Project Reality Forums

You can find information on FH2's deflection model here. Worth a read.

Another major issue with armour is the fact that the engine doesn't simulate environmental destruction very well, meaning tanks can't simply blow through cover as they would be able to in real life.

We're probably turning this into a feedback/suggestion thread, but someone once suggested forcing the HAT to shoot from a crouched position. This has the primary advantage of making jack-in-box-ing much harder, if not impossible against a competent armor crew, thus solving the most annoying and unpredictable aspect of tanking in PR.

Or get rid of the HAT kit and allow more TOWs.

I don't agree with forcing infantry squads to take it. It's just too important to the team to have an infantry squad take it. Almost every time that happens, the kit is never where it should be and even worse, it can easily get caught up in an infantry battle and lost. It's also not going to solve anything. The players that really want to do this will just join a random squad with enough people, take it, then leave and possibly make their own squad.

jerkzilla wrote: The players that really want to do this will just join a random squad with enough people, take it, then leave and possibly make their own squad.

Just like those damn snipers who join squad for quit then start "1337 2N1Pz0r" squad. Good point.

I don't think removing HAT is the solution at all, infantry do need some tool to keep tanks from being godly (remember Silent Eagle when the german AT crashed the game).

Only able to shoot from crouch would get rid of standing/crouch issue, and even if he tried to prone - crouch he would reset deviation each time he had to duck into cover again. Another fairly simple approach to finding a solution if it is indeed possible within the limitations of BF2.

Switch entirely to unguided HATs?

@Murphy - I've wondered for some time now about the possibility of squad leaders being able to classify their squads into "infantry," "recon," "armour," "air," etc, with sniper kits limited to "recon" squads and crewman kits limited to "armour," and so on.

In the case of HATs being OP, I have a suggestion, that would require work but I think is a good compromise for people for and against HAT/armour changes. So basically, in PR the HATS are substantial weapons, that have proven time and time again that armour can be taken out at any time, from any angle, and come out of nowhere. They can shift a totally defensive hiding/retreat to a full out offensive push in one shot. Theyre pretty damn powerful, and because of draw distance, lack of destruction, and engine limitations the infantry are given an unrealistic advantage over the armour in Armour vs. HAT. Some, want to nerf the HAT substantially. However, this is a war sim, a game that aims for realism but with balance, so limiting players, or not giving factions the right weapons is not something we always want to do.

Well, looking to current, or very recent historical conflicts, we kind of see a parallel. Conventionally, most armour deaths were by enemy armour back in the day of tank battles (KURSK) across fields, and in large open areas. In desert storm tanks operated in wide open desert and engaged from Close to 3KM. Things, however changed in post Taliban afghanistan, and IRaq. Tanks had to be used way closer to the enemy, and even in cities. This meant that one of the tanks biggest enemies was the man portable AT, and not enemy armour (OMG JUST LIKE PR). So, the Brits, and Americans, and Canadians, and whoever else sent their tanks to the middle east (which wasnt the greatest idea, but they still got some work done) adapted. Yeah, they started putting cages, and reactive plating, and more thermal sights, and CROWs, and all sorts of stuff to counter RPGs.

what if, instead of totally nerfing HATs, we gave armour pieces cages, reactive plating, maybe CROWs or gunshields to make the third seat more useful (it is now, but its more of a turn-out seat) that made it so that AT do less damage, but not enemy armour, or stationary AT (which is NOT op at all for many reasons, and is way bigger than handheld, so the extra measures would do little). IT wouldnt make the armour OP, because cages dont always work, reactive plating only works once, there are weak points still, etc, and current vehicle vs. vehicle, etc wouldnt change either, but it would quell some of the stupidity that is the guy who walks around by himself, basically as a sniper, or spec ops guy and freakin hunts tanks. Man portable AT is the last line of defence against armour not an assassination tool.





yeah I know it would be a lot of work, I know my posts are long as hell, I know the coding for making a weapon do less damage, and others do the same may be a *****, but I have all these ideas to improve PR, and I must share.

Also, pretty much every stryker ever uses cages nowadays.

