Project Reality Forums

Personally I wouldn't use 3 helis, I'd use 2 and have the 3rd empty so that if a pilot dies he can immediately get back to work. Like you said having 3 jobs on the go is unlikely.

"You afraid of a squad waiting 1 min in main"
Where did I say that?

Some people have different ideas when it comes to evasive action, they can easily conflict if they're not miles apart, by which you're splitting up the squad and alerting any enemies to the second heli since they'd have to be such a large distance.

Have you ever asked a squad to secure a drop zone? It's not difficult, they simply have a look around the place and check if there's any noises nearby and then report back. I've done it loads of times on public matches with complete strangers. If it turns out to be hot after they've claimed it was secure I hightail it out and tell them to do it again or they're not getting transport. My heli, my rules.

Also, if they're trying to build a fob then they should be doing so in a secure location anyway, no need to worry about the time getting a second crate to them. It's a waiting game like you said.

I've had a little trouble occasionally getting havoc/apaches etc to play ball but most of the time they're only scanning for targets anyway, they're happy to help if you can give them a fair chance at some action.

When flying/driving Trans, I always move in convoy/fly in formation.

A second chopper carrying no one is a nice juicy target for AA, which it can evade - leaving the real trans to get in and out with a squad without being taken out.

Most infantry wants to advance so your going to drop them most likely behind enemy lines where there is no one to cover.

If your just making an air-bridge Vietnam style then yes of-course you have people on the ground to make it "secure" ..... i really don't like that word as it is just a matter of speaking.

If you are Reinforcing an area of-course it is a good idea to ask the people on the ground for Intel.

The nature of "flanking" means that your more often going to drop a squad off in unknown territory though. Would you deny them the drop or call for ground-forces to move there?... I don't think so. It would also ruin the "flanking" maneuver.

hobbnob wrote:It is, and if you want more than one you should ask for it. It's tactically unsafe to risk 2 vehicles for a job that could most likely be done with one.

Tactically speaking...redundancy and superior firepower will always help complete any task, 2 vehicles give you both of those.

How in the world did this turn into an argument as to why, or why not you should leave men behind?

EDIT - I retyped my post. This makes more sense..

As well as my overall opinion - So, in short, I believe that you should only get trans if you can carry your whole squad.

JimmyKid1996 wrote: So, in short, I believe that you should only get trans if you can carry your whole squad.

Yea that sums it up pretty well

hobbnob wrote: Again, if you need trans from an insecure location then you're in the wrong location.

You can have a secure location surrounded by UNSECURED territory. An example would be after destroying a cache in the middle of Ramiel. Do you really expect the team to keep a path to the cache all the way secure? No. thats why you needs APCs to get through and get that squad out.

I think we are arguing the same point, although somehow you disagree with it at the same time. If you cant fit your squad in 1 transport then get a second one to get the rest of the guys out as well. Of course you would need to know how many guys need to be picked up but isnt that already a given? Your arguing a VERY minor point...

With the addition of 8 man squads, I believe Air/Ground convoys might be the way to go for PR 1.0. The increased demand for transport means that the risk of losing assets/tickets is even greater than before, hence the need for more offensive oriented vehicles supporting the transport vehicles.
IMO, Air convoys should be reserved for dropping troops across longer distances, not for flanking the enemy or attacking the objective. An armoured convoy would be better suited for this purpose, as the vehicles can support the dismounting infantry more effectively than a transport chopper's HMGs would. Plus, when you compare the number of tickets lost for a Light Vehicle versus the number of tickets lost for a Transport Chopper, the idea of a vehicle convoy really shines.

As good as all this sounds, how often will an armored column readily available in a public game. That's the 1 major point I think everyone is forgetting. Yes, all this sounds good, but I really doubt it would be executed in the way you're thinking.

However, 90% of the time, Air Trans will be avalible, and able to pick your entire squad up.

Another point - There is, and always will be the AA threat. Using 2 choppers actually can help, as, done right, the amount of flares used can help negate any AA threat.

JimmyKid1996 wrote:As good as all this sounds, how often will an armored column readily available in a public game. That's the 1 major point I think everyone is forgetting. Yes, all this sounds good, but I really doubt it would be executed in the way you're thinking.

