Project Reality Forums

I agree, alternate/ more varied deployables for FOB's would be very welcoming... like sand bag walls, linear entrenchments, all sorts of things can be done with it.

But its not priority... So it all depends on someone going out there and texturing and modeling stuff themselves...

killonsight95 wrote:nah cuz they're hard to get into sometimes and hard to get out, i say bring in a one sided foxhole type thing with a roof for protection.

I would seriously consider this for mortars protection. As I just discovered that the old PR FOBs were sandbag bunkers, I wonder why wasn't this considered. It is quite an annoyance to spend a good chunk of time building several deployable assets only to see them breaking into pieces a few minutes later - especially frequent in open maps where the enemy often has a clear long range.
This way the whole squad can take proper cover - even though not exactly saved from harm - and then proceed to either rebuild the FOB all over again or move away. Whatever decision the SL take, the very least all the effort didn't cost their lives too.

Make it heavily endurable against mortars (unless a direct hit on the roof) and triple the time to shovel when in comparison to a FOB.

It would be a nice idea but maybe there is a way to work around the sand bag indistructo problem.
How about if the sand bags are tilted, so that they still provide cover but vehicles can drive over them and use them as a sort of ramp.
I don?t know anything about PR coding or genuine coding but that sounds a lot easier than making them destructable unless you just retexture that destructable concrete and make it look like sandbags I suppose.

Apart from that, I think the over protective bunker will not be implemented because its too much protection in places where there should not be any.

The idea of open maps is that you need to stealth around them not just to build one asset after another and hope for god mortars won?t kill you before you have built it.

cheesus182 wrote: The idea of open maps is that you need to stealth around them not just to build one asset after another and hope for god mortars won?t kill you before you have built it.

In certain map locations that are strategically valid, if you want to put down a whole firebase (with TOW, HMGs, etc) then it will most likely get noticed by the enemy. If it's an open map or 2km sized, you can bet your *** that all it takes is one single enemy to call out its position.
There are not stealth ways to implement such an enormous defensive perimeter without drawing some attention. It's unrealistic or illogical to even suggest such a thing. The latter being because if you're deploying assets just as a TOW, AA or HMG, then it's because you're expecting enemy contact - most of the times because it's inevitable, as in Kashan.

A sandbag bunker would provide at least some cover and alleviate the frustration of mortars constantly destroying everything you build. And also provide some imaginary resilience as it is expected from a FOB.

I think that its a good idea to a point If we can come up with other assets to deploy. Bringing back the Bunker Would be nice but it would need to be updated it IS a pain to walk through the door you need to jump. plus it could be exploited easily by placing it against a wall and having the entrance blocked so that enemies cant enter.

Redamare wrote:I think that its a good idea to a point If we can come up with other assets to deploy. Bringing back the Bunker Would be nice but it would need to be updated it IS a pain to walk through the door you need to jump. plus it could be exploited easily by placing it against a wall and having the entrance blocked so that enemies cant enter.

So make it only missing the roof when deployed so that no one can jump in to shovel. Honestly, I can't imagine another anti-mortar alternative.

K4on wrote:i see a problem with this: Barb Wire / Sandbags

it's a vehicle block too. in the battlefield engine sandbags are like titanium walls. you can't really break them by driving at them. or am i wrong?.


and to to have a bunker like in pr v0.7 sounds good. you can create firebases by left and bunkers by rightclicking.

they can always have a collision mesh which allows vehicles to ramp over them instead. Simialr to the new Fence object which was announced a while ago

Bringerof_D wrote:they can always have a collision mesh which allows vehicles to ramp over them instead. Simialr to the new Fence object which was announced a while ago

Sounds good to me!

I'm dying for a sandbag deployable... and really more placable of the 'mundane' to be placed would really help too! I say 15-20 Wire/Foxholes!

Arcturus_Shielder wrote: Make it heavily endurable against mortars (unless a direct hit on the roof) and triple the time to shovel when in comparison to a FOB.

you will be digging for the entire round

Or mortars could just be removed I know, not a chance of that happening, but I sure as hell would be happy to see them go. They're gameplay killers imo.

I'd like to see the MK19/AGS17/30/HK GMG make an appearance as deployables.

I am also against the idea of the Mortar proof bunker, we already have the foxholes. which are however vulnerable to a direct hit, which is perfect as it is for our in game FOBs.

I will say this again: Our in game FOB's are NOT FORWARD OPERATIONS BASES, THEY ARE EQUAL TO AN OBSERVATION POST BASE AT BEST. THE ONLY THINGS EQUIVALENT OF A REAL LIFE FOB IN GAME IS YOUR MAIN. An FOB is where soldiers live and eat, what we have in game is a hub or transfer point for logistics and troops. It is not meant to take a beating and is not meant to last very long. It is the type of base we build in real life for a day or two which are then taken down and we leave. FOBs are fairly permanent.

if anything the FOB is a LUP (laying up point)

The other day, was playing barracuda as PLA and well i almost lost my sanity, kept shooting at the darn attack huey with the LMG like a crazy guy, and it never went down how much i tryed.

Then we built a HMG, first reaction to that was "yay HMG" then reality came back, that thing couldnt aim up very high so we all died

Thats where i thought of this, why cant we have a alternate HMG on a much taller tripod with maybe sanbags like the AT/AA has, that can aim much higher so i can bloody shoot all helicopters down.

This suggestion is kinda valid, IMO
Would make sense as well =D

An AA hmg is a decent idea in my book. Especially for the ins forces, I was thinking a deployable ZU-23 would make more sense than some of the statics that are in well known and quickly destroyed locations.

Ninjam3rc wrote:An AA hmg is a decent idea in my book. Especially for the ins forces, I was thinking a deployable ZU-23 would make more sense than some of the statics that are in well known and quickly destroyed locations.

A ZU would be an overkill, a .50 cal that can aim higher would be quite enough

General Dragosh wrote:A ZU would be an overkill, a .50 cal that can aim higher would be quite enough

Well you would limit the numbers and locations possibly, they're already on some ins maps but they quickly become irrelevant as everyone knows their location already so it's no surprise to blufor assets. But I'd be happy with a pintle mounted hmg with a 360 turn radius.

Ninjam3rc wrote:Well you would limit the numbers and locations possibly, they're already on some ins maps but they quickly become irrelevant as everyone knows their location already so it's no surprise to blufor assets. But I'd be happy with a pintle mounted hmg with a 360 turn radius.

I agree with that, atleast for the militia, unless they got something else.

Hitman.2.5 wrote:if anything the FOB is a LUP (laying up point)

never heard of that term before but after a quick search yes. it is best described as either an LUP or FUP. Specific for one mission and control of a very small area of perhaps 4-5 city blocks. an FOB is meant to be for area control like the entire city.

i definitely feel the FOB needs to be renamed either or. Just so people will stop suggesting major defensive structures for it. the fact that we have TOWs is already a bit over kill in my opinion, and i've spent the majority of some rounds defending them.

PR doesn't have deployable FOB's, it has deployable outposts (FO). A FOB is something completely different .