Project Reality Forums

IAJTHOMAS wrote:Have to say i dislike the idea of an infantry/armour map. In my mind the ideal situation is you would find maps where every unit has its use. It is a combined arms game after all.

Kashan is a good map, but as infantry i rarely fire my rifle. Even in the bunkers the place is so overlooked that most inf are mowed down by the armour. The enirely destructible village in a way don't help, as these wold be ideal candidates for requiring infantry to accompany the armour and to be of real use in clearing out the houses.

There is usually a lot of infantry action in the bunkers on Kashan. Usually inside them since infantry use it to hide from armor and aircraft. Also good spots for rallies.

I think a lot of what we are experiencing here is the power of Armor and the PAIN a WHOLE TEAM feels when their armor is beaten. If the other team has really good tankers and you dont, then you entire team is going to be seriously beaten up and limited. Tanks control such large expanses of the desert that if not held in check that can cut a team off and suppress them while their infantry rallys in. I was the CO of Al Kufra last night and this happened...we couldn't push their armor back enough to reprieve our guys. We lost by 40+ tickets in a nasty fight. We were never freed to make a conjoined attack and mostely defended.

At the end of the day I think guys sometimes are unhappy that the opposing teams tankers can ruin the round for the losing team....thats just the way it is...there is no way getting around the vital importance of armor and CAS on some of these maps. I dont have a problem with it, but its frustrating when inexperienced guys are "playing with tanks".

One simple solution would be to lock the tank not to move an inch without two people in it. Must be hardcoded and not possible to do, because it is pretty obvious and would have been done if it could be done.

If they could make it, so you have to be in a same squad to operate a vehicle and its weapon, then that also has to be possible.

Would really like to see a QM message one day, stating:
'ipwnzorzernub123, you cannot operate this vehicle position without a copilot/driver or gunner'

if people are suggesting that armor be unusable without 2people, than attack helo's shouldnt be able to take off without 2 people or transport helo's without 3/4 (1pilot/2crewchiefs, or 1pilot/1co-pilot/2crewchiefs). People dont usually take hummers off on their own, so those should atleast have 2 people in them along with the driver as well to be "realistic".


stop crying about getting owned by armor. that's how it is . If your team sucks, it's not because the other guy is owning in a peice of an equipement that you also have, but because your team doesnt know how to effectively use theirs at all. It sucks that you are getting penalized for the bad decisions on behalf of your teammates, but there is no rightful reason why you should have to take it out on the peice of equipement that is killing you if it's being used properly.

**** is overpowered. Get over it and find a way around it. You hear people talking about taking 4-5 guys to kill a tank, than do it, because taking that one tank out will usually make your lives easier. How about actually having someone in squad with a Rifleman AA, to take out the Mig that's destroying your A-10 that could be helping you out, or get the H-AT kit and destory the tanguska that's destroying your planes in the air.

thoughtful post, tyvm. English prolly better than mine

I think we'll evaluate some better AT weapons for Infantry in the future .. but truth of the matter is that a tank is a nasty piece of equipment and, generally speaking, most maps with tanks .. both teams have them .. so there WILL be times when one side is losing and getting owned by enemy tanks.

Yeah. IRL tanks are a l337 *** weapon so in this game they are something to be scared of. If you are playing PR and a tank comes and you dont shit yourself then the tanks aren't strong enough yet tbh.

Just make the sniper not being able to drive a vehicle.

'[uBp wrote:Irish']if people are suggesting that armor be unusable without 2people, than attack helo's shouldnt be able to take off without 2 people or transport helo's without 3/4 (1pilot/2crewchiefs, or 1pilot/1co-pilot/2crewchiefs). People dont usually take hummers off on their own, so those should atleast have 2 people in them along with the driver as well to be "realistic".

An interesting point. However, you can fly an attack helo with only one person, you just shouldn't be able to "attack" with it.

Transport, I will argue that you don't really need the extra. As to hummers, I know people who have them (civ version) and they definitely don't need a co-pilot.

If you are looking for realism, but don't want to enforce multi-crewing for offensive vehicles then put a 30 second delay in for switching places.

Red Halibut wrote:An interesting point. However, you can fly an attack helo with only one person, you just shouldn't be able to "attack" with it.

Transport, I will argue that you don't really need the extra. As to hummers, I know people who have them (civ version) and they definitely don't need a co-pilot.

well look at it. a blackhawk isnt going to take off into a hostile place without 2 door gunners, and usually has a co-pilot.

And i wasnt talking about civilian hummers when you're fighting a war.

Red Halibut wrote: If you are looking for realism, but don't want to enforce multi-crewing for offensive vehicles then put a 30 second delay in for switching places.

that i'll agree to.

