Project Reality Forums

I want a mixed of both. In to days warfare most battles are both. Not like in WW2 when there was mostly QCB.

Yeah the map size in JO was unlimited as far as I remember and the largest map had a span over 64 Km...Kashan can hide.

I'd really like to see medium sized with CQC and more choke points. IMO, Ejod 16p plays very good with 64 players as the city is spaced out enough and everyone is forced to go through a certain street instead of "flanking around" while the actual center of the map is ghost town like on 64p.

Outlawz wrote:Yeah the map size in JO was unlimited as far as I remember and the largest map had a span over 64 Km...Kashan can hide.

Bimbu channel! Good times

milobr wrote:I hate dense jungle maps (Mestia, Ghost Train, Fool's Road) because they remind me of Counter-Strike. Really, it's just pure chaotic. My best games are usually in desert maps like Ejod, Kashan, etc where you can employ a lot of infantry tactics and the game is much more like real war.

Eh? On fools road I've had some of the most well thought out games I've ever played other then perhaps on Jabal or Qwai. It can get really messy but there's [;enty of room for you to think your way out of things, unless your been pinned from every way possible at the bridge/village as British.

I have to go with Johnny though. Personally I love the big maps with open terrain BUT I like them to be broken up by small villages, forests and valleys and such.

Outlawz wrote: IMO, Ejod 16p plays very good with 64 players as the city is spaced out enough and everyone is forced to go through a certain street instead of "flanking around".

Agreed, EJOD has remained one of my favorites, I like the funneling which happens through the city.

LtSoucy wrote:I want a mixed of both. In to days warfare most battles are both. Not like in WW2 when there was mostly QCB.

Soucy, little buddy, you need to go hit those history books a little harder. While there was plenty of CQB in WWII, especially in the Pacific theater there were also some fantastic open plain tank battles including the entire North Africa campaing (like the famous Battle of El Alamein, yes its more than just a BF42 map), the eastern front between USSR and Germany was mostly fought on open plains (exceptions being the big seiges of cities), and the Battle of the Bulge.

DkMick wrote: but the reality is that BF2 makes this less than possible.

That is the root of the problem here. You cannot have a massive battle with just 32 people per side. Some day there will be a game platform which can have hundreds per side, then Project Reality can reach its full potential. Until that happens, there are just certian bits of realism which we must sacrifice for game play (like crewed arty, large scale air support, supply trains, etc.,).

id say long ranges as in most contacts in afghanistan is like hundreds of metres away.

Each map should focus on ONE style of play, not all.

Right now, every map tries to be all types at once. Infantry maps should be infantry maps; get the armor and apc's the heck out of there. Let armor maps be armor. Some maps have so many different vehicles that nobody goes infantry and flags are left blowing in the wind.

mix of both.

The main issue is the lack of coordination
and lack of strictness.

urban maps are the best. Or something like Al Basrah - City surrounded by desert with a few roads and villages. Imo the best map concept brought by PR.

I voted mix. But i regret. I should have voted QCB for the mere lack of it.

I'm pretty sure that people bemoan the lack of CQB in PR for one simple reason:


The majority of the time, most people can be found well away from a flag.


The number of times I've looked at a map in-game and sighed - purely because squads are fighting and dying over the same patch of ground 300m away from the nearest flag!

Now, I know there are often very good reasons for this - finding rallypoints, defending rallypoints, bunkers, firebases etc...

...but even so, the number of times that I've managed to run a squad (of completely random pubbies, NOT other T&T members) completely around enemy squads and onto almost abandoned flags is astounding. The depressing thing is that on occasion, enemy squads do exactly the same thing to my team, too.


If you're not getting any CQB, think about why it is. Is it because of longer effective ranges on weapons, is it because of highly efficient vehicles on the other team? Or is it because more often than not, your squad is simply in the wrong place?

If people are fighting a continual battle with an enemy squad (or two) a grid and a half away from the nearest flag - of course they're not going to see any CQB.

On the other hand, if you disengage, pull back, relocate several hundred meters, re-establish a rallypoint, regroup with your squad and then lead an assault on a CP from a completely new and different direction, more often than not you end up engaging a scant defending force right on top of their flag.

I can't think of a single map in PR 0.71 that doesn't contain a single flag suitable for CQB. Quinling comes closest, but it's still possible.

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:If you're not getting any CQB, think about why it is.

Don't have to think too hard...

