Project Reality Forums

Could not find any feedback thread on this map, so I'll make this one.

Pretty much all I have to say is that the armor between the two teams is pretty horribly unbalanced in my personal opinion. The fact that every Chinese APC and Tank gets ATGMs is quite ridiculous. Only one German IFV gets ATGMs and even those have to be sitting still to be fired.

The Chinese APCs can take on Leopards while four out of the five German Pumas stand zero chance at fighting enemy tanks.

For Infantry the Cap radius of some flags is too small (50m on some Flags), that makes them a pretty easy target for armor and CAS and doesnt fit to the size of the Map.

Steeps wrote:Pretty much all I have to say is that the armor between the two teams is pretty horribly unbalanced in my personal opinion. The fact that every Chinese APC and Tank gets ATGMs is quite ridiculous. Only one German IFV gets ATGMs and even those have to be sitting still to be fired.

The Chinese APCs can take on Leopards while four out of the five German Pumas stand zero chance at fighting enemy tanks.

Eh, I agree that some of the Chinese IFVs should be swapped for the 30mm w/o ATGMs but it's not like we haven't had T-90s and BMPs with ATGMs out the *** against Abrams and Bradleys that had to stop to fire ATGMs before too (not sure if they still do). It really requires a change in tactics. PLA gets offensive advantage, Germany gets defensive advantage.

Biggest problem I have had so far with Wanda is the strange lag-bug that apparently happens when trying to fly away from the base in CAS where the Tiger (and possibly the Z-10?), where you flip completely upside-down instantaneously and generally cannot recover.
Also feel like it would be beneficial for Germany to have more G-Wagens.

Wanda Shan co-op standard bug: Chinese forces cannot spawn at their main base, only at two secundary spawn points that are meant for infantry. This means that while the Germans roll in with their vehicles, the Chinese will have to walk 10 minutes in the opposite direction of the capture points to get their vehicles. Pls fix it.

ghostfool84 wrote:For Infantry the Cap radius of some flags is too small (50m on some Flags), that makes them a pretty easy target for armor and CAS and doesnt fit to the size of the Map.

Agreed. And it doesn't help that many of the flags are in locations surrounded by open ground (the farm and town come to mind) making it practically impossible to get infantry to these areas when enemy armor is around. The difficulty of using the German and Chinese HATs makes it even tougher. Making the cap zones larger would definitely help, allowing infantry to build TOWs and other emplacements in the woods where there's cover.

Chinese HAT is one of the best you can have for long range(after Matador), only downside is that it has no deviation indicator and a really, really long settle time. Can't say that it's ill-suited for this map, it just strains your patience, if you have to move your crosshair due to armour moving you best start counting down from 15 again.

I think it was the complicated reticule that confused me and made me miss my targets. So it flies in a straight line, right? I'll give it another try. Also, what's the logic behind giving only certain HATs brackets?

fatalsushi83 wrote:I think it was the complicated reticule that confused me and made me miss my targets. So it flies in a straight line, right? I'll give it another try. Also, what's the logic behind giving only certain HATs brackets?

Chinese HAT flies straight (don't know the max. range though), you don't need to adjust the drop. But it has very long deviation settle time. A few days ago I tried to kill a Warrior on Shija valley. I aimed it for ~12 seconds, I fired, the rocket hit the ground
It's not laser or wire guided, so if you miss when you launch, it's gone man. With Eryx/SRAW you can at least fix the flying path.

It's confusing HAT but its good if you know how to use it.

Yea the PF98 does not have ballistic drop, yet. Deviation is the same as for other HATs. This is a bit much as it is not guided. Looking at other unguided HATs it is a bit mixed up. Some have LAT deviation and some guided HAT deviation. E.g. the tandem RPG has LAT deviation and PZF3 has guided HAT deviation. Will talk with others and maybe we normalize this a bit more.

I would very much welcome having settle markers for all HAT kits, certainly makes it much easier to utilize them without having to pray for the deviation to be settled. I hope you don't mind me suggesting this, but it would be a neat little thing to see the deviation being tweaked according to weight, effective distance and the type of shot(unguided, guided, "straight").

If it gets LAT deviation, it would not get deviation brackets, else we would have to add it to all LATs as well tbh.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:If it gets LAT deviation, it would not get deviation brackets, else we would have to add it to all LATs as well tbh.

