Project Reality Forums

Noergaard wrote:Gameplay suggestion:

Ive enjoyed some solid rounds of this mod! A few times, figthing as a german infantry squad, I find it very hard to counter enemy amour, wether its greyhounds or shermans. The HAT kit is never available, I think there is only one per team?

The fauzt is very unreliable, and since there are no TOW options, you can very fast find yourself trashed by amour, as German infantry.

Could there be more HAT(schrecks) available? or accuracy of fauzt increased?

The panzerfaust was a notoriously inaccurate weapon so during the defense of normandy the Germans waited for the US tanks to get close by hiding in hedroves (sorry if that isn't how you spell it) or hiding in towns and hitting the tanks at close range.As for the game i think the accuracy should stay the same since you can one shot the greyhound and set the Sherman on fire with one hit in the side as a person how plays the Sherman alot on carentan 9/10 we get taken out by a panzerfaust coming from a hedrove so if you use it right you can be very effective with it.Also in the base game LAT kits cant kill tanks at all so the fact you can almost kill a tank with a lat kit in WW2 is something to be grateful for.Also where are your own tanks to counter there tanks you also have AT mines and the breacher gets at grenades with that kit.Any way those are my thoughts.

I forgot the AT grenade, that is a very good point!

As for the panzerfaust I agree, that it shouldnt be changed as it is accurate to have the ambush AT style.

However, on open grounds your super FOB is defenceless against amor. Its not really an option. I get what your pointing at, that its more a playstyle issue. And given some time im sure german teams will start getting the ambush tactics more right.

However, in combination with single shot rifle, and good MGs, it would be nice to have a counter AT as well. Maybe make a few strong points, like the 88 in Bravo 6 on Carentan. Just to make the battle lines a bit more stationary. As it is now, it quickly become a matter for the US to drive through the german line and attack around.

The same could apply for the US on certain areas. Again could be applied to make a few strong points and delay the rush/cap factor.

I'm confident we will see AT gun emplacements for FOBs some time in the future.

In all honesty though, I don't feel the Germans have a problem taking on Shermans and the like. For one thing the vehicles are not nearly as deadly as modern ones, lacking thermals, speed, splash, etc, etc., but they also can't take a whole lot of damage from anything that is designed to be used against it. That's why I'm actually in favour of seeing more of them employed than what we currently have(to give a feel of the material warfare of WW2) so that they make for a bigger presense.

Some stationary guns would be great! And like I said above, I acknowledge that some of my feelings around AT, may be due to lack of knowledge on how to effectively use AT weapons in this mod.

But you have to admit, that the US with weapons of more rapid fire plus accurate bazookas, have a slight rush advantage. Making germans slightly more able to keep tanks at a distance would make the game a bit more entrenched.

More tanks and APC's would be awesome! I imagine a tank assault like the one in Carentan episode of Band and Brothers Epic!

In general, this MOD is brilliant. It take me back to the good old "Darkest Hour" days

I don't know why are there not more assets like tanks and APCs on maps? I am sure it is not for history reason. so it will be great if there will be more tanks and APCs in both sides in all maps. it will challenge players and will make more intense combat as well like real world events in WW2.
like 4 Panzers and 4 Shermans and more APCs/Half Trucks for both sides from round beginning and respawnable for entire round time.

shahram wrote:I don't know why are there not more assets like tanks and APCs on maps? I am sure it is not for history reason. so it will be great if there will be more tanks and APCs in both sides in all maps. it will challenge players and will make more intense combat as well like real world events in WW2.
like 4 Panzers and 4 Shermans and more APCs/Half Trucks for both sides from round beginning and respawnable for entire round time.

And I thought there is just the right count of those. Since in Carentan (only map big enough to make transport needed) I think muricans have like 4 trans trucks and 2 APCs. Each is for 8 people, totaling at 48 player seats. Then there are jeeps, tank, greyhound and so on. The fact, that the trucks and APC get destroyd of forgotten somewhere behind enemy lines should not lead to rising their numbers IMO. Rather players should learn to use them responsibly.

