+ Reply to Thread
Results 856 to 870 of 2403
Discussion: Project Reality / PR:BF2 - PR Dev Journal. - Originally Posted by thegreatnardini
T-72's or T-80's would probably be a better fit, I believe
-
11-14-2008, 02:21 PM #856
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Prince Edward Island, Canada
- Age
- 20
- Posts
- 96
Re: PR Dev Journal.
They would fit well, and certainly be fielded in significant numbers. But canon-wise, I'd think the MEC would have the cash to splash on T-90's? More of a fair fight against an Abrams or Challenger, too.
Originally Posted by thegreatnardini
|TG|DocZoidIV
A Day in the Life of |TG-X|Turkish
"It looks so tasty...."
"That looks absolutely delightful!"
"Wow that's a lot of tasty stuff!"
"This is perfect, I love it!"
-
11-14-2008, 02:42 PM #857
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Good ol Suburbia in Southern Westchester County NY
- Posts
- 6,091
- Blog Entries
- 49
Re: PR Dev Journal.
That's the point I was making in regards to H&K, and I agree with you Zoidberg...if this is also partially based on reality, even though it is a video game, those things do have to come into play. And you can like it or hate it, but Western Nations have a much larger Defense Budget and a wider range of military equipment at their disposal. Originally Posted by Dr. Zoidberg
Though i am looking forward to what will be introduced on all sides of the spectrum!!Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
Randy/Bob/Magnum
RSS Feeds:Bamboo | |TG-31st| LR IHS Info | 9/11 - Never Forget |
Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."
-
11-14-2008, 03:18 PM #858
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- the danger zone
- Posts
- 3,825
Re: PR Dev Journal.
Even though this is project reality, it is nearly impossible to implement tanks evenly in the game. The Abrams is much much faster than the Challenger/T-90/practically every other tank but you can't really implement that in-game for the sake of balance. Turret stabilization of an Abrams hasn't been coded (effectively at least) in PR either. The range of engagement in PR is much closer than in real-life, so thermal sights and computer-guided aiming can't even be coded or implemented. In real life if you're in a tank and get hit by practically any other modern battle tank you're screwed, or at the very least completely disabled. The list goes on and on, so their best bet is to basically keep the gameplay as even as possible, even if it does go against realism.
The T-90 is basically a modified T-80, which in itself is a modified T-72. So against an Abrams/Challenger I don't think it would be a huge difference, especially in game.
lTG-6thl NardDawg
Kicked? Banned? Click here!!! | Everything you Need to Know About the PR Server | Need an admin? PM me | XFire
OK, runner ups get 3 months free SM and the winner gets a custom 2012 Dodge Charger with TG decals, built in dashboard laptop with TG as the homepage and an aquarium built into the steering wheel that's filled with japanese fighting fish. - Axis
11-14-2008, 09:28 PM #859Re: PR Dev Journal.
Very brief mention during podcast interview of IDF and Russian factions in .85 patch
[media]http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=m8FQjSN30OM[/media]
If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.
11-14-2008, 10:53 PM #860
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Prince Edward Island, Canada
- Age
- 20
- Posts
- 96
Re: PR Dev Journal.
True enough. I just caught Fuzzhead's post on the previous page, and if part of the reasoning is that they'd like to differentiate between Vanilla and PR OPFOR even more then I'll go along with MEC using T-72's and so on. Originally Posted by thegreatnardini
|TG|DocZoidIV
A Day in the Life of |TG-X|Turkish
"It looks so tasty...."
"That looks absolutely delightful!"
"Wow that's a lot of tasty stuff!"
"This is perfect, I love it!"
11-15-2008, 05:57 AM #861
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Milky Way Galaxy
- Posts
- 939
Re: PR Dev Journal.
I'd be in favour of the mec using a T-80/T-72. To make up for the power loss just give them faster respawn times (more of them at once = less infantry).
Damnit Blizzard, fix ZvT already >.<
In Soviet Russian, Arma admins are nice to you!
11-15-2008, 06:25 AM #862
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Posts
- 2,149
Re: PR Dev Journal.
I honestly don't like balanced assets...
There is always ONE thing that a particular asset does better than another. I like discovering that strength and exploiting it as much as possible
|TG-X|Turkish
11-15-2008, 10:30 AM #863
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Oklahoma City, Ok
- Age
- 40
- Posts
- 2,995
Re: PR Dev Journal.
