Project Reality Forums

One of the issues with PR's realism level is that it is too fast paced, and BF2 is not yet modded enough to give the game a more deliberate tactical feel.

Now, has anyone here played Brothers in Arms, the WW2 FPS?

http://www.brothersinarmsgame.com/uk/index.php

It is basically a squad-based semi-tactical shooter that does a great job of simulating small-scale fix and flank infantry firefights. At core, any enemy infantry behind cover, even if you can see him is very hard to hit. The engine nerfs your accuracy massively if you are attempting to shoot an enemy in cover.
Therefore, the only way to kill him is to use a fireteam to keep his head down, while you flanked and could get a clear shot on him. You really have to think about your attack and manouvre around your enemy, while he is doing the same thing to you.
The system works pretty nicely, and I wonder if anything similar had been considered for PR?

I have the first installement in the series and I think it just is too much SP oriented (much like CoD). It feels like its made for console playing. Perhaps the newer ones are better?

Like using cover? I don't know if it is possible, but we would need another animator to do cover animations.

BiA was cool, but not really realistic.

I don't see how it's realistic to have worse aim while aiming at someone who is behind cover. Has nothing to do with aim, you just have a smaller area to hit to. (and we already have that in the game)

Though I wouldn't mind getting better objects to use as cover. Right now almost all objects leave like 50% of your body visible, we could use some objects which are a little higher, so that only the head and neck are visible.

BIA had fireteams and fire and manovour tactics that worked, therefore BIA can be put in the top 10 games ever made!

PR sadly does not, so.....but the future is bright so mabey some day....!

The aim doesn't really get worse when the target is in cover. It's just that your rifle weaves about when you aim (i.e. it isn't steady). The motions are quite big on hard difficulty so that if only someone's head is poking up fron behind a wall it's almost impossible to hit it.

The thing with that, though, was that it was single player, and the AI was programmed to be supressed under heavy fire. You can't really force the player into such a state, if they don't want to take cover from your rounds then that's their prerogative.

I do use BIA type tactics in PR though. Especially on Helmand. When a load of reds are hiding behins one of those mud walls under supressing fire you can usually sneak around the side and pick a few off from their flank.

As before, supression doesn't work in this game. People don't flank on PR, they run straight up to the wall jump over it and spray.

El_Vikingo wrote:As before, supression doesn't work in this game. People don't flank on PR, they run straight up to the wall jump over it and spray.

Well, I've had a couple of good times on Helmand when there were very few players (but all team players) where we were a couple of mini squads with 2-3 members each. I was SL and sorta commanded the other squad as well. Sneaking in on an enemy defending the flag (knowing we're coming). Our squad lay some suppresive fire from a distance, keeping the enemy busy and focused on us. I tell the other squad to flank them from the side. We maintain supressive fire for about a minute before we hear some wild shooting and then the 'all clear' sign pops up on the text messager. Felt good.

You can do those things when people dont even know what flanking means.

This is the way PR oughta be.

BiA is probably one of the best WW2 games ever made, that being said, id rather keep PR as PR.

BiA was very repetative. It was fun, but by the end of the game it was very systematic. Come to an engagement. Suppress, and flank the way the level was designed to be (almost always an obvious way)

PR has a bit more stratagey in it, even though it is a bit gamier.

El_Vikingo wrote:As before, supression doesn't work in this game. People don't flank on PR, they run straight up to the wall jump over it and spray.

No Vikingo, No, just go, go now!

jkes.......sort of.

You are correct in the fact that some people do not flank and go strait, but they die.

Suppressing does work, but not to the extend it does in reality, for these reasons:


- Unrealistic player movements compared with reality = cant move around their enviroment in the safest possible manner (e.g no lean, climb, turn head).
- Combination of a brutaly simplistic damage system and revive system = players do not fear bullets as much as they should (e.g cant be disabled = can be worse than dying/ bordom).
- Extremely limited no. of objects that can be penertrated = too much cover, players movements would be restricted due to significantly less cover if it where closer RL bullet peneration
- Combination of the above, limited view distance and too small maps with lack of open ground = engagements happen to close but present weapons do allow long range but are above limits usage of such in more of those situations where suppressing fire counts more.


Hopefully the above has clearly explained WHY using suppressing fire is more difficult in PR at present than many would like it too be. HOWEVER becuase a signifacnt part of the reason for this problem has be indentified, solutions can and will be found.


Similarly flanking does work, but to the extent it can be used is partially limited
The main reason being level design, but over the last few PR releases the DEVs have shown us through excellent map design, such limitations can be removed. A few of the reasons for the limitations of suppressing fire are also relavent for flanking, but becuase suppressing fire and flanking go hand in hand to battle, and each one relies TOTALY on the other, solve the limiting reasons for one and you solve the limiting reasons for the other!


Brother in arms, gave the player an extremely simple way of using suppress and flank tactics. This worked very well at getting any old player to use such tactics, but due to the simplistic nature and how it was implamented, it was both unrealistic and limited more skillfull players (namely, where one should use such tactics were too obvious and pre-determinded).

However, it showed to all gamers, that such tactics can be made accessable to all players and be fun at the same time. I am sure the BIA DEV learnt many lessons from there 2 orginal attempts (games) and hopefully used them to create a much more refined and open experience in BIA HH. Again, such lessons are not just limited to the BIA DEVs and i am sure all DEVs, espcially the PR ones can use BIA system to create and developt similar ideas for their own specific games.


One day, i hope PR will be much less about aquiring assets and organzing players, in terms of allication of assets but about how you use them, namely, how well you pick you battlegrouds, how well you suppress the enemy and where and how you flank them. PR will then truely, be about the interesting parts of tactics, the mundane organization a mer grain of sand in the long-gone deserts of Al Basara.


So do all people understant better the situation, more preciely, the issues and problems with the use of suppressing fire and flanking in PR at present?

saxojon wrote:Well, I've had a couple of good times on Helmand when there were very few players (but all team players) where we were a couple of mini squads with 2-3 members each. I was SL and sorta commanded the other squad as well. Sneaking in on an enemy defending the flag (knowing we're coming). Our squad lay some suppresive fire from a distance, keeping the enemy busy and focused on us. I tell the other squad to flank them from the side. We maintain supressive fire for about a minute before we hear some wild shooting and then the 'all clear' sign pops up on the text messager. Felt good.

You can do those things when people dont even know what flanking means.

This is the way PR oughta be.

Agreed, this is why I really like the Helmand map, it is perfect for flanking.

I hate helmand.

seriously though, good post Top cat