Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2008-03-16 23:31**

Assuming crews with equal skill, a CR2 will kill a BMP-3 at least 9 times out of 10. Therefore they cannot be considered equals. They are significantly more powerful than any other APC in PR, since they actually have a chance against tanks, but they still are not strong enough to take on an MBT head on.

Posted: **2008-03-19 08:26**

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:kilroy: MEC have 2 BMP-3 which have 100mm cannons (essentially the MEC have 6 tanks)

BMP-3 in PR is missing critical component: 9M117 Bastion. (ATGM)

Posted: **2008-03-19 11:40**

yes we know... will it be added? dunno

Posted: **2008-03-19 23:12**

Not even the wink? :/

Anyhow, adding the Bastion would be fantastic IMO. Good to hear the DEVs are thinking about it.

Posted: **2008-03-23 04:38**

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;626718']Um, on a back-of-an-envelope level, I'd estimate I have around 1500 hours on PR over three years. That experiencing the game "many many times" enough for you?

From the commander level, I'd say that given six or seven good squad leaders and players willing to follow their SL instructions, every map is winnable from every side.

Where it goes wrong is usually at the player level, not the map balancing angle. I've watched time and time again, waves of blue mob squads running:

From point A - a cluster of rallypoints between our flag and their flag.
To point B - their flag.

They keep dying, in their dozens, and they keep going back.

When usually what would win the flag within a few minutes is one squad rushing the front to distract the defender's attention whilst another pops around the back and kills the lot of 'em.

There are very few maps in PR that aren't pretty evenly balanced, and usually if they are unbalanced, a really good side can still win on the disadvantaged side.

Gulf of Oman WAC is possibly the only exception, where it's really really hard to get two flags and hold them as USMC, before the ticket bleed cripples you so badly you don't have a chance of winning.

EDIT:

Also, your poll options are completely misleading. Asymetric balance isn't about unfair fights, it's about giving both teams advantages and disadvantages, so that BOTH teams have an EQUAL chance to win, but they have to use DIFFERENT tactics and techniques to do so.

Example 1:

Symetrical balance is giving both sides four tanks that are evenly matched.
Asymetircal balance is giving team A six very powerful tanks, and team B two weaker tanks but also four fast-moving anti-tank vehicles.

------

Example 2:

Symetrical balance is giving both sides one helicopter and three APCs
Asymetrical balance is giving team A two tanks and an AAV, and team B four helicopters and two APCs.

amen.

Posted: **2008-03-23 11:25**

BloodBane611 wrote:Not even the wink? :/

Anyhow, adding the Bastion would be fantastic IMO. Good to hear the DEVs are thinking about it.

IMO we wont see it before we get the M2 for the US Army, with its TOW missiles. The the Warrior will be even more screwed than it is now! (need Warrior 2000 with 25mm chain gun & TOWs, or the mid life upgrade with 40mm

)

Anyway, as far as the infantry support role, the BMP-3 is equal to (if not better than, due to is ability to actually motor infantry about) a tank. It can enguage and destroy and ground viechles short of an MBT with ease, and can still do damage to said MBTs, and potentially take them out. And its armament is more flexible, with it having the 30mm autocannon, so even if is misses, say, a helicopter with its 100mm, it still has a good chance of taking it down with co-ax fire. Its not as powerful as the CR2 head on, but against any target other than an MBT the BMP-3 is pretty much as good.

In keeping things realistic, perhaps the warrior's armour should be upgraded (especially if its to be remodelled with the new spaced armour), as it is a very heavily armoured IFV in comparison to other examples

Posted: **2008-03-23 12:10**

if you were going to have real combat PLA troops would outnumber UK and USA troops by a lot! considering the PLA are
a)on home soil
b)have the largest army in the world
c)have lots of readily avalible cheap vehicles.

however due to 64 players even teams this cannot be shown.

i think it would be good to see maps where the PLA have more tanks (qwai) but the british and US have better methods for taking them out (tow humvees, harrier, A-10, Tornado!!!!!!) which makes it more balanced.

this i would like to see however having more PLA armour would restrict their amount of infantry which is a problem.

Posted: **2008-03-23 12:12**

Indeed, which is why the PLA currently in game represent the very best of their front line forces, equipped with thier best viechles and whatnot.

