PR game modes - are they realistic?

[Jigsaw]

This was brought to my attention by a post on coderedfox's latest project thread, https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... n-wip.html, requesting that codered not ruin it by making the map Insurgency and I thought it would make for a good discussion.

First you need to make the assumption that Project Reality is an attempt to recreate, as close as can be possible within a video game setting, the experience of actual RL soldiering.

With this in mind it makes sense that not only should the weapons, vehicles and avatars themselves perform as they would in RL, but the scenarios that are played out on a day to day basis should mirror, as closely as is possible in a videogame, the missions and encounters that are commonplace in todays conflicts.

As far as I can tell the only game mode that successfully achieves this aim is Insurgency as heavily equiped conventional forces fight to destroy weapon caches, against lightly armed but fiercely determined waves of insurgents, intent on defending both their weapons and their homes.

Therefore the question for today is; are PR's game modes realistic enough, in line with the rest of the mod, and should this be altered in anyway?

Once again I am sitting on the fence on this as I love insurgency for the teamwork that it forces on the conventional forces, and the heroic and death defying attitude of the insurgents, but I also thoroughly enjoy a good round of AAS on kashan, qwai, mestia or any of the other maps.

I just wondered what people thought of this and whether the devs were taking this aspect of reality into account or not.

Any posts by actual soldiers are also welcome as obviously my knowledge of actual warfare is limited.

Opinions, banter, random insults and hopefully some informed discussion above

Jig

[Spec]

Well, I wouldnt want to patrol around for days just to get killed by an IED.

A really realistic gamemode isnt possible, but I'm looking forward to the scenario mode.

[evya]

well pretty what he said^^ and also mission such as search and rescue are usually rescue VIP or civilians, which is pretty hard to make with the engine i think and so on... but the scenario mode should do it

[Jigsaw]

Obv. I dont want to just walk around for ages I can do that in RL but new and more realistic modes I think would add greatly to the overall realism.

Eg. conventional forces mite have to capture a certain number of civilians within the time limit

or a crashed helicopter, a long way from US/UK main, marked out by a limited spawn point could represent a downed helicopter with survivors that the conventional forces must reach by moving through the city and capturing points in sequence so that the troops on the ground can be safely extracted.

These are just a couple of thoughts dont know if they've been suggested yet but you see what i mean...

[WildBill1337]

the AAS deal is pretty much like, "what if conventional militaries fought each other."

this may bee off-topic, but id like to see a three-way fight. Chinese vs. US vs. MEC. or Chinese vs. US vs. insurgents. the scenario would be that the chinese are trying to take a city away from the Americans that are already fighting pockets of insurgency, but the insurgents dont want more invaders.

sorry, i digress.

[Neo_Mapper]

Well maybe the the other way round, US + GB invading an insurgency controlled area...
But I don't think, that it is possible

[Rhino]

Bare in mind, at the end of the day PR is a game, although we aim for realistic game play, it also needs to be some what fun and have something for players to do otherwise it would simply just become a simulation which is not our aim.

Insurgency is by far our most realistic game mode, it brings very realistic tactics and the type of warfare you see today. Our MAs have commented endlessly how realistic the Insurgency game mode in its concept.

AAS and CA are not all that realistic but they do bring in some realistic type of combat and its very easy for players to play epically if they have come strait from vBF2 compared to our other game modes.

We are always trying to make our game modes and the general mod as realistic as possible but at the same time we want to keep it fun and focuses on areas such as teamwork etc.

Scenario should bring in a new depth to "objective based" game play once its done

[Solid Knight]

Perhaps in AAS mode there should be a logical reason to capture flags in a certain order. The locations themselves shouldn't just be arbitary places that have buildings but should provide some sort of tactical advantage. Objectives don't have to be some warehouse but perhaps a location that allows you to control a road or something to that extent.

[Jigsaw]

Scenario should bring in a new depth to "objective based" game play once its done

Details of scenario mode please

[arjan]

We demandz details !!

[Rhino]

its surprising how many ppl dont even think about using the search function...

[badmojo420]

I don't like how on AAS maps everyone is rushing for unoccupied flags at the start of the game. It always seems to have a snowball effect of everyone always attacking, never defending. If the enemy takes flag "A" we go get it back. Leaving behind flag "B" completely undefended. I know this is also a team strategy problem. (We should be communicating/organizing better) But, the game mechanic doesn't seem to reward anyone for defending. I have a couple ideas that might reinforce the idea that the flag isn't just a quick points grab but somthing that should be guarded and valued.

First, Maybe in a simple 6 flag setup (2 mains, 4 capture points) two of the four already belong to each team. And that flag starts with a firebase built. Offering another spawn at the start of the game. Of course have no vehicles at the flag or firebase at the start of the round. To incourage people to spawn and defend the flag. Maybe make this the most distant flag from the main. (distant but not past the center of map) With this the enemy could still come in, destroy the firebase, take the flag. But if gives the defending side a little time to setup AA guns, 50cals, barbwire, etc.

