Project Reality Forums

Blakeman wrote:since the mod itself isn't trying to be as realistic as possible from what i've seen, only realistic to a point to be fun.

From all the complaints iv seen around the forums, Project Reality is trying to be as realistic as posible. but still enjoyable.

and if in reall life they do not have that equipment, they do not get it in game either. for me it wont be a problem.

About the airbase thing. thats more of a limitation then a "point of fun" besides of that going at eachother full power with all the guns tanks aircraft on a 17 km map is aweful lot of fun, even if the enemy mainbase is 5 minutes away.

i have a small feeling usmc WOULD get aavs in this scenario?

give em harrier/F-18/F-14 fighter support ( i know its not realistic having F-18s/F14s from the assult ship but it would simulate off map fighter support from a nimitz or somthing like that, or you could place an airstrip in the sea out of view distance)

who needs AAVs now?


also with regard to the new distances for the MANPADS, why not give them their realistic ranges?

SA-7 isnt that necessary for MEC as their Tunguska pwn, US army get crappy linebacker (which isnt use anymore) so balance it by having better MANPADS also, more fight support!!

Still think the US military would be stupid to keep their AA vehicles in retirement if they were facing the forces they do in PR, can you really see the US fighting without mobile AA if they were at war with China?

SuperTimo wrote:give em harrier/F-18/F-14 fighter support ( i know its not realistic having F-18s/F14s from the assult ship but it would simulate off map fighter support from a nimitz or somthing like that, or you could place an airstrip in the sea out of view distance)

who needs AAVs now?


also with regard to the new distances for the MANPADS, why not give them their realistic ranges?

SA-7 isnt that necessary for MEC as their Tunguska pwn, US army get crappy linebacker (which isnt use anymore) so balance it by having better MANPADS also, more fight support!!

F-14 was retired Timo, you of all people should know that. I agree though, give the USMC air support, but perhaps only the Harrier once the VTOL is perfected.

AnRK wrote:Still think the US military would be stupid to keep their AA vehicles in retirement if they were facing the forces they do in PR, can you really see the US fighting without mobile AA if they were at war with China?

I see all the other tech that is out there and think that it is almost obsolete to have an AA vehicle, don't know how it would pan out against a modern army though. This is only the USMC though, not the entirety of the US military.

As I said, if PR is going realistic then the USMC would need a major overhaul vehicle wise. If it were realistic it would have this....

Supply Truck - Current Truck is fine
Jeep - Humvee with .50 cal as current
Light APC - AAV-7 would be needed
Heavy APC - LAV-25 or the new EFV also called AAAV
Anti Air - Avenger or Manpads or just use US Army support
Tank - Abrams as current
Attack helo - Cobra as current
Light Attack Helo - use rocket equipped huey or huey with door guns, no crates
Light Transport helo - keep the huey for this but take away its crates
Heavy Transport helo - CH-53 Sea Stallion instead of Huey
Attack Jet - F/A-18 Hornet
Bomber - Harrier or Hornet set up for bombing.

That would be how I would set it up anyway. The USMC is a fast, mobile and amphibious force and not a static defender or 'dig in' style of military arm. This could be represented very well in PR if done right.

Wouldny the aav-7 be a heavy apc? Correct me if i am wrong

jbgeezer wrote:Wouldny the aav-7 be a heavy apc? Correct me if i am wrong

Well the standard one has a 40mm grenade launcher in its turret along with a .50 caliber machine gun. There is also a version with a bushmaster 25mm cannon.

If the 40mm launcher wasn't used then it would be similar in nature to the Stryker and could fill the ligher apc role. Being amphibious it would be a good fit for any landing operations per USMC SOP, but without the big guns the LAV-25 has.

If there were two versions where one had the 25mm bushmaster then it could fill both roles and would actually be a better fit overall, it would just require two new models instead of one.

How many guys could you get in there?

Haven't heard of the Marines actually deploying the Bushmaster equipped AAVP7, only testing the concept.

jbgeezer wrote:How many guys could you get in there?

20-24. Which is why it seems ridiculous to have it in game just to hold 6 men plus 2 crew. As much as I like the Chinook models, I feel even those are out of place. The AAVP7A1 intended replacements are two vehicles, the MPC and the EFV. The EFV can carry a reinforced rifle squad (17 men); again, limited seats. The MPC will carry a number of troops closer to what we are able to represent, but the platform has not yet been selected.

For those suggesting SLAMRAAM/CLAAWS (HUMRAAM), it is not in the same class as the Avenger. The missiles are not fired from the launch vehicle, but from a shelter or two that controls a battery of missiles.

Blakeman, as I've said before, it is not a matter of desire. We really would like to have all of this stuff, but our (and especially this engine's) resources are scarce.

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:Not strictly true there, Jaymz.

You haven't received a build with that specific change yet Mongol. It was made after 0.852...

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:You haven't received a build with that specific change yet Mongol. It was made after 0.852...

Owned But good to know