Project Reality Forums

The thing that annoys me in this long discussion is the Aussie assumption that just because the Aussies all ignore the CO and never want to play it that that somehow validates their point of view that the CO is borked.

Its flawed logic because the Aussie community is isolated. Its contained and not influenced much by the outside world. As such it might as well be like handing matches to someone who doesn't know what fire is. They don't appreciate it because they choose to ignore the principle behind it.

Already I see the continuing mention of this aggressive style and this defiance of leadership. There seems to be some kind of independent streak in the Aussie culture that seems to say "Commander? Sure just point him out and lemme load my gun." So far as I can tell the CO isn't useful because the Aussies refuse to use him. They say they do it all themselves. They know where to be.

But the thing is you can't prove the viability of a strategy simply by isolating it within its own convention. The Aussie way is a strategy that is tested against itself, and if it isn't tested in the waters of other ideas then it can't be instantly declared as superior or at least justification for saying the CO in .8 doesn't work.

So far as I can tell its just the Aussies saying "we don't like being told what to do, we like to run n' gun it like Rambo". In fact it was said earlier that individuals go Rambo when a HAT sniper is around. He said "and it really works!". Well yea of course it works, when apparently nobody uses covering fire, and everyone runs around like... Rambo.

The Aussies say they have a way of playing the game and that people shouldn't be restricted in how that game is played. But I think this so called Aussie style is totally out of the spirit of Project Reality. Less covering fire, less coordination, lots of individual charging about, COs running around the front lines.

Someone mentioned like 2 months ago that Mel Gibson on We Were Soldiers was commanding from the front. Well he was running towards the front lines but his 2nd, that old grumpy WW2 vet, yanked him back saying "You need to find some cover or else you're gonna go down, and if you go down we're all dead". COs WANT to be in the thick of it, but they can't be. Capt. Winters in Band of Brothers. Easy Company is getting shredded by bad leadership and Winters is told NOT to run down and take charge by his superior. That was a Batallion Commander who was forced to sit at least 1km from the action. If this game is meant to represent a larger force than just a Platoon then saying the CO should be in the thick of it is flawed. Where's his HQ? Where's his personal bodyguard? Not enough people to represent that.

I hope it dosent get removed.

PFunk wrote:The thing that annoys me in this long discussion is the Aussie assumption that just because the Aussies all ignore the CO and never want to play it that that somehow validates their point of view that the CO is borked.

Its flawed logic because the Aussie community is isolated. Its contained and not influenced much by the outside world. As such it might as well be like handing matches to someone who doesn't know what fire is. They don't appreciate it because they choose to ignore the principle behind it.

Already I see the continuing mention of this aggressive style and this defiance of leadership. There seems to be some kind of independent streak in the Aussie culture that seems to say "Commander? Sure just point him out and lemme load my gun." So far as I can tell the CO isn't useful because the Aussies refuse to use him. They say they do it all themselves. They know where to be.

But the thing is you can't prove the viability of a strategy simply by isolating it within its own convention. The Aussie way is a strategy that is tested against itself, and if it isn't tested in the waters of other ideas then it can't be instantly declared as superior or at least justification for saying the CO in .8 doesn't work.

So far as I can tell its just the Aussies saying "we don't like being told what to do, we like to run n' gun it like Rambo". In fact it was said earlier that individuals go Rambo when a HAT sniper is around. He said "and it really works!". Well yea of course it works, when apparently nobody uses covering fire, and everyone runs around like... Rambo.

The Aussies say they have a way of playing the game and that people shouldn't be restricted in how that game is played. But I think this so called Aussie style is totally out of the spirit of Project Reality. Less covering fire, less coordination, lots of individual charging about, COs running around the front lines.

Someone mentioned like 2 months ago that Mel Gibson on We Were Soldiers was commanding from the front. Well he was running towards the front lines but his 2nd, that old grumpy WW2 vet, yanked him back saying "You need to find some cover or else you're gonna go down, and if you go down we're all dead". COs WANT to be in the thick of it, but they can't be. Capt. Winters in Band of Brothers. Easy Company is getting shredded by bad leadership and Winters is told NOT to run down and take charge by his superior. That was a Batallion Commander who was forced to sit at least 1km from the action. If this game is meant to represent a larger force than just a Platoon then saying the CO should be in the thick of it is flawed. Where's his HQ? Where's his personal bodyguard? Not enough people to represent that.

