Project Reality Forums

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:It works at a distance. That is what really matters.

Agree, but in BF2, troops are easy to spot in the distance if you have a decent resolution/graphics. Even if they have a near perfect camo, you can still see them pretty clearly... its just BF2 is all

Im holding the thought that we should wait oto see the camo in both worlds before we start knocking it

[R-CON]OkitaMakoto wrote:Agree, but in BF2, troops are easy to spot in the distance if you have a decent resolution/graphics. Even if they have a near perfect camo, you can still see them pretty clearly... its just BF2 is all

Im holding the thought that we should wait oto see the camo in both worlds before we start knocking it

Well of course you have the view distance problem in PR, but at comparable distances, the camo does help.

IMO, the Army should only be in urban maps ingame which is probably more realistic anyway and the Marine Corps on urban maps and the limited jungle maps.

The Army gets sent where its told, just like the Marines. The ground services can only specialize so much before it becomes a hindrance, and the army and Marines are not the US MOUT and Bush Divisions, respectively.

The m4's wont be full auto right? Just semi and burst right?

DavidP wrote:The m4's wont be full auto right? Just semi and burst right?

Yes. That has been discussed multiple times.

[R-CON]GeZe wrote:Yes. That has been discussed multiple times.

Sorry did'nt see it.

I wonder how many threads will pop up, in the bug forum, regarding the auto capacity of the new M4's being broken, in 0.7...

[R-CON]OkitaMakoto wrote:Agree, but in BF2, troops are easy to spot in the distance if you have a decent resolution/graphics. Even if they have a near perfect camo, you can still see them pretty clearly... its just BF2 is all

Im holding the thought that we should wait oto see the camo in both worlds before we start knocking it

But its fixed in COD4!

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2002 ... qo1eo3.jpg

(Sorry for going offtopic )

[R-CON]GeZe wrote:Yes. That has been discussed multiple times.

w00t??? Where is the discussion-thread?

Simply just put US Army in urban maps and let the GB and USMC have those stupid grassy maps

Jonny wrote:Is there a difference in the kind of enemy the army would fight compared to who the marines would fight?

ie, the army fights insurgent-type force, and defends large areas of land and occupies towns/cities while the marines take the brunt of any infantry assault and deal with a much more organised enemy?

No; see my previous post.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:The Army gets sent where its told, just like the Marines. The ground services can only specialize so much before it becomes a hindrance, and the army and Marines are not the US MOUT and Bush Divisions, respectively.

Actually, if it is a spearhead or assault as in the beginning of a war or a major battle that requires a huge push, then the Marines would be sent it. So on maps like Oman are perfect for the USMC, while maps like Basrah for instance, would be more about storyline or what is currently happening. Yea, the British are in control of Basrah, but if they weren't for example, then the Army would be occupying it but if it required a major offensive, then the Marines would go in.

Makes sense to have the USMC on a map like Kyongan Ni or EJOD because they are assault maps and the Army on a map like Kashan for instance or other defensive type maps.

But I guess it really doesn't matter at this point. IMO, the Army should have its own custom maps instead of trying to be on USMC maps, which is probably what is going to happen anyway.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Actually, if it is a spearhead or assault as in the beginning of a war or a major battle that requires a huge push, then the Marines would be sent it.

Spearheads or assaults at the beginning of a war . . . I see. Such as the "Marine" 75th Ranger Regiment parachuting into Afghanistan (and Grenada and Panama), the "Marine" VIIth Corps and XVIIIth Airborne Corps leading the push into Iraqi territory in 1991, and those "Army" peacekeeping troops in Beirut in 1983, when a huge push wasn't required. The Marines, however, were first into Kuwait City.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Spearheads or assaults at the beginning of a war . . . I see. Such as the "Marine" 75th Ranger Regiment parachuting into Afghanistan (and Grenada and Panama), the "Marine" VIIth Corps and XVIIIth Airborne Corps leading the push into Iraqi territory in 1991, and those "Army" peacekeeping troops in Beirut in 1983, when a huge push wasn't required. The Marines, however, were first into Kuwait City.

