Project Reality Forums

As far as I know supply trucks don't simulate identical military vehicles and was just invented more or like as a transport system and for setting assets in PR. For a transport system role it's almost useless and a dangerous way of using it, and unrealistic. Who wants to drive or be a passenger in the middle of a firefight with jets, tanks, choppers and infantry over your head and you traveling in a unarmed suicide truck. I don't know maybe support trucks are used in military but sure not during a battle. My thoughts are small but there could be large ideas for making the supply trucks something else and realistic. Maybe the commander should be able to issue different truck all with it's specific tasks.
The whole idea about the support truck should be rethink and changed. Any thoughts?

The closest thing I can find for now is the US ARMY "Motor Transport Operator (88M)". Although the way battles are fought in PR that is you are in the middle of a battle with only one area scenario where the battle takes place, the best thing is to just remove the supply truck and rethink the whole idea. The "support truck" idea is more like before battle or after battle to transport in/away troops.

http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=162

Yes these are realistic military vehicles and extremely common.

No they are not designed for combat.

Yes players use these vehicles like dumbasses, driving them directly into battle.

Yes these vehicles are intended to bring supplies for supply drops/bunkers/firebases/sandbags/infantry to positions that have been secured, so they can be reinforced.

No these vehicles are NOT intended to be assault vehicles, that is what APC's are for (another vehicle that is often used very stupidly/wrongly by players)

We are trying out different ways to kind of "force" players to use these vehicles in its proper role, but we cant hold their hand completely. If players use these vehicles to drive right into enemy tank fire, well, thats their own dumb fault. But removing a design element which puts some sort of logistics system in PR is a bad idea, just because certain players cant comprehend the purpose of some vehicles in PR is to NOT tard rush blindly forward, but rather be SUPPORTING element of the team... IE: THE NAME OF THE VEHICLE IS SUPPORT TRUCK!!!!

http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/mili ... cargo.jpeg

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/wareho ... 3382_t.jpg

http://www.brandonblog.homestead.com/fi ... 071756.jpg

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/upload/img ... 97447b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/805 ... 06c8_o.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/jeffrey/Kashmir/DSC_0045.JPG

This thread offers NO useful suggestion, you basically just want to remove the support truck, not because its unrealistic, but because you get killed too much in it. Well suggest something useful please or stop wasting other peoples time. Sorry for being harsh...

FYI:

2 x Bunker = 6 Jeeps
2 x Firebase = 6 Jeeps

6 + 6 = 12 Jeeps on EVERY SINGLE MAP....

Sure I did ask for a huge change, as the support truck is formed as a design element which puts some sort of logistics system in PR, changing this will put allot of work, and change many things in the game. But I still think there could be other way's that are better than they are intended right now as the support truck works in PR. It sure requires military knowledge about this issue and it seems we don't have it or can not get it to best simulate how armies do when building and transporting things during a battle, so it's probably best to leave it as it is.

For one I would never take a truck for assault, players doing that is just thinking wrong. Occasionally as a SL you will need the truck for building, so the best thing is to have a jeep that goes along the transportation if contact is to happen. There is enough of jeeps I think, maybe to much. Use your assets right as a SL and you won't even bother starting from scratch needing a transport back.

Apparently after all the support truck idea is fine, but please name those truck to identical ones. And there could be different ones. All we have now is a personal transport truck that works as a building truck. Have various truck, some for vehicle transport, and having that truck close to a "CP" would make you able to request for a jeep for example, or a tank if it is a tank transport truck.

Jonny wrote:I am only asking for the mapper placed spawns to be changed to jeeps.

Without trucks, how can you build anything?

My Apologizes Fuzz



If compare most secure zones of PR map with a RL war environment - most secure areas being those in which trucks are used: In the most secure areas of a PR map you are much more likely to do battle with enemies compared to the most secure areas of RL environment.