No, their view is validated because most people agree with them. It's not just Aussies who don't need or want a commander these days. I play on American, British, and the occasional non-English server, and the only time a commander comes on is to drop an area attack. He resigns immediately after the blast and returns to his squad. The "commander" most of the time is just the squad leaders chatting to each other on teamchat. Even when there is a commander, a lot of people don't want to listen to him. The squad leaders often prefer to trust their own judgment than that of a random, self-appointed man in his own bubble who cannot see one bit of what goes on. In .8, when the Sls don't report, the commander is basically doing nothing. Even if it's realistic, PR is still a GAME. GAMES need to be fun, and you need to balance that with the need for realism within PR.

Cobhris wrote:No, their view is validated because most people agree with them. It's not just Aussies who don't need or want a commander these days. I play on American, British, and the occasional non-English server, and the only time a commander comes on is to drop an area attack.

I was more responding to the self centred arguments being made. A lot of mention of the 'Aussie' way. The arguments about the effectiveness of a good CO in .8 are linked but not entirely the same if the argument predominant here is that the Aussie way can't stand a commander who tells you what to do. Lots of people also don't listen to commanders.

Maybe playing commanders sucks and isn't done because most SLs don't want to listen to COs? COs are self appointed people in their own bubble, but then isn't an SL the same thing? Isolated from the rest of the battle?

I figure that the best arrangement is the CO listens to the SLs to learn the situation and then coordinates/orders them to do things. He develops a plan based on the input of the Squads. No way a real commander can lead without the info given to him from his people anyway.

Sometimes as SL I crave a commander to direct me so that I don't have to guess at the greater intentions of not just the enemy but my own team.

And again, coordinating assets is always an issue on maps without Commanders unless you're lucky and get a smart pilot who doesn't just barrel into hot LZs. Its enough to say "just typing is fine" until you realize the pilot is overshooting the safe side of the ridge and you can't type "you're going too far" fast enough and who knows if he'll even read it.

I think many SLs are ****, many don't even TALK! They don't order you, don't have a plan. But if one is trying to tell you what to do and you just want to not listen to him then most people here would say thats not the right way to play. But not listening to smart commanders is the same thing as far as I'm concerned.

Its rather arrogant really to refuse to play along with your teammates. You can ignore the CO, or you can say "why can't we do it this way?" Most guys are reasonable and will negotiate a strategy.

But again, I was mostly commenting on the Aussie argument, not the overall argument about Commanders.

But to say what I feel overall, the really boring part of COing isn't being in that little room the whole time, its not having squads listen to you. I went CO on Archer one time and asked a Sniper squad to move to overwatch a squad that was searching for a cache in a village. One of the snipers joined a different squad.

I think it has to go both ways and if SLs are too arrogant or unimaginative to work with a CO then yea it will be a wank most of the time.

PFunk wrote:I was more responding to the self centred arguments being made. A lot of mention of the 'Aussie' way. The arguments about the effectiveness of a good CO in .8 are linked but not entirely the same if the argument predominant here is that the Aussie way can't stand a commander who tells you what to do. Lots of people also don't listen to commanders.

Maybe playing commanders sucks and isn't done because most SLs don't want to listen to COs? COs are self appointed people in their own bubble, but then isn't an SL the same thing? Isolated from the rest of the battle?

I figure that the best arrangement is the CO listens to the SLs to learn the situation and then coordinates/orders them to do things. He develops a plan based on the input of the Squads. No way a real commander can lead without the info given to him from his people anyway.

Sometimes as SL I crave a commander to direct me so that I don't have to guess at the greater intentions of not just the enemy but my own team.

And again, coordinating assets is always an issue on maps without Commanders unless you're lucky and get a smart pilot who doesn't just barrel into hot LZs. Its enough to say "just typing is fine" until you realize the pilot is overshooting the safe side of the ridge and you can't type "you're going too far" fast enough and who knows if he'll even read it.

I think many SLs are ****, many don't even TALK! They don't order you, don't have a plan. But if one is trying to tell you what to do and you just want to not listen to him then most people here would say thats not the right way to play. But not listening to smart commanders is the same thing as far as I'm concerned.