As I said before, it depends on the storyline.

Grenada

After the rangers had secured the runway, 800 more troops would land, freeing the rangers to press northward where they were to secure the safety of American medical students and bring under control the capital of St. Georges. At the end of the first day in Grenada, the Rangers had secured the airfield and True Blue Campus at a cost of five dead and six wounded. Once the Rangers had secured the runway, elements of the 82nd Airborne Division landed, and late in the evening of the 26th the 82d Division's 3d Brigade began to deploy across the island. In the north, 400 Marines would land and rescue the small airport at Pearls.

There is a difference between being first on the ground, and spearheading a main force. The Marine Corps is spearheading a main force there, but it was also a join operation, so the Army and other units were doing their part as well.


And talking about the current, when the war in Afganistan broke out, the Marine Corps was one of the forces which attacked from the sea and went pretty far inland, which was unusual for the USMC up to that point. So if you don't consider that a spearhead(from the sea to the mainland), then I don't know what is.

and those "Army" peacekeeping troops in Beirut in 1983, when a huge push wasn't required.

Not sure what you mean here, the USMC was the peacekeeping force in Beirut.


The Marine Corps needs the Army to help sustain itself for long durations or spearheads, but even the Army agrees that the Marine Corps is a spearhead force. The Army's main job is to occupy, the Marine Corps main job is to spearhead and then go on its way like with Fallujah etc. But if the Army is currently occupying an area and needs to clear something out, of course they will probably do it. But that would usually be a specialized unit like the Rangers or Airborne, not the regular Army forces.

Not sure what you mean here, the USMC was the peacekeeping force in Beirut.

I reckon he was being sarcastic, because you said that the army is defense and all the marines do is assault-type operations

Ugh...Ok, let me just tell you that in modern times there really isn't much difference between the U.S. Army's mission and the Marines. More often than not they are the same. True spearhead missions are generally done by Army Rangers (i.e. securing airfields) or by the 82nd Airborne Division.

The Marines are a Corp of the Department of Navy. Traditionally they would get off boats and attack beachheads under one central command. Nowadays their job could be just as easily done by an Army division. But try telling that to a Jarhead.

LeggyStarlitz wrote:Ugh...Ok, let me just tell you that in modern times there really isn't much difference between the U.S. Army's mission and the Marines. More often than not they are the same. True spearhead missions are generally done by Army Rangers (i.e. securing airfields) or by the 82nd Airborne Division.

The Marines are a Corp of the Department of Navy. Traditionally they would get off boats and attack beachheads under one central command. Nowadays their job could be just as easily done by an Army division. But try telling that to a Jarhead.

No, the Marine Corps does more with less. We get the funds and sh*t the Navy doesn't use which seperates us from the Army.(I am kidding here, but that is what most of us say) The Marine Corps main mission is to attack a point and then move on. Yes, that has changed with the Afganistan and Iraq wars, but who has the bulk of the forces in Iraq? Yes, the Army. But, what if Congress says they do not want to send the Army into do something? Then, the President has the authority to send in the Marines since we take orders directly from the President. IF we are talking about the "first" spearheads, then that of course is the special forces, but in general, the USMC's mission is to attack, not occupy because of logistical issues. I am sure the Rangers are for more "special" missions because that is what they are trained for. The Marine Corps is trained for a specific mission, but if another arises, we just adapt as is the case now.

I reckon he was being sarcastic, because you said that the army is defense and all the marines do is assault-type operations

I am talking about battles and war, not peacekeeping operations. I am sure that the Marines were doing that because it was easy for the Navy to stay off the coast and provide logistics while the Marines were inland and doing those peacekeeping missions. That is something the Army couldn't do because they have their own logistics and don't depend on the Navy. I am not saying the Army cannot do peacekeeping, but it is easier for the Marines to do it since they are generally already in an area with the Navy.

But try telling that to a Jarhead.

Yep, that could be part of it.

So what will the kit layout be?

M4 as Assault Rifle
M24 as Sniperrifle
XM110 ?? as Marksmanrifle
M4-M203 as Grenadier