need infantry? Certainly! Infantry needs Tanks? Absolutely! The only way to do what you ask is to make it so that a flag can not be captured unless there is a mixture of unit types in the cap supporting each other. The game itself can only simulate so much even in a reality mod, the rest is up to the players to play by the rules or play the rules. Like I say, try some coordinated play, ask anyone here who is a member of a tournament or clan, BF anything is so much better when you play it with a plan in mind and guys who do their job regardless, rather than dissapear into the mist looking for a quick kill or capture to get them a few points closer to Sergeant and that next unlock.
Don't take my comments out of context, I am not saying you are wrong, nor am I saying I am right. Rather I am putting my views accross in relation to a problem you have perceived within the game. Everyone here may think I talk shit and you are perfectly correct in your assessment, if that is the case, then I conceed the point and congratulate you on a well structured argument for solving the problem of base jumping and Rambos. Peace man, we may end up fighting on the same side some day and ultimately it will be upto the mods as to how or whether they fix this problem.
-
Artnez
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2005-08-15 01:44
We are just having a friendly argument 
I, too, commend you for not breaking out the "your a n00b so stfu you n00b i raise green pandas and eat st00pid n00b frogs sooo coooool" type thing (lol).
What I disagree with is allowing any non-infantry unit secure a control point.
Let's take a rational example.
There is a large city. Infantry units have recieved sporadic small arms fire from a tall building that overlooks the city. The only people that can secure this building are, in fact, infantry. But that's obvious.
Let's take another example where tanks would come into play. The taking of a hill, which were quite the popular objectives in afghanistan, vietnam or korea.
When infantry units move in to secure the hill, tanks are only used as supporting fire. They dont drive to the top of the hilltop. They either drive half way up to provide a shield for the infantry and then pummel the hill with heavy fire, or they stay at the bottom providing suppressing/cover fire for the advancing infantry.
Here is another reference article regarding the battle in Fallujah.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 922509.asp
"The tanks and Bradleys would kill as many of the enemy as they could, but it took marine riflemen going into buildings to finish the job...............Tanks were also used to deal with enemy resistance. Each tank fired one or two dozen 120mm shells a day, 500-100 .50 caliber and over 2,000 7.62mm machine-gun rounds a day. The M1 tanks were immune to any weapons the Fallujah defenders had and often provided all the heavy firepower the marines needed to clear out a building."
It was infantry who secured the area.
But... this is sort of off of the topic of securing an area.
When you take a flag, it signifies that a location is under your control. Armor cannot secure an area. Buildings need to be cleared, passageways need to be checked, boobytrap checks should be made and some recon of the outlying area. Armor cannot do this job, only infantry can.
Armor plays a supporting role in the assault of a control point, but not in the actual capture of the control point.
EDIT
Oh, also, regarding your comment about tanks becoming obsolete if control points can only be secured by infantry... this is definitely not true.
This would make it advantagous for tankers to do what they are supposed to do... provide supporting fire from a distance.
I, too, commend you for not breaking out the "your a n00b so stfu you n00b i raise green pandas and eat st00pid n00b frogs sooo coooool" type thing (lol).Agreed. Yes, street corners can constitute control points. Yes, BF2 lacks in some areas by placing flags in stupid locations.The fact that you state street corners don't constitute control points is simply unrealistic. Choke points and strategic positions are not always buildings and bridges, the way terrain lays out can form a strategicaly advantageous position, the game attempts to simulate this by making them control points, when in reality they should simply be advantageous areas to station troops. The game ( BF2 ) is flawed it does indeed have too many control points which are pointless, in reality they are only made important by the fact a flag was positioned there, for no good reason.
What I disagree with is allowing any non-infantry unit secure a control point.
Let's take a rational example.
There is a large city. Infantry units have recieved sporadic small arms fire from a tall building that overlooks the city. The only people that can secure this building are, in fact, infantry. But that's obvious.
Let's take another example where tanks would come into play. The taking of a hill, which were quite the popular objectives in afghanistan, vietnam or korea.
When infantry units move in to secure the hill, tanks are only used as supporting fire. They dont drive to the top of the hilltop. They either drive half way up to provide a shield for the infantry and then pummel the hill with heavy fire, or they stay at the bottom providing suppressing/cover fire for the advancing infantry.