Its rather arrogant really to refuse to play along with your teammates. You can ignore the CO, or you can say "why can't we do it this way?" Most guys are reasonable and will negotiate a strategy.

But again, I was mostly commenting on the Aussie argument, not the overall argument about Commanders.

But to say what I feel overall, the really boring part of COing isn't being in that little room the whole time, its not having squads listen to you. I went CO on Archer one time and asked a Sniper squad to move to overwatch a squad that was searching for a cache in a village. One of the snipers joined a different squad.

I think it has to go both ways and if SLs are too arrogant or unimaginative to work with a CO then yea it will be a wank most of the time.

The argument never ran "We don't use commanders, therefore the commander role is moot," it was the other way around - commander is completely moot, boring and somewhat useless, so no one uses it, because an extra rifle on the ground is more important than very marginally better intersquad teamwork. As it's been said before, if all the squadleaders have their heads screwed on (which they all do on the GSA servers as a rule), then a commander just provides updates and artillery once every 30/60 minutes, while being a potential choke to build orders. Being commander isn't any fun for you, and it doesn't bring much at all to the table for your team.

Also, just because the style GSA plays doesn't fit with your conception of what tactics should be (static for starters), it doesn't mean it isn't valid, realistic, or effective. Not every army operates the same way, not every army emphasises hosing buckets of suppressing lead downrange so a flanking group can engage and destroy the enemy, and not every method of defending involves sitting on a fixed position holding it.

PR should be a set of realistic tools that people can use any way they see fit. Game mechanics shouldn't be tailored towards a desired outcome, the mechanics should be as realistic as possible, and how we use them should be up to us. That is to say, the mechanics of PR shouldn't try to push us towards role playing ("Sometimes I crave direction from my commander..." presumably not because you don't know what to do - we all know the maps and what needs to be done in them back to front, but because you wanted to have a sweet make believe sesh where you were given a mission), in fact they shouldn't push us in any direction at all - they should. Just. Be. Realistic.

PFunk wrote:Maybe playing commanders sucks and isn't done because most SLs don't want to listen to COs? COs are self appointed people in their own bubble, but then isn't an SL the same thing? Isolated from the rest of the battle?

Most SLs I play with are anything but isolated. They are right up there with the squad, shooting and getting shot at just like the grunts. The SL may be self-appointed, but he is on the frontline with everyone else, unlike the commander, who is rendered blind, dumb, and deaf if he leaves the CP.

Cobhris wrote:Most SLs I play with are anything but isolated. They are right up there with the squad, shooting and getting shot at just like the grunts. The SL may be self-appointed, but he is on the frontline with everyone else, unlike the commander, who is rendered blind, dumb, and deaf if he leaves the CP.

I meant isolated from the rest of whats happening. You can't really know the plan of that squad on the other side of the map or if he's in contact with 2 guys or 20 unless he's really typing away a storm which is just going to leave him distracted from his own job at hand.

Good SLs do know whats going on but like someone earlier in the thread said the CO should be there to coordinate the squads so that the SLs don't have to constantly be asking themselves if Alpha or Bravo is going in from this side or if they're going to sweep the other way.

Truism wrote: Also, just because the style GSA plays doesn't fit with your conception of what tactics should be (static for starters), it doesn't mean it isn't valid, realistic, or effective. Not every army operates the same way, not every army emphasises hosing buckets of suppressing lead downrange so a flanking group can engage and destroy the enemy, and not every method of defending involves sitting on a fixed position holding it.

PR should be a set of realistic tools that people can use any way they see fit. Game mechanics shouldn't be tailored towards a desired outcome, the mechanics should be as realistic as possible, and how we use them should be up to us. That is to say, the mechanics of PR shouldn't try to push us towards role playing ("Sometimes I crave direction from my commander..." presumably not because you don't know what to do - we all know the maps and what needs to be done in them back to front, but because you wanted to have a sweet make believe sesh where you were given a mission), in fact they shouldn't push us in any direction at all - they should. Just. Be. Realistic.

Its not that their tactics don't fit with my conception of how it ought to be played out, but rather that these Aussie styles are supposedly so isolated and played amongst themselves that we can't really say its better or as effective. One Aussie said he didn't think the American style was feasible til he actually played on some American servers.