What needs to be fixed first and foremost are the weakspots on the tanks materials. T72 and T90 have very big and easily hit one-shot-kill spots on their front armor that need to go.

First off 40mm, specific damage areas are quite hard to code, although giving the side armor, where the reactive platting is supposed to be, a higher damage value might work (But hey, take a look at the tanks, specific damage values are so messed up, I don't think we'll see any changes there). Next is, RPG cages were in PR early on but they've proven to be more an annoyance rather than a helping hand (flying Scimitars on Basrah ftw). The collision mesh was a mess and sometimes hits didn't even get registered. We have to adapt with the engine we have and that is not possible, or just too faulty to ensure an enjoyable experience.

However building out that goddamn 3rd mounted gunner seat on MBTs is something we have been waiting for since...well since the first major release of PR. There have been tons of suggestion regarding this and no clear statement by the DEV team. Although I can't remember if they actually gave us an answer, I personally think this whole concept got buried somewhere in the forums and never got past the drawboard.

Sidenote: PR is about the broad mass of every conventional army. The US Army for example has still a lot more M1A1s than other tanks, so putting something very specialized into PR (like the M1A2 TUSK), which is only present in low numbers in the nations arsenal, goes completely against PR's mentality.

agreed, the TUSK, AZUR, and whatever arent exactly 100% regular, also noted that the coding is hard, and there are problems. Does anyone have any other ideas that arent horribly restrictive or terribly unrealistic to quell anti tank issues?

A - Universally reduce missile damage vs. armoured vehicles (see my post here).

B - Improve the capabilities of armoured vehicles (add weapon stabilization, improve camera, add deflection, allow large-caliber weapons to damage through cover, increase armour etc)

C - Further limit the number of HATs available to a team

D - Otherwise nerf HATs (setup time, deviation, etc)

Another thing is, if I am not mistaken, most of PR's vehicles don't have "hardpoints" at the moment, which probably means damage goes straight to the hull of the vehicle, rather than, for example, merely disabling the turret ring.

Quite simple task, I think. Remove handheld guided AT launchers and insert unguided instead. Smaw or whatever you choose. Russian forces dont even have guided portable AT in PR which is really funny imo.

So you can have light AT ( m136, rgp26, rpg7vl ) and heavy AT ( Smaw, rpg7vr, Maaws )

I dont want anyone mentioning javelins and reactive armor. Its too much complicated to implement and not commonly used irl.

We'll run into issues of some factions that simply lack an unguided AT weapon that can penetrate tank armour. Although I sympathize with those who wish to nerf the AT, I feel as if that's going too far.

I dont surmise that armour will become OP, or anything subsequently, it's just that I dont think the HAT needs such a substantial nerf. I have nearly 1100 hours on project reality, and I love armour. For a long time I was a terrible armour operator, often rushing into flags, or aimlessly driving around and getting killed by HAT or TOWs all the time. After learning from countless defeats, and deaths I've become a pretty competent crewman. I dont get killed by HATs as nearly as often as many HAT-nerf advocates probably are. You can be rather effective in this game through many techniques, and it is certainly possible to defend yourself against heavy AT. It's hard for me to treatise my doctrine as a tank driver, and why it protects me from HATs but it is relatively conservative, but still allows for offensive tactics on flags, and points of interest often, but it does. I've made many successful games on burning sands, assaulting extra-urban flags, stayed alive within the city, made spearheaded offensive pushes on silent eagle successfully, and obliterated enemy HAT and TOW rich FOBs on black gold. Trust me, it is possible to do this with techniques, like preliminary smoke screens, multi angle attacks, scouting a position with binoculars before cresting a hill, etc.

I think simply changing the HAT kit to a 4-man squad required kit is good enough. The CROW seat, reactive plating, and cages are also very viable indirect alternatives to weakening the HAT , but making the AT so unrealistically weak, is stupid. We can achieve balance through realism, not through vanilla battlefield like numbers.

If you think maaws, smaw and rpg7vr is weak you need to do some reading before you jump into conclusions.

It just removes guidance from it which is actually vanilla feature and is being actively exploited in PR.