I'm sure the Engine wont support it, but it would be interesting to see a purposly unbalanced map, US or Brit with all their High tech stuff on one side, and an insurgent force on the other.. 20 players vs 44 players ish.
11-15-2008, 12:08 PM #864
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Posts
- 54
Re: PR Dev Journal.
You dont need the engine to support it, you can just have autobalance off and have a script running on the server/mod that is set to balance the teams in specific ways on specific maps and on the other maps it would work normally. Originally Posted by llPANCHOll
Also, in relation to the whole T-80 and T-72 thingy, i think that other than Pakistan and Syria most Middle-Eastern countries actually have an armored force thats a mix of old and new Western tanks (Mostly French and British) rather than Russian tanks. Iran IIRC is a mix of Western (Pattons and Chieftains), Iranian and Russian tanks.
So really, it wouldnt be that unrealistic to have the MEC using M1 Abrams, Challenger 1s and/or Leclercs. Definitely more realistic than T-80s which are only used by Pakistan in that area, saying that more countries bought T-80s is silly since that the production line is borderline dead for quite some time now.
IMO, its sad that the MEC only gets 1 layout of vehicles and kits when it could be a far more interesting (And realistic) faction if they had more than one layout to simulate the MEC being a coalition rather than a single army. It would be like having both US and UK side in a side called "Allies" and just mix between the equipment.
11-15-2008, 03:34 PM #865Re: PR Dev Journal.
Before they increased insurgent respawn times, the insurgents in theory had a greater troop number. Would be cool to have riot and human wave effects possible through bots or duplication 'holagrams', but nope
If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.
11-15-2008, 09:18 PM #866
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 267
Re: PR Dev Journal.
I still stand by my favorite idea: a "Training Mission" scenario. USA vs UK (not sure if this is implementable; sure hope it is).
Set in, say, the hills of Virginia, the US is hosting a Wargame against the brits, and it's all-out warfare! Similar to Quinling or so in depth and breadth of weapons (combined forces; helis, jets, tanks, APCs, infantry, et al)
or even a beach assault scenario, with the USMC attacking USA.
I know it's not 100% realistic (Wargames and such generally have one side playing OpFor with either Russian weapons or Vismodded equivalents), but damn it all if it wouldn't be cool.
Maybe call it a theoretical "War of 2012" scenario (if the "joke" isn't obvious, subtract 200 years and read a bit of US history :P)
11-15-2008, 09:50 PM #867
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Good ol Suburbia in Southern Westchester County NY
- Posts
- 6,091
- Blog Entries
- 49
Re: PR Dev Journal.
The French tanks shoot white flags.
Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
Randy/Bob/Magnum
RSS Feeds:Bamboo | |TG-31st| LR IHS Info | 9/11 - Never Forget |
Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."
11-16-2008, 12:26 AM #868
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Age
- 17
- Posts
- 1,496
Re: PR Dev Journal.
The war of 1812? Thats an old one, try a bit farther back into the Revolutionary times. Originally Posted by Riffraffselbow
It would be really cool if PR could make a separate game mode called Revolutionary and recreate some of the famous battles as maps. That would be ~close to what ur talking about, except with old weapons, but you could even spice it up with the newest tech.
11-16-2008, 12:03 PM #869
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- WV
- Age
- 39
- Posts
- 1,206
Re: PR Dev Journal.
I always thought the Civil War would have been a good mod. During the Civil War is when some new ideas were coming about, like scouting from balloons and the first submarines, the repeating Henry rifle and Gatling gun. So many things come in to my head about the possibilities for a mod based on the Civil War. I mean just the other day I seen an episode on TV that said the Union army had cannons that actually had rifled barrels for precision long shots, up to a mile away. Originally Posted by Fighter
I doubt a game mod would ever be made like this but I think it would be interesting.
11-17-2008, 01:55 PM #870
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Chicago!
- Age
- 28
- Posts
- 1,191
Re: PR Dev Journal.
We're getting a bit off topic here, but there used to be a BFV mod called Insurrection 1776 that was based on the Revolutionary War. I only played it once for a few minutes, but it was pretty cool.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks