Project Reality Forums

Back on topic pls guys.

Ehm...well, bottom line qwai is and awesome infantry map. I always enjoy skirmishes on it, and I think we should just remove all the armor and leave only transports on it. No MBTs no IFVs no APCs...maybe .50 cal hummer for US and VN3 for CH team. Thats all it needs.

If not its good the way it is. Seriously armor does not live long on this map if exposed too much. As defensive asset it may survive longer but not in offense. Mines, hats, tows, lats...its all in bushes

I think we should just remove all the armor and leave only transports on it.

You mean that?

Yeah just add .50 jeeps and thats it. Or remove STD layer and put only this one. Smaller download and imbalance solved. Great.

nah it should be mechinized humvees and a few strikers vs VN3s and UAZs
or something similar, PR really needs more mechinized inf maps

Or.... we could have what the US Army would usually be outfitted with, which would be Bradleys, M113s (Or Strykers), and M1A2s.

Or we could go with all Stryker forces with a Stryker TOW vehicle, MGS, and Stryker ICVs. Either we equalize the firepower/mobility/armor, or we use asymmetrical balance through having more mobile US forces with less armor against more heavily armored forces that are less mobile. The Stryker TOW vehicle would pretty much destroy all armor in the game, but it takes around 5-10 seconds for the launcher to be raised, and I believe it only gets two shots. The MGS will destroy everything short of a tank, and against tanks will have to get a flank shot in order to really have a solid chance of destroying it.

Tanks kill the Stryker in one shot regardless of where they hit it.

In my opinion, the future of PR rests partly on scenario gameplay. I'd like to see Kozelsk with an actual theme of a motorized infantry unit instead of having literally every Russian asset under the sun, and Qwai having proper asset balance and distribution.

Would be a good map for the Stryker Coy to feature, but ofcourse that would require having the MGS and other Strykers modelled.

MaSSive wrote:Smaller download

When we're talking about a 60Kb text file compressed in a .zip file, that is not an argument.

I played Qwai last night on TG and we (the Chinese) lost by about 300 points. The U.S. used HATs against our APCs and the Strykers finished us off.

Just something to think about.

I know I have won just as many games on China as I have on USA

Unless the Chinese are slower than snails getting out of their main, and the US forces can cap and set up defences on both sides of the river, the US will always lose.

the chinese can win yes.

The map itself's results arent too imbalanced, its difficult to operate with armour on that map, its just that playing as american armour is brutal as youre up against so much.

Its like black gold J10 vs mig29. The j10 beats mig29 every time, but the russians can still win with superior inf or armour, its just that its no fun to fly as the russians.

'[R-DEV wrote:AFsoccer;1712882']I played Qwai last night on TG and we (the Chinese) lost by about 300 points. The U.S. used HATs against our APCs and the Strykers finished us off.

Just something to think about.

But your mortars were still sexy.

I think all we needed were moar crates, and we could have won the day buy overrunning them with supplies.


OT, an armour balance would be nice, but you just have to play the US armour correctly for the US to win.
And I don't believe the tank is really needed anymore.

Or you can just not go head to head with the tank? I've caught many tank crews with the Bradley waiting in ambush. Sorry gents but I think trying to use the Bradley as an offensive unit is what is causing you to thin this map is unbalanced. Get your Bradley to sit back a bit and let the inf get intel on enemy armor then respond accordingly.

Strykers should also avoid head to head confrontations with the enemy 30mm, you would figure it's quite common sense. Let your uber guided HAT take out the biggest threats then rip those VN3s apart (if your stryker dies to vn3 go inf please).

Think of US armor as mobile defensive emplacements with the option to advance if/when things are safe enough to cross the river. The PLA have the option to have their armor act offensively which should be easy prey for the bradley/AT inf, and if the PLA camps their side the US has time to maneuver an AT team into place as there are very very few places to hide on this map.

As Portable mentioned you're playing it wrong, the US Army needs to keep their armor more defensive then the PLA otherwise they will lose everything within the opening minutes (Like the bradley mentioned in Dtacs post, we had an APC and a HAT deployed and waiting before he could get across).

Murphy wrote:Or you can just not go head to head with the tank? I've caught many tank crews with the Bradley waiting in ambush. Sorry gents but I think trying to use the Bradley as an offensive unit is what is causing you to thin this map is unbalanced. Get your Bradley to sit back a bit and let the inf get intel on enemy armor then respond accordingly.

Strykers should also avoid head to head confrontations with the enemy 30mm, you would figure it's quite common sense. Let your uber guided HAT take out the biggest threats then rip those VN3s apart (if your stryker dies to vn3 go inf please).

Think of US armor as mobile defensive emplacements with the option to advance if/when things are safe enough to cross the river. The PLA have the option to have their armor act offensively which should be easy prey for the bradley/AT inf, and if the PLA camps their side the US has time to maneuver an AT team into place as there are very very few places to hide on this map.

As Portable mentioned you're playing it wrong, the US Army needs to keep their armor more defensive then the PLA otherwise they will lose everything within the opening minutes (Like the bradley mentioned in Dtacs post, we had an APC and a HAT deployed and waiting before he could get across).

So the americans get .50 cal, 25mm and ATGM for defense. The chinese get 30mm, 14.5mm, 120mm and ATGM for defense.

Seems fair and balanced. The chinese get mobile defensive emplacements as well, just better ones.

The US Army also has those nifty guided HATs that can trump a big loud bulky tank any day of the week, while the PLA hat kit is very predictable it's still nowhere in the same league as the American equipment. The US has more then enough opportunity to deal with PLA armor with their infantry, the same could be said of the PLA as well.

The US team just needs to handle the Tank and then enjoy the advantages of having an active Bradley (still very susceptible to AT fire).