Project Reality Forums

GoreZiad wrote:Yeah I agree to a point, it's just that we're getting used to that if it's a friendly vehicle, it's not an enemy. I think it's fine as it is, people can always play a little vanilla if they like these arcade-ish things.

Cheers.

Yeah, but if we're going for reality here, than I think the weapons should be usable by the enemy. It should teach people not to leave their vehicles abandoned where the enemy can hijack it. especially where insurgents are concerned. I mean, having a truck with a .50 cal mount falling into their laps isn't something they would ignore. you'd be sure that they would make use of it.

as far i'm aware, military vehicles dont have keys, so anyone can start them. after all thats how the SAS got their DPV's - by stealing them off the americans. i think that you should be able to steal vehicles, only light vehicles though - hmmwv's and below. but thats just my oppinion

How about a "warm up" time of like 99 minutes if an enemy enters the jeep? That wont kill him, but wont let him drive either.

But wont both teams see these vehicles on the map then, as they wont be teamlocked anymore?

Or just deny him to drive.. just as non-pilots is the use of helicopters and jets denied and non-crewmen is the use of tanks and apcs denied

edit: maybe this is done with a like 9999 seconds warmup, like the heavy spawntime if you try to spawn with an officer-kit if you are not allowed to have one

DkMick wrote:A realistic part of infantry training includes being smacked in the *** when you allow your vehicle to sit without security and someone hops on the .50 and blasts away at you. All you 'reality' experts are very, very tiresome.

QFT

I understand a lot of what you PR "purists" are saying.

Driving the opfor's vehicles is part of the vanilla game.


My suggestion was originally intended to just make the gun available.

But now that I think about it.....it is more realistic to make all small vehicles(hummers, landies, technicals, and all below)....driveable by anyone.

Reason.....if I shot and killed the driver and crew of a vehicle.....in all likelyhood the vehicle would still be running.
And those that argue keys vs. no keys.....the keys would be in the ignition.....and it isnt hard to figure out a push-button or flip switch start since most military equipment is labeled and illustrated for the average 7th grader.


It is logical and realistic for either side to improvise, adapt, and over-come a situation.....I need a ride/weapon......there is an abandoned vehicle/weapon......I should use any and all means available to destroy my enemy who is trying to destroy me.

I can see allot of team killing accidents happening if you let people dive the other teams stuff.
Outside of the insurgents and militia I quite like having the vehicles team locked, makes the vehicles feel more like part of the team than just tools.

I always teamkill in FH2 when friendlies drive enemy vehicles, lol

So used to teamlock...

It all comes down to knowing your target and using the comm available.....

"Commander.......This is Squad 3......we are operating in the area of Foxtrot Five......we are in a blue Technical.......have friendlies check their targets before firing."

Friendly Fire/ Fratricide happens.

Use those scopes and Binos to check your targets.

*edit:
The teamlock to me is "arcadey".
It is the equivalent of having "red tags" over all opfor.

If you hop into an opfor's vehicle.....you take that chance of being mistaken for the enemy. Period.
I dont know if there is a way.....but the TK punish should be removed if you are driving in an enemy car as well.

Getting in an enemy car should be a last ditch improvised thing.
Not a tactic.

Going to have to hijack this thread for a bit.

Just read all the posts about people wanting to drive enemy vehicles (or not) and thought, what if you killed an enemy crewman, got his kit and could drive enemy vehicles?

I wanted to "bump" this thread since I saw the threads about driving enemy vehicles was locked.
I am not resuggesting here either.


I see the reasons for not allowing the driving of enemy vehicles.
As valid or invalid as they may seem as a whole....


The idea of allowing either side to man the vehicle's weapon IS doable and it is very realistic.

Just read all the posts about people wanting to drive enemy vehicles (or not) and thought, what if you killed an enemy crewman, got his kit and could drive enemy vehicles?

Insurgent driving a APC in Basrah? Arab driving an Abrams in Kashan? Bad idea.

sakils2 wrote:Insurgent driving a APC in Basrah? Arab driving an Abrams in Kashan? Bad idea.

It wouldnt be an issue.....the original suggestion would only open up small vehicles......and guns only(F2)....not drivers seat(F1).