I never said they were weak at all. I was addressing shockunit and his suggestion of nerfing the damage SRAW, ERYX, etc. sorry for the confusion.

But yeah, changing out 100mm+ HATs for smaller AT like the SMAW is an okay idea, but Im pretty sure not all militaries operate similar weapons

Main thing is the community has essentially said there's an issue here. The devs will figure something out.

[R-COM]MaSSive wrote:Quite simple task, I think. Remove handheld guided AT launchers and insert unguided instead. Smaw or whatever you choose. Russian forces dont even have guided portable AT in PR which is really funny imo..

Why is it funny? Russian forces don't have a shoulder-fired ATGM, so we can't pull one out of our asses to give them in PR. METIS-M is man-portable, but can only be fired from its tripod. Its predecessor could only be fired from the shoulder if braced against the side of a fighting position.

[R-COM]MaSSive wrote:I dont want anyone mentioning javelins and reactive armor. Its too much complicated to implement and not commonly used irl.

Sorry, do you mean Javelins are not commonly used, reactive armor isn't that commonly used or both?

If you put it that way we can implement predator UAV's, F22 Raptors, and all the high tech BS we can think of. I dont think its going to improve gameplay, issue is balancing it and there is no asset on opfor side to match it, especially on insurgency.

Most of world armies dont have reactive armor on their tanks, and they dont use javelins. If you think on US army only thats a different approach then and then we talk about tusk not m1a1.

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2564&catid=278

[R-COM]MaSSive wrote:If you put it that way we can implement predator UAV's, F22 Raptors, and all the high tech BS we can think of. I dont think its going to improve gameplay, issue is balancing it and there is no asset on opfor side to match it, especially on insurgency.

If I put it what way? All I did was tell you that the Russians don't have a shoulder-fired ATGM. None of that other shit was ever mentioned

[R-COM]MaSSive wrote:Most of world armies dont have reactive armor on their tanks, and they dont use javelins. If you think on US army only thats a different approach then and then we talk about tusk not m1a1.

Okay, there, now I understand. And that's correct, reactive armor is not common in US forces; we've only just recently started using it with TUSK / BUSK. However, Javelin is used by US, UK, Australia and other factions that are either in-game or under-development.

Eddie if current HAT is being so badly exploited I really hope that if you ever implement javelin that this will not be possible with it. And if you do introduce javelin which will not work in a way SRAW and others work now, then I hope these will be removed.

And Russian forces do have RPG30/32, I'm just not sure if its going to be implemented in their army as standard or not. Id give them Eryx or Matador if not anything else. Current RPG in PR is useful as bucket of hot pee, when compared to other factions HAT. Very hard to use, very inaccurate, and makes disbalance.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:It would be good to have but I dunno how FH2 has managed it and we currently have no one in the team able to look into implementing it.

I can shed a little light as to how but its comparable to a candle in an auditorium. I'm a very busy guy and spend my time between networking and coding. Specifically python coding. As far as I can tell, they've somehow made the shells have several meshes, with a few of those somehow handled by python to calculate angle of shot, the "shells" stated penetration and "armor value" of what's being hit. FH2 has so many different armor values than PR and they are handeled very differently than in PR. I don't know the exact details but I'd LOVE to find out. It's almost as if when your shooting a shell a second , invisible shell is summoned, much like a kit in PR, travels at speed and when it hits an object uses some algorithm to determine how it should behave.
P.S. that last sentence was a guess, just giving my opinion on how it feels. Work is all done on CPU, I'm surprised at the speed of its execution. Python is no where near as fast as C.

[R-COM]MaSSive wrote:It just removes guidance from it which is actually vanilla feature and is being actively exploited in PR.

yeah the guidance is really why sraw/eryx/mbtlaw are so strong. i have personally hatted and been hatted in vertical helicopter dives by these monsters, because you can simply whip the round around so far and so quickly. if guidance was removed on hat weapons, or some type of deploying system was adopted (fh2 machine guns) where you can only use the guided hats crouched or prone with limited up/down view. or just make them all like the matador(straight shooter with small deviation), and leave the long distance shots to TOW's. it would turn them into more defense weapons instead of armor snipers.