Project Reality Forums

IRL u use what u have by your hand, if it is an Axe, u will use it, if it is thonguska u will use it, but there are war rules and laws (Geneva Conventions) wich we support in PR like we do not support suecide humvee amerikanos becouse this is stricly forbiden for conv. forces. With other worlds, we respect Geneva Conventions, wich stricly forbid to conv. forces to use IED-s, some sort Anti-personel mines, suecide tactics, civilian live walls, different propose weapons used on infantry,...

And that is why we dont have bio-cemical weapons in PR

But yet again laws are made to be broken!

Some pll just not understand the tactics of Middles-East and Africa and they are saying they are opfor fan without know anything about them. I write it before and I will write it in here again.

First time AA guns(20 mm flak) used mainly against infantry and light armored vehicles in WW2. Also you can search about the conflicts in Africa and Middle-East for usage of AA cannons.

Also bluefor have accurate sniper/marksman rifles. Also bluefor mg and inf rifles have enough firepower and accuracy for engage with it. Also you can use mortars, granadier kits, AT kits and vehicles which have thermal(helis, apcs) can easily engage with it without have trouble.

Ok, learn to read what I said and quit being so indirect with your snide comments.

FOR GAME PLAY BALANCE was there not a developer move to limit the ZPU ability to completely rape infantry? If they implement this asset will it not just be a piss-poor excuse for giving INS team a counter balance to IFV/APCs when they already have loads of other options?

As far as I see it a lot of people around here must suck at OPFOR if they keep wanting to give them assets making them "conventional forces lite". They do not need any real buff, if you have problems taking on infantry with the techies we have learn to play better instead of wanting something to overcome your ineptitude with the current technicals. More technicals would be cool, but if everyone keeps adding assets without considering anything past "how much it will rape, and how cool it would be to have one. Also Blufor has a million weapon/assets why cant insurgents". Insurgents are normal people thrown into extraordinary situation (safe for battle hardened Taliban/Hamas), not some uberequipped professionally trained soldier with the financial backing of a government. And if you don't like the concept of having next to nothing equipment-wise how the hell could you consider yourself a redfor guy?

(bold and underlined my main point to avoid dumb comments like the prior poster)

Murphy wrote:Ok, learn to read what I said and quit being so indirect with your snide comments.

FOR GAME PLAY BALANCE was there not a developer move to limit the ZPU ability to completely rape infantry? If they implement this asset will it not just be a piss-poor excuse for giving INS team a counter balance to IFV/APCs when they already have loads of other options?

As far as I see it a lot of people around here must suck at OPFOR if they keep wanting to give them assets making them "conventional forces lite". They do not need any real buff, if you have problems taking on infantry with the techies we have learn to play better instead of wanting something to overcome your ineptitude with the current technicals. More technicals would be cool, but if everyone keeps adding assets without considering anything past "how much it will rape, and how cool it would be to have one. Also Blufor has a million weapon/assets why cant insurgents". Insurgents are normal people thrown into extraordinary situation (safe for battle hardened Taliban/Hamas), not some uberequipped professionally trained soldier with the financial backing of a government. And if you don't like the concept of having next to nothing equipment-wise how the hell could you consider yourself a redfor guy?

(bold and underlined my main point to avoid dumb comments like the prior poster)

agree, fully. The point of insurgency, or asymmetrical AAS against unconventional, is to make one side better equipped, and give the other side an advantage of terrain, or perhaps make it inherent with the gametype.

Case in point: AAS dragonfly: Militia start with 3 flags, brits start with 1. Brits get better armour pieces, a trans helo and other goodies. The militia have the ability to destroy bridges, and mine fords to keep the enemy at bay, along with their field cannons. Ins ramiel: Americans get far better equipment, but the caches are deep within the city, giving the INS the advantage when using IEDs, RPGs, mines and bombcars, along with the gametype that has them defend rather than attack which is inherently easier, also hideouts require no crates. Balance.

IF you give the INS team, or militia, or whatever more tools, then it potentially becomes imbalanced, get this, in favour of the INS. But wait, what about those totally imbalanced maps like karbala, and al basrah? Simple, look at how small the city is, and look at massive the desert it. Should be pretty obvious that the tanks, armour and helos totally excel in the desert, but rarely venture into the city. Subsequently caches last way longer in the city. IF caches last long in the city, but are impossible to defend outside of it, we can say that the map has parts that are balanced, and parts that are not. Because of that, we can conclude the imbalance is the fault of the MAP, not the ill equipped insurgents. Call for better map design, or a redesign or whatever. We can keep the insurgency totally ill equipped like they should be, and have blufor with all their fancy assets (I argue, jets and gunships are possible, too, but that may require more assets for ins..) like they should be, but achieve balance, which is the point off INS and asymetrical AAS

Honeslty if basrah, and karbala were redone to be 100% urban but remain with all those assets that would be brilliant. I love operating armour within cities on Ramiel, and fallujah, etc. Very exhilarating, and with different strategy from other battlefields.