Oklahoman wrote:Yeah, but if we're going for reality here, than I think the weapons should be usable by the enemy. It should teach people not to leave their vehicles abandoned where the enemy can hijack it. especially where insurgents are concerned. I mean, having a truck with a .50 cal mount falling into their laps isn't something they would ignore. you'd be sure that they would make use of it.

I understand. But they didn't learn anything from vanilla. Please let it be as it is.

This is far from vanilla play.

Just opening up the F2 seat is realistic and would add an interesting dynamic to game play.

This would keep squads from basically wasting vehicles.

I will use Basrah(any given public server) as the example....
Time and time again.....I have seen a squad of 6 jump into 2 landies and take off for a cache at the beginning of a round. Nothing wrong with that.
But then the squad will dismount. Not everytime.....but most of the time.....they park the landies on the outskirts of the objective. Understandable tactic, so as not to create unessasary attention.
They move in.....I would say 9 of the 10 times I have witnessed the landies being left behind while the squad either moves on foot to the next objective, or is obliterated by the enemy, or is giving chase to the enemy.

Regardless of what happens.....the landies are left abandoned in various states of repair or disrepair.

To me.....it is very logical and understandable that if this were to happen IRL.....my adversaries would strip the vehicle and find a use for that gun first chance they had.
We've all seen the pictures on CNN, FoxNews, or take your pic of the news outlet.

It all goes back to an old infantry proverb:

"Protect your equipment, and it will protect you."

I guess the opposite would hold just as true...."Take a **** on your equipment..."...you get the picture.


To further prove my point:
Also....on Basrah.....if the VCP is over-run....those two M249's at each entrance are up for grabs by the enemy. The insurgency obviously knows how to fire and change a belt of ammo on the SAW.

Why is it so far fetched to think that the insurgency couldnt use the 50 on the top of the landy as well?

Open up the F2 seat on all the vehicles for realism's sake.(*trucks hummers, landies)

Flip the coin.....Im on the Brit's side.
A technical rolls up firing at my squad. We take out the vehicles inhabitants and the vehicle rolls to a stop. One of my men sees another truck on its way.....is it unrealistic for me or one of my men to mount the enemy heavy gun at our disposal.....or take cover and hope for the best?

It is a realistically and tactically sound practice to use what is at your disposal. Period.

*added:
I am not talking about driving any enemy vehicles. And I am certainly not talking about any armor, apc's, aircraft or whatever. Just trucks, humvees, and landies.

And if a vehicle is compromised to the enemy.....a SL should be letting the commander know if one is compremised or if one is seen.....thats what comm is for!

It wouldnt be an issue.....the original suggestion would only open up small vehicles......and guns only(F2)....not drivers seat(F1).

I am talking about this post-

Going to have to hijack this thread for a bit.

Just read all the posts about people wanting to drive enemy vehicles (or not) and thought, what if you killed an enemy crewman, got his kit and could drive enemy vehicles?

One question Moonpie would you apply to all light vehicles or would you draw the line at certain more powerful ones, like say the TOW hummers which would be far more difficult to handle than an MG?

Question aside however I'm with Moonpie on this one because it would lead to alot less wasted assets (think stranded at the airbase on Basra knowing full well all the landys have just been dumped all over the place) and also has the opportunity to cut down on solo vehicles as well. Would need to make sure that no ‘halo’ type problems occur with a member of the other team on your F2 while you drive

I feel the need to add as well that I’m surprised that while on the forums people normally cry ‘its realistic!’ to every idea they want but this one (which in my mind is realistic) is meeting this much resistance …

vilhelm123 wrote:One question Moonpie would you apply to all light vehicles or would you draw the line at certain more powerful ones, like say the TOW hummers which would be far more difficult to handle than an MG?

Question aside however I'm with Moonpie on this one because it would lead to alot less wasted assets (think stranded at the airbase on Basra knowing full well all the landys have just been dumped all over the place) and also has the opportunity to cut down on solo vehicles as well. Would need to make sure that no ‘halo’ type problems occur with a member of the other team on your F2 while you drive

I feel the need to add as well that I’m surprised that while on the forums people normally cry ‘its realistic!’ to every idea they want but this one (which in my mind is realistic) is meeting this much resistance …

Thats a good question....
I was posting mainly from the perspective of playing Insugency maps....
Not those maps where there are two well equipt armies with rank structure and quartermaster.

I think it should be implemented only for those vehicles with MG mounts only.

I dont see the "halo" scenario you mentioned taking place in PR though.