Project Reality Forums

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;868732']Stinger Range IRL : 1 to 8 kilometers
SA-7 Range IRL : 0.5 to 5.5 kilometers

MANDPAD Maximum Range in 0.809 : 750m

MANDPAD Maximum Range in 0.85 : maximum view distance on any map

Awesome.

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:ummm, not quite as radical as you think bob marley, name one current v0.8 or future v0.85+ map that has AAV's for USMC on it?

True, but in a potential future map where the USMC are faced with an air threat it provides true asymetry based in reality which is, in my opinion, something the mod should aim for.

you had me confused at first... you gotta be more specific, when i first read this i thought you meant AAV - amphibious assault vehicle - and i was about to tell you that you are incorrect. yea we really dont have a use for armored mobile aa. we are moving towards use of things like the manpads and claws systems.

'[R-MOD wrote:Bob_Marley;868804']True, but in a potential future map where the USMC are faced with an air threat it provides true asymetry based in reality which is, in my opinion, something the mod should aim for.

The only problem with that is that for it to be more reality based then there would be US Navy and USMC air support in the form of FA-18s and naval vessels, which would tip the balance in the theater overall. Localized air support isnt needed as much when your ships have already bombarded the enemies runways and air power with tomahawks...

We don't know exactly what the future holds for USMC anti-air technology, so it could be that they bring back the avenger or go with one of the weapons systems being tested currently.

blackhatch46 wrote:you had me confused at first... you gotta be more specific, when i first read this i thought you meant AAV - amphibious assault vehicle - and i was about to tell you that you are incorrect. yea we really dont have a use for armored mobile aa. we are moving towards use of things like the manpads and claws systems.

Yeah it always confuses me too because when someone types AAV I think 'amphibious assault vehicle' not 'anti-air vehicle'.

*cough* AAV-7 would be a good match for the USMC like a stryker .. *cough*

I think that, well, the only reason the AAV's are there, is to have another AA against jets, because right now, all there is, is jsut those AA pads at main, and the MEC and PLA have AA, why not USMC? forget the realism, A LITTLE on this subjet, and keep the AAvs because of balancing.

Maverick wrote:I think that, well, the only reason the AAV's are there, is to have another AA against jets, because right now, all there is, is jsut those AA pads at main, and the MEC and PLA have AA, why not USMC? forget the realism, A LITTLE on this subjet, and keep the AAvs because of balancing.

its already been said that to balance out the realism give USMC more MANPADS that other nations

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;868732']Stinger Range IRL : 1 to 8 kilometers
SA-7 Range IRL : 0.5 to 5.5 kilometers

MANDPAD Maximum Range in 0.809 : 750m

MANDPAD Maximum Range in 0.85 : maximum view distance on any map

Yeaaah, but it takes around 5 sec to lock on with the SA-7... The jet will be far, far away long before you get a solid lock.

Blakeman wrote:The only problem with that is that for it to be more reality based then there would be US Navy and USMC air support in the form of FA-18s and naval vessels, which would tip the balance in the theater overall. Localized air support isnt needed as much when your ships have already bombarded the enemies runways and air power with tomahawks...

We currently have two maps with operational airbases within 3km of each other. Its not unreasonable to have a map where the USMC operate aicraft off a carrier while the OPFOR operate from an airstrip. And in these situations, it is exactly where the AAVs are deployed. Which means we get the opportunity to see asymetic balance in action. For example, while the MEC would have tanguskas on such a map, the USMC would have numerous MANPADS.

Blakeman wrote:We don't know exactly what the future holds for USMC anti-air technology, so it could be that they bring back the avenger or go with one of the weapons systems being tested currently.

The "near future" hasn't happened yet. We do not know the capabilities of such systems and as such it would be impossible to impliment them realistically.

Since the USMC is realistically more dependent on jets for anti-air, why not just give them more jets or jets that respawn faster on combined-arms maps? Which brings me to the question: Will PR's Marines have the F-35B (deploying 2012)?

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;868732']
MANDPAD Maximum Range in 0.85 : maximum view distance on any map

Not strictly true there, Jaymz.
Plenty of times on Kashan have i been able to see the aircraft (or perhaps its sillouhet. No matter, i can still see it) and not been able to get a lock-box for it.
For people that think AA missiles is too weak in PR, its only really against Attack jets that can sometimes survive a direct/very close hit, and go on to rape your ***; giving the impression that AA sucks against all air assets.
Attack choppers will not survive a close hit.

...mongol...

MANDPAD Maximum Range in 0.85 : maximum view distance on any map

unless ur talking about testing mongol.

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;868732']

MANDPAD Maximum Range in 0.85 : maximum view distance on any map

In other words, over 1000m as the AAVs, since IIRC there probably isn't a way to code the weapon's range to adjust itself depending on map's view distance.
I can has cookie?