I don't think mindless static tactics are the only answer nor do I think rambo style loner-hunter runs after that HAT sniper are the only thing to do. If the two styles were heads up on a regular basis they'd have to, more likely than not, adapt in some way. The 'American' (for lack of a better term) style is played against itself as is the Aussie style. They are isolated in their own culture. The assumption that either is ultimate is foolhardy as they are dependent on the other team behaving in roughly the same way.

That said this argument that 'a rifle on the ground is more valuable' is so nonsensical. Commanders being useless and squads being able to wordlessly coordinate because they all know each other or know the map doesn't add up for me. Its still a fact that teams with Commanders do better than those without on average. The commander losing most of his direct control over the situation hasn't improved the average effectiveness of squads without commanders. The part of COing that leads to such overwhelming superiority in coordination that sees the team with the CO win so often in .75 is still there.

I think its a false statement to say the CO is useless. SLs haven't changed much since .75 nor have most of the maps. Why then was the CO useful back then?

As for this stab at saying its all 'roleplaying' I think thats just arrogant. Sometimes its enough trouble to effectively handle the situation in front of you so you don't want to always have to be staring at your map trying to decide if squad 2 is actually getting through the defenses or if they're about to retreat. Wondering if that squad leaving main is heading to that unprotected flag or if they're just going duck hunting and you should head off to defend cause nobody else is.

COs take a load of the SLs need to make grand strategic decisions based on flawed or guessed information. Would you turn down someone coming in over VOIP telling you the exact intentions of your teammates?

PFunk wrote: I don't think mindless static tactics are the only answer nor do I think rambo style loner-hunter runs after that HAT sniper are the only thing to do. If the two styles were heads up on a regular basis they'd have to, more likely than not, adapt in some way. The 'American' (for lack of a better term) style is played against itself as is the Aussie style. They are isolated in their own culture. The assumption that either is ultimate is foolhardy as they are dependent on the other team behaving in roughly the same way.

My problem is with neither of them, it's with the gameplay changes you seem to advocate that hurt the way Australians play Commander in order to promote an "American" style of play. (Edit: As do plenty of gameplay features, like deviation and extreme suppression)...

That said this argument that 'a rifle on the ground is more valuable' is so nonsensical. Commanders being useless and squads being able to wordlessly coordinate because they all know each other or know the map doesn't add up for me. Its still a fact that teams with Commanders do better than those without on average. The commander losing most of his direct control over the situation hasn't improved the average effectiveness of squads without commanders. The part of COing that leads to such overwhelming superiority in coordination that sees the team with the CO win so often in .75 is still there.

I take it, from this paragraph, that you don't play on GSA. On GSA, there will be squads actively working towards the goals a commander would be likely to be sending them towards. Not to stereotype too much, but it's mostly because the SL's are very experienced, mostly older, with a better sense of responsibility, and a lot more maturity. Either that, or their in one of the bigger clans, and take PR as srsbusiness. The player base is more experienced (knows how maps play out, what everyone needs to do), but ironically knows almost nothing about PR Mechanics.

Generally also, the matches are shorter, because time limits are themselves shorter, and attacks happen much faster with less time spent waiting on logistics and the like.

I think its a false statement to say the CO is useless. SLs haven't changed much since .75 nor have most of the maps. Why then was the CO useful back then?

Commander lost nothing between 0.7 and 0.8, but the team gained freedom from having a commander. The only thing commander was good for in 0.7 was Build Orders, thus it follows that in 0.8 he's pretty much good for nothing at all. The problem is that a commander can't bring anything tangible to the table besides map markers to draw with that a semi-decent team doesn't have already.

As for this stab at saying its all 'roleplaying' I think thats just arrogant. Sometimes its enough trouble to effectively handle the situation in front of you so you don't want to always have to be staring at your map trying to decide if squad 2 is actually getting through the defenses or if they're about to retreat. Wondering if that squad leaving main is heading to that unprotected flag or if they're just going duck hunting and you should head off to defend cause nobody else is.

It rarely takes more than a few seconds to get enough imformation out of you map to work out what most squads are doing, but more importantly, what other squads are doing actually doesn't have that much of an effect on what your squad should be doing. Is that squad going to defend? Does it really matter? What stops you from simply getting to the Attack point before they uncap it and defending that way? What stops you from going to the flag and eliminating the enemies there with the squad, then moving from there to the Attack marker?

