Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]IronTaxi wrote:yeah this will be really the key to the map...not so much the rest of the map as the pure square footage of the combat area due to all the multifloored buildings and some other "areas"

other areas? Taxi, might you be able to direct us to some of these 'areas' or are pics of the enterable buildings on the forums somewhere?

'[R-DEV wrote:Nickbond592;1081619']A few more SS's then

After seeing these pics, I definately agree that it should be a Russian vs. Chechen map cus it looks just like Grozny, a little bit of Pripyat, and a little like Beslan where the school shootout happened. Let's all be honest too, the faction ingame are Chechens, not "militants" in most people's mind, so seeing the Russians battling this faction would make more sense to most. Why would the British fly half way around the world to fight some rag tag group of "militia" anyways?

Imagine a battle like this ingame between the Russians and Chechens....

Why would the British fly half way around the world to fight some rag tag group of "militia" anyways?

Britain has been involved in numerous peacekeeping missions in areas wherea a "militia" faction have been present in some form.

awesome video there, that'll come in useful !

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Britain has been involved in numerous peacekeeping missions in areas wherea a "militia" faction have been present in some form.

Yer i mean Taliban aren't exactly a conventional force right?

Fantastic map, can't wait to be there on ground, it specially on Tournament.

Offtopic

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote: Imagine a battle like this ingame between the Russians and Chechens....

It wont be the same because, both of teams have SCOPES, from I know when you've got iron sight, you do shoot at enemy to keep him suppressed, when you've got scope, you wait until he shows in your sight and then you shoot.
Imho, I'll repeat again and again, scopes from AKs should be removed on both sides, for targets more than 100-150m you've got Marksman(SVD), for more than 300m, you've got sniper, but who will listen to me...

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Britain has been involved in numerous peacekeeping missions in areas wherea a "militia" faction have been present in some form.

So has the US and other forces ingame, especially if you are referring to the Taliban, so you could make an argument for having the US on this map. You could even make an argument for the Canadians being on this map. I would like to see neither and see the Russians because it is more fitting and realistic, especially with the Chechen and Georgian conflicts over there, but that's just me. The British flying half way around the world to fight some militia who we all know wouldn't attack them doesn't make much sense.


[quote=""'[R-COM"]Cpl.Small;1084499']Yer i mean Taliban aren't exactly a conventional force right?[/quote]

Yea, but the only reason the British/Canadians are there is because the US was attacked. If the US wasn't attacked, they would have no reason to be there. If Russia was attacked, you really think they would ask the British or US to come help them out? No.


[quote="rexik""]Fantastic map, can't wait to be there on ground, it specially on Tournament.

Offtopic


It wont be the same because, both of teams have SCOPES, from I know when you've got iron sight, you do shoot at enemy to keep him suppressed, when you've got scope, you wait until he shows in your sight and then you shoot.
Imho, I'll repeat again and again, scopes from AKs should be removed on both sides, for targets more than 100-150m you've got Marksman(SVD), for more than 300m, you've got sniper, but who will listen to me...[/quote]


The point of the militia on this map would be to use guerilla tactics in an urban environment and use the apartment buildings for cover. That way they could ambush all the conventional forces in the street below. The militia side is always going to lose more troops in the end no matter what, because that's how it is in real life (lesser weapons, training, and technology), but they use other methods to win the overall battle and big picture (protecting caches or having more tickets).

I agree, it would totally break the immersion having the British on this map instead of the Russians. It just wouldn't feel right.

'[R-COM wrote:162eRI;1085208']Agree.


Well, yes, but not in such places! The british army never went in this area in all its history.
Secondly, how they could make it? Thirdly, the british army, it's not the Chinese, US or Russian army, they don't get thousands of regiments to spread all over the world. If we are looking at PR, they are already involved in Middle East and South East Asia... isn't that enough?

Ill just correct you there in bold. It just annoys me being scottish that people forget we contribute to the british army and lose people too.

Silly_Savage wrote:I agree, it would totally break the immersion having the British on this map instead of the Russians. It just wouldn't feel right.

Whaa? Whats that for an argument? Do you sit there drooling over the factions on the spawn menu? Gameply > Faction. Imo brits make the map more interesting rather than just AK vs AK and such. I totally fail to see how it breaks imersion. Deviation greatly breaks imersion and doesn´t feel right for me but I bet you like it.

I get how a can be realistic or not, but break the imersion? So I guess you don´t play any maps with MEC on them?

The Brits have done peacekeeping missions in countries like Kosovo, Bosnia and Sierra Leone and afaik the idea with this map series is kind of the same. Nick told me that a militia war lord is trafficking weapons and the Brits are there on behalf of the UN to help the population. And after talking a bit with Nick about the story on this map the Brits are there doing a peacekeeping mission that goes bad.

