Project Reality Forums

Ironfist7997 wrote:Just to expand on AnRK's comment on paradrops, i believe that the last big-ish drop was during 2003 by the americans.

Having had a little search around, it was called Op Northern Delay and involved a night drop of a 1000+ paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne brigade onto an airfield in Bashur, iraq.

I guess nowadays its mainly heliborne forces that are used for strike missions rather than airborne drops altho i guess the option is still there for deepstrike if the need arose, but i guess it would need to be a pretty serious conflict.

I'm not sure but there's probably still blackops/nightops missions running via halo drop occasionally.

Anhkhoa wrote:Kashan is deep in Iran....
And its World War III....

If PR is set in the near future, why are all these insurgency maps coming out? If WWIII starts, US will be out of Iraq and not entirely from Afghanistan to be moved to whatever urging front. Why can't we just say PR is just based on the realism of war, but hey I'm no Dev and don't know their future "plans". I don't mean for this to be a political debate....correct me if I'm wrong and lets get back to the subject

I agree that the special forces will still use para-insertion during the current coflicts but in regards to regular units it is more unlikely.

PR is set in the near future but only like 12 months i guess.

any how back to topic

Can i load the howitizer plllzzzzz

Darkpowder wrote: Snipers aren't well acquainted in PR with laser targeters, and the commander does have a choice of area effect weapon. The mapper decides which area attack is available in the mission to maintain balance / asymmetry as appropriate.

Because these gunships are not well suited to a balanced style of map, especially as in a conventional map air-power would be "unable" to neutralise the asset while we would see untouchable area attacks rain down with impunity.

The inability of players to correctly call for area attacks is irrelevant, it hampers the current area attacks at the present.

As for "balanced", that's hooey. There's no difference between a JDAM nuking a massive area instantly and a spectre gunship peppering it with slightly weaker and smaller fire for 20-30 seconds. Hell the gunship could nuke an area for a full minute, and it STILL would be no different to the JDAM at present (un-neutralisable jets dropping it, etc); as it's not like the squads nuked by the spectre would be able to make it back into the kill-zone before the plane flies off.

The only difference is that the weaker spectre fire could be more precisely targetted over the course of a 30 second strike, whereas the JDAM lands where it was targetted when the CO launches it.

McLuv wrote:This has actually been mentionned before as a way to get AC-130 area attacks in, and I'm failry sure it is possible, you just code the plane to enter from one end of the map, circle the point on the map with the strike called in and rip it up with a howitzer and 25 mm guns

The entire route would be static in the sense that it doesn't change one bit depending on where you call the strike, except it will have been cetered around that point of the map.

Had something like this in CnC Generals: Zero Hour. Watch the USA trailer I think it is.

PlatinumA1 wrote:If PR is set in the near future, why are all these insurgency maps coming out?

I guess it's because PR started off by building on top of the silly vBF2 story involving MEC and China, then the developers decided to do something more realistic/plausible by creating insurgency.

So PR seems to be based on multiple conflicts occurring at different times, including real past battles (such as Fallujah) and fictional future battles.

It's inconsistent but unrestrictive for the devs.

if u wanna para u dont use a AC-130 but the C-130 the letter A referes to "attack"its ment for firesupport missions

Make a Gunship to,......