Project Reality Forums

Pardon me for this extensive list, although I do not have +1,000 posts to my name or a high rank to match, I do make sure that when I have to voice my opinion it is for a good reason and well thought out. I also want to apologize ahead of time if I may bring up an old topic from a previous discussion, but if the problem still exists it should be confronted.

All data and information provided here is from my own personal extent to try and assist the Project Reality experience. This compilation was accumulated by numerous ideas and concepts I decided to jot down in a simple text file with thoughts and opinions extending back to the v0.6 patch. At the same time I felt it was necessary to address multiple issues that are of outstanding importance to this day as of the latest v0.75 patch.

All that I ask is that with all the progression Project Reality has made over this time is that we do not lose focus on the most important aspects of the game in substitute for something else. My biggest fear at this point is that alot of effort in Project Reality has been diverted away from correcting certain issues with quick fixes and instead the effort being poured into new maps and vehicles rather than focusing on the things that still exist in Project Reality that need to be addressed. For those that have played the game Planetside (Although nowhere near the lines of PR.) are well aware of what it's like to play a game with a crumbling baseline and the developement of more content just to cover up the imperfections.

However I also want to make it quite clear, I extend my most sinceer personal gratitude to the people that have worked on this mod to the extent as far as it has come now. I just hope that a majority of issues present here in this post and others elsewhere that I have not mentioned with a valid point help bring Project Reality back up to it's glory and possibly once again become mod of the year by a unquestionable landslide.

All items listed as "(Feedback)" should be considered a major detail that is highly urged to be implemented or altered into the Project Reality experience.

All items listed as "(Suggestion)" should be considered a minor detail that could be optionally implemented or altered into the Project Reality experience.

All items listed with "<1-5>" indicate a numerical priority level. 1 indicates the lowest priority level, as 5 indicates the highest priority level.

New Feedback, Suggestions and Updates will be named "Additions, Reevaluations and/or Updates" and will be marked in bold lettering to emphasize this new content.
__________________________________________________

Vehicles: Ground Type (New Update)
1. (Feedback <5>) One-man armor gunning (Tanks and APC's) no longer capable of occuring.
<Notes: Currently One-man armor is unrealistic and simply a problem that needs to be removed from PR permanently. If no driver is present then therefore the main weapons are unable to fire. Details here: PR Forum - One Man Armor (Tanks and APC's).>

2. (Feedback <4>) The return of Engineer trucks with a slow vehicular rearm/repair capablity on a better-than-nothing basis similar to the new command post functionality. Also should Include 2-3 vehicular ammo dumps additionally to compensate for the loss of the .50 caliber defense weapon for increased battlefield utility.
<Notes: To encourage teamwork in field repairs once again and a practical means to deploy mines without people running off with the Engineers vehicle.>

3. (Feedback <3>) The Challenger 2 tank still has an outstanding issue of the top .50 caliber mounted machine gunner (Engineer seat.) having his legs partially stick out through the vehicle and exposed to the outside environment.
<Note: This occurance is most easily noticed when you stand to the left side of the challenger and pay particular attention to the point where the turret itself meets the bottom chasis of the vehicle. The small space between those 2 structures you will see the legs of the engineer stick out very slightly. This however can produce a problem as the Challenger 2's Engineer is more vulnerable to getting killed while manning this vehicle from incoming enemy fire and high explosive munitions.>

4. (Feedback <3>) Remove the turret directional compensation for all anti-aircraft vehicles so the turret no longer remains in the same direction it's pointed. Instead return it back to it's previous turret handling method where it maintains it's direction in relation to the chasis.
<Notes: Currently the turret directional compensation proves to be helpful in APC's and Tanks, however as anti-aircraft vehicles are a one man crew it becomes difficult to utilize when driving.>

5. (Feedback <3>) Improve the idle nutral zone for all anti-aircraft vehicles so that they no longer slide back slightly while attempting to remain stationary or when returning to a stopped and stationary position from previously reversing.
<Notes: Currently this undesired effect occurs to all AAV's.>

6. (Feedback <3>) Adjust the positioning of the Tunguska M1's (MEC anti-aircraft vehicle.) driver/gunner seat viewpoint so that it is located infront of the forward radar dome as it impairs the vision of it's user at forward targets because of the radar dome as opposed to other AAV's unobstructed view.
<Notes: Rather than constructing a new model, possibly an easier substitute to achieve the proper look is to utilize the PGZ-95's (Chinese anti-aircraft vehicle.) turret viewpoint appearance which does not have a radar dome present at all. Then simply alter the HUD reticule so that rather than it appearing green, it appears as the Tunguska M1's (MEC anti-aircraft vehicle.) red HUD reticule instead making for a hopefully simple fix if no other methods can be devised.>

7. (Feedback <2>) The 375 Ural (Chinese and MEC support truck) needs some minor visual corrections as when the driver attempts to turn left or right the vehicles front wheels remain pointing forward rather than turning left or right respectively. This does not effect the vehicles driving in any way, just it's visual representation of directional control.
<Note: Currently the vehicle wheels cannot turn left or right and is a minor detail that could use some attention as of the v0.75 patch.)