Considering tanks, I also thought that mabye two tanks on each side would be not so bad, but certainly not more, coz the poor infantry would be raped all the time otherwise.

_MB_ wrote:And I thought there is just the right count of those. Since in Carentan (only map big enough to make transport needed) I think muricans have like 4 trans trucks and 2 APCs. Each is for 8 people, totaling at 48 player seats. Then there are jeeps, tank, greyhound and so on. The fact, that the trucks and APC get destroyd of forgotten somewhere behind enemy lines should not lead to rising their numbers IMO. Rather players should learn to use them responsibly.

Considering tanks, I also thought that mabye two tanks on each side would be not so bad, but certainly not more, coz the poor infantry would be raped all the time otherwise.

Indeed, I don't care if soldiers be raped by tanks. It is PR it must be close to reality. In PR you have to co-operate to survive/win.
If soldiers use their brains ( it is a rare thing in PR in nowadays ) for thinking and design an Attack/Defense plan they will be winner at low cost in facing any kind of threat.
I really think it is necessary to increasing count of armored assets. I can see players travel all the map length freely. but If there are more tanks it will be so hard like real world. they will spread in all places on map and you can't make a FOB under the nose of enemy.

Well, they do have access to our M26 Pershing tank, the same one in my signature, but I don't think they want to use it as not very many were used during the last days of WW2 since the tank came way too late. It didn't really get a chance to shine until Korea anyways. In fact, the M26 was tweaked back in PR:Normandy, but the interior wasn't really very good. Also, I remember AfterDune posted some WIP 3D models of various Sherman's, so those would be coming in a later version for sure.

'[R-DEV wrote:AfterDune;2129362']The modeller named them like this:

M4A3 75(w)
M4A3 75(w) DD
M4A3 75(w) w/ flamethrower
M4A3E4
M4A3 76(w)
M4A3 105



Unsure if this is the exact order, but these should be the ones he made. Don't know about experimental stuff.

@ Shahram: So I did some shallow digging on google and found out that on a US tank battalion in ww2, there were like 1000 soliders to 60 tanks (both numbers are aprox.) and so on 50 soldiers there should be 3 tanks. Which supports your point (and was quite a surprise for me, I thought it was like one tank to 100 soliders or so). Lets see what will devs come up with in the following year. Yet I like the inf fighting more to be honest and also dev supports fun over extreme realism (at least in mz opinion) and being moved down by the tanks all the time is not fun (yeah, I know, if inf plays good, they do not have to be afraid of tanks and so on). Moreover, tank crew is, apart from the commander quite tunnel visioned so I am not sure more tanks would make infantry wonder less freely around the battlefield right away.

but @MB I heard/read totally different things. I have read almost 5000 tanks/armored assets of allied were blown up in west battlefield ( I don't remember where it was ) and it was a strategy from allies, quantity is a kind of quality and Shermans were appeared like grass in front of germans.
you know I am not sure it was a correct text/writing and in addition what I am seeing in photos or watching on youtube videos about ww2 is a brutal war with so many assets on fire ( just in one scene, I know what video editing is ).
by the way it is my thought and I think it is so ridiculous that we can make FOB behind enemy's lines or travel to all points of map with ease. more tanks can prevent it to happen.

There is a new WW2 server based in Europe on prspy page but I can't see it in PRWW2's servers list and the server is in 0.2.0.0 version. It is likely under construction.

shahram wrote:Indeed, I don't care if soldiers be raped by tanks. It is PR it must be close to reality. In PR you have to co-operate to survive/win.
If soldiers use their brains ( it is a rare thing in PR in nowadays ) for thinking and design an Attack/Defense plan they will be winner at low cost in facing any kind of threat.
I really think it is necessary to increasing count of armored assets. I can see players travel all the map length freely. but If there are more tanks it will be so hard like real world. they will spread in all places on map and you can't make a FOB under the nose of enemy.

