Project Reality Forums

I like the idea and I'd also like to see a lot more buildables. In fact I'd rather have a **** load of buildables and no destructible buildings (if they have anything to do with each other). Even if they don't, destructibles ruin gameplay imo, realistically you wouldn't be allowed to cause that much collateral damage randomly or even with insurgents in the buildings. Take them out!!

Oh, sorry for going off topic. Yeah, I'd like to see deployable TOW missles and .50 cals and towers and all kinds of stuff please.

Another suggestion: Can you make certain deployables have clipping with each other and buildings and fences? This way it would be easier to make impenetrable barbed wire fences for infantry.

SleepyHe4d wrote:I like the idea and I'd also like to see a lot more buildables. In fact I'd rather have a **** load of buildables and no destructible buildings (if they have anything to do with each other). Even if they don't, destructibles ruin gameplay imo, realistically you wouldn't be allowed to cause that much collateral damage randomly or even with insurgents in the buildings. Take them out!!

Oh, sorry for going off topic. Yeah, I'd like to see deployable TOW missles and .50 cals and towers and all kinds of stuff please.

Another suggestion: Can you make certain deployables have clipping with each other and buildings and fences? This way it would be easier to make impenetrable barbed wire fences for infantry.

Done.

I think the devs should make a tower but it would need to be covered with cammo netting to make it blend in and provide concealment for anyone inside and perhaps add a mounted LMG on top poking through a hole in the cammo netting

armour already destroys structures easily as it is. it's not like 6 extra feet of hight would make a differance to a tank but it would make a huge difference to infantry
with a watchtower you could have a guy with a H-AT standing on top scanning the horizon because he's on an elevated platform the terrain won't block his view

TheScot666 wrote:I think the only thing i will say is, on Bi Ming, anyone in those watchtowers has the slight element of surprise with them as they are always there. However, if they werent and deployable, under the cover of the trees, i would blow the hell out of anything unnatural like a deployable watch tower, cos it is asking for someone to be in there.

-It's a watchtower, not a surprisetower... The actual purpose of a watchtower is to provide overwatch of an area, whether small or extensive, and not primarily as a weapons platform. Though there is a small advantage in elevation the availability of tools to destroy it and it's various downsides(Attention is focused on it, it's base is often a blind spot, etc.) make it an overwatch position and little else and it's implementation in-game would likely mirror that.

Yeah but watchtowers as far as i know wouldnt be deployed on a hostile base which could be attacked at any moment.

Really, the only maps I know of where a watch-tower would be useless would be Kufrah, and Kashan. The wide open areas with tanks would make them completely worthless. But any other map, like Qwai, or Ejod, or Jabal, would provide many uses for Watch-towers.

Yes it would probably draw attention, and yes it would be targeted for attack. But then, how is that ANY differant then any other deployable? Bunkers/firebases draw attention, as do sandbags and razor-wire. The focus really shouldn't be concealment with this structures, it should be defendable positions. You shouldn't have to hide a BUNKER, you should be able to hunker down inside of it and put up a hell of a fight. You hide rally points, not bunkers. So more deployables that would help you defend the position would be nice, this includes watchtowers.

trenches isnt hardcoded actually you can just make a trench as a static that is on the ground as a sandbag just that you can get some cover as you also is proning.so it will be placed over the actual ground.

HAT round at top=Boom all gone
APF round from tank or APC=Boom all gone
Heat round=Boom all gone and splash damage kills everything below.
Snipers inside=high casualty rating
Riflemen=could spot enemys for a few seconds before the obvious happens.

Only good thing = would provide a good distraction that would take a minute for half a dozen men to build for nothing.

Prob better if sandbags clicked to rooftops, would do the same job and wouldnt be nearly as obvious. We never get a chance to build and properly fortify a base in the first place, and there are watch towers in appropriate placs on certain maps anyway. good consept...but a bad idea for PR im afraid. It would be suicide to build and to man IMO. But it depends on the model of the structure, i assume your talking about something similar to the current static ones, which are not the best cover. But i know from experiance ingame that you can lock yourself upstairs in the mestia bunkers for a long time if done properly, but its more like a fox in a hole than a recon outpost.

1 grenade... then BOOM!

I know Id mark it as a bunker/FB/Sniper location then blow it to bits.