Another idea is to let officers place objects (50's, barbwire, aa, etc) around captured flags. I mean they WOULD be a spawn in vBF2, so they should be more then just a few buildings that give us points. With this defending squads could throw up a rally around the flag and build up some nice defenses without wasting time or the use of a bunker/firebase.

Just my .02cents on AAS

[Jigsaw]

its surprising how many ppl dont even think about using the search function...

I used the search function but cudnt find scenario mode despite trawling through the Dev journal section. Cud I have a link?

Also I like badmojos idea of allowing defense structures (sandbags, .50s etc) placed around flags. Although its slightly off topic and I dont want to turn this thread into a rant about the current modes (which i think are fine as they are) it wud make defending a more attractive proposition.

In line with this increased focus on defence, squads could be given points on the basis of how long they spend within the radius of a CP, defending it.

[badmojo420]

Insted of points for simply standing in the CP zone, just increase the points they get for killing an enemy while in that zone.

[WildBill1337]

I don't like how on AAS maps everyone is rushing for unoccupied flags at the start of the game. It always seems to have a snowball effect of everyone always attacking, never defending. If the enemy takes flag "A" we go get it back. Leaving behind flag "B" completely undefended. I know this is also a team strategy problem. (We should be communicating/organizing better) But, the game mechanic doesn't seem to reward anyone for defending. I have a couple ideas that might reinforce the idea that the flag isn't just a quick points grab but somthing that should be guarded and valued.

First, Maybe in a simple 6 flag setup (2 mains, 4 capture points) two of the four already belong to each team. And that flag starts with a firebase built. Offering another spawn at the start of the game. Of course have no vehicles at the flag or firebase at the start of the round. To incourage people to spawn and defend the flag. Maybe make this the most distant flag from the main. (distant but not past the center of map) With this the enemy could still come in, destroy the firebase, take the flag. But if gives the defending side a little time to setup AA guns, 50cals, barbwire, etc.

Another idea is to let officers place objects (50's, barbwire, aa, etc) around captured flags. I mean they WOULD be a spawn in vBF2, so they should be more then just a few buildings that give us points. With this defending squads could throw up a rally around the flag and build up some nice defenses without wasting time or the use of a bunker/firebase.

Just my .02cents on AAS

that problem could be solved by making the commander position more useful.

[Ymir]

I think what can get tedious about AAS game modes as they are now is how static it is. Both sides start out with more-or-less equal strengths and duke it out for control of the map until one side loses all its tickets and the game ends suddenly. It doesn't help that we can only capture the objectives in a predetermined order either, killing some of the strategy of sunrise tactics and flanking. That's not how real warfare functions. It'd be nice if it felt a little more like an RTS, where you would actually need to capture terrain objectives to gain resources, in PR terms, spawn-points and vehicles.

What if you could only build assets on flag-zones for instance? And major vehicles like armor and choppers could only be spawned by those assets? That way if a team loses their flag, they also lose their spawn-point and vehicles. I also never really saw the point in the pre-determined capture order rule.

I'd also like to see things like artillery and air-strikes make more of a impact. Artillery is supposed to be the "king of the battlefield" after all. Having build-able howitzers and having captured control-points give you extra j-dams might be a good way to do this. I don't see how it's fun to force the j-dam to appear an hour into the game. Commanders should be free to use their j-dams at the best strategic moment. It's be also great if commanders had the power to distribute vehicle spawns how they wanted, whether to have armor or air units for instance, like in an RTS, as the game progressed. So ideally, vehicles would never spawn automatically, they'd all be deployed like assets.

Rules like this would doom any underdog in an AAS match the way we run them now, but if we got rid of predetermined capture order, an underdog force would be able to outmaneuver and flank an enemy much more effectively. Fun Starcraft matches are the ones in which two players are able to capture each-others' main bases and spin around each-other furiously, and we just can't do that in the static AAS mode.

[daranz]

The whole point of AAS is to have a pre-determined cap order. Without it, you end up with musical bases, where both teams run around the battlefield like headless chickens trying to hold all of the flags at the same time. It would also make defending that much less fun, as you wouldn't be able to dig in at a flag, waiting for the enemy to try and capture it.

My main complaint about AAS as it is right now is that some maps implement a zig-zagging capture order. I like AAS on maps like Muttrah, where the USMC assault docks first, and then make their way through the city and towards MEC main. It actually makes sense, and you get a moving frontline, with people advancing further into the city as they capture parts of it.

On the other hand, you have maps like Kashan, where the capture order does not make for clear front lines. The capture order goes MEC Main - MEC Outpost - South Village. Outpost is on the northern side of the map, and SV is on the southern side. As a result, you get no front line. You can't just look at the map and see that, basically, everything on the side of our main from flag X is what we captured. I like when AAS represents advancing frontlines, and I dislike when it is just an arbitrary set of points in the landscape.

[MaxBooZe]

Well maybe the the other way round, US + GB invading an insurgency controlled area...
But I don't think, that it is possible

The US and GB are invading the middle east already..
US in Middle east ..
Middle eastern people in the middle east..

Who is invading?

[LeChuckle]

if it was realistic then you would have to defend the whole coastline of op barracuda, and that would mean requiring more than 64 players. thats why aas is so useful