1. (Suggestion <2>) Alter the BTR-90 Rostok (MEC armored personnel carrier.) so that it is capable of conducting a 360º turn similar to tracked vehicles as it is perfectly realistic and possible of doing so.
<Notes: Details here: YouTube - BTR-90 (Rostok) at 4:45 and also 5:35. Hope you don't mind the Command & Conquer theme song in the background.>

2. (Suggestion <1>) Improve the direction of travel for the Bradley M2 Linebacker (USMC anti-aircraft vehicle.) so that it no longer veers slightly to the left during forward travel.
<Notes: Currently could use some minor tweaking of the steering control systems.>

3. (Suggestion <1>) Improve the direction of travel for the HMMWV (USMC transport jeep.) so that it no longer veers slightly to the left during forward travel.
<Notes: Currently could use some minor tweaking of the steering control systems.>
__________________________________________________

Vehicles: Aircraft Type (New Reevaluation and Updates)
1. (Feedback <5>) One-man main attack helicopter gunning no longer capable of occuring.
<Notes: Currently One-man attack helicopters are unrealistic and simply a problem that needs to be removed from PR permanently. If no gunner is present then therefore the main weapons are unable to fire.>

2. (Feedback <5> [Issue is currently being corrected.]) Major improvements needed on the J-10 (Chinese fighter jet.). It is significantly heavier than most planes and is highly difficult for even the most skilled pilot to utilize. The trees at the end of the Chinese main base is not the source of the problem, although they do help as some of the larger trees on the British side could use a trim aswell.
<Notes: Currently as seen on "The Battle of Qingling" map it is near impossible to land in a professional manner as the J-10 frequently stalls at a low speed and low altitude (Unlike F-16's, Typhoons and Mig-29's.) and it is required to either land at a dangerous and very high speed or essentially have the pilot slam the aircraft into the ground to the point where the front nose gear gets stuck into the runway itself, just in hopes to bring this unrefined aircraft to a halt.>

3. (Feedback <5> [Issue is currently being corrected.]) All aircraft are required to wait 20-30 seconds for engine warmup before being able to taxi or take off. The EF2000 Typhoon (British fighter jet.) however is an exception of this rule as it warms up in less than 7 seconds after boarding it. Also the Typhoon has 0 downtime if the pilot disembarks the aircraft after it has started and it can immediately begin taxiing and taking off, once again unlike all other jets that require 20-30 seconds for the engine to warm up again.
<Notes: Currently this proves to be an outstanding exploit in regards to the EF2000 Typhoon. Obviously this aircraft can be moved to the runway and begin taking off before most other jets have even left the hanger area. This situation needs be be corrected immediately as it's been a problem since patch v0.7 and on.>

4. (Feedback <4>[Issue is currently being corrected.]) All aircraft units for all factions including light helicopters, attack helicopters, transport helicopters, support jets and fighter jets require a numerical value indicator of the remaining counter-measure flares left that are able to be discharged before the 90 second counter-measure reload occurs. All air vehicles have a total of 30 flares to be discharged, however jet aircraft discharge flares individually 1 at a time and helicopters fire a salvo of 5 at a time.
<Notes: Currently there is no means to specifically verify as to how many flares are left on-hand before the reload downtime begins. This can prove to be a deadly mistake if there are not enough flares on hand at the right time. A simple indicator is all that is needed and should prove to be a truely useful tool.>

5. (Feedback <4>) All large scale maps utilizing jet aircraft of any varient requires the out-of-bounds timer set to 20 seconds (Currently 10 seconds for jets and 20 seconds for helicopters). The pilots of these aircraft often run out of time before ever having a chance to collect thier bearings and head back to the combat zone and resultantly end up bleeding to death and/or dying unnecessarily. Usually this occurs on accident or in the middle of a dogfight.
<Notes: Primarily maps such as "Kashan Desert" and "The Battle of Qinling" face the greatest issue of this occurance.>

6. (Feedback <4>) Although reverse thrust was supposedly removed from all aircraft in the game it still exists for the SU-39 (MEC close air support jet.) this however can prove to be a problematic issue in more cases than not.
<Notes: Currently makes it difficult for players with flightsticks and throttle combinations as they need to be aware of this effect or they may find themselves careening out of control in the reverse direction.>