Man this post is getting long, but whatever. Case in point for insurgents being OP: Korengal Valley. The americans do have better tools, yes, but the terrain and gametype favour the Taliban so well that they are too often victorious, and have some caches that are near impossible to take. This is a similar situation to over-equpping the the Insurgents. IF the insurgent's ability to win lies in map advantage, and the BLUFOR in weapon advantage, then if you take away, or weaken the advtange of the BLUFOR youre asking for imbalance. I say, that for the purpose of rebalancing maps, they need full redesigns, not giving the INS better tools. ALthough I dont totally oppose giving the INS new tools, changing maps, or new maps is a way better solution.

40mmrain wrote:The americans do have better tools, yes, but the terrain and gametype favour the Taliban

are hills going to stop my helicopter from hitting a cache?

we arent saying armor needs a stronger counter here, its airpower we want to keep in check.

the problem is turret traverse and damage on current techies. often i have camped blind corners or hills near caches so kiowas will see me after they have started their initial dives. but the problem is you cannot get enough rounds on them before they

1. rocket up above your traverse angle/fly right above you, and then simply kill you.
or
2. fly out of view distance, their entire payload already dropped on the cache defenders.

1 happens much more often than 2 because the kiowa is so damn maneuverable

so maybe make an AA tech that doesn't have a quad, but simply (i think you can do this through materials) loaded with AP rounds that do slightly (20-30%) more damage ONLY vs. helis and normal to everything else. this along with an AA mount/sight with almost vertical traverse would give insurgents a viable AA gun that, if used correctly could counter the dreaded kiowa dives.

The current .50 techies are actually very effective against the kiowa as it is fairly low on armor, but the issue is their speed and as you mentioned maneuverability. I guess the ZPU would need less hits to bring it down, but tracking/leading the SOB will be just as hard.

I'd bet in the end the ZPU techies would have about as much success vs helicopters as a .50 techie does based on the limited window of opportunity a good pilot will give you to bring him down. However they will certainly annihilate infantry in much the same manner an APC/IFV would, even if you limit their ammo (see AAV Hmvs .50 of doom) people will use this asset against infantry despite people saying they want it for AA.

FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON wrote:are hills going to stop my helicopter from hitting a cache?

we arent saying armor needs a stronger counter here, its airpower we want to keep in check.

Terrain does keep the balance in check. In Karbala, the kiowas fly around very freely in the desert, often. The enemies are out in the open, and obvious, in a techi vs kiowa fight in the desert the kiowa wins. However, in the city the AA kits, and the techis become far more difficult to handle. With so many roofs, streets, and cracks to hide in it's hard for the kiowa to engage the enemy even if it knows where the enemy is, and spotting the enemy is way harder. In the case of diving on caches and lingering, the urban caches have a much better time dealing with this. There is much more cover for AA users, and for guys on the ground near the cache to hid, along with a far more dangerous egress route for the kiowa. If the whole map becomes urban, this makes the kiowa far less efficient, and more balanced. Case in point: Ramiel, again. The kiowa on Ramiel is far less efficient than kokan or karbala, because the map is mostly urban.

also, for armour the ZPU2 and 4 are pretty dangerous for light armour pieces, so even though armour doesnt need a counter it gets one.

Isn't the ZPU technicals purpose to enable heavier CAS presence on new maps without meaning certain obliteration for the insurgents?

yeah, but we dont have any maps with apaches, and tigers vs insurgents, right now. I think for against kiowas, the zpu4 is unnecessary.

40mmrain wrote:yeah, but we dont have any maps with apaches, and tigers vs insurgents, right now. I think for against kiowas, the zpu4 is unnecessary.

You could have the ZPU4 as a non respawning asset on kiowa heavy maps for the sake of ballance. Though I agree, on maps without any BLUFOR CAS to counter a ZPU techy would be a bit extreme.

spiked_rye wrote:You could have the ZPU4 as a non respawning asset on kiowa heavy maps for the sake of ballance. Though I agree, on maps without any BLUFOR CAS to counter a ZPU techy would be a bit extreme.

What are you talking about???

If there will be no CAS bluefor still have apc, mortars, sniper/marksman and AT kits.

Also you can flank that techy, few rifleman or just 1 m249 mg can take out anyone inside that techy. Because techy vulnerable to anything. You can easily take out driver and gunner. And still you cry about, it will unbalance the game(even have tons of things to easily take it down). No it will not. Use what is in your hand(like you said to us.)