Here is another reference article regarding the battle in Fallujah.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 922509.asp
"The tanks and Bradleys would kill as many of the enemy as they could, but it took marine riflemen going into buildings to finish the job...............Tanks were also used to deal with enemy resistance. Each tank fired one or two dozen 120mm shells a day, 500-100 .50 caliber and over 2,000 7.62mm machine-gun rounds a day. The M1 tanks were immune to any weapons the Fallujah defenders had and often provided all the heavy firepower the marines needed to clear out a building."
It was infantry who secured the area.
Agreed again.The above paragraph only strengthens my point, tanks are used to do all jobs on the battlefield, an infantry unit will have a hard time securing or defending a position against an enemy Armored assault unless they have armored support helping to secure and defend the area. Tanks need infantry? Certainly! Infantry needs Tanks? Absolutely!
But... this is sort of off of the topic of securing an area.
When you take a flag, it signifies that a location is under your control. Armor cannot secure an area. Buildings need to be cleared, passageways need to be checked, boobytrap checks should be made and some recon of the outlying area. Armor cannot do this job, only infantry can.
Armor plays a supporting role in the assault of a control point, but not in the actual capture of the control point.
EDIT
Oh, also, regarding your comment about tanks becoming obsolete if control points can only be secured by infantry... this is definitely not true.
This would make it advantagous for tankers to do what they are supposed to do... provide supporting fire from a distance.
Last edited by Artnez on 2005-09-22 22:31, edited 1 time in total.
"Having the piss taken out of you is a small price to pay when others do your research. Thank you gentlemen." - Azametric(IRL)
-
DAWG
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 2005-03-08 01:35
The very last part of your last post actually makes it clear what we are arguing about and solves the problem in one fell swoop. The problem is really in the differing styles of play we are use to. You sound as though most of your play has been on public servers, ( that's not a critique, simply and observation ) where a tank can take and hold a position.
However this is in my opinion is caused by that lack of coordination again, if the opposing team actually think logicaly and work together that solo tank has no chance of holding that position, because riflemen would be used to draw the tanks fire allowing AT units to move into position. In this manner the best the tank driver can hope for is that he jumps clear of his exploding tank into a hail of rifle fire. This doesn't happen in public areas because rarely do people act together to thwart the enemy, the best you will normally get is one or two people arriving on the scene together ( usually by accident and odds are carrying medic kits lol ) and get cut down by the tank driver sitting in his armored shell.
To finish, I have to say when the PR Tournament gets set up and you guys get in there and see real tactics and strategies being used, where squads stay at designated flags and follow pre arranged battle plans for attack and defence, you will wet yourself. Tournament play is the closest you will get to real military maneuvres without signing up. Can't wait to to see you on that battle field cause I know you'll love it, it's everything you asked for and more.
In tournament play flags are defended by using C4, Claymores ( or equivalent ) and mines, not to mention a good dose of automatic weapons, tanks and vehicles tend to get used in support roles after all it is pointless to mine your own tank into a base, thereby effectively imobilising your own armor. Certainly they will help assault the flag for rapid capture but usually only after the area is secure from possible enemy infantry threats.
However this is in my opinion is caused by that lack of coordination again, if the opposing team actually think logicaly and work together that solo tank has no chance of holding that position, because riflemen would be used to draw the tanks fire allowing AT units to move into position. In this manner the best the tank driver can hope for is that he jumps clear of his exploding tank into a hail of rifle fire. This doesn't happen in public areas because rarely do people act together to thwart the enemy, the best you will normally get is one or two people arriving on the scene together ( usually by accident and odds are carrying medic kits lol ) and get cut down by the tank driver sitting in his armored shell.
To finish, I have to say when the PR Tournament gets set up and you guys get in there and see real tactics and strategies being used, where squads stay at designated flags and follow pre arranged battle plans for attack and defence, you will wet yourself. Tournament play is the closest you will get to real military maneuvres without signing up. Can't wait to to see you on that battle field cause I know you'll love it, it's everything you asked for and more.
In tournament play flags are defended by using C4, Claymores ( or equivalent ) and mines, not to mention a good dose of automatic weapons, tanks and vehicles tend to get used in support roles after all it is pointless to mine your own tank into a base, thereby effectively imobilising your own armor. Certainly they will help assault the flag for rapid capture but usually only after the area is secure from possible enemy infantry threats.