7. (Feedback <4>) Improve the direction of travel for the A-10 (USMC close air support jet.) so that it no longer veers to the right during all phases of ground travel and flight.
<Notes: Currently makes it difficult for players with flightsticks as they need to apply full deflection of left rudder to counteract the severe yaw effect and can result in crashing.>

8. (Feedback <3> [Issue is currently being corrected.]) Lag improvements on the UH-1N Iroquois (USMC transport helicopter.). Also M240 door guns were supposedly being added.
<Notes: Current problem prevents the proper use of assets from a general game bug. Suggest removal or replacement if unable to correct lag issues.>

9. (Feedback <3> [Issue is currently being corrected.]) Lag improvements on HC3 Merlin (British transport helicopter.) or remove/replace with SA-330 Puma or AS-532 Cougar Helicopter.
<Notes: Current problem prevents the proper use of assets from a general game bug. Suggest removal or replacement if unable to correct lag issues.>

10. (Feedback <2>) Improve the general flight stability of the SH-60 Seahawk (USMC transport helicopter.) so that it remains in a more controllable state through all phases of flight so that only minor corrections are needed for it to remain steady and on course.
<Notes: Currently the SH-60 Seahawk remains one of the most tempermental transport helicopters in the game. Granted it has one of the highest top speed of it's class, however it often requires the pilot to be constantly offering directional corrections to maintain its orientation and altitude. Unlike most of the other transport helicopters in game such as the Mi-17 Hip and HC3 Merlin that seemingly "glides" through it's paces, the SH-60 constantly fights back and has a tendency of darting off in it's own direction.>

1. (Suggestion <3>[Issue is currently being corrected.]) Replace the AIM-9 Sidewinders (Short range heat seeking missle.) on the F-16 Fighting Falcon as they appear purple instead of the more realistically skinned AIM-9 Sidewinders as seen on the A-10 Warthog, F-15 Strike Eagle, F-18 Hornet and the EF2000 Typhoon.

2A. (Suggestion <3> [Superceded by statement 2B below.]) Remove the external fuel tanks placed upon the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-18 Hornet.
<Note: The appearance and realistic application of these external fuel tanks are unnecessary. External fuel tanks are utilized on long range loitering applications, these are also discarded immediately upon the beginning of an aerial engagement.>

2B. Reeevaluation: [Issue cannot be corrected.]
The external fuel tanks placed upon the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-18 Hornet cannot be removed as they are all part of the unalterable Battlefield 2 model.

__________________________________________________

Infantry: Weapons
1A. (Feedback <5> [Superceded by statement 1B below.] ) Restore warning tone back to Heavy Anti-Tank for all armored vehicles. Also optionally decrease deployment time to 10 secs (Currently 15).
<Notes: Currently overpowered with very little means to take evasive action against a potential one shot kill.>

1B. Reevaluation:
Upon a second look and a firm rethinking of the warning tone for Heavy Anti-Tank as it is a rather questionable controversy, there is a new and more realistic approach of Heavy Anti-Tank in the following 2 posts: Improved Anti-Tank and even more recently Armor vs. Munitions.

2. (Feedback <5> [Issue is currently being corrected.]) Insurgent molotov cocktail's exploit should no longer be capable of severely damaging or destroying armor assets including APC's and tanks in less than 2 seconds. Needless to say that this occurance is quite unrealistic and farfetched. Not to mention the fact that it's a complete exploit of a semi-known bug.
<Notes: To recreate this bug as I have previously tested on a local server of my own you must:
A-Have any vehicle (Tank, APC, jeep, helicopter etc.) be placed in a stationary location on the Al-Basrah map for best results.
B-Most importantly for this bug to work for some reason the vehicle MUST NOT be on a road of any sort. It must be located on any portion of normal open terrain away from a road.
C-Throw the molotov cocktail directly at the ground in which the vehicle rests on... Boom.>

3. (Feedback <4>) Engineer shotguns loaded with 00 buckshot (Instead of slugshot.), also include the developement of ironsights.
<Notes: Currently slugshot is not practical as the engineers main rifle already fires a similar munition. 00 buckshot will increase tactical diversity in both door breaching and CQB (Close Quarter Battles.).>

4. (Feedback <4>) Engineer shotguns in Insurgency game mode should fire "non-lethal" ammunition to subdue civilian collaborators.
<Notes: Currently there is no method to apprehend a civilian while in water and should be considered an exploit. Also an alternative method to apprehend a civilian while on a grappling hook to prevent a stalemate. Increase short range deviation to adjust for potential "Civilian shotgun sniping." for proper gameplay balance.>

5. (Feedback <2>) Insurgent molotov cocktail's still require a new skin and deployment animation.
<Notes: Currently way overdue for a new appearance and animation.>