Strategic decisions on the PR battlefield are NOT complicated, and when you hear a Squadleader on GSA bemoaning his team's performance it will always be because they're simply doing something _wrong_ (duck hunting I think you called it). Duck hunting is very rare on GSA, people don't go for incredibly wide flanks or treks into the wilderness as you commonly see on TG in Riff's squads, or mine even, what you see are squads moving along the most efficient or effective routes which are nearly always predetermined and well trodden in previous rounds. If someone is not acting in one of these ways, then you can bet all the seasoned players in the server will be talking about it in squad chat. It's colourful, I find it pretty funny, and I've no doubt I've been the subject of it a lot.

Earlier in the thread, I explained why the "Australian" style of play works. Everyone has a job, everyone knows what is expected of themselves, and the others around them. Some people are better at doing some jobs than others, and some are terrible. When this is the case, a team will have problems, because they don't have the structure to fall back on that gives them a blanket against ineptitude, like leaving infantry in flags continuously, even when the flag is not under attack. When it works, stuff is decisive, and great to play in or watch. It's crushing.

COs take a load of the SLs need to make grand strategic decisions based on flawed or guessed information. Would you turn down someone coming in over VOIP telling you the exact intentions of your teammates?

I don't play on GSA much anymore because to be frank the server itself is **** and lags pretty hard, moreso than a good US server at 200 or 300 ping. I know what commanders do, and to be perfectly honest that function is replicated just fine in teamchat on GSA, or can be worked out with about three seconds looking at your map and interpretting it. Decent SL's can work out based on a few enemy sightings where the enemy squads are, where the enemy squads they can't see probably are, and what all of them are trying to do, because let's face it, we've all fought these battles before dozens of times.

When, as is often the case, a squad is doing something that isn't very useful all you can really do as either a fellow squadleader or a commander is put your face in your palm and gently massage your eyes. Ineptitude and stupidity in the player base is rife (hardly anyone could deny that), and I suspect you're mistaking bad squadleaders for lack of a commander.

i don't see why we can't get moe frequent artillery strikes / air strikes

maybe a small bomb dropped from an aircraft every 5 mins? and the proper jdam every 30 mins?
Wheres the harm in that? Or instead of a small bomb maybe a artillery barrage with like 5 shells fired. That seems a bit more realistic and fun for the commander.

If it was removed it wouldn't change the game play THAT much in the servers I see. I think the point is that it was a lot more fun the way it used to be... of course the butt-kissers won't agree.

I'd say a close guess is that only about 10% of the games have COs now opposed to 90% on the previous release.

Truism wrote:My problem is with neither of them, it's with the gameplay changes you seem to advocate that hurt the way Australians play Commander in order to promote an "American" style of play. (Edit: As do plenty of gameplay features, like deviation and extreme suppression)...

When you characterize it that way it sounds like the Australian style would be happier playing vBF2 more than anything and that the only thing that attracts the Aussies is the better assets and maps. At the core of it I don't think maps and tanks and birds are what is at the heart of PR. PR is about making a game centred around realistic warfare which implies suppression, non rambo gameplay.

If Aussies are annoyed with more than just commander changes but also the suppression effects and deviation it seems like you want PR to turn into a vBF2 addon more than anything else.

the major problem is not the commander the problem is the sq leaders who dont follow the orders from commander

PFunk wrote:When you characterize it that way it sounds like the Australian style would be happier playing vBF2 more than anything and that the only thing that attracts the Aussies is the better assets and maps. At the core of it I don't think maps and tanks and birds are what is at the heart of PR. PR is about making a game centred around realistic warfare which implies suppression, non rambo gameplay.

If Aussies are annoyed with more than just commander changes but also the suppression effects and deviation it seems like you want PR to turn into a vBF2 addon more than anything else.

This is precisely what I meant. Not every army emphasises suppression and flanking in the way that PR and US like armies do. Because you assume this is how "realistic war" should be fought, any tactics that don't fit into your "correct" and "realistic" views are thus unrealistic. This is where it relates back to design philosophy - if all assets, weapons, soldier characteristics and penalties/rules are realistically modelled, then how we use them should be up to us, and determined by what is most effective, and what tactics and strategies we want to employ. Introducing unrealistic mechanics to encourage "realistic" play just pigeon holes play into designers views of what is and isn't realistic, rather than it actually being a realism mod.

