Project Reality Forums

US tank should be a lot quieter. It's supposed to be the quietest tank in the world.

as far as i know theres never been any combat in real life between t90s and abrams, and the t72s that the americans fought in iraq were el cheapo soviet export models that were not anywhere near as good as the real soviet models. so i think its a little tough to say "well the mecs t72s would be no match for the abrams blah blah blah" because afterall the mec is fictional perhaps they are modern soviet versions and stand a much better chance.

Ok, while I admit that I may be wrong on the type of tanks different middle eastern countries have, I still stand by the fact that we are playing project reality and not project fantasy superpower. The fact remains that even between Arab countries there are huge divides in political and religious interpretation as well as foreign relations with the west. That fact is, is that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Oman, and Kuwait all are allies or neutral to the US and would not support an Iran led war against the United States or the west. Furthermore, the region is in too much turmoil to ally with each other. The strong nations, Iran and Saudi Arabia are on two sides of the fence here. The Saudi government loves America and they would not want to lose one of their top purchasers of oil. We also supply them with weapons and technology, so they want our support and backing. Another point is their religious differences. They would not join together because of their different views on Islam. However, speculating on whether these countries could join together is irrelevant. This fact is that as of February 1, 2009, no such power exists. Project reality is a great game because it is so real. I just don't want to see a great game go the way of every other FPS especially since this game is probably the best FPS I have played. I have had discussions with my tank gunner before that this game should be sold by black sands studios as its own asset. I wish this were the case, but it is not.


-Back to the point, this is project reality. Which is set in the current time of this century. It is not a reflection of some future war. This is why the MEC does not exist, and thus should be erased or renamed, and their units should be adjusted properly. The faction that could take its place is Iran or a group like Hezbollah. The tanks should be placed accordingly.

As I stated earlier in my posts, I thoroughly enjoyed playing as the MEC with the underdog tank. I just believe that balancing waters down the game play.

I hope some Devs take another look at this issue. Also, good work to all the people that make pr a great game.

You're complaining about Saudis vs. USA being unrealistic but say nothing about China vs. USA? Honestly, only the Saudi government likes America, but Chinese people in general are more favorably inclined to us, not least because our economies practically rely on each other. To have China and America fight is infinitely more ludicrous than Arabs vs. America.

R.J.Travis wrote:Balancing a tank to kill a Abrams Is a bad call IRL you would not shoot at a tank that could kick your *** with out first flanking and disabling the superior tank they need to make the Weak crapy tanks just as they are cheap and crapy yes they have money that dose not mean where going to sell them a better tank to kill are tanks lol thats what i get from you people "there rich they got money they can buy tank blue prints of allied tanks to make balanced tanks"

the thing is even with all there money they cant get better tanks because No one will sell them one!

thats like saying hey where at war with you but we will give you 1234billon in cash if you give us the blue prints of your tank so you stop wining the war.

Its not that they cant buy a better tank its they don't known how to build a better tank!

UNLOCK the suggestion forum i got like 40 suggesting about this topic aloneZ!!!!

Let's look at some points shall we?
Egypt is the proud owner of a number of US built M1 Abrams Tanks, we sold them to the Egyptians. Russia has proven that it is willing to, and has, sold frontline military hardware to governments within or similar to the MEC. The Israelis were able to construct their own tank which is considered a contender for greatest tank in the world with a much lower budget to work with. Iran is researching its own weapon designs including an Iranian built tank. Tank design is not rocket science.

Now that we've looked at these points, let's think, are you honest to god saying that a coalition of the majority of Middle Eastern Countries, given the vast financial and scientific resources at their disposal, could not, buy, cheat, steal or make their own tank which could be a contender with the M1 Abrams?

That fact is, is that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Oman, and Kuwait all are allies or neutral to the US and would not support an Iran led war against the United States or the west.

Don't get stuck in the mud about who is called what, gameplay in a realistic format is the objective.

I like symmetrical balance, and I like asymmetrical balance, and I like that some maps are the former and some are the latter. Variation is good.