And I think Brits need more maps and at least I loved to have them fight the old militia and you can't really think it will ruin the whole map to have the Brits fight on it instead of the Russians

Alex6714 wrote:Whaa? Whats that for an argument? Do you sit there drooling over the factions on the spawn menu? Gameply > Faction. Imo brits make the map more interesting rather than just AK vs AK and such. I totally fail to see how it breaks imersion. Deviation greatly breaks imersion and doesn´t feel right for me but I bet you like it.

I get how a can be realistic or not, but break the imersion? So I guess you don´t play any maps with MEC on them?

I don't know if you're trying to get a rise out of me or just being a ******. Anyways, my post was simply my opinion, not an argument.

I feel like breaking what was known as the "Militia Series" (Assault on Mestia and Fool's Road) by replacing the Russians with the British is just wrong and would break the immersion of having an ongoing battle.

You do realize that the maps are supposed to be connected, right? Do the Russians just pack up and leave and let the British deal with it or what? I fail to see the reason of adding the British other than just giving them a new map to play on.

Silly_Savage wrote:
You do realize that the maps are supposed to be connected, right? Do the Russians just pack up and leave and let the British deal with it or what? I fail to see the reason of adding the British other than just giving them a new map to play on.

Yup, and the story is that brits are on them, russia was only put on because when the faction was introduced it had no maps. The story is actually about Brits vs Militia. Hey, we all have opinions, you don´t like it, but how it breaks imersion I don´t know.

Savage, the russians were not on the series of maps first For your information, the Maps were created with the British in mind, the Russians came after.

I think you should leave the decision of the factions to Irontaxi, myself and the other devs to decide.

Regardless of who is picked to play on the map, someone will have a hissy fit, so dont worry, sit back and if you dont like it, complain later eh ?

I do know that the British were originally on the maps, but I always thought of them as the placeholders for the Russians. Perhaps I have it backwards?

If that's the case, and the Russians were only featured because they lacked proper maps, then who are they to fight now?

You can't honestly tell me that the Russians weren't meant to fight the "Militia", now renamed "Chechens" and that the "Militia Series" was always meant to be the British against the Chechens.

I have no intentions of complaining. I guess you could say I'm dumbfounded about the whole "British vs. Chechens" instead of the "Russians vs. Chechens".

It just seems totally illogical.

You could say that the British are there on peace keeping missions with the UN...I guess.

Given the current and past conflicts between the Russians and Chechen militants, it only seemed right to have the Russians pitted against the Chechens...

Silly_Savage wrote:
You could say that the British are there on peace keeping missions with the UN...I guess.

Thats what the story is iirc. The thing is it isn´t chechens, its militia. I don´t know if the actual faction will be used or not but I I think thats the idea. I really don´t know why there is so much worry about whether british or russians is logical enough, when many other things are insanely wrong.

Like I said earlier, is MEC logical? Not really. But they are fun to play, add another faction and thats good. I don´t load kashan up and think how illogical it is that there is a fictional forces suddenly there, I just play the map because its fun. Hell, put PLA, Russians or anyone on there instead and I don´t care, as long as the struff they are using is realistically portayed its grean and fun to play.

wow guys, maybe we should all calm down eh? At the end of the day:

1) the mappers choose

2) We don't know if they have started beta test play yet, which means that no1 knows how the game plays out. So maybe the Russians will get in, maybe not. Maybe it will be decided in the end that the USMC should get it?

At the end of the day, its a new map, and PR's real weakness imo is the lack of maps, so lets just be happy!

Dr2B Rudd wrote:wow guys, maybe we should all calm down eh? At the end of the day:

1) the mappers choose

2) We don't know if they have started beta test play yet, which means that no1 knows how the game plays out. So maybe the Russians will get in, maybe not. Maybe it will be decided in the end that the USMC should get it?

At the end of the day, its a new map, and PR's real weakness imo is the lack of maps, so lets just be happy!

cheers.. it fairly irrelevant BUT...

Yes the maps were lent to the russians.

Yes the maps were intended to be brit vs militia from the beginning (there were no russians at the time anyway so)

Yes the brits are there on a UN mission

NO the militia were never intended to be chechen and I fought tooth and nail to stop them ever becoming so but lost..

case closed...

hey I know!!! lets enjoy the map!!!!

Silly_Savage wrote:I do know that the British were originally on the maps, but I always thought of them as the placeholders for the Russians. Perhaps I have it backwards?

If that's the case, and the Russians were only featured because they lacked proper maps, then who are they to fight now?

You can't honestly tell me that the Russians weren't meant to fight the "Militia", now renamed "Chechens" and that the "Militia Series" was always meant to be the British against the Chechens.

I have no intentions of complaining. I guess you could say I'm dumbfounded about the whole "British vs. Chechens" instead of the "Russians vs. Chechens".

It just seems totally illogical.

You could say that the British are there on peace keeping missions with the UN...I guess.

Given the current and past conflicts between the Russians and Chechen militants, it only seemed right to have the Russians pitted against the Chechens...

I agree.

And even if the Chechens were renamed "militia" for this map, most people are still going to associate or say they are "Chechens" not militia.