I notice everyone keeps bringing up Kashan Desert as an example, and it is a very good example right now of a largescale map that is essentially the first combined arms map in PR. There seems to be alot of concern that you wont be able to reinforce the frontlines after you have been killed as there no longer is a spawnpoint in the area. Well, I see this as kind of the whole point

Removing the mobile spawnpoints will improve the CQB combat in the bunkers a great deal! It wont be wave after wave of enemy troops crawling around as the squad leader hides in the toilet. Once a squad is wiped out here, its back to reinforce from the frontlines, and suddenly LOGISTICS and an actual FRONTLINE may appear. If your wiped out, and your tank support is AWOL, then I guess your right, YOU WONT BE ABLE to reinforce that position and will be forced to retreat. Suddenly instead of the battle lasting for 30 minutes at the Bunkers it will only last 5 minutes as a clear victor will emerge and the battle will not be a continued series of spawnlings looking for the other teams hidden squad leader. If an infantry try to over extend themselves, then they are taking a risk and have a real possibility of being killed with no support. Many people will not like this and get quite frustrated, that their 'wonder squad' cannot in fact, take on the enemy tanks, APCs, Helicopters and infantry all by themselves anymore. Relying on team assets will be necesary in order for infantry to cross the desert. I think this is a critical point that I dont quite get? If your crossing the desert and your not in a convoy, DONT BE SURPRISED TO GET WASTED! Your take it for granted that you have a right of passage of the open plains and that you most probably wont get shot at. That is the wrong way to look at it IMO. When crossing an open plain in unknown territory, EXPECT TO GET SHOT AT. Have a plan if you do. Dont just wing it and hope that no one notices your lone jeep moving through their sights. By travelling in a group you have a much better chance of fighting back. Teams that realize this will be much more succesful than teams that dont. And teams that have a smart commander and knows when to move a convoy and when to dig in, will probably be the key to victory of these large maps.

For infantry on Kashan, once a CQB environment comes up (villages, bunkers, dense hills, etc) This is where the Tanks will need to rely on the infantry to clear out and capture the area. And your right, players will either 'get it' or they wont. They will either work together or they will just go off and lone wolf in their tank trying to get some easy kills. Nothing is going to change that fact, but keeping something like SL/APC spawning to give infantry players an easier time in harsh battlefield conditions doesnt seem like the best solution. Yes your absolutely right, maps like Kashan could use more cover for infantry, especially in the ring 100meters around the CP. This has been brought up in mapping discussion and is being addressed on the new largescale maps.

I have played a number of excellent rounds on kashan as an infantry squad leader, being supported by a good commander and a reliable APC transport crew who knew what they were doing. Getting 'caught in the open desert' is not a map fault but an unlucky or poor tactical decision. The map has plenty of places for infantry to decimate armor, but it does require planning and careful decisions.

On a map like Kashan, your team CAN be screwed over for a whole map by the bad choices of a few players. I dont know how to address that but its part of a design. Large maps do have REAL consequences for poor tactical decisions and for decisive tactical victories.

These maps are not suited for new players and ESPECIALLY players coming from striaght vanilla are not going to mesh well with this type of gameplay. Personally I see Kashan as a new type of PR experience, one that I think is awesome! Finally,commanders have a usefulness that is very important and their stategical choices (different from tactical) will have very real consequences, just like a chess game. Its a much slower pace and skill alone does not decide the victor, but rather who can out manuever the enemy, use withdrawing tactics when being overwhelemed, know when to press teh attack, etc. I cant wait for more 4km maps to come out and to see the evolving strategies commanders will use to achieve victory in these all out battles over large territory! Another great thing about the large maps is that map memorization plays a much smaller role, as there is so much potential areas you will be fighting over. I really dont enjoy how players memorize every little detail of a map, and know for example that a car can get to Mine CP from Estate CP quicker than PigFarm to Mine. These little qwerks of each map come out more and more overtime, and with larger maps it becomes less prevalent because its not so much a rush to get in a fight, but smart players will choose where they fight their battles.


7 Gates - I think its fine the way it is now. Keeping a China Unit in at the Citadel at all times is a smart move by a good China Commander, because he can:
A) Prepare Bunker/Firebase/Sandbag/Razorwire/AAGun defenses at Citadel when the eventual withdraw from Riverfort occurs
B) Keep a commanding view of the whole river basin to spot enemy troop movement approaching river fort
C) Utterly destroy enemy infantry crossing the river unprotected by MG fire.
D) Destroy any enemy APC's attempting to cross/flank.
E) Protect the RP's setup around the Citadel, WHICH is the enemy main objective anyways.



If you can hide a RP close to a CP, then what is the difference between that and hiding a SL near a CP and having his squad spawn back in to continue the fight?

The difference being, an RP cannot defend itself and has some kind of set limit to where it needs to be placed. an SL can be anywhere and is MOBILE. an RP has some rules defined to it and is very vulnerable. Im not saying the RP system is without its faults, but its certainly a step toward a more tactical game style. I always assumed we would remove SL spawning as soon as RP's were introduced, as it seems they are a substitute for SL spawn, and NOT just an alternate spawn. Its not that spawning on RP's is anymore realistic. IF we wanted to go ultimate realism we would have only mainbase spawns, but we realize that gameplay needs to be considered. So yea, this is being pick and choose but its also about changing vanilla gameplay. We have a perfectly good substitute for SL spawn with the Rally spawn, keeping both at this point just dont make sense in a gameplay sense.

About reviving, Ive always had some ideas about how to change reviving system but changing that system is not on the agenda for v0.7. we talk about that again when v0.8 is on teh drawing board

IMI-50AE - yeap I understand your stance, sorry to come strongly aswell I am just trying to explain a point of view of someone who works on the mod and plays ALOT of it as well.

Spec Ops in 0.7 - I agree a stronger spec ops would be good idea. currently they just got flashbangs but they prolly will be getting some more goodies. I think a more powerful slam and silenced pistol would be prety cool and not hard to add. The problem with you wanting Navy SEALS and Delta Force, etc is thesame problem we get always with people requesting stuff. They never think in terms ofthe rest of the factions. BF2 is a COMPLETELY symetrical game. For every single weapon/vehicle there is an eqiuvalent of the exact same thing on the other factions. SO when making suggestions you have to keep in mind every other faction and you quickly realize how it can become quite alot of work, espeically considering: USMC, US ARMY, CANADIAN, MEC, CHINA, POLISH, RUSSIA, IDF,etc are all factions you have to make the change to. Making assymetrical sides is a VERY demanding process that we are experiementing with in the insurgents. Needless to say it takes alot of time to balance correctly and even then you can never get it perfect.

ZEZZ - as already mentioned above we tried adding APC spawn only when its occupied by crewman but that was not possible, as like many many many other ideas we have had in the past that just didnt work

wrt maps getting unbalanced/unplayable - you are very right in thinking ALL PR maps will get played quite differently now. And thats why there is an open beta period where we can rapidly make changes where they are needed. I think the majority of PR maps will maintain and actually improve their gameplay with these changes, but some maps might have problems and we will have to add things to them, but so is the nature of developing a mod that is constantly evolving...