But all of these rules ignore the fog of war and limit the options available to the team in mid battle.
A delay for the driver is a good idea as I think it would take a moment or two to leave the gunner's position and go the the driver's position.
I have a question about the M1 Abrams though, can the driver reach the turret and vice versa w/o leaving the tank IRL ?
Or would you have to leave the turret and climb into the driver's seat from the exterior of the tank ?

that would be interesting ADA. i think the abrams was made like that from what i've seen on History channel or something, where the crew is fully enclosed.

like it and the T-90 i think are made to withstand radiation, so maybe they made them so people could move around inside the cramped enviornment without having to actually get out of the tank.

Maybe also if the tank get's hit, and the driver get's injured, the gunner or loader can pull the driver out through the top turret, instead of through the driver's hole.

Red Halibut wrote: If you are looking for realism, but don't want to enforce multi-crewing for offensive vehicles then put a 30 second delay in for switching places.

Great suggestion!

Hehe i can see my post made quite an impression glad to see that both Dev´s and the rest off us mére maggots are avere off this problem(wether you see it as one or not ) with the tanks, and its beeing looked at and i also see some greate iders in this thread along the way i actully came up with another ider to, let the Tanks stay as they are but increase the wether effects like in Desert Storm on som off the maps with Heavy Tanks in big numbers this would make them have to move around a bit more to hunt down other tanks and the always moving infantery and it would also make the Tanks have to look carefully before shooting somone, besides i dont know iff this would be possible but make the dust storms randmoly placed on maps or just in some areas off the maps so it wouldent cover the hole map like in Desert Storm i would actully love to see this on Al kufra oil fields that there would be dust storms covering like 30% of the map and perhabs a base or too. This wouldent realy hurt the gameplay or realisme in my own humble opinion.
And perhabs in the Chinese maps add Rain effect iff posible instead off dust/sand seeing most off theese maps are in forrest like maps.

I mean also in real life the weather isent always sunny clear sky.

Goblin.
Thank you all for the frindly welcome.
Im at work right now so sorry for the "Smack wall off Tekst hits you"

punctuation for the win.

'[uBp wrote:Irish']if people are suggesting that armor be unusable without 2people, than attack helo's shouldn't be able to take off without 2 people or transport helo's without 3/4 (1pilot/2crewchiefs, or 1pilot/1co-pilot/2crewchiefs). People don't usually take hummers off on their own, so those should at least have 2 people in them along with the driver as well to be "realistic".


stop crying about getting owned by armor. that's how it is . If your team sucks, it's not because the other guy is owning in a piece of an equipement that you also have, but because your team doesn't know how to effectively use theirs at all. It sucks that you are getting penalized for the bad decisions on behalf of your teammates, but there is no rightful reason why you should have to take it out on the piece of equipement that is killing you if it's being used properly.

**** is overpowered. Get over it and find a way around it. You hear people talking about taking 4-5 guys to kill a tank, than do it, because taking that one tank out will usually make your lives easier. How about actually having someone in squad with a Rifleman AA, to take out the Mig that's destroying your A-10 that could be helping you out, or get the H-AT kit and destory the tanguska that's destroying your planes in the air.

Let me see if I understand you post correctly before I use sarcasm. Nah, go straight for the sarcasm.

First off, what is unrealistic about armour having 2 people inside it to fully make it function? Or should I expect a new program on Discovery from the latest war where, because of downsizing, the US army has now decided that a tank only needs 1 crew member? Do you know what date and time that show airs? Cause I would like to see it.

And helicopters can take off you know with a pilot inside of it. I've read that somewhere, so I might be wrong. But maybe, because of downsizing the chopper now only needs 1 guy to make use of both the stick and the gun? Again, what time and date?

Nice to know that the cars need more people in it to drive somewhere. I was not aware that I had to fully load up my own car before I went to shop for groceries. Man, now I have to form up a squad every time I leave my flat! Might as well just hitch a ride with the truck.

Oh, and the one man tanker does not OWN his equipment. I do believe the more correct term here would be asset, but never mind. It belongs to the army. And the army OWNS your ***(ets). I am pretty sure that any less than sharp blade, not using his tank to the fullest to ensure a situation where he defends his own troops, attack hostile threats are not first in line to get a medal slapped on his chest. More likely the Army (you know the guys by now, the ones who really do OWN the tank) might be a little bit miffed that you are on a solo mission Rambo style.

/Sarcasm off.

To conclude: Since I have established that the solo-tanker does not OWN the tank, it belongs to his team. He is just driving the frigging thing. And if the team in whole wants that tank somewhere else, then it should be his job to do so. THAT is what makes teammates infuriated by lone tankers. Lone tankers equals people who cannot or will not work together as a team.

And that is what this Project is all about. To work together as a team!

