Project Reality Forums

.50's arent usualy carried into battle as such. They're usualy deployed in fixed positions, such as bunkers, or are mounted on vehicles.
The heaviest machine gun that US military units carry, would be an M240.

I'm pretty sure they have "Not for use in an anti-personel role" stamped on the top plate, but I could be wrong.

I'm for letting people select what every they like with in the boundaries of the mission/map.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink - I can't see any valid reason for forcing balanced loadouts with in teams.

You won't find me often crediting the BF2 community with anything but contempt but as NikovK has suggest (about squads having to adapt) there are signs of intelligence already out there in the form of players filling a gap. (IE Next time they spawn as AT due a tank in local area). Some may argue that's commonsense but the Jury's still out.

It doesn't matter whether you have 2 AT players or a squad full of them as there is no way to predict what % of bunny hopping rocket arena idiots are going to be playing. IE the 2 AT players you do have might be more interested in making burnt patches on grass.

If this Mod pimps itself in the right manner it won't attract any of or keep those type of players and as such squads (I would hope) will become evenly loaded in order to maintain maximum flexibilty.

I don't get what you're trying to get at and I don't think you have read this thread and the one on What a squad should be.

I have already displayed my strong thoughts against this adaptive squad. It is silly and unrealistic. The USMC would have to deploy with AT's for their infantry. They are not stupid enough to deploy them underequipped for battle for the value on each marines life is so high, imagine the news stating so many marines died just because they were underequipped "a whole squad threw their lives away so they could give intelligence so that a special not real squad elite antitankers could be called in to avenge them". So this puts a realistic pressure on the designated AT kit to stay alive for his role in the squad. If he dies, someone can pick up his kit and fire the AT at a tank. But it is not fair or realistic for people's squads to get wiped out just so they can all come back with all AT's at a CP the incoming tank is heading. Even though you say it could simulate intelligence, the USMC actually has money they have to spend on equipment. They would not be able to buy the production of infinite amounts of AT kits, and they sure as hell wouldn't put out a squad full of AT's together, its not efficient - what is the full squad supposed to do after they take out this one tank. The squad should have been equipped with an AT in their squad. I know a guy that loves to play AT because he's so good at it. Just because the majority of you don't like it, doesn't mean class limits shouldn't be forced.

This also puts pressure on the people playing different roles, if they suck - they will cost your team tickets, so you tell them to be more careful next time. This is beneficial to the teamwork on the servers as well as the community as a whole.

I have read this thread thank you.

I do not doubt what is and isn't realistic on that I agree with you. I do not have any problems with your suggestion or fail to comprehend your idea - only it's ability to translate to the gaming world. We've already seen set squads in the like of AA and it doesn't work as good as it should.

My point is this: There is no guarantee of any player playing to the role available - so well designed squads are put to waste.

Better to be able to create squads with certain openings (made by sqd leader) then people always have the option.

NikovK wrote:I'm pretty sure they have "Not for use in an anti-personel role" stamped on the top plate, but I could be wrong.

Probably. All .50cal weapons are, under the Geneva convention, not allowed to be classed as anti infantry weapons, and have to be classed as anti material weapons for them to be legal. Thats why when someone who has military knowledge of the Barret, refers to it as an anti material rifle.

We're shooting their canteens, honest. Its their fault they wear their canteens on their backs.

MonkeyNutz wrote:I have read this thread thank you.

I do not doubt what is and isn't realistic on that I agree with you. I do not have any problems with your suggestion or fail to comprehend your idea - only it's ability to translate to the gaming world. We've already seen set squads in the like of AA and it doesn't work as good as it should.

My point is this: There is no guarantee of any player playing to the role available - so well designed squads are put to waste.

Better to be able to create squads with certain openings (made by sqd leader) then people always have the option.