1. (Suggestion <5>) The L115A1 (British sniper rifle.) requires 4 points of address in relation to visual graphics alteration and repair, these points are as follows:
A-Add a deployment animation for the bipod.
B-The bolt of the rifle needs to be modified as it appears as a hollow cylindrical tube with a handle lacking an end cap.
C-The bolt of the weapon comes to rotate and rest in an awkward position outside of the receiver.
D-The apperance of the soldier-to-weapon grip is also awkward and appears to be pointing up at the top center screen and not resting in the hands of the operator properly.
<Notes: Although all issues with the L115A1 are visual and do not effect it's performance it will be considered a minor suggestion. However this kit could certainly use alot more cleaning up than most others still awaiting to be fixed.>

2. (Suggestion <4>) The Mosin Nagant (Insurgent and Militia sniper rifle.) requires 3 points of address in relation to visual graphics alteration and repair, these points are as follows:
A-Remove the deployment animation for the non-existant bipod.
B-Devise a reload animation where the operator individually reloads the weapon on a one by one round basis (Similar to a shotgun.) through the receiver bolt opening as the magazine is unable to be removed/replaced and the scope prevents the proper use of stripper clips as it gets in the way.
<Notes: Currently there is already another thread about the Moisen Nagant in detail here.>

3A. (Suggestion <2> [Superceded by statement 3B below.]) Implementation of tear gas grenades and flashbangs reserved for the Insurgency game mode.
<Notes: Currently no methods are in play to assist players in the apprehension of civilians other than by arresting them (Knifing). Civilians should be considered a form of "rioting crowd." that need to be regulated. Teargas grenades offer blurry vision and coughing by using the v0.6 patch "Near death." experience.>

3B. Reevaluation:
Upon a second look and a firm rethinking of tear gas grenades and flashbangs for the Insurgency game mode are as follows.

Rather than bringing back tear gas into Project Reality (Unbeknownst to myself that tear gas was infact present in PR a long while ago.) which would be unnecessary. However, bringing flashbangs back for the Insurgency game mode would be an acceptable practice by issuing these flashbangs to all kits that don't already have an item existing in the "number 9" slot, or otherwise known as the "parachute" key.

4. (Suggestion <1>) Slightly increase the visual size of an I.E.D. (Improvised Explosive Device.) on insurgent team to match it's explosive capability.
<Notes: Currently they appear as a miniscule speck on the roadside with an unproportionally large explosion. Increase size or alter appearance for gameplay balance.>

Infantry: Tools
1. (Feedback <4>) Destroyable runways should be capable of being repaired by a shovel instead of a wrench.
<Notes: Currently using a wrench to repair a runway is unrealistic. Slightly increase time for runway repairs in exchange for the readily abundant shovel for gameplay balance.>
__________________________________________________

Commander Assets: Passive Structures (Non-combat related.) (New Update)
1. (Feedback <4>) Increase the infantry resupply radius of the Command Post as it requires a player to press up against the central structure itself to even get this effect to occur. Most players are unaware that the Command Post is even capable of resupplying them with ammuntion and essential items.
<Notes: Currently this poses a problem to players. A large number of people have been noted especially while playing on Al Basrah by dumping ammunition crates from vehicles at the British main base for resupply even with a Command Post nearby. This is because a player must be less than 2 meters away to get the resupply function to occur, forcing the player to basically stand ontop of the Command Post itself. By increasing the resupply radius to 5 meters would be the perfect "sweet spot" for infantry rearmament.>

2. (Feedback <3>) Implementation of the UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle.) but on a severely limited 45 minute basis and on large scale maps only. The UAV should have a 400m scan radius and last for 5 minutes or until it is detected and shot down by mounted machine gun fire or Anti-Aircraft vehicular cannons (Not missles as the signature is too small). UAV usage is linked to the Command Post and also if it is deployed and operational. The UAV is to be utilized wisely (Same as a JDAM.) and as a tactical accent to compliment the commanders abilities and usefulness on the battlefield.
<Notes: Yes, i'm sure a large amount of you became agravated with this remark. However the Battlefield 2 experience had obviously over-abused this asset to the point where people look upon it with disdain and harsh rebuke as it could be used every 20 seconds... Let's not shut out our minds to a frequently utilized asset on todays battlefield, afterall this is Project Reality. Let's make it that way and make sure it remains that way.>

3. (Feedback <3>) Implementation of the Radar Dish (Scan trailer.) this asset is currently seen on "The Battle of Qinling" on both the British and Chinese team but has no use at this time. However, this should be changed so that it acts like a constantly scanning radar and that it remains at a static location at the main base and is not a commander deployed asset. Also it should have a 1200m detection radius (Same detection radius for all anti-aircraft vehicles currently in game.) for all enemy air assets such as helicopters and/or jets flying over the base and displayed on the map while they are within the detection zone.
<Notes: Currently utilized for decorative purposes only and is seen on "The Battle of Qinling" on both the British and Chinese team.>

