Project Reality Forums

Your lack of grammar is nowhere near disturbing as the enormous amount of typing errors you keep making, at least get a spell checker or slow down when typing...


You gave nothing to the thread other than to bash his poor English. Not everyone speaks/writes English. Was it hard to understand? Yes, but please respond with a little more tact and a useful opinions next time.

Now hang on just a second, he might have an interesting point here.

Is it possible to have flags-within-flags? So you could have one giant flag for the bunkers and surounding areas (500m) and then have 3-4 smaller flags for the inside of the bunkers themselves.. requiring both infantry and armor to work together to secure the area before moving on to assault a new flag.

Startrekern wrote:Now hang on just a second, he might have an interesting point here.

Is it possible to have flags-within-flags? So you could have one giant flag for the bunkers and surounding areas (500m) and then have 3-4 smaller flags for the inside of the bunkers themselves.. requiring both infantry and armor to work together to secure the area before moving on to assault a new flag.

now that would be interesting.... and also has the potential to be a squads worst nightmare

Still, sounds pretty cool

[R-CON]Outlawz wrote:Your lack of grammar is nowhere near disturbing as the enormous amount of typing errors you keep making, at least get a spell checker or slow down when typing...

Normally Im not the one to tell people but please use mozzila firefox to check your spelling since reading your walls of text is really hard.

Your idea isnt that good if you want to see what PR would look like with all your ideas in, try playing AIX (simmilar to that) i agree some maps could use an APC or two, but not tanks especially in urban areas since tanks are slow and cumbersome
or attack choppers sine one or two can already devastate the other team if flown by a good crew same goes for planes.

Startrekern wrote:Now hang on just a second, he might have an interesting point here.

Is it possible to have flags-within-flags? So you could have one giant flag for the bunkers and surounding areas (500m) and then have 3-4 smaller flags for the inside of the bunkers themselves.. requiring both infantry and armor to work together to secure the area before moving on to assault a new flag.

That is possibly the second most horrifying prospect I can imagine to face in PR when I can summon the courage and patience to squadlead.

It strikes me as the worst possible combination of one large flag (never knowing where my enemy is within this massive radius, essentially team deathmatch) and lots of little flags (being constricted to four or five pieces of cover that EVERYONE uses because they are the only cover to be had within the cap zone) Don't try and flank that tiny cover, because then you're out of the zone and have to start all over.

Don't forget to coordinate this assault with the armor and other squads.

TL;DR

However, the complete lack of grammar and error checking in your posts makes me strongly disagree with all your points.

You gave nothing to the thread other than to bash his poor English. Not everyone speaks/writes English. Was it hard to understand? Yes, but please respond with a little more tact and a useful opinions next time.

Feriluce wrote:TL;DR

However, the complete lack of grammar and error checking in your posts makes me strongly disagree with all your points.

[R-CON]Outlawz wrote:Your lack of grammar is nowhere near disturbing as the enormous amount of typing errors you keep making, at least get a spell checker or slow down when typing...

English may, and probably is NOT, his native language. Not to mention, we know nothing regarding his life. Dyslexia, for example. Try to be more considerate when you don't know the reason. Some simply can't help it. While there are, of course, many who simply don't take the time to care.



Quit criticizing the language, and don't post if you don't have anything related to this topic.

I like the idea of increased assets but I do fear the lack of coordination could cause a tard rush but more Arty would be fantastic, especially if it was smaller salvos, like maybe 82mm and only a few rounds.
Multi-stage flags are so cool an idea they must have been tried already but you never know ....
I would like to see more flags that could bleed you, so you could have double flags like the old Kashan or Muutrah but you could have one flag that created a slow bleed so change the values of the flags, like primary and secondary targets within each flag capture point.

I think that it would make sense to have a map where it's very asset heavy, and is for the early stages of war, where half would be manning aircraft and whatnot, and half would be infantry. Air ships 'em in, does CAS, and maintains air superiority. Infantry struggle to cap flags. Armor would be on delayed spawn, maybe 30-45 minutes in, to simulate the fact that armor is not as fast as a helicopter.

The current AAS maps are great fun, but it's mostly skirmishing. A WW3-esque fight where everything that each side has is being thrown at each other would be great for people who like asset wars.

Very heavy indirect fire support, and lots of it. The commander should not be using the UAV, but instead a small airplane which would relay information, with a manned pilot, and so would squad leaders. He would be the one to tie this chaos into something that is ordered, and effective. The commander would have artillery and MLRS barrages on targets requested by spotters and SLs, CAS and bombing runs on points to do interdiction, air interdiction to be handled by air superiority fighters, infantry to be supporting armor, etc.

I would be quite interested in seeing this "total war" concept happen.

mat552 wrote:That is possibly the second most horrifying prospect I can imagine to face in PR when I can summon the courage and patience to squadlead.

It strikes me as the worst possible combination of one large flag (never knowing where my enemy is within this massive radius, essentially team deathmatch) and lots of little flags (being constricted to four or five pieces of cover that EVERYONE uses because they are the only cover to be had within the cap zone) Don't try and flank that tiny cover, because then you're out of the zone and have to start all over.

Don't forget to coordinate this assault with the armor and other squads.

the nightmare is proportinoal to the chosen Mini flags, and if they appears or not,

how say we need to shown the flags are captured? we may still make it count has a flag, whicht a nunber of mini flags you team hold, so when you kwon this is atacked you squad beguim a patrol, what look quite good like reality.

Of course it's will not be so easy to build up, but this is what might save infantry fithing when vehicle warfare and Anti vehicle war fare grows. also we can place several RANDOM mini flags to dificult the memorasies of squad leaders for where they are comming, what will also simulated the scout of the area (plus civilian evacation). we also can make a delay to the mini flag are show that has captured to show it, like 45 min, and put little couldown to take the mini flags, so when you talking a objetive you beguin to walk for one side to other, and appears a real take settlement operation.

Of course after some time Mini flags will encourage Front line combat, BUT WHAT BIG WARS ARE FOR? men at men, face to face. rifle at rifle.

besides, did you thick a entire squad waithing in the middle nothing can take a settlement?

You guys main for exemple thick that the Armor will go after the enemy flags when you team is capturing most of flags and mini flags, that's right, but what you thick Germans did in WW2?

Startrekern wrote:Now hang on just a second, he might have an interesting point here.

Is it possible to have flags-within-flags? So you could have one giant flag for the bunkers and surounding areas (500m) and then have 3-4 smaller flags for the inside of the bunkers themselves.. requiring both infantry and armor to work together to secure the area before moving on to assault a new flag.

Thats right, but of course there are alot of other balacement writed up this topic, just READ UP.

I just don't really get what the suggestion is. Is it just you want more stuff?

Not all battles in modern war invariably become tank rumbles with a deluge of artillery. In fact, IRL entire operations can be taken with minimal artillery support: for example, the German blitzkriegs were based on minimal opening actions and little artillery screening. The Germans frequently just drove through the enemy lines, not stopping to wait for the slow artillery guns to follow them. In 2001 Afghanistan operations, IIRC the Americans relied very little on artillery, preferring to instead use lighter mortars because they thought that large guns would slow them down too much.

what do you mean when you say light war?

and i agree with rampo from this thread it dosent seem like you know about how PR is played

myles wrote:what do you mean when you say light war?

and i agree with rampo from this thread it dosent seem like you know about how PR is played

I think he means that there is not really intense, and I mean INTENSE, fire. Think all infantry squads duking it out over one point, with every inch bought and paid in blood.