Project Reality Forums

Wolfe wrote:Weapon accuracy:
You can't have CLOSE quarters battles when weaponry is designed for FAR distances... For those who think nades and guns are equals, then I can't offer any further explanation

You are right on both points, and its a fact IRL as well. The M-16A4 with 3 round burst is capable of engaging a man sized target at 800 yards. It was designed (along with every other western assault rifle) to engage Soviet troops on the open farmland of France and Germany. No consideration was given to CQB for those weapon systems. The Soviets made the AK for a little closer range, 300yard, but it too is a poor CQB weapon (due to size, recoil, and rate of fire). (Side note, thats why both sides have come up with shorter, compact weapons, for special forces down to the MP5 and even pistols in the case of SOCOM troops for point blank battles.) The short comings of the combat rifle is a big part of the reason every combat trooper carries at least 2 frag genades. Think about it, at a minimum a 4 man USMC fire team has 3 M-16's an M249, an M203 with a dozen nades, an AT-4 and at least 8 M-67 frag nades while on combat patrol. If they know its goign to be a CQB situation the number of nades will be increased. Trying to clear a room with a long rifle is difficult and dangerous. If there's no chance of friendlies, toss a nade in reduces the danger to the team going in.
Watch this video (ADULT LANGUAGE WARNING)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFvqCnHRwA[/youtube]

You'll notice the liberal use of nades, the reluctance of Marines to engage at point blank range, and eventually they use an LAV to blast the building apart to get the bad guy. There is no "go in blasting" its more "blast that sucker out"
YouTube - Close Combat in Iraq

Now THAT is the kind of CQB I want to play.

The only thing missing from that video was the Iraqi respawning across the street and tossing nades up on the roof, followed by 2 more Iraqis scoring ranged head shots for the survivors.

Here's the thing:

Real life isn't fun.

Now, given that PR is supposed to be enjoyable, the above could never happen. Simply put, no 4 or 6 players would stand on a roof for 3 or 4 minutes, lobbing in a grenade or two a minute. There's too much retarded FPS syndrome around for this to happen, even in people who think tactically.

Dam in that video one nade would have taken the US squad out, that has to be the most dangerous form of fighting

In the game I'd be using the m203, rushing in with a rifle is at best like a high noon show down

Well it does that now, its not easy to use and even if you do it right it will kill you within 10 feet unless your firing it into a room from the outside which is how I would use it.
Firing in the open like that doesnt usually work out though Ive often tried Rpg is the better option there if you want maximum overkill/laziness

you'd probably end up killing everyone in the room

Works great on rally points and 'follow the leader' squads



As far as the OP goes I prefer a mix of all if possible but my bias as Ive shown above is to CQB. EJOD is well done in that it is wide open but with a central focus.
Qinling rocks compared to kashan and ideally the best maps should allow game influence to CQB combined with gigantic firepower from jets, etc

both will be fine.. but i think there are already enough long range maps... time for some CQC

BloodBane611 wrote:Here's the thing:

Real life isn't fun.

Now, given that PR is supposed to be enjoyable, the above could never happen. Simply put, no 4 or 6 players would stand on a roof for 3 or 4 minutes, lobbing in a grenade or two a minute. There's too much retarded FPS syndrome around for this to happen, even in people who think tactically.

You have a point. But the reason this wouldn't happen in PR is that your squad cant sit around trying to get one guy out of his hole when all his buddies are respawning and running to ur pos with molotovs and harsh language.

Well for one, those guys were no spec L337 group. they looked like a small angry mob liberated from their pitch forks and torches to having hi-tech weaponry.

They reminded me straight away of the behavour of the cops from "First blood" that chased rambo into the woods, or...lols...the reserve forces who shot the rocket launcher at the cave. But i would say that, that type of behavour was due to many many months in the field. and the fact that they ware scared out of their minds is also a realistic part of battle.

hate to say it, but, in order to emulate the behavour of war-time soldiers, you need to reduce the energy the gamers have at their disposal, and make them value their lives much...much...much more, so they arnt so rampant with their abilities.

there is no foot soldier on earth that is capable of doing the things the PR soldiers are capable of doing, like breaking away from their group, lobbing grenades with athetic distance and accurasy, and hawling around a heavy gun without innertia.

The fact is, that nearly every soldier is different, from the skinny weaklings with high sprinting abilitys to the fat bozos who cant run but can lift heavy stuff, and in wartime, its the CO's purpose to make all people big,small,lasy and stupid to work in unicen, and we dont have that in pr. We have experianced people that are to lasy to put up with noobs to become squad leaders anymore, and think that because they have more months playtime that they are entitled to ignore the squad leader.

