Project Reality Forums

[quote=""unrealalex"]Just replace snipers with technicals and it still stands true. You proved my point. [/quote]
Snipers and technicals are two completely different things. Technicals serve as both heavy fire support and transport. Therefore you would have more of them because they are a crucial part of the battle.

[quote="Ace42""]I don't know about you, but I don't play PR because I'm too short / fat / gay / crippled to join the army for real - I play PR because unlike reality, it's a load of fun.[/quote]

Don't ask don't tell

I could go for this change, but not on ramiel. That black hawk has miniguns, so it would ruin gameplay to take out the only effective weapon to counter that. We've all seen the black hawk used in an unrealistic way, circling caches miniguns a blazin. And also Rameil is based on black hawk down, and in the movie there were a lot of technicals. (but, the funny thing is in some scenes they show a black hawk flying directly over a technical and not once are they used to fire at the helicopters. That kind of bugged me the last time i watched that film.)

But, arguing that technicals need to be taken out because of helicopters being shot down is a pointless argument. That's all player behavior. A skilled pilot can run transport on a map like basrah without ever getting shot down by a 50cal. It just takes proper flying.

I would say remove them because they're unrealistic. (the number of them is anyway) But, also because the technicals promote insurgents going head to head with the coalition. Using crazy driving techniques we've all seen and most of us used.

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:I'm gonna throw aside the "what is and what is not realistic in PR" as it doesn't matter in this question. If RL pilots were to fly around like the pilots do in PR I bet the numbers of downed heli's would go up.

If helis were like they were irl, along with some other things, they wouldn´t fly around like they do now.

I think the thread creator wishes for fewer technicals rather than less technicals, a technical is a discrete object and not a continuous quantity.

FEwer and less mean practically the same thing.

And the number of technicals is a continuous variable.

So bleh!

Moot point. Next version of AlBasrah has No Helicopter. (which is a shame, since as INSURGENT, I always love killing that thing every 5 minutes w/my technical for a good -6 tickets). =)

Guess I'll just have to carbomb an extra APC every 5 minutes to make up for it (and ensure a staggering Brit loss of 90-0). =)

- JM40.

^ that makes me so sad!

Hopefully they might make a heli layer.

The things we must sacrifice for a sound bug. D: Maybe in some miracle, Dice can fix it . . .

Four technicals in Basrah could seem like over kill, but I think if we got rid of more squad transport, it may be harder to navigate the map as Ins. Although, I'm not sure how the creator wanted the map to play out. Maybe real life Insurgents have that many pick-ups with mounted guns.

How can the next version have no Helicopter

There better be Armoured landis (no .50 cal) cus otherwise the insurgents will own everything in sight...

Royal, Jedi is right. Technicals are individual (discrete) objects, so FEWER is correct. Something like water or a distance is continous so LESS is correct .
So similar but not the same.

And TBH, I don't think there are too many technicals. You just have to not fly straight to the cache.

Stu.

Less traffic, fewer cars

Anyhow, sad about Basrah, but at least Brits have more tickets to play around with.

Then again you could throw in a huge amount of non-respawnable technicals meaning the coalition would need lots of AT/armor support at start and after a while the whole .50 rape would settle down, it would give an initiative for Ins to make the best use and try to preserve as much cars as they can and also give the sense of Insurgent forces actually being reduced instead of the same 2-3 technicals that respawn over and over.

Outlawz wrote:Then again you could throw in a huge amount of non-respawnable technicals meaning the coalition would need lots of AT/armor support at start and after a while the whole .50 rape would settle down, it would give an initiative for Ins to make the best use and try to preserve as much cars as they can and also give the sense of Insurgent forces actually being reduced instead of the same 2-3 technicals that respawn over and over.

Make sure they are un killable in their spawn position though.

Outlawz wrote:Then again you could throw in a huge amount of non-respawnable technicals meaning the coalition would need lots of AT/armor support at start and after a while the whole .50 rape would settle down, it would give an initiative for Ins to make the best use and try to preserve as much cars as they can and also give the sense of Insurgent forces actually being reduced instead of the same 2-3 technicals that respawn over and over.

I like this idea, works well with my VCP wind shield strategy (get INS to attack it so they run out of bomb cars)

Its not problem with too many technicals, its problem with noob pilots who are hovering/landing in the middle of hot zone. I even shot down noobpilotchopper with an AK74SU - i was shooting at him and he was still hovering...

Now that there's going to be 2 caches instead of 3 I think technicals should definitely be decreased

CyrusPI wrote:I think if we got rid of more squad transport, it may be harder to navigate the map as Ins.

They still have lots of cars, pickup trucks, bikes, bombcars, big red. I don't think the insurgents are suffering from lack of transport in basrah.

badmojo420 wrote:They still have lots of cars, pickup trucks, bikes, bombcars, big red. I don't think the insurgents are suffering from lack of transport in basrah.

Yeah, that's kinda true. I was thinking too much on those times when the Ins wasted every vehicle on Basrah, and we lost all external spawns. With just the Mosque, we felt cut off.

Hopefully, people will better use the cars. They're great, and since they're not getting damaged by driving normally in the next patch, we could see better use of them.

badmojo420 wrote:I would say remove them because they're unrealistic. (the number of them is anyway).

Yeah, they may of been able to operate in Somalia but in Iraq/Afghanistan I expect they'd get spotted and destroyed pretty easily.

If the Lynx is being taken out can you just place some statics then, as otherwise seems a very empty airfield.