PR is a mixture of balance and realism if you put 8 tanks in total on the map that would be 28 players not playing as infantry leaving the map feeling more empty and not capturing that front line combat feel that PR is known for,also WW2 Lat kits are inaccurate and low on ammo and there are no tow launchers to counter the armor so the tanks might have a fun time but the infantry will probably not because of the massive amounts of armor on the field PR is ment to be fun and balanced and what you are proposing is stupid and would break the game.Since 1 to 2 tanks on each side is far scarier than 4 since your always looking for it.

HellRanger2558 wrote:PR is a mixture of balance and realism if you put 8 tanks in total on the map that would be 28 players not playing as infantry leaving the map feeling more empty and not capturing that front line combat feel that PR is known for,also WW2 Lat kits are inaccurate and low on ammo and there are no tow launchers to counter the armor so the tanks might have a fun time but the infantry will probably not because of the massive amounts of armor on the field PR is ment to be fun and balanced and what you are proposing is stupid and would break the game.Since 1 to 2 tanks on each side is far scarier than 4 since your always looking for it.

I have no idea where the 28 is coming from! but imagine 4 Tanks/Panzers and 2 APCs for each side on map so we will have 12 armored assets in total. these count of armored assets just need 24 players/crews, in other word, 12 players/crews for each side so we have still 38 players for infantry that it means about 5 full squad (we all have seen that all players don't go for armored things in main PR) and in addition these assets is supposed to fight for your victory and they are not useless things I mean they are like infantries.
plus, PR is going to be reality thing not fun, yeah it is fun but in a different way. if you need more fun try battlefield 4.
let infantries be scared to death, it will mean you're doing your job well in PR. it means war

i played the latest version in the past 2 days and its ridiculously amazing

p.s. im sorry if this question was answered before but, just out of couriosity, why does prww2 has a seperate launcher these days?

shahram wrote:I have no idea where the 28 is coming from! but imagine 4 Tanks/Panzers and 2 APCs for each side on map so we will have 12 armored assets in total. these count of armored assets just need 24 players/crews, in other word, 12 players/crews for each side so we have still 38 players for infantry that it means about 5 full squad (we all have seen that all players don't go for armored things in main PR) and in addition these assets is supposed to fight for your victory and they are not useless things I mean they are like infantries.
plus, PR is going to be reality thing not fun, yeah it is fun but in a different way. if you need more fun try battlefield 4.
let infantries be scared to death, it will mean you're doing your job well in PR. it means war

And then one side get steamrolled, leaving a team with 6 tanks against 0, would be fun for infantry to deal with 6 tanks.

Fabio Chavez wrote: p.s. im sorry if this question was answered before but, just out of couriosity, why does prww2 has a seperate launcher these days?

Coz it is still in the development and not up to PR standards (thats what DEVs say). The actuall reason this separate luncher was released in this year January was to make a one week test of the current state of the mod. As a matter of fact, this mod is so good that people wanted to play it since than, despite it being only half done. DEVs also said, that they would like to finish WW2 in 1.5, then it will be included in the main game. (Disclaimer: I am not a DEV so, eventhough I belive the written above is true, it doesn't have to be)

SkyEmperor wrote:And then one side get steamrolled, leaving a team with 6 tanks against 0, would be fun for infantry to deal with 6 tanks.

really, what are you talking about! when did I say 6 VS 0 !!!!!!!!!!
guys, all I try to say you is more tanks/apcs take us to a real and exciting and brutal fight and I am sure all players will praise it.
realizing this is not hard.

PR:WW2 came with its own launcher, as for the Alpha some additional features had to be implemented in the launcher to make PR-mods work properly. It was never removed after PR got updated with this new launcher, but could easily do without now .

Edit: the binaries I mean, not the custom launcher config and background

shahram wrote:really, what are you talking about! when did I say 6 VS 0 !!!!!!!!!!
guys, all I try to say you is more tanks/apcs take us to a real and exciting and brutal fight and I am sure all players will praise it.
realizing this is not hard.

It was an example, more tanks/apcs to deal with would be annoying for infantry if their armor get steamrolled. It could work if Anti tank weapon would be better.

Without airplanes more tanks means painful experience for infantry.