Project Reality Forums

Hi everyone.

I am hoping to start a discussion here that hopefully would include the Dev's inputs as well as everyone else's on Project Reality on a whole. Please bear with me as this idea is rather abstract but it involves gameplay mechanics as well as the philosophy behind the game.

As I understand this game it is made in mind to simulate as much of real life combat into the BF2 engine with compromises or symbolic replacements to offset Engine and physical limitations such as player input and player/actor limits. With this in mind I will bring my discussion topic.

Simulation of Actual Military Accounts/Scenarios under the Battlefield2/PR engine.

Assuming we actually simulate actual real life scenario's of past fights with the exact same equipment modelled under the BF2/PR engine, would the outcomes turn out to be the same? Are certain compromises or placeholders enough to alter the outcome of a certain scenario. Once that is answered we can ask, is that an acceptable outcome for this simulation?
-An example of what I am trying to point out is for example in Sean Naylor's book Not a Good day to Die Apache's Apache Team 1 supporting ground pounders in contact with insurgents, the Apache manned by Pebsworth and Hardy was hit by ground fire which disabled the Apache's weapons and target acquisition systems, later checks revealed that it was a single Al Qaeda bullet which sheared through the electronics bay perforating the electronic cables/wires within. Now if we replayed this event in Project Reality it would only simulate a hit point drop with nothing critical damaged.
-Example 2 would be from the HBO miniseries Generation Kill where Force Recon humvee's were bunched up at night in a bridge raid unable to move due to miscommunications. An insurgent foot ambush followed resulting in many Syrian fighters killed but only 2 injured Force Recon marines despite them being stationary targets in the dark. Also in an earlier ambush where the convoy drove through an ambush from multi floored buildings from mainly AK fire against unprotected humvee's resulting in no casualties against the recon marines. Again if we replayed this under the BF2/PR engine how different would the outcome have become?

----

With this in mind I would like to input what I think the BF2/PR engine currently has issues simulating accurately.

a. Dismounted Weapon accuracy
Much has been discussed on reasonable accuracy and player input/output on how accuracy should be handled. Despite it all the current incarnation 0.8 has accuracy reasonably handled for long distance shooting but unnatural player feedback regarding the accuracy such as no visual cue on the players current accuracy and imperfect recoil feedback to the player. Close quarters in this case suffers due to a gap in player feedback not knowing his accuracy while moving thus resulting in a dissatisfaction among players.

b. Mounted Weapons
On vehicles imho the mounted weapons are currently too accurate and doesnt simulate the heavy recoil a 50 can do to a gunner despite it being pintle mounted. Lack of bullet drop as well gives it a tremendous accuracy advantage over dismounts.

c. Player Limits and Scale of Combat
Quite obviously what is missing is the Scale of Combat. Normally operations are conducted at least on a platoon scale(around 30 men) and obviously the BF2 engine couldnt simulate this. What this makes is a lack of dedicated support personnnel namely Artillery, Cas-Evacs, Resupply and so on, undermanned specialty squads and a lack of a cohesiveness of an entire platoon working together.

And that is my current observation regarding BF2/PR. Please discuss and share your thoughts. Please understand that I have based this collection of thoughts on books,movies, and field manuals so if you disagree with anything please point it out or correct it. Thanks for listening!

Silvarius2000

Edited: My mistake on misinterpreting platoon. It should be 30 men. Please keep in mind I have only forwarded questions for us to mull and think about. This isnt a demand for change or balance. Thank you everyone for posting your views. !

I don't really get what you want said.

But I guess that the mounted weapons are that good because no one would use them if they weren't. In BF1942 and BF2 you wouldn't take the risk manning a stationary MG. The risk of getting sniped was greater compared to how many kills you'd get. In PR you can do a lot of damage.

Scale of combat - use bots to do such menial tasks as rearming aircraft, guarding the base/operating AA, and so on. Technically the Phalanx CIWS and LPWS are radar-guided, which could be simulated by hyperaccurate bots.

Silvarious, for right now, id hold this off till .85 is released this friday. The Devs mentioned that quite a few things have changed. They also mentioned things about bullet drops, perhaps not in this build version but in the next, or in due time.
In any case, just wait after .85 and see whats changed first.

PR is all scaled down and balanced out. Surely not a simulation. Its not supposed to be one.

Spec_Operator wrote:PR is all scaled down and balanced out. Surely not a simulation. Its not supposed to be one.

Not quite.

To be honest I see a future for PR on Coop only, with bots doing defense and other roles adding people onto the battlefield and also doing things many dont want to, even civilians if possible.