To shift to a slightly different focus, the problem is not suppression or short sprint times (both which I love), which were needed to simulate real life effects (suppression, and to counter bad BF2 hitreg which allowed acrobatics to avoid fire respectively). Both of these just helped to increase the viability of certain tactics in the face of deficiencies in the game engine. What I hated, and what every single person I've run it by on GSA hated was that these things came in at the same time as another series of gameplay rules, accuracy and damage nerfs that made using accurate fire from concealed positions nearly impossible, and almost completely wrote the importance of reflexes and skill out of the game. Broadly, it was that good players were punished more than bad players by introducing safety blankets, like lolwhut levels of inaccuracy that meant that a bad player could almost guarantee he'd be able to return fire if he foolishly walked into someone's sights. After that it just becomes a matter of luck and dice rolling. We didn't like that our individual abilities were being nerfed at every level to try and force specific styles of teamplay on us (massing as a tight squad and using volley fire to actually hit things).

Most of the Australians I talk to left vBF2 for all of the things that have now being introduced into PR - lack of influence over combat outcomes, too much luck in gameplay, gimp accuracy/damage that screwed up real life tactics (covering an area, acting as a marksman, actually aiming shots) and hauled engagement ranges in to unrealistic distances, a tendancy for things to have too much health and not enough potency, infantry that lacked all their real life advantages over vehicles. It's been said before on the forums, and it's worth saying again - PR has never looked and sounded less like vBF2, but has also in a lot of ways never been more like it.

Truism wrote:This is precisely what I meant. Not every army emphasises suppression and flanking in the way that PR and US like armies do. Because you assume this is how "realistic war" should be fought, any tactics that don't fit into your "correct" and "realistic" views are thus unrealistic. This is where it relates back to design philosophy - if all assets, weapons, soldier characteristics and penalties/rules are realistically modelled, then how we use them should be up to us, and determined by what is most effective, and what tactics and strategies we want to employ. Introducing unrealistic mechanics to encourage "realistic" play just pigeon holes play into designers views of what is and isn't realistic, rather than it actually being a realism mod.

I see what you mean and don't generalize me into a simple group that says you must do as the FMs say. More though I mean to resist this assertion that reality is anything you want it to be. Such a design philosophy seems like a contradiction. You say we should be able to apply any tactics we want to the assets offered us but then how should we ensure that you can't just do ANYTHING you want and have it be successful?

The problem I see with creating a 'realistic' gameplay experience is that firstly we are experiencing this game through a conduit, and this game engine is a poor one at that. How do you cause realistic reactions in people when they are experiencing these sensory inputs through unrealistic means? Thats when the arguments over game design become a matter of much greater complexity than just 'right' or 'wrong'.

With that said, I am mostly responding to the collective arguments laid out which describe this Australian style which I don't personally have direct experience with. But so far certain nouns have been used to describe it which smack of something that defies the definition of 'realistic'. One person said that 'Rambo' style individual efforts occur to deal with certain threats and that seems to not conform to any realistic tactic I know of that isn't considered outdated or suicidal.

Also it was said that Australians don't look at this like a reality sim but as a game where you take advantage of whatever flaws in the system you can to win, just like you're playing a game.

So my question is, are we trying to make a game which seeks to enforce basic rules of realistic warfare where tactics which fail or succeed in real life will be the same in game or are we just making another game where we ignore what 'reality' dictates and just play the game like a game?

But know that I'm not trying to spit in your face or disrespect you, I respect your desire to play the game as you wish.

I think for this to not be some argument over which school of thought on tactics is correct or sensible there should be a better exposé on what the aussie style really is. Otherwise its just gonna be batting for the home team, commies versus capitalists with just

To shift to a slightly different focus... accuracy and damage nerfs that made using accurate fire from concealed positions nearly impossible, and almost completely wrote the importance of reflexes and skill out of the game.

There I can't agree with you more. Sometimes it is just too extreme. Modern warfare exists at particular ranges commonly and often at those ranges realistic accuracy aren't possible. LMGs, rifle fire, even snipers, miss shots that they should never miss. But its all still a work in progress.