/End rant.

clavd, i know what you are saying, but if we are going to play the "realistic" card, you're not going to have a helo fly off without it's 2 crew cheifs are you? or an attack helo without it's gunner? nor are you going to have a guy take a humvee on his own to the fight leaving people back at base.

your post was actually funny to read and i got the sarcasm, it's just that if you are going to play the teamwork card as well, and agree that 2 people need to be in a tank to operate it, than 2 people need to be in the other vehicles as well, because then, where is the teamwork in that?

otherwise, it's straight predjudice against people that use armor. You cant seriously look at putting restrictions on one type of vehicle without applying it to everything else to make them all equal.

and are you to tell me, that a tank, that is locking down the enemy on his own, setup on the ridge, so that his friendlies behind can take flags unopposed, is not teamwork? because otherwise, the driver is a waste of a soldier that could be putting bullets downrange somewhere else, or helping to get +1 person to cap flags.

'[uBp wrote:Irish']clavd, i know what you are saying, but if we are going to play the "realistic" card, you're not going to have a helo fly off without it's 2 crew cheifs are you? or an attack helo without it's gunner? nor are you going to have a guy take a humvee on his own to the fight leaving people back at base.

your post was actually funny to read and i got the sarcasm, it's just that if you are going to play the teamwork card as well, and agree that 2 people need to be in a tank to operate it, than 2 people need to be in the other vehicles as well, because then, where is the teamwork in that?

otherwise, it's straight predjudice against people that use armor. You cant seriously look at putting restrictions on one type of vehicle without applying it to everything else to make them all equal.

and are you to tell me, that a tank, that is locking down the enemy on his own, setup on the ridge, so that his friendlies behind can take flags unopposed, is not teamwork? because otherwise, the driver is a waste of a soldier that could be putting bullets downrange somewhere else, or helping to get +1 person to cap flags.

I am glad you got a chuckle out of it. My main goal. This time, I'm going to reply a little bit more seriously. To badly sandbag you argument, I am actually going to say that I agree with what you disagree. (Wait a minute? Yeah, that did come out right) Yes, it should be multiple people to handle heavy assets. To reach full efficency, one should have a pilot and 2 gunners in a blackhawk. One should have a driver and one on the 50' cal on the jeep. There should be one driver in the APC, and one .... etc.

And yes, I do have some predjudice towards lone tankers. With some extreme luck, we have 2 clanmembers who operate tanks in the field. Hitching a ride with these guys showed me what "tanking" really should be about. Getting to try out the big gun while they operated the tank with precission on the field gave me a taste of how a tank really should be deployed and used.

Leaving this predjudice, a one man tanker who does as you describe, I have no problems with. That tank operator is doing what is expected of him from a teamplay perspective. I really don't have a problem with hostile tanks 1-tank-sniping-machine either. There is nothing easier to take out then one of those. Bring up a tank of your own with two peeps in it, or ambush from behind and that tank doesn't stand much of a chance.

The reason why I'm thinking 2 man to operate is that usually no two man in the world can have the patience to snipe-camp on the realms of the outskirts for 2 hours just to let somebody show off their kills.

And I am hoping, that in the future we get BH without cannons, so that we can consentrate on using them as transport instead of flyby shooting.

and that i will agree with. i'm glad that atleast this hasnt turned into a flame war between us, and that we can argue respectively. koodo points to both of us.

with that said, i can see what you are saying..... kinda confusing first.. but yea ...i'm getting the picture.



i've argued i believe with Fish over 1man vs. 2man and we've dueled back and forth and we both came to the same conclusion, that both are great in their different areas of opportunity (1man in open ground, where they have a good position, 2man in urban/closed enviornements for agility and damage).


i always played as a solo tanker, because i dont have the faith in some random guy that i've never played with to actually work with me. might be might fault.. but that's how i am. I go and take my tank to exactly the spot where i know i can watch for enemy movement, and support my people. if we're capping a flag, i'll be in a spot for some bounding overwatch. once they have it, i move up with them, park behind a dune until they get to me, and keep going. Dont dismiss 1man tankers as "lone-wolf-uber-snipers" because some of us actually dont care about the kills but making sure that grunt can stay alive without having a HEAT round impact his face.

LOL - great to see that people still have some sense of humor in here. I understand your point of view. Getting a second person inside that tank to actually be an extention of your right arm is like seeing a burning bush.

Give me a moment to get sober, and I will give you some names of tankers you WANT to be in that tank with. As I said, I am very fortunate to be on VENTRILO with guys trained as tank operators. And willing to aid you to become much better than you really are.

That said, if I ever see you around - I would like to be the driver of the tank, lets see how much damage we can do together over VOIP alone. Or vica versa.

Good luck on the hunting grounds!

haha good stuff i've played with you before; think maybe .4/early .5, but my name in game is Cpl. Vanworth[13thMEU], but i havent gotten to play that much outside of weekend runs of maybe 2 hours... might play more though .