Last edited by DAWG on 2005-09-22 22:41, edited 1 time in total.
-
Artnez
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2005-08-15 01:44
I am very familiar with tournament-based play, more than you knowDAWG wrote:The very last part of your last post actually makes it clear what we are arguing about and solves the problem in one fell swoop. The problem is really in the differing styles of play we are use to. You sound as though most of your play has been on public servers, ( that's not a critique, simply and observation ) where a tank can take and hold a position.
However this is in my opinion is caused by that lack of coordination again, if the opposing team actually think logicaly and work together that solo tank has no chance of holding that position, because riflemen would be used to draw the tanks fire allowing AT units to move into position. In this manner the best the tank driver can hope for is that he jumps clear of his exploding tank into a hail of rifle fire. This doesn't happen in public areas because rarely do people act together to thwart the enemy, the best you will normally get is one or two people arriving on the scene together ( usually by accident and odds are carrying medic kits lol ) and get cut down by the tank driver sitting in his armored shell.
To finish, I have to say when the PR Tournament gets set up and you guys get in there and see real tactics and strategies being used, where squads stay at designated flags and follow pre arranged battle plans for attack and defence, you will wet yourself. Tournament play is the closest you will get to real military maneuvres without signing up. Can't wait to to see you on that battle field cause I know you'll love it, it's everything you asked for and more.
What we are talking about here is allowing this mod to flourish in the public community as well.
Tournaments have rules to follow and are very coordinated. The result of this is not have to enforce anything via the game -- because everything is carefully monitored by the rank structure.
Since this is "Project Reality", I think it is important that they focus on creating a realistic battlefield whereby people will have no choice but to use their weapons of war in a manner that is used in real life -- not because they feel its cool -- but because it will be suicidal not to.
If a tank/apc/helo cannot take a control point, there will be no choice but to use them for their realistic roles.
If people think that is boring (which I garauntee wont happen.. as even I, who religiously plays the sniper class, will love tanking), then they aren't meant to be in a tank in the first place.
Keep in mind that I'm not only referring to using tank as an overwhelming force. I'm also referring to a lone tank driving outside of the combat area to take a control point all the way in the back of the map. Or a helicopter. Or an APC. Anything that is not infantry.
"Having the piss taken out of you is a small price to pay when others do your research. Thank you gentlemen." - Azametric(IRL)
-
Scribble
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 2005-08-11 16:00
-
DAWG
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 2005-03-08 01:35
I agree, most people don't get the big picture and can't see that they and everyone else would have more fun if they all just pulled in the same direction. The problem the mod faces by applying restrictions is that it most likely will alienate a lot of potential players by enforcing upon people rules of how to play the game. This is not something that your typical gamer will tolerate. It's ironic that people like you and I don't need these restrictions placed upon us to appreciate the game as it was meant to be played, yet if those restrictions were put in it would not bother me. I like you want the most authentic gameplay possible. The people out there that just don't get it, don't want to get it and will quickly find a new mod that suits there Rambo style play of roaming the map randomly looking to rack up a few extra points.
You can change the tank, so it can not cap flags, but the tards will simply roam around the map looking for kills to up their score rather than flag caps, effectively removing the tank from any possible assault, let's face it the kind of person we are discussing doesn't care if the flag is taken or lost, they just want points. The mod could I would imagine change the tanks as requested, unfortunately they can't change the tards and no matter what they do these people will always be there busting your balls like they do every time I hit a pubby server.
You can change the tank, so it can not cap flags, but the tards will simply roam around the map looking for kills to up their score rather than flag caps, effectively removing the tank from any possible assault, let's face it the kind of person we are discussing doesn't care if the flag is taken or lost, they just want points. The mod could I would imagine change the tanks as requested, unfortunately they can't change the tards and no matter what they do these people will always be there busting your balls like they do every time I hit a pubby server.
-
Artnez
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2005-08-15 01:44
Maybe so. But if they roam around the map they will get slaughtered pretty fast, if you take into account all of the other things this mod will be adding to the gameplay.DAWG wrote:I agree, most people don't get the big picture and can't see that they and everyone else would have more fun if they all just pulled in the same direction. The problem the mod faces by applying restrictions is that it most likely will alienate a lot of potential players by enforcing upon people rules of how to play the game. This is not something that your typical gamer will tolerate. It's ironic that people like you and I don't need these restrictions placed upon us to appreciate the game as it was meant to be played, yet if those restrictions were put in it would not bother me. I like you want the most authentic gameplay possible. The people out there that just don't get it, don't want to get it and will quickly find a new mod that suits there Rambo style play of roaming the map randomly looking to rack up a few extra points.