PFunk wrote:I see what you mean and don't generalize me into a simple group that says you must do as the FMs say. More though I mean to resist this assertion that reality is anything you want it to be. Such a design philosophy seems like a contradiction. You say we should be able to apply any tactics we want to the assets offered us but then how should we ensure that you can't just do ANYTHING you want and have it be successful?

That's where setting correct rules and win conditions comes in. If there are set objectives that are realistic, and the tools at your disposal are accurately modelled, then the finite number of feasible strategies that have reasonable chances of success should resemble things that would also be feasible in real life. It just seems so intuitive to me.

The problem I see with creating a 'realistic' gameplay experience is that firstly we are experiencing this game through a conduit, and this game engine is a poor one at that. How do you cause realistic reactions in people when they are experiencing these sensory inputs through unrealistic means? Thats when the arguments over game design become a matter of much greater complexity than just 'right' or 'wrong'.

The engine is poor, but simply settling for short stop solutions on a permenant basis is a terrible design philosophy. The first step in fixing problems always has to be the honest appraisal of what is wrong - the strengths and weaknesses of where things are at, then you can start to think about solutions to the problems. The sales and marketing habit of always putting the "best spin" or pitching a product has seeped even into the modding communities of games, probably via EA and their community reps . For example, we know the deviation is completely unrealistic on several levels, but at least half the community seems resigned to settling with it rather than looking for intuitive solutions (I had an idea, but I couldn't make it work). It would probably be kind of cool if there was a trifle more transperancy, perhaps in the form of a brief report on how the devs feel about current releases, and their honest appraisals of different issues within the game, sort of like what Stardock does - it would probably avoid these cluster**** threads being so heated.

With that said, I am mostly responding to the collective arguments laid out which describe this Australian style which I don't personally have direct experience with. But so far certain nouns have been used to describe it which smack of something that defies the definition of 'realistic'. One person said that 'Rambo' style individual efforts occur to deal with certain threats and that seems to not conform to any realistic tactic I know of that isn't considered outdated or suicidal.

Also it was said that Australians don't look at this like a reality sim but as a game where you take advantage of whatever flaws in the system you can to win, just like you're playing a game.

Yes, and no. There's no more or less "ramboing" on Australian servers, but there isn't the same undying focus on "teamwork". If lumping as a team is needed, then it will happen because not doing so will be a frustrating nightmare. I remember once on Archer on a nearly full server, we as the entire US team grouped into one massive convoy to push for the objectives. It's not that Australians don't communicate, or can't communicate, it's that we don't have a slavish desire to try and make each version of PR something it's not. There are Australian PR players who also play VBS and OFP, so it's not that we don't want realism, it's just that this isn't a very realistic game at the moment. The Devs, for their part, admit that they're aiming for what is an uneasy balance between realism and the intangible "gameplay".

Having said all this, HAT sniping never took off on GSA the way it did in the US and beyond. Initially, reading the forums, I didn't believe it was possible. After moving over to TG I realised it was, and it was because of the incredibly static and utterly predictable way that the game was played there. It's not just that if someone tried to HAT snipe someone would task themselves with hunting them almost immediately instead of waiting for someone else to decide that the HAT posed an undue risk and was costing too many tickets, it's also that HAT sniping presupposes that the enemies will move in the open along predictable routes for a long period of time and not react adequately when brown stuff starts hitting the fan. The whole time everyone on GSA knew the HAT was overpowered, but it wasn't an issue worth crying about because it couldn't be consistantly deployed in a way that benefitted the HAT user, unlike say, tanks or APCs. It isn't exactly as though only Australians seek to abuse balance and play to win, and if anything I'd say GSA's aggressive style of play is far more legitimate and in keeping with the "spirit of the game" than the disgusting anti-infantry HAT sniping that we saw all over the place in 0.7x.

So my question is, are we trying to make a game which seeks to enforce basic rules of realistic warfare where tactics which fail or succeed in real life will be the same in game or are we just making another game where we ignore what 'reality' dictates and just play the game like a game?

But know that I'm not trying to spit in your face or disrespect you, I respect your desire to play the game as you wish.