The goal of this mod is to be realistic, so why would they cut corners where they wouldn't have to. In real life a squad leader cannot force the US to give him what he wants to have in his squad. The truth is, the people that keep suggesting time and time that there shouldn't be "cookie cutter squads" are only selfish enough to think about getting that golden kit. People don't see that realism mods are supposed to bring in teamwork into the equation in order to complete the objectives. It should be a team and squad effort that wins you the game, not giving brats the kits they want. You fail to provide any hard evidence why it shouldn't be put into PR other than your gut instinct. Why does everyone assume it will fail right off the bat when you haven't even tried it. What works for one game can be applied to similar games. I fail to see how AA has failed by forcing people to pick kits. The only problem I saw was when people cried that they couldn't get the sniper. You draw conclusions from nothing to get your way. I only propose the most realistic possibilities that seem possible to implement in the game.

Heres an example of a system I thought up
This only applies to full infantry squads. Support squads and vehicle squads would be different. This is the basic mainstay of any force.
There are 2 types of squads: MG squads and AT squads
Odd numbered squads are MG
Evens are AT

MG squad composition
Unlimited Riflemen
Limit 1x grenadier
Limit 2x MG gunner
Limit 1x Medic

Mg becomes available on 4th slot
Medic becomes available on 6th slot (yes they are rare)


AT type squad
Limit 1x grenadier
Limit 4x riflemen
Limit 1x MG
Limit 1x AT
Limit 1x Medic

AT available from second slot
MG available 6th Slot
Medic available 6th slot
This way it is possible to deploy without an AT, but an at is only available every other squad. So either deploy with it and be prepared, or someone will have to die and respawn with a reduced chance of taking armor out. It also allows your squad to be customizable to be more attack minded or defensive.

"The goal of this mod is to be realistic, so why would they cut corners where they wouldn't have to. The truth is, the people that keep suggesting time and time that there shouldn't be "cookie cutter squads" are only selfish enough to think about getting that golden kit. People don't see that realism mods are supposed to bring in teamwork into the equation in order to complete the objectives. It should be a team and squad effort that wins you the game, not giving brats the kits they want. You fail to provide any hard evidence why it shouldn't be put into PR other than your gut instinct. Why does everyone assume it will fail right off the bat when you haven't even tried it. You draw conclusions from nothing to get your way. I only propose the most realistic possibilities that can be applied to the engine."

All of your concerns for realism, teamwork and even balance of weapons can be addressed through carefully balancing kits and making very powerful weapons or abilities reliant on teamwork to operate effectively. Outright kit restrictions, forced squads or forced squad roles will seriously damage the enjoyment for new players and impose the sort of restrictions a hardcore reality-emulating clan would without the voluntary membership or pride in an organized team. What you are asking would seriously damage the appeal of the mod, reduce our player base and ultimately lead to an untimely death for all of our efforts. As I understand, your proposals are on the extreme end of the spectrum, appeal to a small amount of the community, and will likely not intice the public to join. Unless you are prepared to make compromises I fear your intelligence will be wasted on unusable, if good, suggestions.

You say it will scare away new players like as if it was written in the bible. The realist player base is out there. People played operation flashpoint, joint operations, AA, etc. Why not try and attract them instead of these public (kids) you are trying to attract. Anyone that would be scared of limitations on kits won't have to play. If you want to appeal to everyone so much, play BF2 vanilla because it does a good job of that in pubs.

You share the same views of why others flock to this mod - easier kills, less cheese. But you want to cut it half way of what its goal is to be - a REALITY mod. You think my level realism is unfun, you think I want to have no fun. But I do want to have fun, but I dont want anything to be shortcutted or half assed in terms of realism. You more describe a mod that would simply be vanilla bf2, no bhopping, and new weapons and vehicles. I see you could be much happier with that than with a realism mod which clearly states they are going to factor in the factions in their respective locations. IE the US cannot afford a full army of saw gunners and snipers, the US do not deploy snipers with squads, etc.

And once again you try and get brownie points by exploiting the fears of the mod going under because of kit limitations. It hasn't killed any game i've known in my history of gaming, yet you consistantly use it against my ideas for your own desires of this mod. My personal desires only fit the mission statement on the about page.

I am the voice of all the older more mature gamers that see this of being a very intense, fun, squad combat, tactical FPS. These are the people that enjoy games for deeper reasons then enjoyment of juvenile point, shoot,kill gaminhgwhich can be found in 98% of all FPS games. These are the people that would love for tactical alertness and teamwork to play vital roles in a game. The reason they aren't posting is because they don't necessarily have time to involve themselves in putting ideas for this mod because of family and work.

