Project Reality Forums

Should PR get more focused on QCB/Middle range combat like 0.5

Or should PR leave it this way and get more big maps for combined arms like 0.7 now

Or a mix


I choose for the focused QCB/middle range combat maps, becouse it was much more fun in 0,5 to play and big maps call for lonewolfers and are barely teamplayed

Jonny wrote:all, in the same map.

Absolutely. Its a sucky map other wise. Spot and mark targets a long range, call in air support if you want, suppress at medium range and close for some serious hardcore nade spamage cos its realistic and only way to do it MATE!!! ;-)

P.s i cant spoil my vote so i just wont vote, lol

What about the option for keeping it the same and having PR encompass all types of fighting?
Great poll with only two options....both of which would suck alone.

Where is the third option?

"all kind of ranges"

PR should present realistic battlefields, so if you have to get an objective using CQB that is how the cookie crumbles, if yo have to get an objective using long range engagement, same cookie different crumble.

mix of both, keep the long range units to their own territorys, like tanks and snipers, and in urban and closed woodland environments stack some statics for cover to impliment close quarters fights.

I'd definetly like more dense terrain maps (Urban/Jungle/Forest/etc), as I'm fed up of staring over great featureless plains.

Not that great, featureless plains are all bad, they just crop up a bit too often for my liking.

I'm with you Bob. The big maps are great, but by their nature it takes a long time to have a decent game on one and the focus is armor and air. My favorite maps are like OMAN WAC 16 with 64players. Pure organized chaos! The next best are the dense maps like Ghost Train where, if you're laying low, the enemy can walk right past w/o seeing you.

The only way I'd suggest more large maps is if the problem of having a dozen people sitting around the main base waiting for some form of transport was dealt with. While I'm all for making tanks, APCs, helicopters and the like have very long respawn times, I do not think this should be applied to utility/transport vehicles like trucks and inparticular humvees/nanjings etc. These should and WOULD be readily available to a combat unit for use in their operations.

Also, the Brits need a better light transport jeep that can transport a full squad rather than the THREE men of the Land Rover.. particularly because this only compounds the problem noted above.

Lastly I'd suggest a buildable ATGM defense, like the AA-guns, buildable at bunkers. ATGMs really ought to be far less static, and usable in actual combat rather than defense. Even if this is allowed this will increase the number of ATGMs by only four (two, really, since any placed at bunkers, which can only be built at your flags, would really be for defensive purposes). As it stands, two Eryx/Dragon launchers per team is nowhere near enough to deal with the number of tanks on maps like Kashan. And light AT is just useless with its single round. Anytime I've played on a map like Kashan and been fired at by a light AT, my first response is "oh, he's out of ammo now, let's go get him!", which is basically the opposite of the desired effect.

These are the only obstacles stopping me from suggesting more large maps. Though it'd be great to see a tank-battle map in the Alaskan tundra (Quinling is pretty damned cool, I love tanking on that map, it's so friggen strategic and tactical with the amount of rolling hills and oppurtunities for flanking attacks.. I usually kick arse on that map in a tank)

I hate dense jungle maps (Mestia, Ghost Train, Fool's Road) because they remind me of Counter-Strike. Really, it's just pure chaotic. My best games are usually in desert maps like Ejod, Kashan, etc where you can employ a lot of infantry tactics and the game is much more like real war.

I think more combined arms would be good, but not Kashan/Quinling clones. Those maps can be decent in moderation, but all the plane whores stand at base trying to get them, and it ends up with 2 or 3 squads out doing their own thing. You need to be able to get to the main battle in 3 minutes or less for the map to be enjoyable.

Long range combat is good, tanks and APCs are always enjoyable, but the majority of players are going to be infantry, and for that CQB/midrange combat is by far the most fun.

The concept of large combined arms actions is great, but the reality is that BF2 makes this less than possible. Games with a great commander and a gang of great squad leaders are few and far between. The communications system in BF2 simply isn't set up to handle the large scale maps / combined arms tactics that these massive maps require.

More often than not, the games are drawn out, boring, and just plain no fun. I'd like to see a mix of cqb, mid range, and massive maps. While part of that may be more of a server issue and having those types of maps available to put in rotation, as is, the focus of the game is on large maps, and it's simply slow, long, and boring. Still, PR handles combat better than any game out there (imho), but damn, more action = more fun. I'd really like to take advantage of the new versions of the small arms and kits that have been put in the game.

I think the survey answers all the questions here....no one wants just one or the other.

Null vote. Whatever realism needs.As far as i know unless its a dense urban area, firefights happen from a distance nowadays (i did not serve in army and im not a military expert). Of course there are exceptions, like in Insurgency.
So CQB maps could be fun, but i dont know if thats okay for realism. However i think ive read that that in 0.8 there will be more urban maps (e.g.: insurgency)

I'd like to see mixes of long, medium and close range fights all on the same map just with more emphasis on the infantry side of things. EJOD is a brilliant map in this regard, yes it has tanks, but Infantry get an awesome game on that map with lots of different ranges and locations being fought over. But in general medium-CQB maps are my preferred style of play, doesn't mean there shouldn't be less long range maps, there should just be equal amounts of each.

A map half the size of Kashan, with plenty of jeeps, APC's, transport heli's and maybe a tank or two would be awesome. I'm tempted to try and learn BF2 mapping so I can put my idea into practice.

I like all types of maps though one thing I would like to see would be a large map without heavy assets, ie just soft skin vehicles for transport.

I'm hoping Sangin will be like this.

Surely there are times in war when the heavy assets aren't available but there's lot's of ground to cover.

Has any one played joint ops? they had wicked maps where theres like 5 little islands and the rebels had to defend their islands and the coalition had loads of landing crafts and massive boats to carry land vehicles to the islands, aaaah the good old days :' )