The places in which Fire bases and Bunkers are constructed are regularly not
even in the most secure areas of the map. This can mean areas in which enemies are within a few hundred meter radius, ofcourse this can vary from 2 enemies 500m away to 10 enemies within 200m.

2 Common examples of when you have no options but to drive trucks ...

directly into battle.

:


(1) When constructing a bunker at a flag you just captured, where the enemies objective is to take it back it and therefore they are attacking it.


(2)When constructing an FB, between the flag you must attack and one you must defend.



However as Fuzz so accurately and finely put , Trucks are....

NOT intended to be assault vehicles,

And

are intended to bring supplies for supply drops/bunkers/firebases/sandbags/infantry to positions that have been secured, so they can be reinforced.

In situation (1) Trucks are not attacking but being attacked. It is almost always Crucial to construct a bunker at a flag as soon as possible if you are to hold it + a trucks location during/before/after construction can block the path of the enemy = it can receive just about every weapon at the enemies disposal!

In situation (2) trucks must accompany assaulting infantry and armored vehicles becuase constructing an FB is generally vital for the successful capture of a flag. This means trucks have to operate in the area between flags and this area almost always contains the highest concentration of enemies any where on map (anything in between the 2 flags that are in play - mainly LATs/HATs and the odd Tanks!).
This fact, combined with the fact enemy movements are very fluid with in this area, makes it even more important that trucks should operate relatively close (im talking behind but not far atall) to attacking infantry and armored vehicle becuase its only through their protection that you can get the truck through this area alive.

Conclusion: Like it or not, you cant avoid taking trucks into battle becuase they are an essential component of any defense or attack. However they extremely unsuitably protected for doing such.



Recap of problem:

Many places the truck must go to construct FBs and bunkers, it faces large number of very common threats capable of destroying it. Main threat = LAT, where 1 (i think) hit destroys and 50cal, where continuous fire for short period destroys.

NON PROBLEM: Large numbers of Jeeps spawned at Bunkers and FBs = need to transport Infantry in trucks decreased hugely.



MINIMUM Specification for new vehicle:

(1) Must allow FBs and Bunkers to be constructed in a radius around it

(2) Must be totally protected against 50cal rounds and must be able to survive a minimum of 1 LAT hit (not flaming/disabled after 1 hit)


The protection requirement will be the main decider, where only APCs and IFVs can provide level of protection needed.
However, your exact vehicle depends on whether you want a specialized FB/Bunker construction vehicle - that cannot fight and possibly cannot transport infantry OR you are willing to combine the FB/Bunker construction ability with an existing APC/IFV - creating a vehicle that can also fight and transport infantry.

If you choose to combine the ability with existing vehicle, your options include: Warrior IFV, LAV (APC/IFV), BTR90 (APC/IFV), Chinese (APC/IFV) or 0.8 Strker (APC)

But if you want a specialized vehicle, a new vehicle, all presently in game are not suitable will be needed, examples include:

FOR AMERICA:


FOR BRITAIN:



Both of the above are APCs and have been used for the transport of equipement and supplies around the battlefeild. However the US M113 is much more suited for also transporting large numbers of infantry aswell.

I think it might be a good solution to implement one of (or similar) AV types which provide some protection. Because those trucks man when you see one cruising with a full load of passengers it's like a catastrophe waiting to happen (any minute now any minute now BOOM!!! Yup we're dead). There needs to be measures taken to keep them where they are needed as well like only let commanders drive them maybe, I don't know. Like in OFP CTI there was "the commander vehicle" I remember which only he could operate (or lock actually). It worked out great. Maybe consider something similar. Soldiers should be riding helos, APCs & armored hummers at a minimum into battle but too many have no choice but to board the truck of doom or be left walking.

I like the idea of a weaponless armored transport vehicle topcat...

But I dont think its realistic to expect the vehicles you choose to carry the supplies needed to construct the bunker/firebase, which is essentially a FARP with rearming capabilities.