Also Murphy has some problem I think. Because WE ARE NOT SAYING "Blufor has a million weapon/assets why cant insurgents", WE ARE SAYING GIVE THE WHAT IS IN AND USED IN REAL LIFE.

If this is too hard to understand pls not comment about it.

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:;1743696'] WE ARE SAYING GIVE THE WHAT IS IN AND USED IN REAL LIFE.

Agreed, that this is a good thing. However, this should apply to both sides. I say, adding ZPU techis to already balanced Insurgency maps (Ramiel, kokan, korengal, archer etc.) would mean that the BLUFOR should have appropriate air assets, such as multiple scout helicopters, perhaps with ATGMs, and rockets, or a gunship. Then, for adding ZPU techis to maps that are imbalanced in favour of the BLUFOR (karbala, basrah, perhaps fallujah) would help the balance. Examples could be this.

Karbala changes: Insurgents now have a ZPU-2 technical to make mince of the kiowas, and to help counter the strykers.
Ramiel changes: Insurgents now have a ZPU-4 technical, marines receive a super cobra, and a LAV-25. US army get 1 Kiowa with 4x hellfire, one with 7 hydras, and an M3, and 2 stryker.
Archer changes: Taliban now have a ZPU-4 technical, canadians now have an F/A18D, that has 2 500lbers, 2 rocket pods, and guns, along with 1 lav 25. I know archer is only 2x2km, but if the pilot can fly out of bounds it shouldnt be a huge issue.

etc.

Well Desert Tiger I have some insight into your comment.

When the US or UK armed forces actually conducted these operations some maps are based off of they had SHIT LOADS MORE EQUIPMENT. Don't come here throwing "they have it in real life" bullshit around, that's poor grounds to add anything to a GAME. If we wanted to keep things like real life then we will have to add dozens of assets including jets to just about every map with very few exceptions. "They have it in real life" well sorry this may be aimed at reflecting warfare in a realistic manner but with the limitations presented by the games engine I do believe we could never accurately reflect the actual situation on the ground as truly intended by devs.

Have you never read a post concerning "game play > reality"? I like new toys as well, and when the SPG techie came around I was probably one of the most excited concerning the asset. It is a well thought out and nicely executed counter balance to armored assets where as this ZPU feels like people just want it for the rape factor as opposed to actually thinking beyond how cool it would be to get your hands on this.

If that is to hard to understand stfu.

Murphy wrote:Well Desert Tiger I have some insight into your comment.

When the US or UK armed forces actually conducted these operations some maps are based off of they had SHIT LOADS MORE EQUIPMENT. Don't come here throwing "they have it in real life" bullshit around, that's poor grounds to add anything to a GAME. If we wanted to keep things like real life then we will have to add dozens of assets including jets to just about every map with very few exceptions. "They have it in real life" well sorry this may be aimed at reflecting warfare in a realistic manner but with the limitations presented by the games engine I do believe we could never accurately reflect the actual situation on the ground as truly intended by devs.

Have you never read a post concerning "game play > reality"? I like new toys as well, and when the SPG techie came around I was probably one of the most excited concerning the asset. It is a well thought out and nicely executed counter balance to armored assets where as this ZPU feels like people just want it for the rape factor as opposed to actually thinking beyond how cool it would be to get your hands on this.

If that is to hard to understand stfu.

You just cant talk jet and zpu techy in same topic!!!

Because if you look at the some conflicts in Middle-East you can find zpu techy used by hezbollah, PLO(Palastine Liberation Organisation) and more mostly in urban battles. Just show me 1 jet attack while there is a ongoing close-combat but this zpu techies used in close-combat in urban battles.

Do some search what are we talking about not just try to be opposite.

lets not get too carried away here guys

I think ZPU will be a nice addition to gameplay and it is very easy to take out a guy who is sitting on a zpu since the person is a bit elevated off the floor
we can just have 1 cannon if people are so afraid of damage

ZPU-2, 2x20 rounds, and then somewhat long reload time, it isnt so bad.

Gaza strip never gets bombed.....CAS must mean something other then Close Air Support as well I assume.

Go check youtube and you won't have difficulty finding videos from US forces showing bombs being dropped close enough that the shock wave knocks men on their asses.

If there are checks and it is sensibly handled and not given out like candy I can see the asset being quite boss, at the same time I can foresee the absurdness of confrontations with said weapon. Have you ever tried to assault this weapon on Pavlovsk when it was manned? If it can chew a blackhawk up and spit it out in a matter of seconds on Kokan I shudder to think how a mobile version would work.

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:;1743696']What are you talking about???

If there will be no CAS bluefor still have apc, mortars, sniper/marksman and AT kits.

Also you can flank that techy, few rifleman or just 1 m249 mg can take out anyone inside that techy. Because techy vulnerable to anything. You can easily take out driver and gunner. And still you cry about, it will unbalance the game(even have tons of things to easily take it down). No it will not. Use what is in your hand(like you said to us.)