Commander Assets: Active Structures (Combat related.)
1. (Suggestion <2>) Defensive Bunkers and Firebases regenerate tickets in the insurgency game mode.
<Notes: Currently with the implementation of -10 tickets per APC loss, deployed bunkers should offer a method to confront this occurance and favor a well structured counter-insurgency team for those capable of maintaining these assets.>
__________________________________________________

Maps:
1. (Feedback <4>) Need more basic transport jeeps readily available at main bases as there is a lack of or completely none present at all on some maps. In example, this creates a limited choice for basic infantry Anti-Aircraft and/or Anti-Tank support with a need for a vehicle with a simple .50 caliber defense capablity and ammo supplies to offer continued support on the battlefield. After all, MANPADS (Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems) and Heavy Anti-Tank work well in a passive role in conjunction with Engineers off and away from frontline combat to offer valuable overwatch of the battlefield.
<Notes: Currently "Kashan Desert" offers no basic vehicles such as HMMWV's and Vodniks at main bases after the few present at both MEC Outpost and U.S. Outpost has been depleted. Also support trucks require a sufficient means of escort aswell.>

2A. (Feedback <3> [Superceded by statement 2B below.]) Reduce the elevation of the airfield runway on "The Battle of Qingling" map. Fully understanding that it's design was implemented to prevent people from simply taking off across the runways and being able to taxi directly to the rearmament area, it is slightly overkill as even skilled aircraft pilots manage to accidently fall off the pavement on occasion and end up in the deathtrap gutter.
<Notes: Most players that do not understand the flight methods of jets still to this day will find themselves slamming into the dirt embankment infront of the hangers anyways which should be incentive enough to learn to fly on a local server. Besides, the structuring of a proper airfield is an impressive sight and a pleasureable experience for those that respect realistic gameplay and follow basic airport rules and guidelines. Unfortunately these in-depth airports are not always present on all jet orientated maps as they should be. Until this is so, the airports should be built in a practical manner rather than being elevated 3 feet off the ground just to "teach those rookies a lesson". After all, they can run amuck on Kashan Deserts airfield anyways right? So it's not exactly teaching them much of a lesson. However this will, details here: YouTube - Project Reality Flight Training.>

2B. Reevaluation: [Issue is currently being corrected.]
Upon a second look and a firm rethinking of the elevation of the runway on "The Battle of Qingling" has provided a more sound and logical alternative to solve our guidelines for moderating airfield traffic are as follows.

Rather than reducing the elevation of the runway back to ground level, leave it as is and instead raise the ground beside both runway and taxiway so that it is flush with the runway and tapers off smoothly back to normal ground level. The idea here is to create a smooth "ditch" on eitherside of both runway and taxiway.

(This visual example is looking down a cross-sectional view of the runway.)
(Visual example: Base Taxiway Runway-1 Runway-2 .)
(Visual example: |¤-¤|__.`¯¯`.__.`¯¯¯¯`.__.`¯¯¯¯`.___)

<Note: A more refined pictorial representation of a very similar if not identical concept has been placed in another thread. The details are here.>

This method will provide a means to prevent players from trying to take off perpendicular (across) to the runway and over the ditches which will most likely result in the destruction of the aircraft. Also this will prevent people from taxiing directly to the rearmament area across the ditches as attempting to do so will result in damage to the aircraft. At the same time this new method should also allow players to get back on the taxiway should they accidently taxi off of it. Everyone knows that aircraft are basically a large tricycle and tempermental to the slightest varience in pitch of terrain, this method should theoretically work well.

1. (Suggestion <2>) For the "Qwai River" map, increase the spawn time of the Type 98 (Chinese main battle tank.) to 20 minutes after start of round similar to the spawn time of armor assets seen on "Kashan Desert" to help assist the USMC team prepare in advance for the incoming armor and also offer gameplay balance.
<Notes: Currently "Qwai River" still remains tipped in favor to the Chinese forces as a properly crewed Type 98 tank is one of the leading causes of defeat for USMC forces on this map. USMC forces are in need of some kind of practical "edge" as the HMWWV TOW is a capable vehicle but not as combat effective against the Chinese Type 98 tank.>

Revision number: v3.5

Many good points brought up in this post. Thanks for taking the time to type it all up

M.Warren wrote: Infantry: Weapons
1. (Feedback <5>) Restore warning tone back to Heavy Anti-Tank for all armored vehicles. Also optionally decrease deployment time to 10 secs (Currently 15).
<Notes: Currently overpowered with very little means to take evasive action against a potential one shot kill.> [/url].>

They dont give off a tone in real life so they wont in this game. Period.

