WilsonPL wrote:Too many UK vs Chechen maps..
UK vs old militia faction is ok, but chechens..
What is the difference, the only thing that changed is the name and feasably the British Forces could be mounting an offensive on Chechen arms dealers/Chechen muslim terrorists/etc etc. You must understand that the Fools Road/Dragonfly series of maps were
always designed to be British against Militia and the
only reason the Russians were added was because they did not have any new maps of their own.
Rico wrote:I'd have to agree with you there Rez. I think the map focus has gone slightly in the wrong direction compared to the game play. Personally I'd like to see more realistic map battles, e.g with the Canadians, US, Brits, in Aghfan/Iraq, and not so many "fictional" ones.
I completely disagree. Project Reality is about realistic
gameplay on the BF2 engine and not realistic scenarios. PR has no official timeline/backstory/setting and therefore has complete artistic license in the creation of any scenario. Imho this creates a game with more variety than any other in the genre, which can only be a positive thing.
Oak wrote:Awesome.
Some issues spotted:
- AAS and Infantry versions both report the same map size... not sure if that's intentional or not.
- Siege at Ochamachira, AAS Infantry & AAS Standard: no flags in map overview make it hard to understand which side is where. I think it's the only image without flags.
- Intentional. The only thing that changes is the asset layout. For the smaller clan focused maps you need to be looking for the Skirmish layer.
- The flags are denoted by the blue circles. British are BLUFOR in this instance and therefore deploy around the blue flags. The Chechens are OPFOR and deploy as per the red arrows.
Protector wrote:Project REALITY seem to think creating fictional battles between armies that haven't fought recently is perfectly accceptable... the rest of us just think its way to create more maps. Beirut anyone...
Edit : It wouldn't be so bad if the factional battles were between armies that actually fight eachother...
Question yourself on how many armies are
actually fighting each other right now or in recent history. You'll find that the options are pretty limited and most do not fit the factions that PR has. Additionally there has not truly been a full conventional war (for example as depicted in Kashan Desert) since WW2 and conflicts of this kind are therefore impossible to depict in a realistic modern setting.
As stated above, PR has no timeline or backstory and is therefore free to choose battles that will provide the best gameplay experience.
Truism wrote:Looks good. Too many IDF maps though. Particularly disappointing to see MEC taken off Asad.
Ya, because 3 maps is far too many for PR's brand new faction
Truism wrote:MEC seem to be being written out of the game. Which is a huge shame, as they're easily the coolest faction owing to their battlerifleness. Edit: Same with PLA - only 3 maps for each now compared to 5 for Russia. Even the Chechans now have more maps than these staples of PR at 4.
I consider the MEC to be a product solely of vanilla BF2 and the more of that influence we can get rid of the better. Whilst the scenarios (through necessity) are not all realistic all of the factions in PR are based on real life armed forces except the MEC.
That being said, they are not being phased out simply moved to one side for the moment whilst new entirely custom factions come to fore. As soon as more (high quality) maps are created for the MEC they can be back with avengeance.
Truism wrote:I can't understand taking OGT and stuff out. PLA are losing all of their maps, despite being a great faction that has no major problems. Additionally the mod's popularity is growing in China, so it's a shame to lose so many of the maps featuring their home country. Food for thought over the next few versions eh :\
I do agree that the PLA losing maps is a shame but the fact remains that the maps they had were predominantly heavily outdated. Seven Gates, Sunset City, Operation Ghost Train, Road to Kyongan 'Ni, Tad Sae and Bi Ming have all been pencilled in for removal for a long time as the gameplay has outgrown their style and size and it is simply unfortunate that they all feature the same faction. Until mappers begin creating new PLA based maps to replace the old ones then we are stuck with the 3 remaining that do fit the current gameplay.
Do not fret however, as all the old maps will still be available for play in 0.9 but as an add-on expansion to the basic map pack (although imo once you've played the new maps you won't want to go back
).
Truism wrote:Wasn't the whole concept of PR to take the good bits of BF2 and make it realistic? The best bits of BF2 was having a unique MEC faction and acknowledging the rising power of China.
No, the concept is to take the BF2 engine and create as realistic a gameplay experience as possible.
Truism wrote:Also interesting is the fact that maps don't have layers with different factions. For example Kashan would make a great IDF vs MEC map, or Quinling a great PLA vs Russia map. Nearly all maps could support this sort of layering (unless there's a mechanical problem with it), for example most of the Chechan vs GB/Russia maps could be Russia vs GB, and most of the Insurgency maps could either be AAS with MEC and another faction or Insurgency with MEC vs Insurgents.
I actually really agree with that, although I think it would be quite strange to see IDF vs MEC one day and then US vs Russia the next over the exact same terrain.
. I LOVE defending.
(especially as the latest incarnation of the map would have a challenger 
) Also would have thought Beirut would be the first MEC amphibious map, but the IDF vs Russian assets are very interesting.
Just pushing AncientMan's quote of:
.