Project Reality Forums

Was doing some reading up on the Abrams when I came across this: "The turret is fitted with two six-barreled M250 smoke grenade launchers, one on each side of the main gun. The standard smoke grenade contains a phosphors compound that masks thermal signature of the vehicle to the enemy."

I'm assuming the Dev's were aware of this due to their numerous military advisers, but I'm curious to know why this defense is not included in the game.

Is it due to the fact that the smoke would also apply to infantry smoke grenades and then render them hidden from the thermal? Or is it that tank combat would become boring again? Or something else?

Public posts and opinions on this topic are welcome.

Beowulf2525 wrote:Was doing some reading up on the Abrams when I came across this: "The turret is fitted with two six-barreled M250 smoke grenade launchers, one on each side of the main gun. The standard smoke grenade contains a phosphors compound that masks thermal signature of the vehicle to the enemy."

I'm assuming the Dev's were aware of this due to their numerous military advisers, but I'm curious to know why this defense is not included in the game.

Is it due to the fact that the smoke would also apply to infantry smoke grenades and then render them hidden from the thermal? Or is it that tank combat would become boring again? Or something else?

Public posts and opinions on this topic are welcome.

R-Dev already anser that question, yes they are fully aware of it, use the Search function next time.

I already mentioned I knew they were aware of it, I was just curious as to why it wasn't included.

Maybe it's being worked on?
A lot of things aren't included because they aren't finished

Balance?

project reality isnt about balace btw

We just didn't get around to it. It's also mission specific because thermal blocking smoke doesn't last as long as regular smoke.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:We just didn't get around to it. It's also mission specific because thermal blocking smoke doesn't last as long as regular smoke.

Perhaps just add it to certain maps? IE kashan. But have regular smoke on unconventional cd conventional

Doc.Pock wrote:project reality isnt about balace btw

Balance>Realism in this mod, sorry to burst your bubble. Wouldnt be very fun to play a side if it just got stomped into the ground all the time now would it.

'= wrote:H[=Rissien;1492904']Balance>Realism in this mod, sorry to burst your bubble. Wouldnt be very fun to play a side if it just got stomped into the ground all the time now would it.

Realism and balance can co-exist by fine tuning exactly which assets each side are given and their dispositions. Sure M1A1's will rip apart their equivalent number of enemy tanks, but perhaps not if the enemy are given better AT assets and the Abrams are more limited in number, or if the enemy is given a substantial positional or tactical advantage.

Spouting "balance > realism" as an excuse for poor and/or unrealistic design doesn't pass muster in a game that traditionally defined itself by it's uncompromising realism, and even today proudly displays the quotes pertaining to this realism from yesteryear. While there are many valid reasons not to put the thermal smoke which Jaymz already alluded to, balance is not one of them. Frankly anyone who puts "balance>realism" on these forums deserves never to be taken seriously again because their comprehension of balance is so underdeveloped and bad.

This isn't chess. Every game doesn't start with an identical set-up and identical positions. Giving one side two queens doesn't matter at all if the other side has mate in three and a suite of strong pieces, it just means the queens have to be usef more effectively to compensate.

I'm going to stop writing now before I get another infraction.

On the contrary Truism, every suggestion to add a certain element of 'realism' to PR cannot be justified by spouting "hurr hurr but this is Project REALITY and they do this in REAL LIFE".

I'm all for assymetrical gameplay, it's fun, but there needs to be a balance of power (obviously)

'= wrote:H[=Rissien;1492904']Balance>Realism in this mod, sorry to burst your bubble. Wouldnt be very fun to play a side if it just got stomped into the ground all the time now would it.

Ford_Jam wrote:On the contrary Truism, every suggestion to add a certain element of 'realism' to PR cannot be justified by spouting "hurr hurr but this is Project REALITY and they do this in REAL LIFE".