1. There are too many vehicle toys to distract players.
   Choppers, apc's, jeeps, tanks, planes, command trucks... Nearly every map has at least three of these vehicles. While the assortment of weapons seems fun, they're all just another distraction to keep players driving around, shooting from afar, or flying around in circles when they could be ground-pounding that flag. Example: Why are APC's and choppers on OGT? Makes no sense.
2. Weapons are (still) too accurate.
   Bottom line, if players can accurately kill you from a distance using single shot (whether they can head shot you on the run via .6 or lay prone via .7), they will avoid CQB and sit on that hill away from the flag. This includes all scoped rifles, LAT, and grenadier.
3. Infinite, super-powerful grenades ruin the fun.
   Does this really need an explanation? Just listen near any would-be CQB situation and all you hear is... boom. boom. boom..... boom. Pull pin. Toss. Repeat. No skill necessary. Realism be damned... nade spam ruins the fun of CQB.
4. Too many people basecamping.
   I see this more and more. One or sometimes 2 entire squads devote themselves to camping the enemy main; laying mines, destroying assets, etc. This tactic is counter-productive because it nullifies an entire squad from the game. It's useless because they'll build more assets anyway. Meanwhile, the rest of your team is getting overrun on flags that matter.
5. Too many lemmings who don't understand strategy.
   So they follow their squad leader, who follows another squad leader, and next thing you there's 3 squads in the middle of nowhere doing nothing. Happens all.. the.. time.

That about sums it up.

AND SO... You put this all together get a typical night of PR, punctuated by the occasional clan or squad whose well-organized strategy and execution completely steamrolls the other team while you look at your map, smack your head, and wonder what your team is doing.

If you want more CQB, remove the distractions and adjust the weaponry so they're forced closer together. Simple.

*rolls eyes*

This is 1 of the very very few games that actually allows all players to engage accurately at range and therefore makes realistic fire fights possible - in most games it is impossible. Take this away, and you have BF2v, where players might see each other at 300m but are force to with in 100m of each before firing, then ofcourse allowing for some legendary and completely harcodely unstopped able bunny hopping prone spam age!
If you FORCE players into "close combat", something that is less realistic than "long range" combat through unrealistic weapons, my self and hell load of other players will leave.


If you want to affect player tactics, adjust/change the MAPS, GAME MODES, NUMBER and TYPE of weapons BUT ABSOLUTELY NOT the realism of weapons.


We live in a world governed by the laws of our universe and human logic, weapon design and capability is government by both of these, therefore mess with weapons and mess with the laws of our universe and human logic!

Also, you cannot use realistic tactics when equipped with unrealistic weapons. For example, one cannot suppress an enemy at 300m unless one is equipped with a full automatic weapon accurate to that range.


This is the very reason i have started creating a map that in parts forces players into all ranges of combat (e.g. bridge with village on both sides - the only way to cross river but also a 1 km ridge with 250m deep of fields on both sides of it) HOWEVER at the same time allows for players to choose alot of time whether to suppress at ranges of 300m, or from another location at 150m or get in real close for some nade spamage (plenty of nades + plenty of cover and rooms = quite easily to balance).

I'd like to see some long-mid range with some CQB aspects (villages, etc.) with less armor/air. Hopefully some of the Afghanistan/Fallujah maps will deliver on this

Wolfe wrote:[*]There are too many vehicle toys to distract players.

Agreed, but for a different reason... it take 2 players to crew an APC/Tank/Chopper, on a map like Kashan if you crew all the vehicles there's no one left for infantry. We had a big decistion to make in the last tourny about the wisdom of only taking half the armor, and keeping more infantry, which worked out but took a lot of discipline, the sort not found on pub servers.

Weapons are (still) too accurate.

Could not disagree with you more, the weapons are more realistic. This does make it much easier to defend a flag than cap it, but combat almost always favors the defenders IRL.

Infinite, super-powerful grenades ruin the fun.

I don't think they are super powerful. Unfortunatly the game engine does not allow for sharpnel, just blast area. IRL you might be the closest person to a nade and live, by diving down or just by luck, or you might be a hundred feet away and get a fatal wound from it. As for the game play issue, that's not unrealistic either. If you are in true unlimited CQB you're gonna toss a nade every time you round a corner, enter a room, or had enemy close enough to hit them.

[quote0[*]Too many people basecamping.[/quote]
I think this is a function of several elements of the game, mostly ticket bleed (where once you have enough CP's you just camp until you win) and the more realistic weapons (range wise), take a hill and shoot everything that moves in front of you.

[*]Too many lemmings who don't understand strategy.

Agreed, but if we ever want new people to join the game we have to live with the newbsheep. Besides, I like it, makes being a SL a little more fun when they do mostly what I ask them to because they don't know what else to do.

remove the distractions and adjust the weaponry so they're forced closer together

While I agree with the first part, I totally disagree with the second. Weapons are about perfect, with the exception of sniper accuracy right now.

Look, CQB is great for a game, and I want more... but IRL when it gets down to CQB something has gone wrong. The US loves long range weapons, how many videos do we see of insurgets getting smacked without even noticing the Apache hovering a mile away, or a Predator circling overhead. When our ground forces come into close contact the usual solution is to fall back to the nearest cover, maintain supressing fire, and have a JDAM just erase the building in question.

The only reason CQB is needed is when you have a very small point objective to capture, be it some critical intel, a bomb making facility in a residential district, or in the case of this game, a flag to take. RL objectives are eliminating enemy, holding whole towns, or blowing stuff up, very rarely does it come down to needing a squad within 5m of a single point. So I don't think we can make the argument that the lack of CQB is a problem with reality, more its the peculiarities of the game which conflict with reality that creates the problem we are discussing.

Yeah. I wouldnt mind seeing the focus taken back off of vehicles in a few maps and back into infantry with vehicle backup (HMMWVs, maybe 1-2 IFVs). I think some of the upcoming Afghanistan maps will help with this.

Liquid Cow made some good points, and here's my take on the matter too.

Wolfe wrote:Don't have to think too hard...
There are too many vehicle toys to distract players.
Choppers, apc's, jeeps, tanks, planes, command trucks... Nearly every map has at least three of these vehicles. While the assortment of weapons seems fun, they're all just another distraction to keep players driving around, shooting from afar, or flying around in circles when they could be ground-pounding that flag. Example: Why are APC's and choppers on OGT? Makes no sense.

Yeah I agree; the map setups need tinkering in some cases. Chopper on OGT I coud live without; APC is actually pretty important to how that map plays. The team that keeps the other APC/IFV dead is usually the team that wins; the armoured units can keep the bridge wrapped up.

Wolfe wrote:Weapons are (still) too accurate.
Bottom line, if players can accurately kill you from a distance using single shot (whether they can head shot you on the run via .6 or lay prone via .7), they will avoid CQB and sit on that hill away from the flag. This includes all scoped rifles, LAT, and grenadier.

Simply wrong. What're you're missing is firstly that weapons are that accurate. If my weapon is zeroed to 300m in real life, in PR I should be able to hit targets at 300m out.

What you also completely missed here is the fact that the game isn't about killing people. It's about controlling the objectives; either caches or flags. If there's a whole squad camped 300m away on top of a hilltop, more power to 'em. It won't do them the world of good when I'm sat behind a building at the opposite side of the CP to them, dropping the flag. They can't see me to kill me, nor can they stop me taking the flag.

I'll happily capture the objective, and then either wait for them to run up or just roll on to the next objective quickly before they have a chance to wake up and get running.

What's even better is when you find a squad doing it and just leave them there. If I'm moving my squad at high speed in a different direction, why kill them? They'll know exactly where we are, and come gunning for us. If we leave them be; we know that they're no-where near to us and not about to stop us reaching our objective.

NOT killing people can be far more useful than killing them.

Wolfe wrote:Infinite, super-powerful grenades ruin the fun

Does this really need an explanation? Just listen near any would-be CQB situation and all you hear is... boom. boom. boom..... boom. Pull pin. Toss. Repeat. No skill necessary. Realism be damned... nade spam ruins the fun of CQB.

Sorry, but you do need to explain. Why is being killed with a rifle more fun than being killed with a grenade? Why is killing someone with a rifle more fun than with a grenade? To my mind what's fun is rolling into a flag and holding it until my teammates have taken the next flag, then moving on. I don't particularly care if we do it via grenade, rifle, tank, pistols, knives or the holy-hand grenade of antioch. Nor do I care when I get killed which method it's by - I'm still just as dead.

On the other hand, where there is skill necessary is in using clever gameplay to prevent the grenadespam from the enemy. When defending, leave two-three guys outside the objective to spot incoming troops and kill them before they get within throwing-range. Alternatively, when you're facing someone and they're chucking a 'nade at you- rush them and full-auto them into bits before they can throw another one.

Wolfe wrote:Too many people basecamping

I see this more and more. One or sometimes 2 entire squads devote themselves to camping the enemy main; laying mines, destroying assets, etc. This tactic is counter-productive because it nullifies an entire squad from the game. It's useless because they'll build more assets anyway. Meanwhile, the rest of your team is getting overrun on flags that matter.