Qwai is the most sublime expression of asymmetry in PR and is the right model for any map where we want to have stuff vs different stuff.

really, I would like to see US with very few (like...3), but with Apaches and like...2 bradleys/a blackhawk or two (infantry transport) vs freakin LOADS of enemy armour.

i.e. MEC airforce has been defeated in the area, MEC armour and infantry are gonna engage using the SAMs to cover their advance against the American forces. Would need lots of teamwork on the US side, and coordination on the MEC side.

ofc, that kind of setup would be greatly augmented by realistic armour targetting by Choppers, and the ability to laser targets by apcs/tanks not just infantry.

Hey, I do not have a problem with the thought of China vs. the US because they are a ligament world power. The Chinese government and military actually exists, and thus it is plausible although not probable for a war between the two. The reason I have problems with the MEC is that they are a fictional power with uber battle tanks. If they were just to pick a country, like a country with the Challengers or Abrams, then I would be fine with that because it really exists in this world today. The MEC, however, does not exists so speculation is all to rampant. Whose to say that the MEC is super rich or that they want to purchase current gen MBTs. Why not purchase nukes because the UN and the US are not going to stop a superpower? See all this speculation takes away from what the reality of the situation is. Like I said, just pick a country, any country over there and give them the assets accordingly, but don't make up a superpower just to balance a game which makes its unrealistic. That's all I'm saying.

Its unrealistic for the US/GB to be at war with a middle eastern power right now this second, yeah. But does that really matter? at the end of the day its about having a realsitic portrayal of war, not necessarily specific wars or specific nations. Its just all props to give us a tiny taste of various aspects of a modern battlefield.

Actually stopping, making the MEC in to a specific country etc just limits the scenarios we can have; as well have requiring alot of remodelling.

In v0.85, the MEC use the Russian made T-72M1. In a future release we plan to replace this with the T-72M1M, which is the modern export version of the T-72 and is easily comparable to a T-90.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Its unrealistic for the US/GB to be at war with a middle eastern power right now this second, yeah. But does that really matter? at the end of the day its about having a realsitic portrayal of war, not necessarily specific wars or specific nations. Its just all props to give us a tiny taste of various aspects of a modern battlefield.

Actually stopping, making the MEC in to a specific country etc just limits the scenarios we can have; as well have requiring alot of remodelling.

Agreed. To me, PR should focus on realistic weapons and tactics, rather than trying to recreate Iraq down to the last bullet.

I disagree although I respect your thought. The way I see it, a ligament battle could, in theory, take place between the Iranians and the US. I am just saying that as the MEC, shouldn't they have like four or five different types of tanks (as well as other weapons) because each country uses different tanks (weapons)? So, if we go with an MEC alliance, they should use different units on the same map. Like a T-72 should show up, and an Abrams, and a Challenger. That would make it realistic. I am just saying that no MEC has existed or currently exists. Project reality is based on well, real life. So, why would the MEC exist?

Ok sorry about the rant. I guess I would just love to see a 99% portrayal of real life in the game. Including tank unbalancing. I do not like the thought of balancing because it does take away from reality. I mean, if you were the US, would you say "I want to lead my troops into a force of equal or greater strength?" No, because way too many men and assets would be wasted. An offensive would never take on a defense that has equal or greater power. That would be suicide. Look at D-day (yes, i knows its WWII), but we landed 175,000 troop there on June 6, 1944. The enemy did not have 175,000 men stationed at Normandy to take the Allies on. Point being is that the David vs. Goliath approach is true in every war. Look at the Romans vs the Carthaginians. The American colonies vs. the British. The Allies vs. the national socialists. The English vs. the French (100 years wars). The crusaders against the Muslims (crusades). The barbarians vs. the Roman Empire. The English vs the Spanish (the Spanish Armada). The fact is, is that almost every war and battle has an underdog. This is why Project Reality should be shown this way. It shouldn't be, well the US gets Abrams, so the MEC gets ramped up armor stats. The MEC gets better armor, so the US gets a more deadly A-10. No, it should be realistic and rather un-fair. If the MEC beats the US, it is a great victory that took strategy and teamwork. If the US wins, the same story goes. Sometimes one team may get steamrolled, but that's the way it goes in war.

