Project Reality Forums

KiloJules wrote:The problem I have with this discussion:

Getting a guy to place C4 "close to" the cache at least requires that one guy to get there and stay alive for 10 - 15 seconds while being in a very hot zone.

Compared to:

Yesterday we played a round Karbala with 14 (INS) vs 15 (US) guys. First known was in the village area B/C 2/3 in the NW of the map. As no heavy assets were allowed all of us spawned in there, preparing a nice defense around the whole village. Couple of minutes later player count raised to sth. like 17 vs 17 and oc the Americans brought their tank. Before someone could really react (GARY started in main at one point but couldn't make it in time) they started shelling the cache building and the one next to it (I blame people switching over and knowing exactly where it was). After about 5-10 minutes the cache went bye bye without one American squad even trying to get close to it.

Now please do not tell me that this is more legit than someone sneaking in a defense and blowing it with C4? Pff...

Karbala is THE worst Insurgency map, don't base your affirmations on a badly thought-through design.

TBH something I'd like to see in INS, are unbalanced teams. Different ratios per side (something like 25~ Blufor units, against 35~ Opfor fighters). Especially on a 128 server, that could bring up some really interesting games. Assets and fire superiority would create the balance, not the playercount. People just need to start to think out of the box.

pfunk the kiowas were changed because if played correctly, you actually couldn't defend against them. if you dove from 500-600m on a cache, spammed your rockets on the mark and dropped flares all the way through you often would kill the cache straightaway with no chance of being aa'd. that's the problem with c4, if you have an APC sitting out of effective rpg range, covered with smoke suppressing its nearly impossible to stop the rush. the only way to defend is to put ied's on the outside wall and listen for the beep, in which case another guy grabs the kit after you blew your ieds and blows it anyways.

it really is a problem on kokan, esp alt (lav's). if the cache can be c4'd from a wall facing the desert or another open area, its impossible to defend.

otherwise it is often effectively countered and is not a problem for a decent defense.

Well thats what I said isn't it? You just do to the C4 in effect what was done to the Kiowa: you make it so that the exploitable elements of the asset are nullified. Though to be honest a lot of the issue of C4 use is basically down to extremely poor Cache placement or maps which don't feature complex enough terrain in which to place a cache.

Don't you think Kokan could use some underground bunkers with entrances hidden inside the compounds? I have always found Kokan to be a bit of an INS-Easy Mode for Blufor. Its pretty much an ideal scenario. Every compound is isolated already, you don't need to do much work past standing off and pouring hell on it, its easy to observe enemy movement into and out of, its easy to fix the cache location even if the marker isn't exact.

Fact is that in terms of the overall issues with INS a lot seems to hinge on map design or could be solved with map design. So if C4 'exploit' is a symptom of map design forcing unrealistically difficult situations on INS do we blame the symptom or the cause?

C4 is not spammy unless you're facing a specific situation. In others it may be the only rational tactic to use and if its not there you may see unrealistic tactics employed when in real life you'd just blast the hell out of it.

I think this is part of testing the limits of our applied realism which we keep redesigning over time in this mod. I think C4 has a place and I'm not convinced a lot of the issue couldn't be simply fixed with some different map design - ie. more layered cache locations for INS to defend so that a single charge on an exterior wall won't checkmate even the best defense.

Taking out a cache with C4 is a lot harder than taking out a cache with a Kiowa.

Kokan does have underground tunnels. D5 compound.

saXoni wrote:Taking out a cache with C4 is a lot harder than taking out a cache with a Kiowa.

Thats what I was saying. Apparently they don't track.

Kokan does have underground tunnels. D5 compound.

1 is hardly significant, only if you're lucky enough to get a cache in there. Its like if Korengal only had 1 cave and the rest was on the surface, that map would play out very differently except BLU doesn't get CAS on that map.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f26-pr ... ost1482826

Its not intentional that C4 destroys caches through walls, will be fixed for next patch =) Gameplay wise its way too easy to destroy weaponcaches this way.

bahlye wrote:That was said in 2010, theres been a patch or 2 since then .
But thankyou for the link.

And in none of them C4 mechanic was addressed.

Its lame as hell. Dropping from BH is the worst.