Psykogundam wrote:Well for one, those guys were no spec L337 group.

Those are combat hardened US Marines. They knew it was extremely dangerous to get into a CQB with a unknown enemy who is willing to sacrifice themselves just to take out one or two Marines.

the reserve forces who shot the rocket launcher at the cave.

That's exactly how they prefer to handle it. Blow the sucker up before he has a chance to blow you up.

in order to emulate the behavour of war-time soldiers, you need to reduce the energy the gamers have at their disposal, and make them value their lives much...much...much more,

Can I get an AMEN for the brotha?

You are absolutely right, the problem is then the game devolves into a camper/sniper fest like AA usually does. This is the fine line which PRM must walk, too realistic and its not a fun game, not realistic enough its back to railguns and BFG2000's. Shock paddles and respawns are completely unrealistic, but without them the game slows down and gets boring.

milobr wrote:I hate dense jungle maps (Mestia, Ghost Train, Fool's Road) because they remind me of Counter-Strike. Really, it's just pure chaotic. My best games are usually in desert maps like Ejod, Kashan, etc where you can employ a lot of infantry tactics and the game is much more like real war.

Yeah because war is very organised and they clear out sniper hides and burn down the jungles first.........

In maps like Kashan they are far from realistic, where are the UAV's, the AC-130 Gunships? Where is the overwhelming artillery? The multiple stacks of a/c on standby to bring hell down? The awaiting attack helicopters to bring direct fire support are all missing. If we could get more people than 64 it would be better but as we have a total of 64 tops and that is if the server is full the maps are much too large and are missing many of the elements of a modern battlefield.

Lockheed AC-130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, there is not a lot of infantry tactics to be used on the desert maps as it's not too wise to move out across the open especially if you have options like what I posted above. Right now most of the fights are happening in the urban setting or in the mountains of Afghanistan clearing tunnels and fields.

The dense maps like Mestia and Ghost Train really reflect the chaos of infantry combat and as there is no room for tanks you can get right into squad based tactics.

I do like both maps but I would much prefer that the MEC maps be urban surrounded by desert as lets face it you would be a right twat to even think about heading into the open where the Americans can spot you with their satalites, UAV's, helicopters, CAP and all the other fun toys that give us the advantage.

If I was to fight the yanks I would take away as many advantages as I could and that would start with not ever going into the open desert especially at night.

(HUN)Rud3bwoy wrote:Null vote. Whatever realism needs.As far as i know unless its a dense urban area, firefights happen from a distance nowadays (i did not serve in army and im not a military expert). Of course there are exceptions, like in Insurgency.
So CQB maps could be fun, but i dont know if thats okay for realism. However i think ive read that that in 0.8 there will be more urban maps (e.g.: insurgency)

Hand to hand combat is still very common as not many have the capability of taking us on from a distance. As much as people hated Helmand I found that a very good reflection of what is happening in Afghanistan right now. They just needed to beef up the buildings as they can really take a beating and is one of the reasons why tanks have been sent in. Also, there has been more than one tank stuck trying to run over those old walls or ramming the mud huts.

Nades, nades and more nades followed by spraying the room with automatic fire. There are lots of videos you can watch of combat there all over the web.

Ablack77 wrote:I like all types of maps though one thing I would like to see would be a large map without heavy assets, ie just soft skin vehicles for transport.

I'm hoping Sangin will be like this.

Surely there are times in war when the heavy assets aren't available but there's lot's of ground to cover.

That lesson was learned in Mogadishu by all sides.

Talking Politics | Urban fight

Looking back, military analysts attribute the debacle partly to the decision not to provide the troops with M1 Abrams tanks and armored Bradley Fighting Vehicles — a political decision made by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, apparently in the hope of keeping the engagement under the public’s radar. While tanks alone can’t win a battle in a city, they are an integral part of an invasion force. "Ideally, in urban combat you have a combined group of armored units and infantry," says one American veteran of the Mogadishu operation, who declined to give his name. "Tanks by themselves are very vulnerable to people on foot," who can attack the armored vehicles from the side, he says. "And foot soldiers by themselves are very vulnerable to people in vehicles."

---------------------The American plan for city warfare combines a several equally important elements:

? getting good intelligence about the city

? sealing the city off

? using infantry, tanks, and helicopters to secure control of enemy areas

? minimizing civilian casualties.




Heavy reading but there is a pile of information.

in0531 Lesson 1

Desert Combat

Universal and Enduring Techniques and Procedures to Support Tactical Operations in Afghanistan

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;624613']Simply wrong. What're you're missing is firstly that weapons are that accurate. If my weapon is zeroed to 300m in real life, in PR I should be able to hit targets at 300m out.

