Project Reality Forums

People are always saying stuff about how on Qwai the US should have piles of tanks if the PLA has them but really it seems weird that there should be a maximum of possible assets in a 2 to 4 km front populated by so few people.

There might very well be lots of tanks and planes in the theatre or on that particular front but for that little corner of the front it might just be that you're the guys that got stuck cut off from air support cause the Chinese somewhere else off the map did something to make it too dangerous or maybe your tanks got stuck in the mud a number of klicks back and so you have to hack it out with just your HATs and bridge blowing charges.

War is almost never about the exact specifications of whats in the TOE or what the Combined Arms people expect to happen in a clockwork operation. Wars last longer than 45 minutes so asymmetry in the specific tactical and strategic situation is an easily justified thing.

The last thing the US need on Qwai is tanks. They have the helicopters and TOW vehicles, they should use them appropriately to win.

It's a case of paper scissors rock; the TOW hummers beat the tanks which beat the helicopters which beat moving around on foot.

US have to move quickly via airlifts, using the TOWs to hunt the PLA tanks.
PLA have to move slowly via APCs and tanks, using vodniks and AAA/SAMs to kill the helicopters.

Oh go on, give the US an A-10.

I wouldnt mind maps where the scanario would imply that one side would have a somewhat inferior force, in terms of assets and kit requests, compaird to the oposition.

For example, a large networks of roads, east to west, with a large river going north to south. Forest/jungle level, like most PLA maps.
USMC have to get at least 3 bradlys,4 strykers and 5 Abrams(depends on 16-64p) from the west side of the map, to the east; while PLA forces have no assets, except the odd najing and DPV(Perhaps some of them TOWed?); their aim to disrupt the USMC reinforcements, trying to make it to central China(east side of the map).

-USMC MBTs and APCs are on a shorter spawn timer than usual
-PLA can request 2-4HAT(dependant on 16-64p
-PLA have no fixed flags, only random spawning points (like insurgent '(C)' spawns on basrah)around the map.
-On 64p, the PLA would have 1x WZ-10 attack chopper and the USMC 2x Linebacker Bradly AAV.
-The map consists of many networking roads, trails and tracks; some crossing fords, bridges and a dam.
-The would be more trails than the PLA could adequately defend; however, the PLA have 1x light scout chopper, to gather intel on enemy armour.

you get the jist.

...mongol...

I feel there should be some, but not total balance. Like one team should not be all infantry/light vehicles against a platoon of tanks an APCs. No army I can think of would willingly go into an engagement like that.

Each team should get different assets that serve to counter the other team's, but not identical. And one tank/helicopter/plane should not be identical to another. They should each have their advantages.

Symplify wrote:I feel there should be some, but not total balance. Like one team should not be all infantry/light vehicles against a platoon of tanks an APCs. No army I can think of would willingly go into an engagement like that.

Not all factions that may be defending have willingly gone into battle. Possibly cought off guard?

Symplify wrote:Each team should get different assets that serve to counter the other team's, but not identical. And one tank/helicopter/plane should not be identical to another. They should each have their advantages.

Mongolian Dudes idea covers this too. One advantage that the PLA would have in this situation would be a more stealthy approach. It's kinda hard to sneak around in a tank.

I see that you're kinda torn between symmetrical and asymmetrical balance and must have chosen option 3.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just unsure of exactly what kind of balance you'd prefer.

And, yeah, Mongol, Maps that work like that're mint. I hope more PR battles are pushed this way...

In RL,things are never really balanced out in combat/conflicts,so I vote :

"I want Asymmetrical strength between the two armys (Different assets on each team)"

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:I wouldnt mind maps where the scanario would imply that one side would have a somewhat inferior force, in terms of assets and kit requests, compaird to the oposition.

dont we already have that in counterattack?

asymetrical balance is realistic and true competition in gaming.

also it forces the team with "less" assets to get in touch with tactic and strategies.

zomg! people are still using this thread? CLOSE IT, CLOSE IT NOW! I HAVE CREATED A MONSTOR!!!

no !! lol

keep the flame alive ! i'm tired of those vanilla style, mirror-like sides.

yes close it. not to mention the poll was a landside, the mod is called project reality. reality isnt equal. A good enemy or 'worthy adversary' will use what he has to do what he can, most often through a change in tacics. Adapting and overcoming is the name of the game.

you forgot the option

AWESOMNESS- Assymetrical Strengths and WEAKNESSES on both armies, sometimes allowing for inbalanced gameplay that allows people to show they have SKILL over BIGGER GUNS.

wow.... Dont you think, thats it is little late to add a new option? xD

I prefer it when even the weapons and kits themselves are asymmetrical. Having varying standards of equipment makes the game more fun. Kind of like the Zeros versus the Corsairs in WW2 fighter games. The Zero is very agile but lacking armor while the Corsairs were rugged and heavier and due to their weight could easily dive away from the Zeros if needed. I like it because you have to employ different tactics depending upon which side you're on and it makes each side much more interesting.

In PR you could do things like have one tank be very agile and well equipped like an M1 TUSK but have the other side have ATGMs on their tank. The TUSK would excel and maneuverability, anti-light armor, and anti-infantry while the other has a devastating anti-armor weapon the other lacks (canons aside). This not only changes how the tanks are used but how they engage each other and how they are supported or provide support.

When we talk about asymetrical balance here, I don't think of making maps where one side gets tanks, but one side gets helicopters (although that is asymetrical balance of a sort). I think of changing the equipment of each side so that it forces you to play differently at every level. The fact that every army on every map (militia and ins excluded) have nearly identical kit loadouts, and identical requestability is a bit meh. These nations have substantially different tactical doctrines (or would have) so it doesn't stand to reason that they'd equip their troops to fight to NATO doctrine.

Psykogundam wrote:Hey! COOL! you nearly have as much as me.

So your saying, a good tank versus a good HAT is fair?
i dont know about everyone else, but i still find it difficult to fire that thing in time. but, however, there are still TOWs to rely on.

over 1500 hrs and you still cant use a HAT properly??

Since the HAT takes a long time to set up and aim you have to find a good place to hide and good angle of attack. Usually I stay hidden until I'm told that the turret is facing the other way or I fire it from a distance from a location that isn't obvious or near a huge concentration of friendlies. The biggest problem people have is that they are too anxious to use it and end up getting killed. Sort of like the people who try to creep out and look at the APC that is shooting in their general direction. I have no idea why people are so anxious to get themselves killed.

Balance=/=Sameness

LF, something can be very different but still balanced. Current experiments into that theme are the Strykers, Militia and Insurgent Factions and TOW Humvees.