Project Reality Forums

To be honest, Curry made it boring, at least for the Russians. Setting up fuck loads of stuff all bunched up in one corner of the map, while waiting for people to find them is boring. I do understand that it was a bit boring for my (the Canadian) team too, but at least they got to run around trying to find them.

This will of course be fixed by one simple addition that has already been mentioned - flags.

I'll try to give a brief description on what it was like. The tactics employed, however, shall not be discussed here, as I guess there will be an event of this sort again.

I was the AT specialist (TOW and LAW) of 1st section, 1st platoon, Canada, and never got bored. Even when holding on one of the many hilltops, scanning for targets in the distance. Unlike so many other PR battles, you'd know there is a company sized enemy force out there that could appear on that distant ridgeline any minute.

After contact with a small russian scouting party in the beginning, things got relatively quiet. While advancing to contact late in the game, we encountered heavy resistance. The Russians threw everything they had at us. Under fire from heavy weapons on elevated positions, attacked by enemy infantry and armour in superior numbers, the platoon managed to organize a hasty retreat, inflicting heavy enemy casualties while suffering only very minor casualties.

I can only imagine the amount of inter squad communication necessary, the results however were clearly visible.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. LAVs firing in a multi platoon combined arms attack. I watched blue dots form shapes of every kind on the map. All those moments will be kept in our memories, to be relived again.

Looks like most people haven't played the first event on this map about a year ago. I'll sum it up really quick.

It was basically the same, 200 players, no flags. The major difference was, we didn't set up per-planned squads and COs and just started out playing. This ended up in a nice and smooth battle with contacts on the whole map, various interest points and fortifications. I, as an INF squadleader, had plenty to do and had loads of engagements.

To bring it to the point, the thing that "broke" the last event was the Russian COs "fault" deciding to dig in in a corner and wait. Not to blame you Curry but yeah that kinda took most of the fun out for the first two hours.

Its not about the flags but the teams disposition to actually go out and fight and not just derp around in a corner because its a "superior" position and thinking is the best way to win.

fun > victory

i looked at this map (didnt play the in the event).

About the HAT debate, didnt russians get 4 BTRs 30mm, a T90, and a BMP-3 compared to the candians having 4 LAV-3s and a leopard 2?

A bmp-3 really should make up for crappier HATs

View distance is another topic which i think deserves discussing.

To be honest i think the maximum view distance should be 800m nothing more because of the AA not being able to fire at anything past that. Another advantage of this would be infantry would be doing a whole lot more than just sitting around getting shot at by armour sitting 1500m away that they cant do anything about.

The disadvantages of it would be that the map would look less authentic. However i really dont think it matter as right now i would go as far as saying the the map is 'barely playable' as infantry, especially on the Russian side

It was basicly unplayable by the lag anyway. But the main problem was that the map is incredibly unbalanced, mostly because of the Canadian HATs. Then again, the map is pretty **** anyway.

Navo wrote:It was basicly unplayable by the lag anyway. But the main problem was that the map is incredibly unbalanced, mostly because of the Canadian HATs. Then again, the map is pretty **** anyway.

aww cmon Wicca has put a lot of time and effort into that map, its not **** just needs flags and shorter viewdistance

40mmrain wrote:i looked at this map (didnt play the in the event).

About the HAT debate, didnt russians get 4 BTRs 30mm, a T90, and a BMP-3 compared to the candians having 4 LAV-3s and a leopard 2?

A bmp-3 really should make up for crappier HATs

Well for the event count it more like 4 BTRs and a BMP since some jackass thought it would be funny to throw an incendiary on the tank

Looking at people's comments, I reckon this would probably work better as an Insurgency or Taliban vs regular forces map with light vehicles and/or APCs only. Think Ivecos, Multi MBs and CV90s. Would mean more maneuvering to get to contact distance and no tanks just camping a hill or a heli hovering out of reach and killing everything. Which is really what it was designed for to begin with, I believe...?
Either that or a proper combined arms map with this view distance, in which case you'd need more objectives to fight over.

I have no idea how insurgency could possibly work here, what with the virtually nonexistent long range AT capability, it'd be worse than Archer and Karbala combined.

Still, we actually found the Russian NW corner FOB fairly early in the game, probably in the first 15-20 minutes. Guess we played it cautiously since it took so long to shift focus on it.

One cool thing about the huge view distance is that in an APC, you can actually dodge TOW and HAT missiles. Though tanks might have it a bit harder with their abominable rate of acceleration. I guess it could be a really fun vehicle warfare map.

About the AA kits, is it possible to have special versions for this map that have correspondingly longer range?

I don't think the HAT was such a big advantage, it was just that, no offence, the Russian armor didn't play smart.
During the round my HAT guy destroyed a BMP, a T90, 2 BTRs(+ 1 by my LAT) and a BRDM(+ 1 by my AR) just because they were standing on very exposed positions for a long time and ignored the rockets flying to them although they had about 7-10 seconds to just roll back down the hill.. While they killed only 4 of us in the beginning of the round because they caught us off guard(Thanks Wicca for not listening to me saying that the enemy armor will be at the left side of the map!).
If the Russian armor had fought our troops with all their firepower from good positions where their exposure is minimal instead of just roaming around soloing around the hills, I doubt we could have killed so much armor and win that round.

Yosik wrote:If the Russian armor had fought our troops with all their firepower from good positions where their exposure is minimal instead of just roaming around soloing around the hills, I doubt we could have killed so much armor and win that round.

And this is why I said that the HATs weren't that much of a disadvantage. I will also add that if russian HATs were that crappy, then they should of moved in and ambush instead of camping on top of the hill.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:And this is why I said that the HATs weren't that much of a disadvantage. I will also add that if russian HATs were that crappy, then they should of moved in and ambush instead of camping on top of the hill.

thats like saying try to ambush something on kashan from under 100m, doesnt happen

Smiddey723 wrote:thats like saying try to ambush something on kashan from under 100m, doesnt happen

Oh please, I walked up to a 100m to your defense line thorugh open ground unnoticed and took out a handful of your guys. It was just your teams inability to get their *** out of that corner.

Grober asset balance is just fine, if handled properly the BMP-3 can wipe the whole enemy armor group on its own and the BTR-80As are superior to the LAV-3s anyway. Faster and more precise cannon, better mobility, awesome looks. They only lack thermal imaging, which on that map is really just a disadvantage.

the thermals could be worked around for the btrs. first of all they're APCs. They transports troops. Second, if they would let the infantry spot the enemy first and not go out on their own and get killed they could be quite successful. (Again they're APCs). I'm saying this regarding most PR matches not just this one.

EDIT: Trust Brain on this one I'm not the armor guy.

sweedensniiperr wrote:the thermals could be worked around for the btrs. first of all they're APCs. They transports troops. Second, if they would let the infantry spot the enemy first and not go out on their own and get killed they could be quite successful. (Again they're APCs). I'm saying this regarding most PR matches not just this one.

Alex, I was in the LAV-3s that round, thermal imaging just cuts down the view distance by 25% and it was just stupid to use it. We never turned it on.

^Words of wisdom.

FLIR is practically useless on desert maps, because, in addition to the view distance thing, you'd have to be blind to miss something and also because telling wrecks from functioning vehicles takes longer.

Thermal imaging certainly doesnt cut view distance by 25%, less than that.

40mmrain wrote:Thermal imaging certainly doesnt cut view distance by 25%, less than that.

Have you played the map? On Karez with 1.5km view distance, thermals reduce your visibility by a very high factor (25% was just an exaggerated guess).