The truck is not only metaphor for bringing in sandbags/razor wire, but also is metaphor for bringing in all the ammunition to rearm infantry/vehicles. I'd personally like to see 2 variants of the truck:

a resupply truck that is a 2 seater, and the back is LOADED with ammo boxes, sandbags(unfilled) and razorwire. this would be the truck required to build bunkers, firebases, sandbags, etc.

a transport truck: the current 8 seater, can deploy a supply crate just like now, but does not have build capabilities. this truck would be used much less often and only in specific circumstances on maps, cause like you said, its not a very safe way of travel.

Id also like to see the use of APC's to be much more prevalent, because topcat is right, in the small area of operations we have in PR, its far too dangerous to be operating in lightly armored cars or trucks, armored vehicles would be standard mode of transport for nearly all ground troops. But you would STILL have the need to have a logistics section to maintain the fuel/supplies for these forward troops, and that is what PR is attempting to simulate a bit.

Your scenarios are indeed the way it is in PR right now (the trucks always required to RUSH RUSH RUSH and get to the flag ASAP bla bla) but it doesnt mean in the future that PR gameplay will be a bit slowed down, making it so the trucks are not needed to rush into dangerous areas so haphazardly, and maybe actually moving as a convoy to get the supplies where they needed to go, which was the goal when putting the trucks in place in the first place. Of course we only have ~30 players per team to work with, so we have to keep things reasonable.

Jonny it seems like you just have a beef just with kashan and qinling cause those are the only 2 maps where there is more than 2 trucks per side. Your right we should consider reducing the amount of trucks (although the ones at the outposts dont ever respawn), but I dont think giving MORE jeeps is the answer. Jeeps are the ultimate tool for lonewolves and vbf2 players. It requires no special kit to operate, its very fast, contains its own ammo supply, and it basically requires no teamwork to use. Thats why you have seen a reduction in the amount of jeeps available AT THE BEGINNING of maps. This also serves to slow down the initial roll out of a team so there is a bit more strategy involved at the beginning of a map and less of a tard rush towards each other (though this still happens).

Jeeps are avaliable in PLENTIFUL supply, but in order to access these jeeps a team needs to use TEAMWORK to get them (ie build and protect bunkers and firebases). If we just added alot of jeeps spawning on the maps, you would still see the exact same transport problems, except you will see many many more jeeps abandoned out in strange areas of the map... Were trying to move away from vanilla style gameplay, not back towards it.

Like this allot, it seems not to be for troop transport but inside it can have the tools for building and having supplies. Remove the troop transport for supply trucks.

IF you got the time/can be bothered (LOL) log on xfire fuzz.

Well I kinda just skimmed through this so forgive me if someone stated this earlier, but why not just replace the truck spawns with jeeps, as someone said. And then simply spawn one or two trucks in tandem with the jeeps? Seriously. 4 jeeps spawn at the main base, and 2 trucks. What do you think soldiers will take? The jeeps with a bigass .50 cal mounted on them? Or the unarmored, unarmed transport trucks?

I agree that we need more efficiant ways to transportation at the main bases. Having jeeps spawn at bunkers and firebases are all well and good, but we need a way to get out there in the first place. In my opinion, a map should have at minimum 6 jeeps at the main base, that would allow atleast a couple squads to take off in jeeps. And then at max 2 trucks. Trucks should still spawn at the command post, but the map only starts with 2.

That would be more realistic to the kind of enviroment PR takes place in, do you see convoys of big trucks traveling through the combat zone? Or convoys of humvees?

Also, a not-so important side suggestion, add the canopy you see in those pictures to the trucks. Leaving them open is kinda lame.

P.S. I also don't think bunkers/firebases should spawn jeeps, I mean think about, what's the realistic explination for a jeep magicly appearing at a firebase? I can understand at a main base, it's a staging area, it's brought in just like everything else. But I doubt a heli drops off a jeep at every firebase and bunker. So as I said earlier maps should have a minimum of 6 jeeps that all spawn at main base, if a squad needs a jeep out at a firebase, have one of their men spawn at main base and bring one out.