Make it work like Matador? (brackets & unguided HAT)

Madar_al_Fakar wrote:Wanda Shan co-op standard bug: Chinese forces cannot spawn at their main base, only at two secundary spawn points that are meant for infantry. This means that while the Germans roll in with their vehicles, the Chinese will have to walk 10 minutes in the opposite direction of the capture points to get their vehicles. Pls fix it.

No one noticed this comment?? :/

The map seems really unfair armor-wise now. I understand that the Chinese tanks are better than the leopards due to their ATGMs, but it seems really skewed now.

The Chinese get 1 tank and 2 IFVs (with the bad Malyutka atgm, that has much lower accuracy than other ATGMs).

The Germans get 3 leopard tanks and 2 pumas with the SPIKE atgm. Sure you have to be stationary, but at least it's accurate. I prefer the puma with SPIKEs over the chinese IFV.

Anyway, the tank matchup seems real unfair now. The Chinese need another tank, or more IFVs with ATGM. Once the Chinese tank is dead, it is not very hard for the German team to steamroll the rest of the Chinese team by grouping the tanks up.

I don't really know how to fix this, maybe add a Chinese tank and remove an IFV? Maybe add an Anti-tank vehicle to the Chinese side? Maybe remove the stationary requirement for the Bradley and Puma? Because there is no gun stabilization, it's effectively impossible to fire while moving anyway. I never got the rationale for having to be stationary for a while before the ATGM unlocks.

It might be personal preference but the Malyutka is a beast of death, it is very deadly and the deployment time on the ATGM means it can engage much quicker than the Pumas. I think assets are a bit closer to even than previous poster let on, but I do agree that the Leopards generally rule the map with their mobility and decent rate of fire on the main gun. If they go toe to toe against the Chinese armor they usually come out on top, ATGMs aren't as deadly as they once were and take more practice to get used to the more wonky ones.

Murphy wrote:It might be personal preference but the Malyutka is a beast of death, it is very deadly and the deployment time on the ATGM means it can engage much quicker than the Pumas. I think assets are a bit closer to even than previous poster let on, but I do agree that the Leopards generally rule the map with their mobility and decent rate of fire on the main gun. If they go toe to toe against the Chinese armor they usually come out on top, ATGMs aren't as deadly as they once were and take more practice to get used to the more wonky ones.

The Malyutka is a death trap if they sight you, the travel time is ridiculous. It's a flanking weapon, and the Chinese deserve another ZTZ-98\99.

Malyutka would've still worked fine on this if it was 1.2. In 1.3 it's not as good so the chinese need either more atgm apcs or tanks. Or just 1 ATGM vehicle.

So from what I've played of this map in 1.3, this needs balancing again. I know my feedback was clearly taken in the original post... but was seriously stacked the opposite way, that's not balance, that's just switching the unbalance to the other side.

My point being, I don't know how these assets look balanced in any way. I've played this map three times in 1.3 and it's a German blitzkrieg destruction every time.

3 Leopard 2A6 vs. 1 Chinese MBT? I'm not even close to comprehending how that happened. On top of that, there are now 2 Pumas with ATGMs that one shot the Chinese MBT to front armor.

Then you pit a Tigre against the HJ-8 Z-9? What? Oh let's give China an AAV, but nothing more to deal with the fact there are three Leopard 2A6s? Oh yeah, they also have no delay so it is truly an armor blitzkrieg.

I'm baffled.

Steeps wrote:snippety

This. Then there's the issue of this map having too much armor anyway. Barely any hard cover for infantry, too much armor for this kind of map. I would suggest 2 Leopards vs 2 ZTZ-99s but give china 3 APCs and for Germany either 1 or 2 Puma IFV and 1-2 APCs. The IFV Pumas would hopefully be enough to level the field with Leo vs ZTZ.

v1.2 and v1.3 mapstats show very decent balance on this map. Both in wins for both teams as in how many tickets a team usually wins with. So we have no major plans to alter this for the next release (compared to some of our other maps that definitely need change to balance it out better, which is one of our big plans for next release).

While I can agree that certain aspects of this map seem unbalanced if you take the map apart, the combined warfare on this map is clearly working. From my personal experience as well this map seems to linger to GER armor upper hand but I've won myself more with PLA then GER cause of easier movement and concealment on their parts of the map.

Closer towards next release we'll continue to check the stats to see if it goes one way but for now I can only crush your hopes of seeing changes on this map Then again we can always come to a point where we introduce new assets are other changes that require map layer alteration, so nothing set in stone

But feel free to continue to provide suggestions that perhaps can make the map simply better without altering the balance we have now.