If the tanks were to be unbalanced, there would need to be other differences, like ticket value or spawn time to even it out. I like the idea of asymmetrical balance, but making the MEC completely inferior to the NATO forces will only lead to everyone switching to the NATO team or leaving when an MEC map comes up. Something like giving the MEC a tank(s) that has less of a ticket penalty when destroyed, but has less armor or worse optics than the Abrams.

See, I can agree with that. It is a good point. I just do not like pure balancing for the sake of team "evenness". I know in any other type of game, balancing is non-debatable or obtainable. Lets take football for instance, the underdog does not go out onto the field pre-game and says to the other team "you have to lose your best players to make the game fair for everyone" or "we get to select a player from your team to play on our team to even things out" or "let us see your playbook and game strategy so everyone has a great time". No, the underdog goes out and plays, if they lose then they take the loss, but if they win, it is a great triumph. I know that even with "tank balancing" there is already everyone switching to a certain team. I do like playing as the underdog, because with a good armor crew, the game gets turned around quickly. This makes it fun when a (1) T-72 crushes an (2-3) Abrams squad. Then its not about who has the better tank, its who has the better tank driver/gunner ability as well as better battlefield strategy.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:In v0.85, the MEC use the Russian made T-72M1. In a future release we plan to replace this with the T-72M1M, which is the modern export version of the T-72 and is easily comparable to a T-90.

Aw, but I want it now

But nah, in all seriousness, I think we're fine right now.

Truthfully, the MEC should have several different kinds of tanks at their disposal. The MEC forms up, and combines all of its military might while *simultaneously* buying even more powerful hardware. I think it would be cool if they could design their own tank, if only for the sake of something totally unique, but it's fine otherwise. I could, honestly, see a force like the MEC bringing T-72M1M's (great tanks) into combat, supported by new BMP-3's and older T-62's/T-64's/T-72's.

It would be kind of neat to have a map or two (Kashan for example) hosting multiple different kinds of MEC heavy armor, though you could spread this out over several maps, so that on Kashan you're facing the vanguard of MEC armor, hosting many T-72M1M's, but on less armor-oriented maps (Asad Khal is a random one I chose) you could find yourself up against rear guard armor of T-62's and T-64's.

Or maybe I'm insane.

M.

I think they should just remove the MEC wtf is a fake army doing in this game Ez Delete them and replace them with a real army.

Emnyron wrote:Sigh..
Fake army?
When you start to take political sides in a game like this, you will, make note of this, YOU WILL RUN INTO A SHITSTORM!

For once, consider that this is just a G A M E!

I thought I put sarcasm in there ops

ghoststorm11 wrote:The Saudi government loves America and they would not want to lose one of their top purchasers of oil.

Well the demand on Oil world wide increasing,if Saudis stop supplying US with petrol,it would be bad for US,not for Saudis,since Dolar based international currency might turn into Euro(google petrodollar),and US has to either make new oil producing allies or invade another oil producing country.

On the other hand,if Saudis stop supplying oil to US,they might face an angry US, "bringing democracy" to Saudis via a coupe or by military intervention,plus more advanced military eqipment for Saudis,(such as m1s,f15s,apache's and maybe JSFs)

On the topic,slight advantages might be ignored,for the sake of balance and the time it'd take to implement these armor specific features+balancing them.

m1 vs. t-90 is not = tiger vs. t34/sherman or t34 vs. pz3/pz4.

Home Page

Article taken from Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15 but I can't source that directly.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles."

So with the kontact-5 ERA (covers 60% aspect), a T-72 isn't exactly a pushover against obsolete M829 rounds.

However, the modern and currently used M829A3 is specifically designed to get past this ERA, so the abrams does have the advantage here. In addition, the t-72's main gun cannot penetrate the m1's armour without the most modern russian apfsds-t rounds.

(correct me if I'm wrong, but all the sources I've checked out have given me this view)

So we have a dilemma, how can we balance this?

Well you give the t-72's the 9M119 Svir (at-11) atgm which is capable of defeating the m1's armour and there we are, problem solved.