So play on well-admin'd servers that don't allow people to camp in bases. T&T for example only allow spec ops and the odd engineer in; usually 2-4 guys at most. Everyone else gets a couple of warnings, then kicked. Repeat offenders are banned.

I'm sorry but that's a problem with all multiplayer FPS where there are set spawn locations. That's not a PR problem, it's a human problem. Deal with it in a human way by kicking them.

Wolfe wrote:Too many lemmings who don't understand strategy

So they follow their squad leader, who follows another squad leader, and next thing you there's 3 squads in the middle of nowhere doing nothing. Happens all.. the.. time.
That about sums it up.

So be a squad leader and lead your own squad in a useful way. At the very least you then ensure that you have a good round, and that five others get one too.

Yell clear, polite instructions over team chat. Tell people what you're doing, or ask them what they're doing and then do the opposite.

Take commander, do some ordering. Especially useful if you're on a server that enforces the chain of command and kicks people who repeatedly ignore CO instructions.

Wolfe wrote: AND SO... You put this all together get a typical night of PR, punctuated by the occasional clan or squad whose well-organized strategy and execution completely steamrolls the other team while you look at your map, smack your head, and wonder what your team is doing.

If you want more CQB, remove the distractions and adjust the weaponry so they're forced closer together. Simple.

And so, if you want more CQB, get your *** in gear, stop fighting over useless ground and make sure you're in a flag zone either defending or attacking.

Don't engage people you don't have to.

Ignore the assets with your squad, play the game you want to play and have an infantry laugh.

Be the ONE squad that the well-organized strategy can't dislodge, the spanner in the works that stops them rolling back your entire team to your main base. Allow enough time for your useless mates to get back into the fight.

Play on servers that enforce rules that you agree with.

Weapon accuracy:
You can't have CLOSE quarters battles when weaponry is designed for FAR distances... people will stay at that range where it's safe. While they're kept at bay, another squad goes rally hunting and viola, you have 2 squads persistently off the flag.

Realistic accuracy is all well and good, but it doesn't include realistic reaction times, momentum, breathing, adrenalin, or many other forces that would hinder a soldier's ability to fire accurately either near or far. Instead, all we have is the short flick of the mouse to turn and fire in less than a second. So to model in x bullet drop for x distance then call it realistic is, well, not realistic.. but that's a discussion for another thread.

Nade spam:
For those who think nades and guns are equals, then I can't offer any further explanation that would change your mind other than to say the sheer volume of exploding nades around an objective makes it very difficult to enter CQB with rifles. And yes, rifles are more fun. It takes more skill and strategy than hand-held nukes.



As far as the rest goes, well, it's easy to tell someone to get their *** in gear or to find another server. I can't force squads to get out of the hills or stop camping the main. Better map design and game modding is better suited to control this via the points I explained above.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt wrote:*rolls eyes*

for a second time.......

(EDITED for clarity)

If you want to affect player tactics, adjust/change the MAPS, GAME MODES, NUMBER

This is the very reason i have started creating a map that in parts forces players into all ranges of combat, including close quarter and long/medium range combat. READ CAREFULLY the following examples:

(1) The only way to cross a river is at 1 bridge, however there is a village very very close on each side. Therefore forcing players in to house to house combat - happy now Wolfe?

(2) There will also be a 1 km long ridge with 250m deep of fields on both sides of it. Therefore forcing players to combined simultaneously focused suppressing fire with good smoke cover.

AND..............

Wolfe wrote:
Nade spam:
For those who think nades and guns are equals, then I can't offer any further explanation that would change your mind other than to say the sheer volume of exploding nades around an objective makes it very difficult to enter CQB with rifles. And yes, rifles are more fun. It takes more skill and strategy than hand-held nukes.

Solutions to reduce the difficulty of entering flags capture zones due to nade spam, that dont involve decreasing the number or power of nades:

- Increase size of flag capture zones, therefore forcing the same number of players but into an area that is significantly greater

- Increase number of buildings that are enterable and the number of different rooms in each, therefore providing significantly increased cover, reduce the effectiveness of a single nade and increase the number required to clear an area of enemies.

- Increase the variation in terrain, with similar affect as above but with higher pieces of terrain (small hills) allowing for rifle fire to be layed down much more effectively than on lower ground and decreasing the threat of nades due to the difficulty of throwing both along and upwards aswell.