Project Reality Forums

I have a simple idea on how to improve teamwork between infantry, armor and air units, and make them more relaiable on each other: Remove the H-AT and AA- kits on symmetrically balanced maps like Kashan, Quiling, Kufrah, etc. The infantry fanatics will problary go apeshit now, but I think it will improve both the teamwork and fun.

First of - the teamwork: Maps like Kashan are supposed to be, like all PR maps, teamwork oriented, but stretching over all units rather than just infantry. But if the infantry have a good chance against enemy armor and air units on their own, the idea is partly spoiled. I know it's hard for infantry to completely wipe the enemies armor-/air element on their own, but if they at least can keep them on a distance it's enough for them to not care about support from friendly units at all.

Communication between the elements will be more important than ever if everybody relys on everybody, and the devs can always create something that makes communication easier (more map markers, etc).


Realism: 64 players is max on a BF2 server, and within those players you will have pilots, tankers, AT- gunners, etc. On big maps, this will mean that these heavy assets will be very many relative to the number of players. If these kits are removed, it will make normal infantry units a lot more common and therefore make the gameplay more minimalistic in a good/realistic way.

And I don't think the infantry element would be issued H-AT and AA- kits in real life if they were working right next to friendly armor and air units.


Balance: So where are these kits supposed to be used then? Asymmertical maps of course! Zatar Wetlands for example - MEC gets tanks and the USMC don't, so give the USMC H-AT kits as a fair counter to the tanks, and remove the H-AT kits from MEC to force them to use their tanks well.

This will also open up for more asymmetrical maps in PR, and make them feel fair.

And one more thing: If one team manages to wipe out the enemies armor-/air element, it will give them a fair, strategical gain for playing good and then don't have to worry about random infantry guys taking them out.

i agree would make it alot better on zatar and help in teamwork.

i agree too.

Farks wrote: And I don't think the infantry element would be issued H-AT and AA- kits in real life if they were working right next to friendly armor and air units.

well I disagree there, if enemy tanks are around I doubt any self respecting company commander would go out without his anti tank equipment. anyway, the HAT is used against emplace positions as well IRL.

I don't think that making part of the team defenceless would get the combined arms working together more. A teamspeak setup and a good commander who passes on info and a reasonable plan will get people working together more.

In the US army HAT and AA are given arntt company level, there given at Regiment level, So out of like 3 companies one will have all heavy cal weopons.(Least in Airbourne) I agree with last line too rudd.

LtSoucy wrote:In the US army HAT and AA are given arntt company level, there given at Regiment level, So out of like 3 companies one will have all heavy cal weopons.(Least in Airbourne) I agree with last line too rudd.

then perhaps having only one HAT kit would achieve both aims?

I highly disagree, I mean you can't make the game totally player reliant, things like you suggested are hard to force upon players. If people DON'T want to play as a team, you and the rest are pretty much screwed and now going to break the record for light AT tank kills in a server....the current load out in the field is very balanced, usually because taking on multiple armor with a heavy at and a ammo guy is pure suicide.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:then perhaps having only one HAT kit would achieve both aims?

But that kinda ruins the whole point with my suggestion.

HughJass wrote:I highly disagree, I mean you can't make the game totally player reliant, things like you suggested are hard to force upon players. If people DON'T want to play as a team, you and the rest are pretty much screwed and now going to break the record for light AT tank kills in a server....the current load out in the field is very balanced, usually because taking on multiple armor with a heavy at and a ammo guy is pure suicide.

So you're saying this mod should be developed to fit those who can't play it and the smacktards? PR can't be idiot proof, and shouldn't try to be either.

What should a multiplayer game be if not player reliant?

Dr2B Rudd wrote:well I disagree there, if enemy tanks are around I doubt any self respecting company commander would go out without his anti tank equipment. anyway, the HAT is used against emplace positions as well IRL.

I don't think that making part of the team defenceless would get the combined arms working together more. A teamspeak setup and a good commander who passes on info and a reasonable plan will get people working together more.

^^

Same reasoning from me.
This doesn't so much as increase teamwork, as screw over infantry.

What happens if on Kashan, a noob gets in the A-10 and crashes it straight away. Then you are screwed for 20 mins, that's what happens!

Tirak wrote:^^

Same reasoning from me.
This doesn't so much as increase teamwork, as screw over infantry.

The H-AT can hardly be called a defensive weapon. It's used to hunt down enemy armor.

TheScot666 wrote:What happens if on Kashan, a noob gets in the A-10 and crashes it straight away. Then you are screwed for 20 mins, that's what happens!

*sigh* I just said that PR can't be noob proof, they will always be there every now and then no matter what you do.

this may not be the best idea in my opinion for game play but wtf thats just my initial thought, i would definetly like to see it put in though, should make things more interesting, and yes most large infantry operations no one really would carry a heavy AT weapon, mostly just m72s to blast walls and take out sniper positions

It places too much trust in the hands of the people - sometimes smacktards, sometimes great team players - who operate the heavy assets (tanks, aircraft).

Yeah but i mean if we take the H-AT away then that ruins the gameplay for the whole team if the tanks are completely owning and their isnt a A-10 to take them out...

gclark03 wrote:It places too much trust in the hands of the people - sometimes smacktards, sometimes great team players - who operate the heavy assets (tanks, aircraft).

TheScot666 wrote:Yeah but i mean if we take the H-AT away then that ruins the gameplay for the whole team if the tanks are completely owning and their isnt a A-10 to take them out...

For the third time - smacktards/noobs are not a good argument against things, as it can be applied almost everywhere.

Farks wrote:For the third time - smacktards/noobs are not a good argument against things, as it can be applied almost everywhere.

YEs it is. This dosent make people go more together as you say we cant mofify the players. Well without the HATS it will be a hell simply because, you have no guarantee that the A 10 will get to you or a tank for that sake. Its not really realistic either since armies like big armies will not attack a well equipped army with tanks without giving the inf something to defend themself with.

I really cant see the solution in your opening post. As TS a good com and some guys who can their stuff is 100% better.

EDIT: I Use H-ATS afainst defensive places as firebasses and bunkers aswell they are deadly weapons.

Farks wrote:For the third time - smacktards/noobs are not a good argument against things, as it can be applied almost everywhere.

Actually, it can, and it's not just smacktards and noobs, it's system crashes, playability, if Vanilla BF2 spawntimes were in effect your idea might, by which I mean probably not, work, but waiting for twenty minutes for an asset that is your only method of countering the enemy means that whoever loses an asset first, loses the match and be damned to the infantry who can't fight an armored unit because some tanker thought it'd be a good idea that infantry be sidelined because he didn't like them scratching his tank.

Why should 1 team suffer for 1 noob/CTD/disconnect??

I just don't see how this will work, and surely its less realistic without guaranteeing increased teamplay- since as some have already pointed out 'players are hardcoded'

Farks wrote: So you're saying this mod should be developed to fit those who can't play it and the smacktards? PR can't be idiot proof, and shouldn't try to be either.

problem is that your suggestion throws all idiot proofing, leaving absolutely no room for error whatsoever.

if one guy messes up the entire team is screwed because of his actions as they have no other alternative for dealing with that threat, they might as well put their hands up and surrender than endure having to wait 20 mins for the A10 to respawn while tanks flood all over their cps.

bad idea, current system is fine.