Project Reality Forums

[R-CON]Outlawz wrote:I seriously don't get why some people have this obsession with 'everything that's NATO must be "1337WTFBBBQPWENZOROMG!!!!!!!", every war game I played always had this 'US r leetz' in it and I'm getting tired of it, why can't we play a game where the opfor is equal/superior to the blufor for once?

UH what the USA is not "1337WTFBBBQPWENZOROMG!!!!!!!" ??? im sure they are Last Time I looked (: lol

But I do agree with you.

I would like to see Mec tanks slower (weaker engine) and (20% weaker over all ) but have 3 more of these weaker Mec tanks please stop re skinning the same tank to look different then there not!

Oh them SS of the Abrams tank's 4 dead tanks vs wtf i forget the amount the Abrams killed.

make the Abrams need more Ammo too to act like it needs gas because irl they suck gas up bad aka needs more ammo lol.

OH and the Bradly APC Tow missile need's to be shoot able when your shooting heat/anti armor im sure i seen a video of this beast of a apc shooting both in a training field.

but now that would just be to OP nvm i forgot the tow is a wtf i pwned you missile

[R-CON]Outlawz wrote:I seriously don't get why some people have this obsession with 'everything that's NATO must be "1337WTFBBBQPWENZOROMG!!!!!!!", every war game I played always had this 'US r leetz' in it and I'm getting tired of it, why can't we play a game where the opfor is equal/superior to the blufor for once?

Exactly my way of thinking, hope someone makes a OPFOR game xD

Some people think and want that the USA is owning everyone. This can be clearly seen e.g. on the work which is going into US/UK- Factions and PLA/MEC-Factions.

MEC is supposed to be a agglomeration of Middle East countries so they have a lot of financial ressources and if one is being realistic then one have to assume, if MEC have the money they will get what they want, because armaments industry will not make any difference - money counts. Maybe give the MEC some Leopard 2, Krauss Maffei would sell them.

And why is everybody assuming that only USA/NATO country are able to develop High-Tech weapons, are those countries the only ones with intelligent peoples in it, come on...

If we would be realistic on this, PLA would own every faction, because they have High-Tech weaponry and they would simply outnumber every opponent, by IDK maybe 1 to 1000. It is not like USA is superoveruber leet. The point is that USA is the only country, which is spending this huge amount of money on their military, if other countries would do that as well, they would be as strong as the US forces, maybe stronger. And in PR the other countries are at war, so one can be sure, they would spend a lot more money on their military. Make up your mind.

Edit: And where is the fun and the challenge, if one is sitting in a tank, which is hardly destroyable...that's pretty lame, isn't it?

Cpt.Kawakowitsch wrote:Some people think and want that the USA is owning everyone. This can be clearly seen e.g. on the work which is going into US/UK- Factions and PLA/MEC-Factions.

MEC is supposed to be a agglomeration of Middle East countries so they have a lot of financial ressources and if one is being realistic then one have to assume, if MEC have the money they will get what they want, because armaments industry will not make any difference - money counts. Maybe give the MEC some Leopard 2, Krauss Maffei would sell them.

And why is everybody assuming that only USA/NATO country are able to develop High-Tech weapons, are those countries the only ones with intelligent peoples in it, come on...

If we would be realistic on this, PLA would own every faction, because they have High-Tech weaponry and they would simply outnumber every opponent, by IDK maybe 1 to 1000. It is not like USA is superoveruber leet. The point is that USA is the only country, which is spending this huge amount of money on their military, if other countries would do that as well, they would be as strong as the US forces, maybe stronger. And in PR the other countries are at war, so one can be sure, they would spend a lot more money on their military. Make up your mind.

Edit: And where is the fun and the challenge, if one is sitting in a tank, which is hardly destroyable...that's pretty lame, isn't it?

Yes to some of your post no to the part about PLA i can smell the gibe A bomb all over again (:

i dont know if i was in a tank that cant die by a crapy tank and a jet flys by i start moving lol

SuperTimo wrote:mobility kills my arse

those look exactly like the wrecks we have in PR.