If you agree its realistic, why not try it. The only reason you assume it will kill the community is because it doesn't fit your personal wishes of this mod.

This mod is a test of a new engine to see how far realism FPS gaming can become. If we wanted all the old stuff, it wouldn't be unique and would plummet in population anyway. The longer lasting games and mods are the ones that deliver something new to their genre.

I don't necessarily agree with people being forced into spots in a squad, if they don't want to be there then they won't help out. But I do think there needs to be class limits. If you play a game like Day of Defeat in servers that do/don't have restrictions on the sniper and MG classes you see a big difference. When there's a limit to 2 MGs and 2 snipers there is alot more movement. But in a server with no limits, there can be 5 snipers and 5 MGs, all staying where they are and no movement really takes place. So I think there needs to be limits on sniper and support in the game, having MGs and snipers everywhere isn't too much fun for the other players.

The sniper class continues to give everyone headaches, although with armored vehicles or even the .50 calibers as accurate as they are, snipers aren't nearly as bad as they could be. But snipers do not capture and hold objectives in real life, and I think removing their grenades, claymores (or even pistols!) will dissuade players from playing Sniper too often.

Fully automatic weapons dominate the infantry battlefield here just as they do in real life, only right now there is no need for infantry classes beyond support and medic. I think that by taking away the support player's unlimited ammunition and close-quarters hand grenades, we will make them more dependant on rifleman assistants. Also accurate M203/GP40's will help dislodge machine gunners who get too comfortable in a camping spot.

In response to Visaya's thread I will draw a little black mustache, goatee and horns on all my pictures. Stop demonizing, its getting you nowhere.



I didn't spend five minutes in MS Paint for nothing.

"In response to Visaya's thread I will draw a little black mustache, goatee and horns on all my pictures. Stop demonizing, its getting you nowhere."

This is neither logical nor productive for your cause. Please try to be more coherent.

You show the signs of losing an uphill battle, because you lack the words and knowledge to support your view and why your view is better for this mod than mine.

With each post I am getting farther than your legions of nodding 14 year olds.

Please take it easy guys, everyone has their own opinion. End the argument now. Both of you have made decent points on how this should be done. Try to come to a compromise without making fun of eachother or anyone else who agrees one way or the other.

Please continue discussion on any percieved imbalances in my proposed configuration.

err. i like the idea of support not having infinite ammo. but only 2 magazines? is that how many they go in with in real life? 200 bullets?

would it make sense for HMMWs and buggies and jeeps to have a ammo replenishing ability? is that where the squad would keep their ammo rather than lugging it around? riflemen giving ammo out would mean m203 spamming gets even worse (even i m203 spam when softening up the enemy before the attack)

My reasoning behind keeping SAW magazines low is that each magazine is two hundred rounds. That's two and a half RPK magazines. Two magazines would be four hundred rounds, and in terms of gameplay that's close to all the shooting you can manage without a medic revive.

Frankly I'd rather see SAW gunners get ONE magazine and the rifleman "assistant" carrying his spares. It would help balance out the RPK's much lower rates of fire and smaller magazine. 2x75 drums and 1x200 box seems reasonable and places a demand on a gunnery assistant. Of course, if real-world loadouts for a SAW gunner are only two magazines, I'd be fine letting that stand as-is.

Regarding M203 spam; as proposed, Rifleman and Rifle Grenadier are two seperate kits. If two players are clumped up and tied down for grenade launcher support, it would certainly not be as bad as the present spamming configuration of an Assault and a Support, the SAW suppressing and tossing five grenade rounds at a time to the Assault grenadier.

The fact of the matter is, that noone here knows what the Devs will do with the mod. You can speculate all you want on their intent and make quotes of their "Mission statemant", but you don't know. I'm sure they will take all recomendations into account and then, in the end, They will make the mod that they want to play with others.

