Project Reality Forums

rampo93(FIN) wrote:I rarely remember myself using hit and run tactics as an insurgent. As the insurgency IRL they use the buildings and urban terrain for cover when practicing

Well how do you practice ambushes without cover and stealth? You don't actually stay in the open and say "here I am" and then ambush. I don't even understand why you brought that up. Hit and run tactics are part of the urban environment as you can blend in or hide inside a building quickly. And unless you are Charles Bronson in "Death Wish" you don't stay in the same spot after you fired that RPG. Check some "real life" insurgent footage.. Insurgent fires RPG.. Insurgent gone in 60seconds.

Players will quickly learn how to identify "insurgent" foxholes and you dont want to be in one when that apc rips it apart. The ambush value will be gone so what good is it for.

This was never as discussion about independent constructable roadblocks as I love that idea for many reasons. But it has been already suggested and I was just replying to his "idea".

Killer-Ape wrote:Well how do you practice ambushes without cover and stealth? You don't actually stay in the open and say "here I am" and then ambush. I don't even understand why you brought that up. Hit and run tactics are part of the urban environment as you can blend in or hide inside a building quickly. And unless you are Charles Bronson in "Death Wish" you don't stay in the same spot after you fired that RPG. Check some "real life" insurgent footage.. Insurgent fires RPG.. Insurgent gone in 60seconds.

Did i ever say they should stay in the same sport after the ambush? Anyway in PR that doesnt matter much because the ambushed guys tend to drive off after getting shot. And roadblocks can just aswell be used as roadblocks prohibiting acces from blufor vehicles

rampo93(FIN) wrote:Did i ever say they should stay in the same sport after the ambush?

rampo93(FIN) wrote:

rampo93(FIN);1214203 wrote:I rarely remember myself using hit and run tactics as an insurgent.

Well you sure confused me.

And still.. the point is not about Roadblocks but Foxholes and how they would prove useless for insurgents. Read my older posts

Killer-Ape wrote:Well you sure confused me.

And still.. the point is not about Roadblocks but Foxholes and how they would prove useless for insurgents. Read my older posts

read post above?

I was talking about the roadblocks and how they could be used

Yes but when you wrote this below you replied to my post about "why I didn't like his foxhole idea", and not Roadblocks.

rampo93(FIN) wrote:I rarely remember myself using hit and run tactics as an insurgent. As the insurgency IRL they use the buildings and urban terrain for cover when practicing ambushes. And something like a roadblock would deffinetly be nice to slow a enemy convoy down and to pop one of them whit a RPG

Killer-Ape wrote:Yes but when you wrote this below you replied to my post about "why I didn't like his foxhole idea", and not Roadblocks.

I was referring to your oppinion on the roadblocks in the post, it was there

My original post:

Killer-Ape wrote:Roadblocks, Yes. But as you wrote somebody already suggested that before.

And about your insurgent "fox hole, wall" suggestion, hell NO!

Playing insurgent is all about hit and run tactics, not staying in the same spot for to long. So why do I want somebody that has a full arsenal of HE ---> tanks, apcs, grenade launchers..... to know that I made a nice foxhole? So he can burn me out like a rat? Might as well paint a big red bullseye on the texture.

I wanted roadblocks. So I still don't understand what you are about.

roadblocks would have to be possible to climb over by the bluefor but large enough to block vehicles.



Like in black hawk down, they were burning tires and placing other objects on the start of the roads to block humvees.

roadblocks would be very nice. but like killer-ape said: NO foxholes!

Sorry to bring this back up but Road blocks are a Must for INS game play ... The Insurgents need a way to stop/restrict the movement of enemy armor

Would be nice if insurgents could build assets around known caches. HMG's and such.

Just imagine the cache as a FOB but without the need for supply crates because it itself is a supply crate.

The problem with assets for Insurgency is that they could abused to block the entrance to the cache directly (for example in a building / bunker).

ghostfool84 wrote:The problem with assets for Insurgency is that they could abused to block the entrance to the cache directly (for example in a building / bunker).

Good, maybe they will stand a chance then. If I was an insurgent I'd barricade the door to my weapon cache.

Maybe its possible that you cant build assets like 50m around the cache or something, dont know if it is possible but could be a solution with that problem.