Look where the damage is. Not one of them has a hull penetration in those photos.

Anyway, the M1A2 should be quieter than the other tanks.

Cpt.Kawakowitsch wrote:And why is everybody assuming that only USA/NATO country are able to develop High-Tech weapons, are those countries the only ones with intelligent peoples in it, come on...

People just need to compare an US exoskeleton an an Japanese one, now who are the smartest

I guess Japan will me the first to create a functional Mech, cant wait for that time

According to this documentary a number of Abrams were disabled by
the first generation of ATGM's ("fagot" (1960-197x)) in Iraq back in 2003.
YouTube - Udarnaya Sila (Ударная Сила фагoт, кoнкурс ) 1/4 (RUS)


I would love to see ATGM's implemented for the Russian made
tanks in future PR releases.BMP3 is one of my favourite vehicles now in the 0.85. Credit should go to all the guys (aka forum whores) for putting a bit of pressure on the DEV team to get the realistic load out for it.Thanks for listening Jaymz and Co.!!!
(BMP3 on Kufra thread was in 0.8 feedback)

I actually want the Tunguska back, now AAVs are two manned it seems like the idea asymmetry vehicle

[R-CON]Outlawz wrote:I seriously don't get why some people have this obsession with 'everything that's NATO must be "1337WTFBBBQPWENZOROMG!!!!!!!", every war game I played always had this 'US r leetz' in it and I'm getting tired of it, why can't we play a game where the opfor is equal/superior to the blufor for once?

That is vBF2 and PR (currently). Of course, you have these people who want MEC to have third world equipment, which totally defeats the purpose of the faction.

Hotrod525 wrote:Well, NATO had the most advanced tech, most advanced armor, most advanced aircraft. That dosent mean the Russian/China stuff is bullshit. The fact NATO is 19 country put together working on creating always better stuff, sharing technologie, etc... When you have to work on you're own whit no help and many embargo (like China) its more expansive to build hitech 1337 thing, so Quantity became you're Quality.

Best example of that : Sherman/T34 against Tiger...

Lol wut? I must have misunderstood you completely because thats probably the worst example you could give.

Nazi Germany only had 2 allies (italy and japan) and they didn't exactly help much and the world wasn't very keen on trading with Hitler. Yet they managed to squeeze out tanks that made the allied tanks look silly. The German tanks where far superior to the allied tanks 1 on 1, the allied only won because of quantity.

Solid Knight wrote:Look where the damage is. Not one of them has a hull penetration in those photos.

I suppose the hole in the right armor plate on the turret is a ventilation hole on this one?


But I agree, 3 pictures doesn't really say anything.

Asymmetrical Tank warfare is coming in a future release.....

Main gun reload times

Abrams/Challenger : 6 seconds (manual loaders)

T72M1M & Future PLA MBT : 8 seconds (auto loaders)

Asymmetrical balance will come through when 9M117 missiles (and PLA equivalents) are added to all "OPFOR" Tanks. These will have a switch delay of 15 seconds, with an 8 second reload time.

9M117* & TOW** damage vs MBT armour

Front : 2 = Destroyed

Side : 1 = On fire -> Destroyed

Back : 1 = Destroyed


*Currently found on the BMP-3

**Set as the standard "Mobile TOW" used on the Bradley and the TOW HMMWV.

ghoststorm11 wrote:I still stand by the fact that we are playing project reality and not project fantasy superpower.

PR is about realistic and tactical warfare, not realistic political and economical situations.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:Asymmetrical Tank warfare is coming in a future release.....

nice, thats pretty good news.

Should be interesting...

not quite what I myself had in mind, but it will certainly encourage tanks to stick together.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:nice, thats pretty good news.

Should be interesting...

not quite what I myself had in mind, but it will certainly encourage tanks to stick together.

Yea, gotta say, I'm deeply in love with tanking, and a squad setup with one tank one it's main gun and another with the missile could work out well with good coordination.

yummy

Cpt.Kawakowitsch wrote: Maybe give the MEC some Leopard 2, Krauss Maffei would sell them.