Posted: **2008-03-24 03:05**

Drude wrote:BMP-3 in PR is missing critical component: 9M117 Bastion. (ATGM)

Would love to see this. And if I'm not mistaken, the T-90 can fire these missiles too. I personally don't see it as a major balance issue if implemented, it would just be giving MEC crewman an alternative method for destroying enemy vehicles. I know if something like PoE2 can equip a guided missile in their T-55 tanks, I think the PR team could implement it well too. (Besides, it's been a while since the MEC or PLA got some goodies)

I'm not sure how big of a balance issue this would be, but I still think the Vodnik should finally be able to navigate the waters. It is amphibious in real life, so it work to a realistic advantage the MEC would really have.

Small things like that are more of what I'd like to see in terms of asymmetrical balancing.

Posted: **2008-04-15 13:32**

Asymmetrical strength between the two armys is the best! Because it's not always like 2 armys start up in a base and push to a front line to attack the enemy. Sometimes it's just attacking a defending army which have trenches, sandbags, machingeguns, AT guns and a lot of cover. And the attacker team just has to get some more vehicles like Tanks etc. to have a chance against the enemy.

I love those "attack-defend" maps (mostly carrier assaults). Everything else is to vanilla-like...

Posted: **2008-04-29 17:22**

BloodBane611 wrote:That's simplifying it far too much fuzzhead. The BMP-3s are not equal to the CR2s or the T90s, at best they are half tanks. They will never win against a challenger in a straight fight, even two of them against a CR2 will result in at least one of them dead unless both engage from the rear of the vehicle.

Not entirely true, as the BMP I was driving with a clan member managed to take out 2 CR2s before the third killing us, using "hit and run" I guess type tactics.

Posted: **2008-04-29 17:56**

crAck_sh0t wrote:i think it shouldn't be baanced...isurgency should be more unbalanced as currently the brits have nowhere near enough firepower on that map. in ral life we would have apaches , maybe US a10 support , artillery support.and on maps where its US vs MEC/china the US should have the advantage as they currently hve the best armed forcs in the world.

Yeah I was it to be real, but at the same time fair or else everyone will be wanting to be playing as the "Good" side. Like for Insurgents have it close city combat.

Posted: **2008-04-29 18:01**

US vs MEC/china the US should have the advantage as they currently hve the best armed forcs in the world.

Mmm, MEC is fictitious so who knows, and I wouldn´t say that the USA has the best armend forces (I´m not saying anyone does...).

Posted: **2008-04-30 11:15**

Psykogundam wrote:In player's opinions...

Do you think there should be a balance of power in game?
At the moment, some maps promote the use of tanks Vs APCs (eg:Quai, Zatar)
Do you agree with methods such as these.

Games should always be BALANCED, in that both teams have an equal chance of winning; however games IMO are much more fun if teams are asymmetrically designed (e.g. terran-protoss-zerg in Starcraft) as opposed to perfectly symmetrical (e.g. Team Fortress 2).

Balancing the chances for victory between 2 asymmetrically designed teams is the real tough part, though.

Posted: **2008-04-30 12:46**

What's this BMP-3 with an 100mm cannon everyone is talking about? Which map is it on?

Posted: **2008-04-30 12:52**

^ Al Kufrah Oilfield.

Posted: **2008-04-30 13:01**

I love it when 1 team got all the big guns (tanks and a-helos etc) and the other team don't really have anything. But I also like the maps where you got 2 really armys fighting. The only balance problem I see in pr right now is the CH2 who is way to overpower compared to other tanks in the game. I know that the devs love the brits but the CH2 should not be that good.

Posted: **2008-05-01 15:32**

I hate balance.

Posted: **2008-05-01 15:38**

Spaz wrote: The only balance problem I see in pr right now is the CH2 who is way to overpower compared to other tanks in the game. I know that the devs love the brits but the CH2 should not be that good.

Agree, this tank destroys not just every other tank it even destroy every balance. Seen on Kufrah the Mecs lose this map most of the time because of this.

Posted: **2008-05-10 23:48**

It can be beaten with good coordination, as proven by today's tourny battle, but it's rare on pub games.

Project Reality Forums

Balance

Re: Balance