Project Reality Forums

'Xander[nl wrote:;1696181']It easily fits if you think of it as a rapid deployment force. Getting infantry and light vehicles halfway around the world is quite easy, but deploying heavy assets such as tanks takes time. More than enough times in history have rebels used tanks, just look at Lybia. They might not be very effective in combat compared to highly trained soldiers, but surely they can operate old Russian tanks. The idea of a quick reaction force fighting a militant force that at the moment is better equiped is more than plausible.

But you can't represent the relative ineffectiveness of Militia using armor properly because they'd be bad with it due to not knowing how to use armor, maintain it properly, and effectively fight with infantry along side it. The standard PR player is in awe of western military might and spends most of his time in PR hoping to end up on BLUFOR so he can roleplay his favourite army that he doesn't have the balls to join. Unless they want to add a deviation factor to Militia main gun I don't see it as being the same.

I might add that no modern military is going to deploy light infantry against armor without at least some air support that would wreck it in no time. So if you wanna give an asset load out to Militia you should give an Apache to the Brits, cause honestly if I was a grunt and waded into battle against armor without any heavy *** to support me like Tanks or Attack Choppers I'd hand in my papers and go work in an office.

The only western light infantry that face off against armor without direct support to counter it are spec ops that get caught with their pants down. As I understand it PR only represents line infantry who'll not be in this situation.

Let the militia ambush like they are good at, stay mobile with light vehicles, and let the Brits fall into the classic pitfall of western armies operating in the back yards of underequipped but highly motivated irregular forces.

I consider the existing Fool's Road to be the best example of asymmetrical map balance outside of Insurgency in PR.

For variety's sake we want to just play this map at all on a regular basis. As it is I almost never see it in rotation, not often anyway. I miss the old days when this map was a favourite.

Just let there be an ALT layout with milita having armor. If you don't like it don't play it.

I think the current layout works absolutely great on 128, since the infantry-vehicle ratio is much more realistic there. For the 64 layer, I think that 1 tnk, 2 APCs, a panther and 2 WMIKs + 2 trks Vs a single spandrel, SPG9 techie, 3 technicals and a few trks/unarmed support and transport vehicles might end up being a bit better. gameplay wise since I think players have adapted to easily to the static AT positions, I'd also consider giving the militia some forward spawns, leaving a few of their vehicles on delayed spawn.

A bit fewer vehicleness all around, maintaining asymmetry though. Though I do hope the BMP2 eventually makes an appearence in PR, as it would serve the militia perfectly.

Trooper909 wrote:3 parter? what 3 parter? assault on mestia was removed long ago (loved that map *tears*).

Factions aside the map used to have good balance and fun interesting gameplay now however militia are target practice for the challenger 2 and that is all the map has to offer.
every round goes the same.
Militia get pushed back to fort,tank and morters pound fort into dust.

I think with thermals among other things tanks have no place on that map although militia T-55s have none so it could work having it back the way it was but with brits and only shcimitars and warriors .

That's very different to what I've seen.

I love the map and enjoy playing as the militia and often the british team get dominated.