Project Reality Forums

IMO close quarter battle Aka under 50 meters shouldn't even exist in this game. They feel very arcade-ish and COD-ish. It's just about reflexes and luck. This is supposed to be a realistic game. Realistic CONVENTIONAL infantry engagements are done ideally at around 300 meters with semi auto fire. I don't mind deviation but after those 5 seconds I wanna snipe a guy from 300 meters away with my m16. Right now, people would pop put of covers and run around with no consequences, if they get shot at they'd just run back. People should be scared to move. I think this game needs to promote longer range infantry combat instead of automatic fire. This IMO will increase teamwork, make the game slower and make the hated close quarter panic spams disappear

you are right and this is cos you cant destroy fob with fighting.
you have to go near to use fosfor grenade or stab the radio.
like i made suggest,fobs should have limited spawns...then you can destroy the fob from longer range.
no need to go ninja
if limiting spawns is impossible,the range when enemys are close to the fob and spawning is disabled should be increased....lot.
close combat is realistic but happens too often.

I don't see what's wrong with the close combat. It's fast, panicky, and oftentimes not worth it, which is what I'd imagine it'd actually be. Still, close encounters aren't unrealistic. Assuming that you can't just f*ck the whole building to the ground, the situation is like this: The enemy are occupying a building you need to be in. Sooner or later, you're going to have to go in that building. No matter how many you pick off from afar, you can never be sure that they're all dead. The only way to be sure is to go in there yourself, and there may be opfor waiting there.

Besides, most of the fighting in the game IS over a good distance, and it seems like it is a smarter move to fight from afar if you can (unless you're disadvantaged in that area, like the militia).

Seamus2010 wrote:IMO close quarter battle Aka under 50 meters shouldn't even exist in this game. They feel very arcade-ish and COD-ish. It's just about reflexes and luck.

What about when the fighting gets into cities and there happens to be a guy across the street? Its an unavoidable engagement. No real soldier would move away to engage him from long range when he could drop him there are then.

Right now, people would pop put of covers and run around with no consequences, if they get shot at they'd just run back. People should be scared to move.

I agree, but thats the unfortunate situation with video games: there is no concept of loss of life, or no fear of death. The only possible way to replicate this is by having a single life each game, in a CS-style format, which will never happen, or if all spawns are removed so you have to spawn back at the main base when you die.

I think this game needs to promote longer range infantry combat instead of automatic fire. This IMO will increase teamwork, make the game slower and make the hated close quarter panic spams disappear

With PR's tendency lately to move to larger maps, this may be fufilled. I too would like it if field formations etc. were useful, but in its current format luck and spraying will always remain supreme in short range engagements.

Because at close range everyone stands still for 5 seconds lining up a shot in IRL, right?

IRL when there is a dude in a house with a gun, its not like you can ask him to walk 50m away for a fight.....

in CQB you don't need to wait, though if you stand for 5 seconds outside the CQB area, then come in you have a slight advantage, this is fine in realism terms imo since I'm sure soldiers prepare themselves for breaching.

I agree to an extent that people aren't afraid for their own lives enough, the answer imo would be to make bullets slightly more deadly, so when you do hit them it hurts more than atm.

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:I agree to an extent that people aren't afraid for their own lives enough, the answer imo would be to make bullets slightly more deadly, so when you do hit them it hurts more than atm.

Nope. That wouldn't fix the problem at all. A video game is a video game, and will always will be. People will not care for themselves ingame. Increasing bullet damage will not make people more scared, it will just make people die more often. Players are hardcoded, you can't implement the fear of death into them through a video game.

best game that did close quarters was GTA 4, and that was not even trying to be realistic.


But yeah close quater fighting in BF2 and pr is a joke i agree, Some map's like Biuret are ok in some places, there are lot of cars and fuel drums scattered around the place's you can hide behind.

But most maps, like muttra are just unplayable for me.

Looy wrote:Because at close range everyone stands still for 5 seconds lining up a shot in IRL, right?

Of course not. I'm saying at 200-400m, after those 5 seconds I should be extremely accurate (sniper-like) with a rifle on semi auto.

All I'm saying is that CQ engagments should be far and in between, and not game changing. Right now, while assaulting a building, you could do everything right, moving smartly and picking guys from windows etc, and after you actually get in the building your squad could be mowed down by a single guy with a LMG waiting around the corner

How can you possibly not have CQB? have all the maps as one massive wide open space ?

*Shrug*
And CQB IRL isnt about reflexes? Is there some tacticool auto aimer IRL that works for less than 50m or makes u immune to a guy with a full auto AK waiting around a corner (=grenade, works in PR)? PR0.9 CQB is almost perfect, no prone divers, reasonable deviation, obviously no bunny hopping.
Some1 here is being pwnt too often with his 1337 scoped M4 in city maps or what?