You can change the tank, so it can not cap flags, but the tards will simply roam around the map looking for kills to up their score rather than flag caps, effectively removing the tank from any possible assault, let's face it the kind of person we are discussing doesn't care if the flag is taken or lost, they just want points. The mod could I would imagine change the tanks as requested, unfortunately they can't change the tards and no matter what they do these people will always be there busting your balls like they do every time I hit a pubby server.
I know we pretty much agree, just don't agree on the implementation... but come on... originally this mod never appealed to the masses. Just look at the activity of the forum in comparison to, say, Forgotten Hope.
If someone can't handle not being able to cap a flag with a tank, they'll have even more trouble handling the fact that tanks will most likely require crews in the full PR release.
There are soooo many aspects of this mod that are out-of-the-box in relation to vanilla BF2 that it's something that will keep the noobs and smacktards away (for the most part, of course)
"Having the piss taken out of you is a small price to pay when others do your research. Thank you gentlemen." - Azametric(IRL)
-
DAWG
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 2005-03-08 01:35
The implementation is fine it's the time scale that concerns me. I would be happy to see these modifications made straight away, wouldn't bother me one bit. But for the sake of the Mod and it's development, it would be nice to give the uninitiated a taste to get them hooked on the realism, then you can start to tweak the settings, sneaking changes in under the radar and allowing new players to pop their reality cherry. Then draw them deeper into the game as there involvement with the Mod and new understanding of the strategies at work get them addicted. For us and many hardcorp gamers you can't make it real enough, however to catch those on the fringe who may be as yet skepticle, we should tease them into the light.
-
Brentos
- Posts: 97
- Joined: 2005-07-10 08:18
Yeah, I've had some pretty good firefights at Mashtuur City (I MIGHT have been playin' PRMM).
Me and a few teammates were together and began taking fire from an LMG about 200-300 meters away across the bridge and on top of that building near the northwest capture point (not their spawn).
Anyway, we began taking fire from automatic weapons, and we fired a few rounds back at 'em... it was a pretty good firefight.
Me and a few teammates were together and began taking fire from an LMG about 200-300 meters away across the bridge and on top of that building near the northwest capture point (not their spawn).
Anyway, we began taking fire from automatic weapons, and we fired a few rounds back at 'em... it was a pretty good firefight.
-
Figisaacnewton
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: 2004-11-23 05:27
I agree that points should only be capturable by infantry. All vehicles etc should support infantry.
I also think that the actual flag geometry should be removed, it is unrealistic, i do say that we should keep control points, but they have to be done correctly, and the map needs to be made with lots of thinking. I would like to see some maps with just one flag for each team that they spawn at, and flags at only the most crucial objectives, like, secure this building kind of stuff.
to make an advancing/retreating front line type scenario, look at battle of foy in FH. You have to cap the flags in an order, so we are forced into relatively linear battle, but it keeps a front line in the battle, instead of chasing flags around in circles.
that wouldnt work as well in a large city map, where combat doesnt tend or need to be linear all the time. for less linear maps, invisible flags need to be put at chokepoints, and often used areas.
maybe even play the map with no flags, then, after a couple rounds of that, see where the combat happens, and throw flags into those areas.
I also think that the actual flag geometry should be removed, it is unrealistic, i do say that we should keep control points, but they have to be done correctly, and the map needs to be made with lots of thinking. I would like to see some maps with just one flag for each team that they spawn at, and flags at only the most crucial objectives, like, secure this building kind of stuff.
to make an advancing/retreating front line type scenario, look at battle of foy in FH. You have to cap the flags in an order, so we are forced into relatively linear battle, but it keeps a front line in the battle, instead of chasing flags around in circles.
that wouldnt work as well in a large city map, where combat doesnt tend or need to be linear all the time. for less linear maps, invisible flags need to be put at chokepoints, and often used areas.
maybe even play the map with no flags, then, after a couple rounds of that, see where the combat happens, and throw flags into those areas.
-
requiem
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 3651
- Joined: 2004-07-22 16:00