Project Reality Forums

Expendable Grunt wrote:See, this is the problem modern society has. We want war to be "clean".

You're fucking murdering people in the name of intangible concepts or tangible resources. Grow up and get to the killing. You can't have a "clean" war.

M.

You've kind of proved the point ... if in a slighltly psychopathic kind of way. The Geneva and Hague Treaties prohibit weapons that would cause unnecessary suffering - basically weapons designed to wound or incapacitate. Which makes sense. Kill the enemy. Not sentence him to lifetime of agony.

You know what else isnt part of the Geneva conventions? Shotguns. You cant kill someone with a bullet bigger than...i dont remember but anyways shotguns are classified as a breaching tool. hahahaha yeah ok...

Wonder who'll figure out that on every war nobody gave a damn about Geneva/Genova conventions,armies,goverment,militia etc. they bend it breake it whenever they please.

This suggestion can be and should be considered spam, like the other guy who sugggested shooting pilots were also against G.convention,therefore shooting them should have the same effect as shooting a civilian.

Also according to international law,invading other countries are also forbidden,so we should abandon PR,because its against International law...

we're all war criminals on the inside

If somebody want to take my life I will take their life with anything in my arsenal. Screw the Geneva Convention, my life or his

I'll say right now, I played my second round of Project Reality a few days ago, and we were in a fight on Archer. We took the center castle of the map about 5 minutes into the round, and we stayed there the whole time. Now I am not sure how many tanks the insurgents had, but we quickly decided that the best use of our HAT would be against any targets of opportunity, and actually after about 3 attempts at killing enemy vehicles from over 700m away I decided to stop trying. They'd see the rocket coming and switch from the gunner to drivers seat and move a meter or so, and the rocket wouldn't kill them.

It didn't take long for the insurgents to take exception to this treatment (to their credit I didn't hear anyone ***** about it) so after about 15 minutes, we started taking massive RPG fire. At least 3 RPGs's a minute. And I'll say right now that the RPG's and HAT have almost no blast radius. I saw one land maybe 4m from our squad and no one took and damage.

This has to be the first realistic engagement I've had in PR, ever. We actually we're using HAT (which irl would be mortars or a javelin but whatever), sniper rifles, and 50 cals BEFORE we used our M-16A4. The insurgents attempted maybe 1 or 2 direct assaults on the castle, but they couldn't sustain it because it was too hard to get to the top in any reasonable amount of time.

So basically an engagement that was fought with 50 cals, Sniper Rifles, HAT, and RPGs, and RPKs, and NOT with CSS style Roflmen running around trying to pick each other off. And this is thanks to:

• For the first time, players seemed to pay more attention to terrain than just the randomly generated caches. (if the objective for each side were to win the firefight instead of "Operation Random and Irrelevant Objectives in Afghanistan". that would just be the icing on the cake. But we cannot always get delicious caek. Seriously though, watch any video in Afghanistan and Iraq. The discussion is always "enemy fighters, enemy forces seen in this area blah blah. The goal is always to find and kill the enemy (the whole cache thing is just there because obviously the enemy forces have weapons nearby and taking them is a good idea The whole point is always to deal with as opposed to avoiding the enemy, as it is in insurgency now).
• 2 Squads were able to get appropriate weapons for the situation they required. (although the rest of either team were stuck without).
• Most importantly, Archer has a reasonable view distance, allowing a lengthy engagement to take place. (It DOESN'T matter what deviation is set to, firefights will get shorter the closer the opposing forces are. Always.)

So to answer the OP's question. WTF??? And no.

*Edit: Giving insurgents unlimited casualties means that they don't need any tactics at all. And for that matter it means they don't disperse or retreat when the bigger weapons arrive (because there usually aren't any), like they often do in reality, they prefer to just wave charge until they find a guy with his back turned and now we're playing Halo 3: Rise of the roflmen again. So yes another classic example where behavior is expected to be realistic but with unrealistic weapons, unrealistic situations, and unrealistic objectives.

I beleive hitting htem with 50 cals are bad to, and shotguns oh and using biological wepaons
Ever heard of the briand kellog pact? Banned War in the 1920s
look where that got us now

Contradictory, Grenades, Spectre, Attack helicopters and bomber planes.
How are these things not the same or "worse" than an AT-4?

Well the SRAW fires a direct attack rocket that is designed to kill infantry and bunkers so it technically isn't an AT round even though in game it shoots a wire-guided AT rocket.

However the Geneva Conventions have some wacky ideas about what weapons are illegal to use on infantry. For example, I could hack somebody to death with a knife. I could bash somebody's face in with a rock. I hose them down with thirty rounds of 5.56m. I can hit them with 20mm rounds, 30mm rounds, a 16 inch battleship cannon, bombs, grenades, my shovel, my fists, et cetera but I can't shoot them with a .50. I can shoot them with a .49999999999999 though.

Don't think this suggestion is going to fly

Solid Knight wrote:However the Geneva Conventions have some wacky ideas about what weapons are illegal to use on infantry.

Could you give me a quote of one these "wacky" paragraphs about weapons?
I still can't find any regulations about specific weapons in the Geneva Convention.

Solid Knight wrote:I can hit them with 20mm rounds, 30mm rounds, a 16 inch battleship cannon, bombs, grenades, my shovel, my fists, et cetera but I can't shoot them with a .50. I can shoot them with a .49999999999999 though.

Actually hitting someone with a 20mm is too big, 30mm is too big so technically the Apache cant shoot anyone with its cannon, but since the hostiles are within the splash its collatteral damage. Rockets, well collateral damage, shotgun collateral damage...startin to see a trend here?

I just realized how unfair PR would be to the team that has a javalin.. just locking onto tanks and raping them =P


But anyway, PR is a game where two different armies fight for territory. Think of it like WWIII.

Personally, I'd rather be incinerated by a laser which would disintegrate me instantly, instead of being shot in the arm and bleeding to death.

Or, in this case, getting hit by an AT-4 Rocket, being blown up instantly, not feeling a thing.


PR wouldn't be fun with many restrictions. For example.. say you can only use planes to take out armor. That means you won't be able to help squads that are pinned down with CAS.. =\

I was aiming for that evil looking rock over there, the insurgents just got in the way....collateral damage.

I can tell you right now this isn't going to happen. Locked.