Love it!



Sorry, but you do need to explain. Why is being killed with a rifle more fun than being killed with a grenade? Why is killing someone with a rifle more fun than with a grenade? To my mind what's fun is rolling into a flag and holding it until my teammates have taken the next flag, then moving on. I don't particularly care if we do it via grenade, rifle, tank, pistols, knives or the holy-hand grenade of antioch. Nor do I care when I get killed which method it's by - I'm still just as dead.

On the other hand, where there is skill necessary is in using clever gameplay to prevent the grenadespam from the enemy. When defending, leave two-three guys outside the objective to spot incoming troops and kill them before they get within throwing-range. Alternatively, when you're facing someone and they're chucking a 'nade at you- rush them and full-auto them into bits before they can throw another one.

Bravo, best counter to the typical nade rant and whine I've ever read.

I prefer GCB and middle range maps a lot more to the likes of Kashan Desert which frankly I'm not too fond of. On long range maps you usually end up either without any transport a lot of the time or just end up somewhere in a bunker between all the vehicles and aircraft hoping that you don't die in the crossfire between them.

It's mostly the long range desert maps that I don't like though and the battle for Quiling, which I think is quite frankly too big.

Neoboy wrote:I prefer GCB and middle range maps a lot more to the likes of Kashan Desert which frankly I'm not too fond of. On long range maps you usually end up either without any transport a lot of the time or just end up somewhere in a bunker between all the vehicles and aircraft hoping that you don't die in the crossfire between them.

It's mostly the long range desert maps that I don't like though and the battle for Quiling, which I think is quite frankly too big.

try Kashan 16, Never been left without transport on that.

Neoboy wrote:I prefer GCB and middle range maps a lot more to the likes of Kashan Desert which frankly I'm not too fond of. On long range maps you usually end up either without any transport a lot of the time or just end up somewhere in a bunker between all the vehicles and aircraft hoping that you don't die in the crossfire between them.

It's mostly the long range desert maps that I don't like though and the battle for Quiling, which I think is quite frankly too big.

I think if the developers would specialize their maps into infantry and vehicle type maps, that would be great. Its allready done so in PoE2. So ppl aint pissed about not getting an attack helo, or a jet, there are enough jets/ah´s for 4 ppl both.
and those who like infantry, they go play the inf maps, or the server host just have the flexibility to make one inf following a vehicle map in the list. so everyone is happy.
now I only see that there is one squad against one squad on kashan, 2 squads waiting at main and the rest driving... the ones waiting are pissed and the ones in the bunkers are pissed... and if you get dumb ppl driving, averybody gets pissed because of the wait times...
anyways lets see I have a feeling that o.8 is near... near like mmmmmmmm... may? maybe the devs have something radically new for us, cuz its the next higher full version...

CQB would be fucking excellent if it wasn't for those ******* prone spammers who ruin it for the rest of us. The ironic thing is these are usually the people who cry "play the game the way it was meant to be played" when someone finds a neat trick (most recent case: HAT from chopper). If you tried to dive to the ground in a tight corridor or room you'd most likely knock yourself out.

x.trEm*e wrote:I think if the developers would specialize their maps into infantry and vehicle type maps, that would be great. Its allready done so in PoE2. So ppl aint pissed about not getting an attack helo, or a jet, there are enough jets/ah´s for 4 ppl both.
and those who like infantry, they go play the inf maps, or the server host just have the flexibility to make one inf following a vehicle map in the list. so everyone is happy.
now I only see that there is one squad against one squad on kashan, 2 squads waiting at main and the rest driving... the ones waiting are pissed and the ones in the bunkers are pissed... and if you get dumb ppl driving, averybody gets pissed because of the wait times...
anyways lets see I have a feeling that o.8 is near... near like mmmmmmmm... may? maybe the devs have something radically new for us, cuz its the next higher full version...

Never really understood this attitude. There are better infantry games out there and there are far superior vehicle sims (not to criticise the work PR has done improving BF2), what makes PR great is the combined arms aspect of the game. The mix of different vehicles on different maps and having to use them together as a team keeps it fresh for me.

not to back seat moderate but you guys realize this thread is about 4 months old right, hell it's pre .75

Should be focused on all of the above and plus the whole book of war.

milobr wrote:I hate dense jungle maps (Mestia, Ghost Train, Fool's Road) because they remind me of Counter-Strike. Really, it's just pure chaotic. My best games are usually in desert maps like Ejod, Kashan, etc where you can employ a lot of infantry tactics and the game is much more like real war.

i agree...

I prefer long range battles. Also with more armor and aircrafts in bigger maps. Kashan desert is my only option for this kind of gameplay right now.