Also Murphy has some problem I think. Because WE ARE NOT SAYING "Blufor has a million weapon/assets why cant insurgents", WE ARE SAYING GIVE THE WHAT IS IN AND USED IN REAL LIFE.

If this is too hard to understand pls not comment about it.

All that I was trying to say was that many of the maps are quite well balanced as it is. Half the fun of INS side is being under equipped and making a kill against armour using teamwork and stealth. The only times I've not really had fun as an insurgent have been either; a) constantly attacked from the air with little or no chance to retaliate, or b) when BLUFOR have been sat in thier base, or elsewhere because of a lack of assets. This is why I think that a non respawning ZPU (or rocket) techy would be best for some maps, a respawning one on others.

Also I think a ZPU4 techy would be able to take out a pair of 50cal hummers with no bother, so if they took a standoff possition overlooking BLUFOR main, supported by a 50cal techy, and ammo runners, it'd be hard for BLUFOR inf to counter, if the marksman took out the gunner on the ZPU there would be pleanty of ins to take his place, and the 50 cal could provide cover whilst the ZPU was reloading. Those sort of tactics aren't what insurgency is about, its more about the asymmetrical hit and run.

How many times I need to say?

You have tons of thing to destroy it. And unless "spiked tye" thinks not entire team waiting on a techy for replace gunner. Also there is a time before gunner start to fire. Also that gunner will not have anything for cover himself from fire.

Also exprienced CAS user can take it out with come form higher heights without seen by zpu. Also nearly all ins maps are open areas instead of urban or hills and mountain and this also gives them highly negative effect when match with enemy inf.

Bluefor objective is not go directly on them and take them out too like opfor. So you need to be bit more carefull. With teamwork zpu-techy is nothing but you said opfor must play like a team and bluefor run&gun for win. Its only explaining for your thinking.

This is like other bluefor fans answer when we talk about TOW abuse in operation archer by bluefor from castle: use your mortars etc.

Same here use what you have. Bluefor have better inf rifles, mg s, sniper/marksman rifles, also have helicopter and apc support and with same opfor you have mortars

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:;1744361']There is a time before gunner start to fire. Also that gunner will not have anything for cover himself from fire.

True, but a 50 cal techy in a strong possition is hard enough to take out, particularly if the flanks are protected, there is a lot of metal between a ZPU gunner and what ever he is aiming at. Yes, he is vulnerable from the side, but the volume of fire, and range of the ZPU will allow it to engage from a standoff possition and shred inf and light vehicles coming out of main before they can flank.

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:Also exprienced CAS user can take it out with come form higher heights without seen by zpu.

Yes, which is why I am in favour of respawning ZPU techys on maps with CAS, and none respawning on maps with armed scout helicopters.

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:Also nearly all ins maps are open areas instead of urban or hills and mountain and this also gives them highly negative effect when match with enemy inf.

I don't agree, in an urban environment infantry can use cover to close in to the ZPU and engage the gunner effectively. In open environments the infantry would suffer deviation at long ranges, and cannot close the gap if the ZPU crew chose a strong location. Taking it out would require tanks or IFV (which is fair enough).

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:Bluefor objective is not go directly on them and take them out too like opfor. So you need to be bit more carefull. With teamwork zpu-techy is nothing but you said opfor must play like a team and bluefor run&gun for win. Its only explaining for your thinking.

I'm not sure I understand the last part, but yes, with some combind arms tactics a ZPU techy would be quite easy to eliminate. However, a 50cal techy in open ground isn't an easy task for unsupported infantry.

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:This is like other bluefor fans answer when we talk about TOW abuse in operation archer by bluefor from castle: use your mortars etc.

I'm not really a BLUFOR fanboy just because I'm not in favour of introducing a very powerful asset into a reasonabley well balanced environment without some kind of counter.

I have no problem with it being used as a sort of insurgent IFV (as it is IRL), however, IRL I would imagine that ZPU technicals are massively outnumbered by HMG technicals. On most maps there are maybe half a dozen armed techys, changing one to a ZPU techy with a normal respawn wouldn't really represent IRL deployment numbers, so on maps where there are no heavy BLUFOR air assets to counter I don't see why it shouldn't be treated like the BLUFOR tank on karbala, IE none respawning.

'Sgt.Desert Tiger[TR wrote:Same here use what you have. Bluefor have better inf rifles, mg s, sniper/marksman rifles, also have helicopter and apc support and with same opfor you have mortars

And yet somehow it's reasonably well balanced as it is. The key point to take home is this would be a VERY powerfull asset, and as such some restraint is needed when implementing it to avoid unbalancing a delicate ecosystem.