Project Reality Forums

In CQC speed really matters. Sprint to cover, and sprint to flank and get a decisive position for engaging the enemy.

It's almost like a dogfight, you have to complete your decision cycle faster than they can. If the disparity in skill is enough, you can literally take out 6 man squads on your own.

Hunt3r wrote:If the disparity in skill is enough, you can literally take out 6 man squads on your own.

Been there done that.

saXoni wrote:Been there done that.

But how about with a bayonet?

AquaticPenguin wrote:Yes, I doubt you'd lean out far to fire, it would be inaccurate and uncontrolled, but unlike in game you wouldn't stand straight on, and would try to minimise your silhouette. Perhaps instead of a full on lean it could be a very mild tilt and a repositioning of the body to slightly more side on. I dislike leaning in games, but I also dislike the idea that you would lead with your body when turning a corner. Anyway it's not something that can be implemented (or not easily).

actually yes we would. standing straight on gives us the best stability so that even if we are hit, we can absorb the impact evenly with our legs and stay standing and fighting. Minimizing silhouette is also obsolete, our armor is best in the front and back while minimal on the sides (what with us having arms and all that need to stick through it) and again being squared off gives us better stability.

as for leading with our bodies, thats actually a basic principle. Do this little experiment. pick a target. now while standing at an angle from it try and point with a stick or something towards it while holding it with both hands. Round 2 do the same thing only this time stick it to your chest and hold it steady pointing straight out and turn your entire body to aim at the target. You will be much quicker to settle your point of aim onto the target in test 2 and with much greater precision.

@hunt3r: From the micromanagement stand point yes, move with speed from cover to cover. however i was talking about the macro. take it slow and observe where all the cover is and plan each bound based on the arcs those positions can cover.

Killer2354 wrote:But how about with a bayonet?

Why would I use a bayonet when my rifle is better?

Bringerof_D wrote:actually yes we would. standing straight on gives us the best stability so that even if we are hit, we can absorb the impact evenly with our legs and stay standing and fighting.

Well fair enough, I can't really argue having no experience myself.

Bringerof_D wrote:@hunt3r: From the micromanagement stand point yes, move with speed from cover to cover. however i was talking about the macro. take it slow and observe where all the cover is and plan each bound based on the arcs those positions can cover.

In the time it takes for you to plan out how to execute bounding overwatch, you will have already died.

A workable plan executed violently and immediately is better than a perfect plan executed a minute later. In the time it takes to figure out the bounds to go, a quicker enemy will have flanked you.

Hunt3r wrote:In the time it takes for you to plan out how to execute bounding overwatch, you will have already died.

A workable plan executed violently and immediately is better than a perfect plan executed a minute later. In the time it takes to figure out the bounds to go, a quicker enemy will have flanked you.

And then there's the campers, the queens of CQB.

I regret I googled "On the hunt"...

curse you! Gay Porn do not google!
Lol.


Well the whole Idea was to figure out a way to involve fighting in Close combat from house to house. If yo u have seen the hunt or Destroy village from MOHAA or ever MOH:A its easy to understand what the map/gameplay would be like.

Unless I'm wrong, in PR: Arma2 there is a gamemode where its like AAS+INS meaning you can only defend a flag once. and that after its capped by the blufor you have to fall back to the next defendable flags.

CAS_117 wrote:And then there's the campers, the queens of CQB.

Grenades are fun.

Hunt3r wrote:In the time it takes for you to plan out how to execute bounding overwatch, you will have already died.

A workable plan executed violently and immediately is better than a perfect plan executed a minute later. In the time it takes to figure out the bounds to go, a quicker enemy will have flanked you.

i said take it slow, not take your sweet *** time. and thats exactly what i mean, stop for a second and come up with that "workable plan" it only takes a second to analyze the situation.

FYI if the enemy can out flank you while you plan you were going to lose anyways. one needs to always be considering what the enemy is doing and incorporate that into their own plans. this includes accessing the area you are currently in and placing your troops to guard your flanks accordingly.

remember, haste makes waste. You can't be too slow but you can take that extra second to think.

CAS_117 wrote:And then there's the campers, the queens of CQB.

Welcome back, are you going to restart PR: Combined Arms? That was some awesome shit.

Bringerof_D wrote:i said take it slow, not take your sweet *** time. and thats exactly what i mean, stop for a second and come up with that "workable plan" it only takes a second to analyze the situation.

FYI if the enemy can out flank you while you plan you were going to lose anyways. one needs to always be considering what the enemy is doing and incorporate that into their own plans. this includes accessing the area you are currently in and placing your troops to guard your flanks accordingly.

remember, haste makes waste. You can't be too slow but you can take that extra second to think.

He's talking about PR, you're talking about real life urban ops. The level of planning and analysis that goes into real life urban ops is dictated by the immutable characteristics of war which are minimised or nonexistent in PR: friction, uncertainty, chance and danger.

PR players don't understand how urban ops works in real life, how two men can pin a whole section for hours in the urban environment. Four isolated blocks with no buildings higher than two stories is a battalion sized objective. In a training scenario with simulated ammunition 2009 it took an airmobile company I was a part of two days solid to clear 4 blocks of an understrength platoon sized enemy. In total we took about half our number in simulated casualties.

If players lost, say, $5 for each death, do you think they'd take the baller risks they do at the moment rushing without planning or covering fire? Multiply that by the cost of death or disfigurement in an environment without perfect comms and the minimap, and perhaps this digital brevado about ideal tempo for offensive operations in a complex urban environment would evaporate.

Also, slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

Rehearsals rehearsals rehearsals.

The two mottos of urban ops.

Truism wrote:Also, slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

Rehearsals rehearsals rehearsals.

The two mottos of urban ops.

yeah i understand what you mean, but i find i get better results in game when i act more like i would IRL.

like you said, Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. it's all about taking that moment to think.

Anticipation will win 90% of the fights in CQC, having teammates who can communicate swift and clear intel on enemy position and movements will also give you the edge to overcome numbers in close quarters. Practice your full auto control and be ready for an enemy at every corner.

Here is a link to GRAW 2 for PC and the map best shows what I was talking about in the original posting

GRAW 2 - Multiplayer Demo Gameplay - YouTube

saXoni wrote:Why would I use a bayonet when my rifle is better?

Cuz you will feel much better after you killed them all sucessfully.

Pr 1.0. . .. Better weapon handling?