I think it will be a balance of Realism and Gameplay. You cannot have "Total realism" and "Fun Gameplay". If you die once, you are dead... no fun, but realistic. Not being able to play the kit I want... no fun, but realistic. It needs to be a compromise. Just because I don't want what someone else wants, doesn't mean that I want vanilla BF2 and it doesn't mean I'm a kid either. I want a more realistic, balanced and a funner team play Version of BF2. They could take the point system out, for all I care. But I don't want to be forced into anything. I personally think that NikovK's idea will work itself out in the end, without Forcing anyone to be what they don't want. I think people will naturally fall into what it should be. Because of balanced kits, not forcing kits.This is my opinion and doesn't reflect what the mod Will or will not be, because noone knows. i'm 28, by the way. That's 14 x 2 for the "savior" of realism over there. Thanks for insulting me for my difference of opinion. So slap some horns on me as well. I already have a goatie.

Yes, it is true that the SAW gunners only cary 1 extra drum of 200 rounds. The "A Gunner" (Assistant Gunner) Carries extra.

What about this, IF the SF class is removed, what if it is replaced with a different sort of Support class? I'm not sure if this is realistic but the new support class (the current support would become 'machine guner' or whatever a realistic name would be) gets a rifle, a knife and maybe binoculars (note: absense of grenades to stop spamming) and ammo bags. This would solve the problems (nade spamming, unlimited MG ammo) that would come up from giving this to the current support and assault classes.

I think this might help balance a little bit, since MGs will now have to conserver, to a certain degree, their ammo. Tell me what you think.

(EDIT: apologize in advance for bad grammer.. lots of typing little type)

Very well thought out post NikovK. I liked many of your ideas regarding class loadout and how to limit the "spamming".

I do, however, completely disagree with the opinion that classes should not be limited and be a free for all.

A fundamental flaw behind the design of your class idea is that you are looking at it from an incorrect point of view.

What you're talking about fits more into the realm of an organized tournament where there is a distinct command & control structure. You're assuming that the players are, in fact, playing for the team... which is simply not the case.

When I join a server, I play to have fun and I'm sure all of you do as well. Thus, I play for myself and so do you. If I am given the opportunity to select the medic class and I in the mood for playing medic after watching a series of Band of Brothers with that awesome character Eugene (you now the medic, that guy is awesome).... I am going to play medic.

On the flipside, I get just as much enjoyment out of playing any class when I'm needed. If the class system is forced, my brain switches to a completely different type of gameplay perspective... one that focuses on the team's efforts as opposed to focusing on my personal needs. That is still alot of fun for me and for others.

Retracting back to the topic a little more now.. I'd like to bring up an example of where your idea fails.

Let's say there is a map with flags A, B and C. The 2 sides are MEC and USMC.

USMC takes flags A and B, leaving only 1 flag (C) for the MEC. The USMC is poised to strike the last flag which, for the sake of argument, is MEC's main spawn. The main spawn has 1 tanks and 2 APCs. The USMC is still waiting for their armor to catch up.

When the MEC attacks flag B with their armored vehicles, it is fair to assume that the entire USMC team will switch to the Anti-Tank class if they are smart.

The fact of the matter is, if a team that I play on always switches to a single class that is effective for one specific goal and we swarm your team that distributes their classes evenly, you will lose.. every single time.

Another example:

We are playing Strike At Karkand. My team is the USMC and we just took the Hotel. Your team is at the closest flag, Courtyard.

My squad (Hotel)
1 - Medic
2 - Medic
3 - Medic
4 - Medic
5 - Medic
6 - Medic

Your Squad (Courtyard)
1 - SAW Gunner
2 - Medic
3 - Medic
4 - Rifleman
5 - Rifleman
6 - Rifleman

Now let's assume that all players are of equal skill... the average pub gamer, no 1337 dudes here.

When my squad attacks yours, we will be able to revive the hell out of each other during the fight. Even if it takes us a couple of tries, your squad will never stand a chance.

Once we kill your SAW gunner, your medics have a limited defrib rate. If we take out out your medic next, you only have 1 medic left with no way to supply him.

Mathematically, we more chances of succeeding because each and every one of my squad members are able to revive the man next to him, allowing us to split up our forces alot more.

In contrast, if your team would be put in the assault role, you would even have less of chance to win. That's the previous "No chance" subracted by itself = "No goddamn way you will ever take this flag"

Even if you kill 3 of my guys, the other 3 will be able to revive. Once I have 4 people, those 4 can work on reviving the other 2 and so on.