IMHO some sort of roadblocks for insurgents would be quiet realistic and would give the gamemode a whole new flow. I suggest to built them rather low, but tall enough to stop vehicles. Infantry should be able to pass, so they could go further or remove the blockade perhaps. But that would probably get themselves and waiting vehicles in a very "hot zone", if the blockade's just an ambush.
Putting together such a roadblock could be simply done with two cars, or something alike that is often found on insurgent maps. While driving through a city, for example ramiel such a barrier wouldn't take too much attention. As long as it's not on the route or engaging infantry gets too near.

On the other hand...
Necessity is the mother of invention. In this case that means, roadblocks could be used in a completly wrong way, than they were implemented for. As ghostfool said, they could be abused on an unrealistic and unusual position. Also the balance of power between the teams , which IMO is quiet good now, could be destroyed in fact, that the attackers have to bring in more ressources to handle the roadblocks.
Only a few asset waster + some dumb people + some screwed up squads (eventually at discussed roadblocks) + the normal and calculated loss of tickets = not much tickets left.

So in short:
Roadblocks could be a realistic and interesting feature for the insurgent gamemode, but would be also dangerous for the gameplaybalance.

'[MoL wrote:F-F0rc3;1944729']So in short:
Roadblocks could be a realistic and interesting feature for the insurgent gamemode, but would be also dangerous for the gameplaybalance.

So much this. I lost track of how many times a civvie came up to an APC and set up a hideout on top of it so it would blow up. Roadblocks would be used as AT weapons by civvies, that in return, can't be killed.

ghostfool84 wrote:The problem with assets for Insurgency is that they could abused to block the entrance to the cache directly (for example in a building / bunker).

TRUE but then again the Devs can control how much damage they can date before they become destroyed .... so the threshold of damage could be lower for more flimsy asset construction for INF

ghostfool84 wrote:Maybe its possible that you cant build assets like 50m around the cache or something, dont know if it is possible but could be a solution with that problem.

maybe not 50 ... more like 15 or 20 meters


Something like one of these would work decently in PR


(SOURCE OF PICTURES) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379657/Egypt-Morsi-More-100-people-killed-1-000-injured-clashes-deposed-president-Morsi-formally-accused-murder-conspiracy-Hamas.html

I think 15 or 20m or just not enough distance to the cache, if you go 20m you are proberly in the same building where the cache is and its to easy to block it off then. 50m ist just fine i think, so APCs and enemy inf cant get into the cache area, its not to block your own team away from the cache.

Yeah sure they can control that, but if its not enough damage its easy to shovel it up from behind with a few people, if it needs only little damage its a useless roadblock. For roadblock purposes it would be the best if only destroyable by C4 like other assets, but that will make it easy to abuse. But it if will get destroyed by a few APC hits or grenades its not really a roadblock.

These brickwalls in the picture just look like you can just drive through, they wont help that much, except for small arms cover. One grenade from a grenadier and shrapnells everywhere. Where are these pictures from? I dont think this barricades helped anything against what we have in PR, we are not the military police or something

Well, one application for rubble-barricades might be the "Mogadishu way": burning tires on top of them, and which eventually sets fire on everything flammable on that pile, creating thick black smoke blocking visual and making life hard for non-tracked vehicles trying to cross them.

But yeah, IMO some sort of barricade might be a good idea, with smoke or not. If you can build fox hole like presented in game (alone, in few minutes - IRL would propably take ~2hours), Im quite confident that in similiar time you are able to carry quite loads of stuff to the middle of the road. IMO armored vehicles should be able to crush their way thrue, but the main nuisance would be for trucks and wheeled vehicles.

Conventional barricade example, from Egyptian protests:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/ ... 68x619.jpg

Built from pavement stones, definetly not tank proof but would hold against rifle bullets and would definetly incapacitate jeep-size vehicle trying to ram its way thrue.

MaahisKuningas wrote:
Conventional barricade example, from Egyptian protests:


Built from pavement stones, definetly not tank proof but would hold against rifle bullets and would definetly incapacitate jeep-size vehicle trying to ram its way thrue.

LOL SHOT DOWN My idea, Good Find though ahha ... It would still stop that other vehicle and some INF however