Pretty sure a company working whit NATO will NOT sale any hardware to hostile country.

Cpt.Kawakowitsch wrote: And why is everybody assuming that only USA/NATO country are able to develop High-Tech weapons, are those countries the only ones with intelligent peoples in it, come on...

We dont say that, but its a fact that NATO had more advanced stuff live whit it.

Cpt.Kawakowitsch wrote: If we would be realistic on this, PLA would own every faction, because they have High-Tech weaponry and they would simply outnumber every opponent, by IDK maybe 1 to 1000. It is not like USA is superoveruber leet. The point is that USA is the only country, which is spending this huge amount of money on their military, if other countries would do that as well, they would be as strong as the US forces, maybe stronger. And in PR the other countries are at war, so one can be sure, they would spend a lot more money on their military. Make up your mind.

Last time i check, the U.S. still had the biggest navy, and the biggest airforce in the world. China do had more soldier, yeah. But they are far from having all the firepower the U.S. does.

Cpt.Kawakowitsch wrote: Edit: And where is the fun and the challenge, if one is sitting in a tank, which is hardly destroyable...that's pretty lame, isn't it?

Its not cause enemy tank had difficulty to destroy it that made you invulnerable, attack helo, jet airstrike, coordinated infantry, tanks squad... in other word teamwork, will acheive to take out anything.

Emnyron wrote:You`re trying to convince me that the Honeywell AGT1500C makes LESS noice then for instance a Model 84 V-84 12-cyl. diesel.. Right..
Granted that the Diesel engines make a hellova noice, but a turbine engine does not? Sorry, I dont buy it.. Not to mention the awesome thermal print the M1A1-2 series have..

Read up on it. You can start with Wikipedia. I got my information from documentaries though.

Best leave that kind of facts to the MAs boys, sounds like the kind of thing you need to experience IRL to have an informed opinion on.

Hotrod525 wrote:Pretty sure a company working whit NATO will NOT sale any hardware to hostile country.

Hm, I think you are a bit blind on this.

Arms sales to Iraq 1973â$“1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq

IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR,

Arms Suppliers Eye Post-Sanctions Libya - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

It is only 10mins with google. So when the armament industry is able to make money, they will do so through offical or inoffical canals.

Hotrod525 wrote:Last time i check, the U.S. still had the biggest navy, and the biggest airforce in the world. China do had more soldier, yeah. But they are far from having all the firepower the U.S. does.

This is only because the US is constantly involved in some wars and the other nations aren't involved so much in fighting other nations. But as it is in PR PLA/MEC are also involved in heavy fighting, so they would also put a lot of their industrial productivity into producing weapons and especially china would produce a lot of modern killing toys.

Hotrod525 wrote:Its not cause enemy tank had difficulty to destroy it that made you invulnerable, attack helo, jet airstrike, coordinated infantry, tanks squad... in other word teamwork, will acheive to take out anything.

I can't stand this argument any more, how about if the opponent is capable to use the same amount of teamwork as your team. This argument is so senseless.

Hotrod525 wrote:China do had more soldier, yeah. But they are far from having all the firepower the U.S. does.

That is maybe what you feel like, but in reality nobody knows what the PLA is able to do, it is even very hard to find any pictures of chinese military equipment, so how can you know that. I don't know that either, but what I do know is, that china is one of the biggest high-tech country in the world. I guess some of the electronics used in modern killing toys of the NATO/USA is produced in china. So by considering the industrial productivity of this country it is most likely that china is able to produce a lot of firepower, if there were at war. And in PR they are, so try to look beyond one's own nose.

And of course you would say all the same things about the German faction they say about the US one. The real one, that is. Anyways, I would also like to see America get wtfstomped by some other nation. It is time those imperialistic pigs stopped being just like everyone else.

I really wish the MEC would get a locally produced tank or two

Come on guys, they're *fictional*; use that to your advantage!

M.