Silvarius2000 wrote: Simulation of Actual Military Accounts/Scenarios under the Battlefield2/PR engine.

Assuming we actually simulate actual real life scenario's of past fights with the exact same equipment modelled under the BF2/PR engine, would the outcomes turn out to be the same? Are certain compromises or placeholders enough to alter the outcome of a certain scenario. Once that is answered we can ask, is that an acceptable outcome for this simulation?
-An example of what I am trying to point out is for example in Sean Naylor's book Not a Good day to Die Apache's Apache Team 1 supporting ground pounders in contact with insurgents, the Apache manned by Pebsworth and Hardy was hit by ground fire which disabled the Apache's weapons and target acquisition systems, later checks revealed that it was a single Al Qaeda bullet which sheared through the electronics bay perforating the electronic cables/wires within. Now if we replayed this event in Project Reality it would only simulate a hit point drop with nothing critical damaged.
-Example 2 would be from the HBO miniseries Generation Kill where Force Recon humvee's were bunched up at night in a bridge raid unable to move due to miscommunications. An insurgent foot ambush followed resulting in many Syrian fighters killed but only 2 injured Force Recon marines despite them being stationary targets in the dark. Also in an earlier ambush where the convoy drove through an ambush from multi floored buildings from mainly AK fire against unprotected humvee's resulting in no casualties against the recon marines. Again if we replayed this under the BF2/PR engine how different would the outcome have become?

IMO, what would make the biggest difference is not the engine or technology, but the players who take on the part of the soldiers ingame, mainly with example 2. For example, in the foot ambush, players probably would not just shoot at the humvees but would use RPGs, or crawl up close and plant IEDs on the humvee (assuming that they can get close enough to do this, likely because of the total darkness and possible approach directions). But if humvees in PR were driving through AK fire, I'd assume they'd survive.

I also agree with anyone says that bots ought to be used for the menial tasks like defending main bases and such. Artillery really should be fired from off map though, the PR maps aren't big enough to have howitzers and the like parked on them.

[R-CON]Alex6714 wrote:Not quite.

Okay, of course not perfectly balanced, but balance is one of the goals. If one faction would simply be better than another, and the map doesnt help the other one either, that'd simply suck in-game. (Usually. I could live with it, actually. As long as the noobs would join the better faction and the veterans the worse, that'd still be a nice challenge)

PR is more like RTS-FPS, not a simulator, it´s BF2 added with "realism"..
And the players are "hardcoded".

'[R-CON wrote:Alex6714;907561']Not quite.

To be honest I see a future for PR on Coop only, with bots doing defense and other roles adding people onto the battlefield and also doing things many dont want to, even civilians if possible.

Yes this would be true, if the playerlimit cap can be worked around. Then anything can happen.

Its interesting to consider all of these factors and then realize that there is already a game that addresses many of these factors.

But then you have to ask yourself why we're all here and not playing ARMA.

Normally operations are conducted at least on a platoon scale(around 100 men)

Platoon is closer to 30...

scandhi wrote:Yes this would be true, if the playerlimit cap can be worked around. Then anything can happen.

except fast ropes

I do agree with him on the mounted weapon recoil though. I mean those .50 calls might be deadly in real-life, but the way they are now in PR is just exaggerated. There is no recoil at all, and the bullets don't have any drop. They should, because it's project reality after all.

Didnt we just cover that although its project reality, balancing issues are a constant thing on the devs minds? Its meant to resemble reality but too many other factors come into play. Bullet drop would be nice, and is already discussed in some other forums. So il call this a WIP.

i see a very good point made. in real life things happen at a company level, not a squad level. you dont have 6 guys fighting 6 you have 150 guys fighting 150 guys. we all know that this is something we may never get in PR. but more focused fighting can be achieved. maybe reduce the amount of cap points, or something along those lines. for PR to be a truly realistic experience we need larger battles more often. ambitious? yes. impossible? no. the DEVs are on the right track with AAS, they just need to prefect it.
as for the senarios, i dont think that will ever happen. a computer will never be able to calculate the chance and randomness of life, nvm combat. i think PR is damn close, but it will never be anywhere near the real thing. take what you got on that one.

EDIT: PLatoon (~30) or Company (~120-150) combat happens in real life, not 6v6. its not possible in PR. if you really crave that play Arma

If you did that generation kill scene in PR what you would get is a spam of molotovs and a bunch of cooked marines, I dont believe there is much realism in the fights in PR but its fun to play anyways.