M.Warren wrote: 2. (Feedback <4>) For the "Qwai River" map, increase the spawn time of the Type 98 (Chinese main battle tank.) to 20 minutes after start of round similar to the spawn time of armor assets seen on "Kashan Desert" to help assist the USMC team prepare in advance for the incoming armor and also offer gameplay balance. Or alternatively replace the AH-6 Littlebird (USMC light assault chopper.) with an AH-1Z Super Cobra (USMC main attack helicopter.) to balance gameplay.
<Notes: Currently "Qwai River" still remains tipped in favor to the Chinese forces as a properly crewed Type 98 tank is one of the leading causes of defeat for USMC forces on this map. All it takes is 3 men to properly crew a brutally offensive tank, opposed to USMC forces whereas they must crew several vehicles including 2 TOW HMMWV's, 3 APC's and 2 Heavy Anti-Tank kits taking up to 12 people just to properly make up and counteract this loss in firepower.>

[/url].>

This one made me laugh No offense but if your team sucks that bad that they cant kill ONE tank with all the gear available then you need to take it upon your self and get rid of that tank.

I mean wow! I cant express with words how easy it is to kill that tank with a TOW Humvee let alone two. That map is perfectly balanced and i always(well not always ) win as the marines. I mean if anything the marines have the advantage with being able to air drop a squad or two from the LB behind enemy lines in fishing village before the Chinese even get there. Marines set a rally and dont even let the Chinese take the flag and next thing you know the whole team is there and the Marines have broken the enemy's back.

Ive done it before.


EDIT: Oh and everything else is good and i mostly agree with it. You missed a few like fixing the animations for all the new sniper rifles(M40, Mosin Nagant, L96).

A slight exploit with ticket generating bunkers on Insurgency maps would possibly be that GB/US deploys it in their inaccessible main base where it generates tickets forever without being endangered by the opposing side.

Also, I endorse this thread

my opinion of the pr community just went up. good points overall.

as far as the jets go (j-10 ect), these problems are being corrected as we speak.

i think that qwai needs to be looked at right now. with MANPADS being able to lock on little birds, getting rid of the rocket bird was probably one of the main reasons the us doesnt win as much anymore. i was bored one day so i put 2 tow missiles onto an AH-6. pretty fun to fly actually. i wouldnt count on it getting in anytime soon lol.

hmm... that would be interesting, 2 Z-11's with hydras, helmet aimed 50 cals and stingers with hydra pods. then 2 littlebirds with stingers, miniguns and hydras. add an AAV to each side to make the bugs happy. id even experment with replacing the tows with abrams. i like to dream. at any rate, the chinese tanks can engage infantry, and TOWs can't.

The destruction of the chinese armor doesn't give the US a real advantage, just balances things to zero.

*edit: there are two chinese tanks on qwai. And Its not hard to predict where the tows will be; the map is small with a lot of choke points, so mobility is not as effective as brute force in this case. intersection at N bridge, ect. I just had the Z-11 search for the enemy ambushes and we'd just shell it.

Lots of great suggestions, But I agree with ironcomatose.

Lots of good points there Warren.

Only have to disagree with the Cobra for Qwai. I think it would turn the balance upside down (US would end up being in a huge advantage).

ironcomatose wrote:They dont give off a tone in real life so they wont in this game. Period.

t-90 do .

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:t-90 do .

You would have to explain to me how this is possible seeing as its not like a SRAW is radar guided or anything.

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:t-90 do .

impossible. The sraw is not externaly guided it is guided by a string and has a visual lock-on system.

Yup, and the T-90 can detect the heat and light of the incoming projectile, IIRC. I think that's how it can react to a wire-guided rocket anyways.


Regardless, back on topic: Warren this is the best suggestion/feedback post I've seen, certainly in a long long time if not ever. Don't necessarily agree with it all, but it's certainly a good piece.

To others : this is how it should be done

lol Masaq. great post and most of the problems need to be fixed.

yup to be exact its "wire" guided
thats a point, about which ppl will discuss forever
off the realism pov its not there and should be removed and forgotten about
but off the other point of view its the descision whether Gameplay > Realism
if gameplay is more important, then PR has to change many things persistent at this time, and thus return the sound alert

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;656065']Yup, and the T-90 can detect the heat and light of the incoming projectile, IIRC. I think that's how it can react to a wire-guided rocket anyways.


Regardless, back on topic: Warren this is the best suggestion/feedback post I've seen, certainly in a long long time if not ever. Don't necessarily agree with it all, but it's certainly a good piece.

To others : this is how it should be done

Any chance we can get flaming arrows to cause a distraction?

