Project Reality Forums

What do you think of introducing maps where one team has to "make due" because of one reason or another. Think of the old fools raod. The militia had 2 tanks and an apc while the brits had 3 warriors and a scimmitar.
That means the brits had to improvise anti armor either by coordinating all their apcs against a tank, or, the better solution, by running a hat squad where 2 HAT kits ambush and target a tank, while being resupplied by ammo crates.

I kind of liked how the old Barracuda map forced the us team to come up with a plan other than rush the flag since that was likely to end in disaster.

So how about tweaking some maps the way that one team has to make due, it would force people into trying to organize themselves a bit more.

Fools Road isn't a great example of asymmetrical balance imo (I mean balance in terms of each team has equal chances of winning, not that there is a counter for everything)

the reason being is yeah...chech get tanks and Russ get APCs. But Chech get loads of transport and technical 50cals so....it doesn't give a very gameplay dynamic imo.

Alot of maps are well made lately without being X vs Y (Y being X, but lookin different)

Cassius wrote:What do you think of introducing maps where one team has to "make due" because of one reason or another. Think of the old fools raod. The militia had 2 tanks and an apc while the brits had 3 warriors and a scimmitar.
That means the brits had to improvise anti armor either by coordinating all their apcs against a tank, or, the better solution, by running a hat squad where 2 HAT kits ambush and target a tank, while being resupplied by ammo crates.

I kind of liked how the old Barracuda map forced the us team to come up with a plan other than rush the flag since that was likely to end in disaster.

So how about tweaking some maps the way that one team has to make due, it would force people into trying to organize themselves a bit more.

I like it, it would add more teamwork and strategical thinking to a map. However, I think the majority of the community wouldn't like it for the reason that one team is more powerful than the other...no matter how little it may seem.

Most people would join a server with a map like this, see that the "better" team would be full and the disconnected, all the while coming back to the forums to complain that "one team is more powerful than the other and that there's no balance to it".

Cassius wrote:
So how about tweaking some maps the way that one team has to make due, it would force people into trying to organize themselves a bit more.

While the other team has a party?

Anyway, I am allvfor assymetrical balance, muttrah does it well, qwai does it fantastically and kashan has the potential to.

I would like to see kashan more assymetrical maybe.

US side:
- MG Humvees (4x)
- TOW humvees (4x)
- Supply Trucks (2x)
- Bradley APC's (2x)
- Recon Littlebird (2x)
- A10's or Apaches (1x)

MEC side:
- Supply Trucks (2x)
- BMP APC's (4x)
- Tanks (8x)
- AAV's (2x)
- Air Transport (2x)

Basicly, US will be focused on infantry gameplay and coordination while MEC will be focusing on overwhelming power with tanks and heavy equipment. basicly a desert version of qwai river with air support.

just had this idea for a pretty long time, and i maybe wanted to make a map something like that.

arjan wrote:I would like to see kashan more assymetrical maybe.

US side:
- Humvees (4x)
- TOW humvees (4x)
- Supply Trucks (2x)
- M2A3 Bradley APC's (2x)
- A10's or Apaches (1x)

MEC side:
- Supply Trucks (2x)
- BMP APC's (4x)
- Tanks (8x)
- AAV's (2x)

Basicly, US will be focused on infantry gameplay and coordination while MEC will be focusing on overwhelming power with tanks and heavy equipment. basicly a desert version of qwai river but with air support.

just had this idea for a pretty long time, and i maybe wanted to make a map something like that.

NO! STOP GIVING THE US ARMY THE SHAFT!

For christs sake, most of the "asymmetrical" maps are really just "Let's give the US Army TOW humvees and someone else tanks!" Seriously, come up with some other "Asymmetrical" balance because the US Army keeps getting the shaft.

Chill..

Its also not only TOW humvees, also assymtrical balance with air too.

I would give both sides tanks, but give mec more slightly worse ones, a couple of tunguskas. Us get less tanks but more bradleys, aircraft same as now almost but balanced with different loadouts etc...

Its sad, the MBT is a dying breed. Bring back tank maps instead of all the tow vs tow weaponry. At the rate we're are going, the MBT will be completely replaced with just tow vehicles.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Fools Road isn't a great example of asymmetrical balance imo (I mean balance in terms of each team has equal chances of winning, not that there is a counter for everything)

the reason being is yeah...chech get tanks and Russ get APCs. But Chech get loads of transport and technical 50cals so....it doesn't give a very gameplay dynamic imo.

Alot of maps are well made lately without being X vs Y (Y being X, but lookin different)

I was alking about 0.8 and prior fools road, where the brits did not have anti tank apcs, but regular apcs with Armorpiercing rounds.

Barracuda isn't unbalanced, if you have a decent team with a decent commander, the US team should win most times.

The militaries need complete revamping is my POV. Seriously, why can a T-72 go head to head with an Abrams MBT? Simple answer: Same unit, different look.

In real life, Insurgents would have tons of people verse a few well trained soldiers.

All I am saying is that yes, there needs to be ALOT more inbalance, but not in the sense of one team having the upper hand, but rather both teams need to work with the assets they have differently. So instead of seeing an Abrams blown up by a T-72, it should take 3-4 T-72's...thus meaning the MEC needs to find a better way to destroy that Abrams.

Maybe I am not being clear....

lucky14 wrote: In real life, Insurgents would have tons of people verse a few well trained soldiers.

This isn't somalia and BHD, there aren't billions of them like movies tend to show.

As for the T-72, it has been said already that it would be changed to represent its RL stats in later releases. For now it's mirrored, DEVs know it already. However keep in mind that the T-72 is far stronger than you think it is, and that the Abrams is not the almighty Thor that will one-shot roflpwn every non-american equipment.

You're perfectly clear, and I hope i am clear too, lucky14?

Don't get me wrong ofcourse. Abrams aren't unstoppable, but they are better than most other tanks.

Ofcourse there aren't billions, but the USA military verse China?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the USA active military is around 1,447,350, while the Chinese miltary is around 2,250,000?

That million is quite alot of soldiers, even if some from both sides are support soldiers (never near a battlefield)

Maybe some of the maps should reflect this difference (unless if I am wrong on my numbers) by reducing spawn time of China personal, but reducing special kits for them...or giving them worse vehicles...or something...

You were talking about insurgents... not the PLA.
PLA =/= Insurgents?..

lol lucky14 has a point, since this is GB/US entering Chinese soil i'd imagine mroe chinese troops being mobilized

lucky14 wrote: Maybe some of the maps should reflect this difference (unless if I am wrong on my numbers) by reducing spawn time of China personal, but reducing special kits for them...or giving them worse vehicles...or something...

Playing too much C&C Generals ZH are you?

That was a good game....sigh....but now I got better games....

i would love to have a map where one side has gunship helicopters and or jets and the other side has lots of apcs/tanks. now THAT would be assymetrical balance. not to mention theres a severe lack of maps with gunships.

Is it possible to have maps where the teams are unbalanced like on a 64 v 64 have like a small us team of like 15 - 20 and the rest are the taliban or something like that