I think for this to not be some argument over which school of thought on tactics is correct or sensible there should be a better exposé on what the aussie style really is. Otherwise its just gonna be batting for the home team, commies versus capitalists with just

As I've said before, my take on design is simple - accurately appraise the realism of each individual factor, and then adjust each individual factor until it is realistic. The end result will deserve the title Project Reality. Resulting gameplay issues can then be addressed in other ways, like if there's a problem with the MEC's long range firepower, give the US greater access to fire support (or hell, even smoke grenades), if there's a problem with US armour, marginally increase the availability of PLA anti-tank weapons. If there's a problem with Coalition ranged firepower, increase the Insurgent's access to Reinforcements or Reinforcement Points. That way we get asymmetry, realism and gameplay in one neat package.

The first step would be to honestly appraise every single gameplay aspect, from hit-registration (not as good as in real life) to bullet drop (significantly easier than in real life), from reinforcability (much easier than in real life) to AA operation (much harder than in real life), then devise options to fix every one of them, from simple numbers changes (AA lock time 3 seconds --> 2 seconds for example) to conceptual changes (rally points must now be set within 50 meters of an out of bounds boundry). Then get some playtesting happening until it seems to work approximately properly, then get the public to do the real testing for you.

Random prediction time - 0.9 will be the asymmetry patch, hopefully 1.0 will be the "Realism" patch, hopefully in the ways described.

I'm curious about what makes Australians so much... better at tactics that they are beyond the incredibly boring North American set play. Is it just that the community is smaller or are you commonwealth rejects the missing link?

But I'm glad we didn't run this thread into a lock.

PFunk wrote:I'm curious about what makes Australians so much... better at tactics that they are beyond the incredibly boring North American set play. Is it just that the community is smaller or are you commonwealth rejects the missing link?

But I'm glad we didn't run this thread into a lock.

Neither, it's just a lack of reverence for how things should be. Some Australians don't even play GSA because of it, they'd rather the semi-roleplaying on TG.

But then I should ask, if Aussies reject the reverence of what should be and play their own way, if the game does one day represent a true reality of warfare shouldn't the dominant schools of thought on combat seen in those TG style games become more effective since they are effective in reality? That is of course if they're played nearly as effectively as they ought to be in real life.

You can't tell me Rifle Squad and Platoon tactics in conventional armies don't work, especially if the DEVs achieve a level of reality that both you and they hope for.

On another note do you have any good vids of Aussie style play? I have plenty of that TG style. I wanna see the differences in more than just abstract terms.

Entire versions before the recent 0.8 presenting the Tin Box restriction, I commanded hundreds of battle-rounds lying in the same place on a map; below a vehicle, behind a tree, under a bridge, inside a building and etcetera. In some battles I did though move around from time to time and I agree that in some battle-situations it can be an advantage, but in overall its not.

Commanding in Project Reality (a video game) is in fact highly complex in its nature when you begin to understand, experience and evolve from the tactical content of the function it self.

Being a Tin Box commander facing an opposing Tin Box commander can be like boxing blindfolded in a dark room against a bloke being blindfolded too. Thus, naturally if your used to not being blindfolded when commanding you will initially not spot the challenge but only experience the problem.

Not all PR players has the capacity of patience, creativity and tactical and organisational knowledge to understand the power of the challenge embedded in the restrictions the stationary CO role actually has. A challenge that if used correctly can transfer knowledge from a battle round in this video game to the real life immediately.

Commanding in Project Reality, including commanding from a stationary post, is best experienced in the Project Reality Tournament.

A few times I have commanded parts of a PR battle round without even being on the game server it self, but only viewing a printed map as only resource to try an get the overview. Thats a great challenge btw!

Truism wrote: PR should be a set of realistic tools that people can use any way they see fit. Game mechanics shouldn't be tailored towards a desired outcome, the mechanics should be as realistic as possible, and how we use them should be up to us. That is to say, the mechanics of PR shouldn't try to push us towards role playing ("Sometimes I crave direction from my commander..." presumably not because you don't know what to do - we all know the maps and what needs to be done in them back to front, but because you wanted to have a sweet make believe sesh where you were given a mission), in fact they shouldn't push us in any direction at all - they should. Just. Be. Realistic.

AMEN!!!!!

It should be a sandbox. We take the tools in the sandbox and start playing.

-Ben