I'm all for assymetrical gameplay, it's fun, but there needs to be a balance of power (obviously)

although i agree with truism, this point has it's merits. some things simply cant be added because the amount of asymmetry possible in game (while still being playable as a game) isn't enough to compensate for the advantage which that asset may give. Or simply because the engine wont allow for it

examples may include things like a UAV capable of firing guided missiles for factions that have them. Having 100 times more man power (china and russia anyone?) Sure an abrams could kill 2 chinese tanks before it gets destroyed, buuut that doesn't really help the war effort if there are 4 enemy tanks for every one you rolled off the assembly line...last year's assembly line.

The turret is fitted with two six-barreled M250 smoke grenade launchers, one on each side of the main gun. The standard smoke grenade contains a phosphors compound that masks thermal signature of the vehicle to the enemy.

I don't think he's referring to "termal blocking smoke". Sounds more like flares/chaffs that mess-up thermal guided missiles and stuff.

as a side note, t-90s also have this, its called shtora-1, they can even mess with tows fired at them

KingKong.CCCP wrote:I don't think he's referring to "termal blocking smoke". Sounds more like flares/chaffs that mess-up thermal guided missiles and stuff.

Actually no, it is a smoke that completely obscures the tanks heat from IR equipment. Chaff/flares can also be put into the grenade launchers, but that's something different.

Hijack.

Ford_Jam wrote:On the contrary Truism, every suggestion to add a certain element of 'realism' to PR cannot be justified by spouting "hurr hurr but this is Project REALITY and they do this in REAL LIFE".

I'm all for assymetrical gameplay, it's fun, but there needs to be a balance of power (obviously)

I agree with you almost completely. Selectively adding realistic things is also bad if it's done in isolation. The challenge for the designers is to create scenarios that are both realistic and balanced, which is well within their power to do. The sacrifice is that the mod would have to be less "cool" and more limited in what it does.

The entire point I was trying to make is that creating balance between the two sides in a map can be achieved in very different ways to unrealistically gimping/buffing assets. The priority should be to have realistic assets (because it's a reality mod, right?) and then to design the maps and scenarios around the assets, not vice versa. Of course this is a tall order when the maps and assets are put together by groups that seem to basically work in isolation from one another, and which work at very different speeds.

Bringerof_D wrote:although i agree with truism, this point has it's merits. some things simply cant be added because the amount of asymmetry possible in game (while still being playable as a game) isn't enough to compensate for the advantage which that asset may give. Or simply because the engine wont allow for it

examples may include things like a UAV capable of firing guided missiles for factions that have them. Having 100 times more man power (china and russia anyone?) Sure an abrams could kill 2 chinese tanks before it gets destroyed, buuut that doesn't really help the war effort if there are 4 enemy tanks for every one you rolled off the assembly line...last year's assembly line.

Engine limitations. Lame. I can't believe the game hasn't been hacked to allow for unbalanced teams yet. It's such a farce having US v China with even teams

Want to fight Korea already...

Actually, I think adding thermal smoke to the smokescreen dropped by a tank would be a good idea. Currently, a tank could roll up in front of some enemy infantry who might have a HAT/LAT ready, pop smoke and then turn on the thermals, screwing up any chance the infantry had of winning that fight. If thermal smoke were added in, then the tank wouldn't be able to shoot through its own smoke - and nor would other tanks - as effectively, stopping people spamming it as an offensive tool (it's supposed to be used for hiding and retreating, right?). Just my opinion anyways =P

(it's supposed to be used for hiding and retreating, right?)

Its supposed to give you advantage against enemy and using it as you described is completely relevant, it does hide you, retreat or not is your call.

[R-DEV]DankE_SPB wrote:Its supposed to give you advantage against enemy and using it as you described is completely relevant, it does hide you, retreat or not is your call.

tbh, I find myself agreeing with the realism argument here, considering how powerful an asset the tank is. Also, it would make smoke useful again in a tank on tank battle (and personally I believe that tanks already have enough of an advantage over infantry to merit leaving tank smoke ineffective to thermal sights)

Shoot the ground in front of you and have your driver enter it....... thermal blocking smoke.