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:Not strictly true there, Jaymz.
Plenty of times on Kashan have i been able to see the aircraft (or perhaps its sillouhet. No matter, i can still see it) and not been able to get a lock-box for it.
For people that think AA missiles is too weak in PR, its only really against Attack jets that can sometimes survive a direct/very close hit, and go on to rape your ***; giving the impression that AA sucks against all air assets.
Attack choppers will not survive a close hit.

...mongol...

The thing is, it's not choppers people are worried about. It's the jet that's in-and-out before you can even lock on with the Stinger, and easily evades the missile once launched.

I know this is realism based, and I'm well up for asymmetrical balance, but if the US were to end up being in a state of war with a well armed group of Middle Eastern countries AND the PLA wouldn't these plans be scrapped pretty quickly? Like has been a said before the US can pretty safely retire alot of it's mobile AA capabilities due to the type of combat it's currently engaged in, and also the fact that it's not likely to face any threat from air power from any nations that possess any (unless we're both stupid enough to pick a fight with Iran). But if the US was at war with the forces they face in PR all that AA would be pretty quick to come out retirement wouldn't it?

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley wrote:We currently have two maps with operational airbases within 3km of each other. Its not unreasonable to have a map where the USMC operate aicraft off a carrier while the OPFOR operate from an airstrip. And in these situations, it is exactly where the AAVs are deployed. Which means we get the opportunity to see asymetic balance in action. For example, while the MEC would have tanguskas on such a map, the USMC would have numerous MANPADS.

The USMC would also have tomahawk cruise missles via the US Navy taking out said tunguskas and any airbases anywhere near the shore. In reality it is a dumb move to put ashore where the enemy is instead of where he isn't which is why you haven't seen many hostile landings since the days of WW2. The only time a hostile landing will take place is when there are no alternatives, like an island with little beach in the first place. Op Barracuda does this, though I still don't understand the reasoning for no amphibious assault vehicles there.

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley wrote:The "near future" hasn't happened yet. We do not know the capabilities of such systems and as such it would be impossible to impliment them realistically.

Righ now it isn't realistic as there are no pre assault airstrikes by the USMC anyway so I don't see the problem with the Avenger coming in to fill a roll that the game cannot fill otherwise. Really if we want to get this specific then there should be less hueys, no MEC (doesnt exist) and a lot of other little nit pickings. If the manpads lived up to what they could do in reality then maybe put them in instead, but right now there is something more needed than the shoulder mounted.

Blakeman wrote:The USMC would also have tomahawk cruise missles via the US Navy taking out said tunguskas and any airbases anywhere near the shore. In reality it is a dumb move to put ashore where the enemy is instead of where he isn't which is why you haven't seen many hostile landings since the days of WW2. The only time a hostile landing will take place is when there are no alternatives, like an island with little beach in the first place. Op Barracuda does this, though I still don't understand the reasoning for no amphibious assault vehicles there.

And I suppose the RAF, PLAAF, USAF and the airforces of the middle east are in the habbit of establishing airbases a 5 minuite drive from those of thier enemy during a war, are they?

Blakeman wrote:Righ now it isn't realistic as there are no pre assault airstrikes by the USMC anyway so I don't see the problem with the Avenger coming in to fill a roll that the game cannot fill otherwise. Really if we want to get this specific then there should be less hueys, no MEC (doesnt exist) and a lot of other little nit pickings. If the manpads lived up to what they could do in reality then maybe put them in instead, but right now there is something more needed than the shoulder mounted.

How is this unreasonably specific? I'm simply suggesting that a class of viechle do not possess be removed for the sake of realsitically implimenting the faction. Thats no more unreasonable than asking that the British don't get tommy guns or the Chinese don't have Abrams.

It's not realistic per se, but I think working under the assumption that the US would unretire (yeah I know it's not a proper word!) their mobile AA vehicles if they were to end up at war with a force with notable air assets is unreasonable.

'[R-MOD wrote:Bob_Marley;870623']And I suppose the RAF, PLAAF, USAF and the airforces of the middle east are in the habbit of establishing airbases a 5 minuite drive from those of thier enemy during a war, are they?







How is this unreasonably specific? I'm simply suggesting that a class of viechle do not possess be removed for the sake of realsitically implimenting the faction. Thats no more unreasonable than asking that the British don't get tommy guns or the Chinese don't have Abrams.

True but the USMC isn't the entire US military either. The new West Fallujah map has US Army support via APCs so what does it matter if they are in or not at this point? If the mods ideal is to get as realistic as possible then the USMC needs a major overhaul, if it is to only put in certain things then why does it matter if the avenger is in?

Also as far as the airbase comment, the USMC does put FARPs (fuel ammo repair points) near the frontlines for helos, but not for fixed wing craft.

As far as the fixed wing airbases yeah I agree they are too damn close together and very unrealistic. This is why I find your argument about the avenger a little bit illogical since the mod itself isn't trying to be as realistic as possible from what i've seen, only realistic to a point to be fun.