Project Reality Forums

I was thinking about having anti personnel mines in the game not claymores but mines like the anti tanks one this would be usefull for protecting fobs, As we have all the mgs and what not but very rearely are these protected by personnel.

They are in game.

So basically, grenade traps for non-insurgent forces, that all ready tk more people than enemies?

dominator200 wrote:I was thinking about having anti personnel mines in the game not claymores but mines like the anti tanks one this would be usefull for protecting fobs, As we have all the mgs and what not but very rearely are these protected by personnel.

i can say this is aut most correct, since evem AT mines able to hit infatry if they go into it.

but also. there is some mines that look like the AT one alerdy in game, but are builded to hit infatry.

they trow a bomb up, and it exploeds in you head, istead you feet. making it also ablle to kill a entire squad if not have the apropriated tatical spacing.

i will try found some you tube vidios about this, quite interething ideia.

but people must be construtive

HAAN4 wrote:i can say this is aut most correct, since evem AT mines able to hit infatry if they go into it.

Not always, HAAN. Anti-tank mines generally require around 150 kilograms to pressure-activate them. An infantry soldier would have to be massive and/or carrying his own weight in equipment in order to set one off.

Not Realistic.

Mines are illegal. Claymores are only allwoed by international law because they have a remote detonation system, but Anti Infantry mines are illegal like flamethrowers - for being Inhumane.

Herbiie wrote:Not Realistic.

Mines are illegal. Claymores are only allwoed by international law because they have a remote detonation system, but Anti Infantry mines are illegal like flamethrowers - for being Inhumane.

This.


Dominator, I suggest you do some reading up on international treaties, such as the Ottawa Treaty, the treaty that bans anti-personnel land mines, such as the ones you describe.

HellDuke wrote:Yep... Mines are pretty much not allowed. However, the bayonet is banned as well, but the sapper in insurgent forces uses one... well they use mines as well...

btw, anti-presonell mines rarely kill, because they are designed to injure and maim (<-not sure how this is spelled) infantry units, so they would move slower.

Bayonets are not banned... The British Army uses them as do most forces around the world...

waldo_ii wrote:This.


Dominator, I suggest you do some reading up on international treaties, such as the Ottawa Treaty, the treaty that bans anti-personnel land mines, such as the ones you describe.

MAYBE JUST MAYBE i WOULD RESEARCH THIS IF IF IT WERE RELAVENT TO REAL LIFE BUT AS IT ISNT I WONT THANKS

Edit: User was warned for 'useless/unhelpful' posting. And this was fringe to flaming so take a bit of fresh air and continue this discussion in a fruitful way. Thank you.

dominator200 wrote:MAYBE JUST MAYBE i WOULD RESEARCH THIS IF IF IT WERE RELAVENT TO REAL LIFE BUT AS IT ISNT I WONT THANKS

Thats funny. I didn't know the Ottawa Treaty wasn't relavent to real life..


It's called Project Reality, not Project Kool-Weponz Mawd



Even if it WERE legal, they would just be placed all around the map for friendlies to step on. It's like the grenade trap.. with 360 angle of destruction.

Dev1200 wrote:Even if it WERE legal

According to the treaty that waldo posted about, the only faction currently in PR that wouldn't use anti-personnel mines would be the British faction.


IMO, I'd rather see the comeback of the remote controlled claymore than any proximity detonated AP mines.

HellDuke wrote:Yep... Mines are pretty much not allowed. However, the bayonet is banned as well, but the sapper in insurgent forces uses one... well they use mines as well...

btw, anti-presonell mines rarely kill, because they are designed to injure and maim (<-not sure how this is spelled) infantry units, so they would move slower.

Insurgents are Terrorists, therefore they do not obey the Rules of War (I believe that's the definition of a terrorist). They have inferior hardware and less planned tactics, and use civilians as cover, while real Armys can't. real armys can't shoot a clearly marked medical vehicle too... (reality check plz?)

According to the treaty that waldo posted about, the only faction currently in PR that wouldn't use anti-personnel mines would be the British faction.

And according to some quick research on the wiki article, the US hasn't signed it because mines are intergral to the defence of south korea and not because they would use them in an agressive war.