Heavy Anti-Tank Weapons:

1. SRAW details here.
"The SRAW missile itself consists of three modular components: (1) a Flight Module, (2) a Target Detection Device (TDD), and (3) a Warhead. The Flight Module consists of several components, the heart of which is the Guidance and Control Unit (GCU). The GCU controls the missile flight profile and provides flight path correction commands to the missile. The missile intercept solution is designed to over-fly the target. The TDD is a dual mode device that combines a laser ranger and magnetic detector. The TDD commands detonation of the warhead when both laser ranger and magnetic detector have confirmed target over flight."
<Note: Essentially the SRAW uses a fire and forget system that is supposed to detonate over the target firing a secondary munition down into the top of the tank where it's armor is the most thin. Also it uses a combination of both laser and magnetic sensors for target aquisition after being designated by it's user and after the point of missle launch.>

2. Eyrx details here.
"Guidance: optically tracked, single wire semi-automatic command to line of sight. Control: thrust vector controlled. Sights: optical and thermal imagery."
<Note: The Eyrx is a more basic modern anti-tank weapon working on the basis of a TOW (Target On Wire.) method. The user spots the target with normal sights or thermal imaging and manually guides it to it's target destination.>

In any case, it's difficult to define the fine line of realism. Because the BF2 engine still works on the basis of requiring the missle to strike it's target by any means. However, the intended purpose of the SRAW is to track with a laser/magnetic sensor and detonate above the target to deliver a deathblow with a secondary munition. Whereas the Eryx by chance works out as intended as it's a TOW and meant to strike it's target in a conventional method by manual guidance.

So essentially, we have a loophole upon the basis of how Heavy Anti-Tank operates in this particular mod. We can either go with or without laser tone with our armor. So it simply comes down to what is preferable. Our options?

1. Return the missle tone to Heavy Anti-Tank against armor so APC's have a fighting chance. Not to mention you can still scare off enemy tanks with the missle tone even if you don't intend to fire or are out of ammunition.

2. We leave it as is without missle tone and could possibly be worse off than we were in the v0.6 patch where everyone was complaining about Heavy Anti-Tank sniping. Seeing the very reason why all these Heavy Anti-Tank alterations generated from to begin with. Also the fact that because of Heavy Anti-Tank the likelyhood of people being encouraged of developing mechanized infantry squads has just gone down the drain.

You decide.
__________________________________________________

On another note upon the Qwai River subject...

Chinese forces:
Type 98 Main battle tank:
Pros: 1-Heavily armored. 2-Can destroy an APC and lesser targets in 1 shot. 3-Deadly accurate against infantry units. 4-Being defeated by an APC is highly unlikely. 5-Being defeated by light helicopters highly unlikely.
Cons: 1- Slow and loud.

USMC forces:
HMMWV TOW:
Pros: 1-Light and swift. 2-Can destroy an APC and lesser vehicular targets in 1 shot.
Cons: 1-Gunner is unprotected and easily killed by infantry. 2-Can be destroyed by 1 Light Anti-Tank shot. 3-Can be destroyed by heavy mounted MG fire. 4-Driver has limited vision, cannot magnify/zoom and see 360º all around. 5-Cannot engage infantry units as per some server rules.

LAV-25 APC:
Pros: 1-Light and swift. 2-Amphibious. 3-Capable of offering ammo.
Cons: 1-Can be destroyed by Heavy Anti-Tank and Tanks in 1 shot. 2-Does minimal damage to enemy tanks. 3-Driver has limited vision and cannot see 360º all around.

Infantry Heavy Anti-Tank:
Pros: 1-Can hide/easily concealable in building areas. 2-Can destroy an APC and lesser vehicular targets in 1 shot.
Cons: 1-Offers little infantry combat capability. 2-Cannot hide from tanks in open areas where foliage does not render at long distance. 3-Cannot engage infantry units as per some server rules with SRAW.

With all that said, it's not impossible for USMC to win Qwai River. However it takes a significant amount of effort and high amounts of coordination to compensate for the 2 Chinese Type 98 tanks as they are quite simply massively capable of handling almost any situation.

From my own personal opinion as being an armor enthusiast and a skilled driver, there are very few things to worry about in a tank if you play your cards right and remain constantly vigilant. I can assure you, I'm not looking from the USMC side screaming "Nerf!" I'm more on the perspective of being on the Chinese side saying "This isn't right." out of sympathy. Because kill streaks with a gunner of mine being 78-0, somethings gotta be wrong with that kill/death ratio.

Like I said, you decide.

M.Warren wrote: On another note upon the Qwai River subject...

Chinese forces:
Type 98 Main battle tank:
Pros: 1-Heavily armored. 2-Can destroy an APC and lesser targets in 1 shot. 3-Deadly accurate against infantry units. 4-Being defeated by an APC is highly unlikely. 5-Being defeated by light helicopters highly unlikely.
Cons: 1- Slow and loud.