A watchtower could be quite useful. And make it so it is a little beefier then the ones on Bi-ming so when you need to have C4 or something it makes more sense. ~.^

Oh. And on the note of armor and stuff -- That requires said armor to go to the watch tower to blow it up, and armor isn't everywhere. But, true. It won't be useful in all maps. Just like the .50 cals and sandbags and razor wire and etc etc.

Was a instance today when I was playing on Qwai where a watch tower would have been great, even. I mean, hell, if anything you could set a anti air guy up there when you're having chopper troubles.

Having SAW guns or something similar on the sides of it would be nice, though, to make it more useful.

Except anti air doesnt lock onto LBs and light choppers

Well from the reaction it would be worth deploying the watchtower.
The enemy would always take it out from as long a range as possible, giving the defenders the heads-up that an attack is underway.
Then after a while, people would stop blowing them up first thing because nobody would ever be hiding in them, since they are the first thing blown up.
That means you can hide in them and ambush people at otherwise undefended flags.
If they had a 100m placement radius then killing them at the start of an attack would a great warning and lets you know the enemy still has 100m to go before they get to the flag.

I would agree that placement might be somewhat screwy because as I understand it, assets drop from the sky so this thing could be placed on top of an existing structure but you could deal with that occasional problem.

The real question is: who is going to make it ?

Psykogundam wrote:HAT round at top=Boom all gone
APF round from tank or APC=Boom all gone
Heat round=Boom all gone and splash damage kills everything below.
Snipers inside=high casualty rating
Riflemen=could spot enemys for a few seconds before the obvious happens.

Those are all really good ways of killing it. The only problem I see, what happens when there's no armor on the map? You all say armor would kill it easy, but not EVERY map has armor. NO asset is usefull is all situations, why would a watch-tower be any differant? Sandbags could be blown to hell by armor, as would the bunker itself. That's why you place sandbags and bunkers where it's hard for armor to get to them. If armor is lurking around you might not place a watch-tower, same as you wouldn't place the anti-air gun if there's no air around.

A watch-tower has it's uses, and would make for a very good adition to buildable assets, but it's not going to be usefull at all times, which is what the nay-sayers are using as their primary arguement. Which is kinda sad, since by that logic we might aswell remove all assets.

Well if we ever put them in ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD7s4i_X ... re=related[/youtube]

I want that ambiance sound when deploying them



But more seriously, I like how PR is moving to a more dynamic kind of gameplay. Once you've played a map 4-5 times you know where every sniper/cover/ambush/flanking position is.
Having this kind of liberty in changing the map dynamic makes each map refreshing to play each time.

'[R-MOD wrote:Saobh;701825']Well if we ever put them in ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD7s4i_X ... re=related[/youtube]

I want that ambiance sound when deploying them

I'd prefer this version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka_sHy9cVH0[/youtube]

MOD SPAM :O

OT: I just don't see them as a realistic thing for an army to do when a flag can be captured at a any second...

ArmedDrunk&Angry wrote:Well from the reaction it would be worth deploying the watchtower.
The enemy would always take it out from as long a range as possible, giving the defenders the heads-up that an attack is underway.
Then after a while, people would stop blowing them up first thing because nobody would ever be hiding in them, since they are the first thing blown up.
That means you can hide in them and ambush people at otherwise undefended flags.
If they had a 100m placement radius then killing them at the start of an attack would a great warning and lets you know the enemy still has 100m to go before they get to the flag.

I would agree that placement might be somewhat screwy because as I understand it, assets drop from the sky so this thing could be placed on top of an existing structure but you could deal with that occasional problem.

The real question is: who is going to make it ?

and is it worth putting resources to making it at this point.

Lynx wrote:Feuerwaffen I'm just talking about a watchtower here not trenches maybe you should have actually read

a watchtower wouldn't give away your firebase position because the devs plan on putting a wider radius around a firebase for deployables in .8 this would prevent the enemy from knowing exactly where your firebase is when they see your watchtower

main reason why a watchtower would be a good option to add, isthat it would be a powerful tool for defending an area because the enemy wouldn't be able to use the landscape as cover so easily when they try to advance to destroy your firebase

Eh? They were quite clearly mentioned in your first post. No need for that tone either.

I endorse this idea.

If you don't think it would be useful for your situation, don't deploy it. Same with AA and razorwire.