Mines are not particulary realistic in many of the maps present also. Mines would either have to be already present in large marked minefields or not there at all. It is very unrealistic for minefields to be placed while ingame and placing one or two mines in select locations as tactical barriers with proximity fuses strikes me as very gamey and not fitting with the gameplay of project reality.

In regards to remote mines, perhaps but I think that would be gamey in the hands of conventional forces. They are already a part of the unconventional side and that's where I think they should stay.

joethepro36 wrote:And according to some quick research on the wiki article, the US hasn't signed it because mines are intergral to the defence of south korea and not because they would use them in an agressive war.

Mines are not particulary realistic in many of the maps present also. Mines would either have to be already present in large marked minefields or not there at all. It is very unrealistic for minefields to be placed while ingame and placing one or two mines in select locations as tactical barriers with proximity fuses strikes me as very gamey and not fitting with the gameplay of project reality.

In regards to remote mines, perhaps but I think that would be gamey in the hands of conventional forces. They are already a part of the unconventional side and that's where I think they should stay.

Remote mines would be uber gamy.. but thats like C4 xD

And also, what he said.


I also love your Sig :3

[EDIT]

Also, what goguapsy said, Insurgents aren't always terrorists. Sometimes they're just a group of people trying to overthrow their government, a leader, etc. Similar to Russian and Chechnea

joethepro36 wrote:And according to some quick research on the wiki article, the US hasn't signed it because mines are intergral to the defence of south korea and not because they would use them in an agressive war.

Mines are not particulary realistic in many of the maps present also. Mines would either have to be already present in large marked minefields or not there at all. It is very unrealistic for minefields to be placed while ingame and placing one or two mines in select locations as tactical barriers with proximity fuses strikes me as very gamey and not fitting with the gameplay of project reality.

In regards to remote mines, perhaps but I think that would be gamey in the hands of conventional forces. They are already a part of the unconventional side and that's where I think they should stay.

Either that Wiki article or I are/am wrong, I thought (from my History teachers and History books) that the Americans didn't sign the treaty until after they'd laid the last mine for South Korea, and that the treaty states that only laying mines is now illegal, and doesn't say we have to clear them all up, for e.g. Afghanistan is heavily mined thanks to the Russians

Herbiie wrote:Either that Wiki article or I are/am wrong, I thought (from my History teachers and History books) that the Americans didn't sign the treaty until after they'd laid the last mine for South Korea, and that the treaty states that only laying mines is now illegal, and doesn't say we have to clear them all up, for e.g. Afghanistan is heavily mined thanks to the Russians

Sneaky americans ^-^


Anyway.. having a giant minefield would probably have to be mapped by the map maker.. if thats even possible. Or else people could put AP mines anywhere.. >_>

I'd link to the wiki, but I'd get an infraction for using wiki as a source

This however is far better:

International Humanitarian Law - Ottawa Treaty, 1997

Scroll to article 1 and it shows the treaty's clauses itself and furthermore why AP mines are not realistic in modern, conventional warfare.

joethepro36 wrote:I'd link to the wiki, but I'd get an infraction for using wiki as a source

This however is far better:

International Humanitarian Law - Ottawa Treaty, 1997

Scroll to article 1 and it shows the treaty's clauses itself and furthermore why AP mines are not realistic in modern, conventional warfare.

That link pretty much sums it up.. haha

dominator200 wrote:MAYBE JUST MAYBE i WOULD RESEARCH THIS IF IF IT WERE RELAVENT TO REAL LIFE BUT AS IT ISNT I WONT THANKS

Edit: User was warned for 'useless/unhelpful' posting. And this was fringe to flaming so take a bit of fresh air and continue this discussion in a fruitful way. Thank you.

^lol? i didnt think international treaties were imaginary

anywho as others have allready mentioned AP mines are illegal, not sure about anti tank mines. also the one mentioned by the Brazilian fello is called a bouncing betty, very effective against infantry, it does not fly to head level, it is meant to shoot up to about waist level and blow your crotch away. it was meant to scare the **** out of the enemy and demoralize them as the man hit by it ussually stayed alive for a while.

i agree with remotely detonated explosives, although it would likely bring back fighting over such kits so they could plant explosives everywhere and just go boom. would make PR a bit gamey again. a solution to this could be to make it so that you have to be within a certain distance from said claymore as they are commonly detonated via a wire instead of a wireless remote.