However, 90% of the time, Air Trans will be avalible, and able to pick your entire squad up.

Another point - There is, and always will be the AA threat. Using 2 choppers actually can help, as, done right, the amount of flares used can help negate any AA threat.

Well hopefully this thread will make players more aware of that problem.

We dont necessarily need convoys, I made the thread because i cant stand it when i need to split my squad because i cant fit them all into 1 trans.

JimmyKid1996 wrote:As good as all this sounds, how often will an armored column readily available in a public game. That's the 1 major point I think everyone is forgetting.

Sure, it's not possible yet because in 0.98 you only need 1 truck/chopper to transport a squad.

In 1.0 you'll need at least 2, which means "convoys" will be more common place - and tactically interesting! I suspect it will become the assumed norm, that if a squad needs a pickup, trans sends 2.

Lower the maximum from 8 to 7 people per squad. This way everyone will fit in one vehicle, and it will reduce the amount of clusterfucks significantly.

I see 1.0 bringing assets into what once were 6 man inf sqs.

APCs will be great transport for a 8 man Mechanised inf squad. With the driver and gunner in the same mumble squad coms the increase in situational awareness will be an added bonus.

The same can be said for transport helicopters. If we were to think of a single chopper as another 8 man unit you could have a dedicated FOB building, logistic crate dropping quick reaction force.

I see dedicated SQ level assets playing a larger part in PR with 1.0.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I certainly disagree with hobnob tbh, 100p gives us the ability to move as large groups. Dispatching one APC to pick up a squad was the norm, however if it gets into trouble en route (nothing is 100% predictable) it would be useful to have help on hand

2 APCs lighting up a tree line and withdrawing is much more effective than one.

Yes, people need to communicate their needs but it's a two way street generally you're going to be trying to move 8 men, so why not bring 2 vehicles. If its an air transport, you could even bring gunners

edit, I also agree with Cougar, but sometimes that's not possible with some server rules

7 person squads sounds quite appealing actually! 1 SL and 3 fireteams of 2. And you'll all fit in a chopper, but not an APC.

Heskey wrote:7 person squads sounds quite appealing actually! 1 SL and 3 fireteams of 2. And you'll all fit in a chopper, but not an APC.

Infantry is better alongside an APC anyways. If the squad is moving so far that it's too far to walk they can just call in a chopper where they'll all fit.

During 1.0 beta, I ran several MECH INF squads whereby two of my guys drove/gunned and I led the infantry. This worked amazing! We always had transport/ammo/weapons/cover at our disposal, just like a MECH INF squad should! We were a self-contained unit that had butt-loads of firepower, ultimate maneuverability, and we performed well overall on the server.

The server rules for the beta were ideal, imo, and lent themselves to this type of game play.

That said, if you ever had to use the "buddy system" in school, it's safer, and more fun to have a buddy. It's fire "teams", not fire "individuals". When possible, trans, infantry, and everything else should travel in multiples.

Name the squad LOGISTICS, your all purpose squad for air and ground transport, supply runs, FOB construction, mortars, and defense.

Well I have to say that I'm excited for how I'll be running Trans squads from now on, I'll have 2 teams of 2 helicopters that will always fly together, which should allow for a lot more team work to be done for the helicopters.

For example, I'll assign it for that the lead helicopter always has the least troops in it when transporting and when doing logistics, the lead helicopter will fly in and circle, if its a known location, while the follow helicopter will perform the drop.

Portable.Cougar wrote:APCs will be great transport for a 8 man Mechanised inf squad. With the driver and gunner in the same mumble squad coms the increase in situational awareness will be an added bonus.

The same can be said for transport helicopters. If we were to think of a single chopper as another 8 man unit you could have a dedicated FOB building, logistic crate dropping quick reaction force.

I've done this ever since they started with the testing of the 64+ code and I have to say that it adds an additional layer to options you have available in-game. The ability to directly communicate with a support vehicle in your squad is something that shouldn't be ignored.

I fully agree with Cougar on the matter that assets will and MUST be integrated into INF squads.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:edit, I also agree with Cougar, but sometimes that's not possible with some server rules

They better adapt to the changing gameplay.