Also, currently long range pew pew is pretty silly as players just dive behind cover and get healed or easily revived, sprint behind a corner like nothing happened and use dressing etc.
Plus if were talking about silly stuff, long range is just point, wait, shoot.
>.<

Someone who has seen combat will need to confirm this, but combat does not take place at 300 meters. I've read (cant find source, so again if someone can confirm that would be great) that one of the reasons the army moved to a smaller caliber (7.62 to 5.56) was that the extra range was not needed over the lighter recoil of 5.56. I'm pretty sure that most firefights take place at sub-200 meter to 100 meter ranges.

In PR CQB is mainly about luck. Get used to it, when you start a thread like this people just use it as an excuse to accuse you of sucking.

If you keep having problems you should mark the center of your screen with a whiteboard marker, pick specialist kit and use the shotgun = instant-cqb-skill + running and gunning CoD style.

Nebsif wrote:*Shrug*
And CQB IRL isnt about reflexes? Is there some tacticool auto aimer IRL that works for less than 50m or makes u immune to a guy with a full auto AK waiting around a corner (=grenade, works in PR)? PR0.9 CQB is almost perfect, no prone divers, reasonable deviation, obviously no bunny hopping.
Some1 here is being pwnt too often with his 1337 scoped M4 in city maps or what?

Also, currently long range pew pew is pretty silly as players just dive behind cover and get healed or easily revived, sprint behind a corner like nothing happened and use dressing etc.
Plus if were talking about silly stuff, long range is just point, wait, shoot.
>.<

I agree that right now CQB is pretty good but could we make it happen less often somehow? I thought this game was about tactics & teamwork not one guy on full auto charging a whole squad.
Yes long range fire is not lethal enough, that's why there should be more suppression, more damage and a LOT more accuracy after the deviation time.

snotmaster0 wrote:Someone who has seen combat will need to confirm this, but combat does not take place at 300 meters. I've read (cant find source, so again if someone can confirm that would be great) that one of the reasons the army moved to a smaller caliber (7.62 to 5.56) was that the extra range was not needed over the lighter recoil of 5.56. I'm pretty sure that most firefights take place at sub-200 meter to 100 meter ranges.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA512331

Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters.

really dont see the point in this thread, to make advances on the map you need to attack.... yes engagements happen at long ranges but at the end of the day to make ground you need to advance to the enemy and over run their position?

snotmaster0 wrote:Someone who has seen combat will need to confirm this, but combat does not take place at 300 meters. I've read (cant find source, so again if someone can confirm that would be great) that one of the reasons the army moved to a smaller caliber (7.62 to 5.56) was that the extra range was not needed over the lighter recoil of 5.56. I'm pretty sure that most firefights take place at sub-200 meter to 100 meter ranges.

Yes sub 200 meters is what usually happens but I'm talking about CONVENTIONAL infantry engagements not urban warfare. I think that long range engagements should happened more because it's more fun and it feels realistic.

snotmaster0 wrote:Someone who has seen combat will need to confirm this, but combat does not take place at 300 meters. I've read (cant find source, so again if someone can confirm that would be great) that one of the reasons the army moved to a smaller caliber (7.62 to 5.56) was that the extra range was not needed over the lighter recoil of 5.56. I'm pretty sure that most firefights take place at sub-200 meter to 100 meter ranges.

Actually if you read the document that gazz posted it is the exact opposite, here's a quote that basically sums it all up

"Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and
on level terrain"

Even though more engagements arn't considered CQC (even in PR I think there are more mid-long range engagements then short range) you still can't choose how far/close you want to be when you fight! It happens so get some practice with CQC and just deal with it OR stop playing on muttrah or any other urban map.

Seamus2010 wrote:Of course not. I'm saying at 200-400m, after those 5 seconds I should be extremely accurate (sniper-like) with a rifle on semi auto.

All I'm saying is that CQ engagments should be far and in between, and not game changing. Right now, while assaulting a building, you could do everything right, moving smartly and picking guys from windows etc, and after you actually get in the building your squad could be mowed down by a single guy with a LMG waiting around the corner

CQ engagments are only becoming more common because maps are becoming more urban in nature. On open rural maps like Kashan, Quinling, Qwai, and Jabal, long-range engagments are the most common. But when your squad is moving down the street in Beirut or Muttrah and you run into enemies, or you are breaching an apartment building, you have no choice but to shoot everyone you see as you see them. If CQ engagments are too common, it's because urban maps are being played all the time, not because long range fire isn't lethal. And if the enemy is rushing/flanking your squad in long range combat and mowing them down, that means you aren't laying down enough fire to suppress the enemy sufficiently.

As for the LMG ambush, that can be solved by breaching properly. AFAIK, you are supposed to have each man spraying into a different corner of the room as you enter so that anyone inside will be shredded instantly. And, if people don't blob and bunch up as they enter, if one man dies, the others can spam the room with grenades to clear it before they enter.

Epic document gazz, think ima read atleast most of it

In urban (and forest) conditions it isn't uncommon for firefights to occur at very short ranges. The long range firefights (300+ meters) that occur in Afghanistan are probably the result of the prevailing terrain conditions on the ground (i.e. much more open fields that in many places in Europe and so forth). For example, in Finland, things are different: here it is expected that most fights would occur at ranges of 100-200 meters, even less. So here we still use the 7.62x39 round.