Whats the point of C4 anyway? Ive never seen Blufor use it for anything other than gaming a cache. Just get rid of it altogether is the simple fix...

Whats the point of C4 anyway? Ive never seen Blufor use it for anything other than gaming a cache

Woot?

There are enough other things what u can do with c4.

Fastjack wrote:Woot?

There are enough other things what u can do with c4.

Happens rarely and is useful only vs cars.

I would like to see them add in the SLAM series of explosives to replace C4 and mines for the US faction. The nature of its explosion would be directed, rather like a HEAT projectile so unless it is literally ON the cache or precisely placed to face the cache (not like a C4 which blows all over) it wouldn't do damage, to add in a measure of skill when placing it (not just placing it generally anywhere on a cache rooms wall, but directly facing the cache).

M2 Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition (SLAM)
Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SLAM used to be ingame as a timer detonated version when there were Special Forces kits. However, it can act as a mine as well. From Global Security, "SLAM will also be employed by Light Combat Engineers and Rangers where missions warrant the use of such a device."

Considering it is already modeled, sounds and everything made and in the game files, why not?

I call it a go! But will the devs do it? I think they prefer C4 to get quickky to some AAS on Mutrah.

c4, like the aa kit on blufor, can only do harm to insurgency currently. here are a few reasons.

just about every other explosive weapon used to destroy caches (kiowa, tank, apc, grenades,hat,lat,tow) got nerfed hard. hydras and tank rounds could rip a building apart, yet they dont blow the cache up from shooting the wall anymore. the whole argument about "but c4 would destroy the building" isn't working for mortars! why should it work for c4? it needs to be made even!

@Brainlaag if you think about the game mechanics lowering the radius of c4 would prohibit it to destroy vehicles unless placed directly on them. even if destroying moving cars/trucks is not realistic, wouldn't lowering the radius change aas too?

I think c4's damage against the cache needs to be reduced as much as the arty ied. its the easiest answer. while not realistic, neither are the other damage values! you dont need c4 when you have incendiarys. while the dev is doing that he should also reduce the AA rocket's damage against the cache completely if possible.

thanks for reading and good luck finding a flaw in my argument

C4 also blows up bridges, but then I forgot that nobody uses that level of strategic knowledge in AAS. They're too busy flanking 3 caps ahead.

The tool is only as limited as your imagination. You can use it as a command detonated anything you fancy. I mean... how can a BLUFOR version of an IED be considered useless?

You BLUFOR snobs are utterly hopeless.

PFunk wrote:C4 also blows up bridges, but then I forgot that nobody uses that level of strategic knowledge in AAS. They're too busy flanking 3 caps ahead.

You BLUFOR snobs are utterly hopeless.

its sad because its true

PFunk wrote:C4 also blows up bridges, but then I forgot that nobody uses that level of strategic knowledge in AAS. They're too busy flanking 3 caps ahead.

The tool is only as limited as your imagination. You can use it as a command detonated anything you fancy. I mean... how can a BLUFOR version of an IED be considered useless?

You BLUFOR snobs are utterly hopeless.

not sure if you are talking about my post or not, but this thread and my post were talking about insurgency. not that i said it was useless, just overpowered in comparison. there are lots of things that blufor can down a bridge with though... rpg, lat, hat, tank, apc and tow. just saying.

illidur wrote:there are lots of things that blufor can down a bridge with though... rpg, lat, hat, tank, apc and tow. just saying.

Are you sure? It kind of sounds plausible but I've never thought to try it. I was under the impression that only certain types of explosions destroyed bridges, like Aircraft bombs, Helicopter Hellfires and C4/IEDs.

illidur wrote:not sure if you are talking about my post or not, but this thread and my post were talking about insurgency. not that i said it was useless, just overpowered in comparison. there are lots of things that blufor can down a bridge with though... rpg, lat, hat, tank, apc and tow. just saying.

This is what you wrote: "c4, like the aa kit on blufor, can only do harm to insurgency currently"

Which I read to imply that C4 only serves a purpose in Insurgency mode.

Of course now you're saying that who needs a purpose designed command detonated anti-material device when you can just use some anti-tank weapons instead.

What, are you desperate to imply that C4 is useless and want it gone, or is your sentence structure just really bad and I am completely misunderstanding you?