USMC forces:
HMMWV TOW:
Pros: 1-Light and swift. 2-Can destroy an APC and lesser vehicular targets in 1 shot.
Cons: 1-Gunner is unprotected and easily killed by infantry. 2-Can be destroyed by 1 Light Anti-Tank shot. 3-Can be destroyed by heavy mounted MG fire. 4-Driver has limited vision, cannot magnify/zoom and see 360º all around. 5-Cannot engage infantry units as per some server rules.

LAV-25 APC:
Pros: 1-Light and swift. 2-Amphibious. 3-Capable of offering ammo.
Cons: 1-Can be destroyed by Heavy Anti-Tank and Tanks in 1 shot. 2-Does minimal damage to enemy tanks. 3-Driver has limited vision and cannot see 360º all around.

Infantry Heavy Anti-Tank:
Pros: 1-Can hide/easily concealable in building areas. 2-Can destroy an APC and lesser vehicular targets in 1 shot.
Cons: 1-Offers little infantry combat capability. 2-Cannot hide from tanks in open areas where foliage does not render at long distance. 3-Cannot engage infantry units as per some server rules with SRAW.

With all that said, it's not impossible for USMC to win Qwai River. However it takes a significant amount of effort and high amounts of coordination to compensate for the 2 Chinese Type 98 tanks as they are quite simply massively capable of handling almost any situation.

From my own personal opinion as being an armor enthusiast and a skilled driver, there are very few things to worry about in a tank if you play your cards right and remain constantly vigilant. I can assure you, I'm not looking from the USMC side screaming "Nerf!" I'm more on the perspective of being on the Chinese side saying "This isn't right." out of sympathy. Because kill streaks with a gunner of mine being 78-0, somethings gotta be wrong with that kill/death ratio.

Like I said, you decide.

A good squad manning the TOW Humvees (Which only takes about 4 people at most, just the same as the two chinese tanks) can be just as effective. Usually, the PLA tanks will come down the southern highway, so many times from what I've seen the TOW Humvees will position themselves on the South Bridge, and 75% of the time the Humvees will engage the enemy tanks and/or APCs.

There's also the strategy of blowing the bridges to deny the tanks an immediate route to cross (With the only option being the land bridge to the North, where an ambush can be easily set up).

Don't forget that the U.S has a transportation advantage with their numerous littlebirds. So technically they have the capability of getting around the map a lot faster though I've personally yet to see a decent set of transport pilots on this map yet.

Another big thing about this map is unlike something like Al Kufrah, there's plenty of cover & concealment for infantry to maneuver around and away from the Chinese tanks. Often times opening up opportunities for engineers to close in on stationary tanks with mines.

All the map does is demand different tactics than the usual from the U.S. Something like an attack chopper would make things too easy.

Though, I think you make good points overall (I especially like the idea of the BTR-90 doing a full rotation from a stationary position).

Great post warren, very interesting reading all the information given. I would have to say I agree with pretty much everything you said, but it seems to be missing the fast ropes Just Kidding.

Im pretty sure tanks can tell when a laser is pointed at them nowadays. However, there is no way of telling a wire guided missile is looking at you until it launches.
There are various systems to tell you something has been fired at you that look for the heat from exhaust gases, look for things moving extemely quickly, and this sets off an alarm, and often, automatic countermeasures.

However, in PR this is kinda useless, as time to target for a HAT missile is typically less than a second, as missiles move so quickly. Have a look at this video and see if you think this is accurately depicted in game.

YouTube - ERYX


One solution I can think of is to have the missile 'pop' out of the tube like the eryx does, then accelerate, rather than blast out at full speed. If the alarm went off when the missile fired (rocket booster fires, tanks electronics pick it up) that would give a tank crew a better chance to react, while providing a realistic depiction of anti tank warfare.

Of course smoke and moving is the biggest defence against an optically guided AT system, so having this delay at the start of the missiles flight would give a switched on crew a chance of defeating the missile. Likewise the operator would have to stay targeting the missile for longer. At present a warning light once the missile is fired might as well have 'you are about to die' written on it!

I think within the confines of the PR world this might be the most acceptable compromise for a realistic solution all round.

ironcomatose wrote: EDIT: Oh and everything else is good and i mostly agree with it. You missed a few like fixing the animations for all the new sniper rifles(M40, Mosin Nagant, L96).

After bringing up this valid point I decided to check up on these sniper rifles in particular. However I had not noticed any unusual animations coming from the M40 (USMC sniper rifle) and the L96 (Chinese sniper rifle). Each properly deploys the bipod, properly operates the bolt, holds the rifle in a realistic fashion and also reloads correctly.

However I had noticed issues with the Mosin Nagant (Insurgent and Militia sniper rifle) and the L115A1 (British sniper rifle). Each of which has had their conflicts updated and posted in the list.

If there is something wrong with the M40 (USMC sniper rifle) and the L96 (Chinese sniper rifle) that I have overlooked, please let me know.