Moving on...

I hope you clearly evaluated the examples I gave just like I clearly evaluated your post and thought it through.

The fact of the matter is that in any game, it's possible to mass a specific type of class unit to do a specific type of job faster. If you assault, make your whole team a class that would perform a good assault. If you defend, make your entire team a class that defends easily.

Which is ok, right? They are adapting just like you said, right?

Wrong.

If a team of all medics is more effective than a balanced squad loadout, something is wrong with the mod. It isn't project reality anymore.. it's something else.

The examples of you gave of military units "adapting" to situations is comletely irrelevant here... I don't even know why you brought them up:

World War 2 was 50 years ago, things that they did there don't apply here.. but I still get your point.. I know you weren't singling out WW2.. just wanted to say that.

The example of stalingrad and the wehrmacht increasingly using the SMG is arleady in this game. You can pick up kits from dead soldiers.

All other examples you gave were on a divisional level. That kind of adaptation takes weeks to organize and plenty of money to fund.

You can't just reformat your entire military structure on a per-battle basis. Why do you think Guerilla Warfare is so effective (ie: USA in Iraq, Russian in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam, Russia in Chechnya, etc).

A modern military that is thousands times stronger in weaponry and forcepower is also much more organized and dependant upon that organization. They can't easily swap around how squads get distributed and how they function because that's how the soldiers were trained.

Picking up an SMG is one thing... sending an entire platoon of Anti Tank personell into a battle without proper light infantry support is a completely different story.

Last thing to consider:

We memorize these maps and know what loadout the enemy has and what their force strength is. This gives the game its arcady gameplay because people memorize little cuts and corners turning everyone into the equivalent of a well trained SF soldier that can instantly adapt to his environment.

A rule of thumb in all military engagements is to expect the unexpected. Take this military maxim as an example:

A plan of campaign should anticipate everything which the enemy can do, and contain within itself the means of thwarting him..

At first glance, the statement may seem that it's actually supporting your view... but it's quite the contrary! In fact, it is completely invalidating your point.

You see, if we know what to expect from these maps, we can rig our teams to be the most effective possible for a map. We can have all medics, all engineers, all anti tank.. whatever works. If you have a squad of 6 rifleman that have M203 3 grenades each (as per your suggestion) that's 24 m203 grenades!. Imagine an infantry battle with those guys attacking your well balanced squad.

Each battle should feel "fresh". It shouldn't feel as we've been there a thousand times before.

And one last thing I want to address... open endedness.

If the current method of 'class free for all' is used, tactics on public servers will actually suffer

You see, when 8 or 16 people are presented with 3,000 possible ways of doing something, it is very rare that they will agree on one way of doing something.

On the other hand, if you present the same 8 or 16 people with 1,500 possibilities of doing something, they are more likely to agree.

Limiting classes in no way limits tactical efficiency and diversting.. in fact it actually increases it. People are forced to work with what they have and learn new and amazing things about each class.

This entire concept has been a proven military concept since the days of Roman Legions and the beautiful military victories they had!

The military limits your options by forcing you to adhear to a certain set of rules that are actually a subset of the entire organized armed force. By doing so, each soldier is able to act in accordance with the orders that he is given and is shown to be more effective when working with his group.

This is when you join the military, your specialty is chosen for you, no the other way around. Even in the US military, although you are given a choice of an MOS that you want -- if you join the Marines and there is a drastic need for a rifleman (grunt), you are going to be a grunt no questions asked.

If this mod avoids that entire principle of forcing people to work as a team for the greater good, you are effectively killing the entire basis of what people like myself percieve Project Reality to be -- a game based on reality.

No one is talking about following things letter by letter, becase we all know that is impossible. Nor am I trying to hide behind the idea of realism to prove my point like many people do (i'm sure you have seen this).

Just know that even the best game developers and game designers have yet to come up with a class system that is open ended, but at the same time, provides a realistic experience of infantry/armored combat. The fact we are discussing a modification with a very limited scope of action ... we have even less chances (if any) to achieve this.

Thank you for your time.