project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 General Discussion
12 Dec 2019, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 General Discussion General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.

View Poll Results: Which side do you prefer playing on Insurgency maps?
BLUFOR (British, US Forces) 1,004 61.56%
Insurgents (Taliban, Iraqis) 627 38.44%
Voters: 1631. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2009-06-09, 22:47   #21

RedAlertSF's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

Al Basrah - Playing as insurgent is just doesn't work. Playing as Brits is lovely though.
Karbala - Playing as insurgents sucks if cache is outside the main city. Playing as US is better
Fallujah West - Both factions work great, but I still like USMC more
Ramiel - Both factions are awesome
Archer - Both are great, but USMC wins because of the optics
Korengal - Playing as taliban in Korengal is the best this mod has to offer <3
RedAlertSF is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-09, 22:55   #22
Retired PR Developer
Supporting Member

Adriaan's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

I found it hard to choose, both sides give a whole different experience and both of them are great. But overall, i feel more tempted to choose BluFor. At the same time you know you can rely on this modern arsenal of weaponry and vehicles, but on the other hand, you fight a foe that is most of the time either stealthy, waiting for the perfect chance to ambush you and your squad, or with greater amounts of fighters than you. It gives this constant feel of tension, knowing that you could be ambushed virtually every moment when f.e. your driving through the streets of a seemingly abandoned city, or have to fight a number of cunning enemies far greater than yours when approaching a located cache. Then again, some of my better games have been as insurgent, so yeah, it´s a hard choice

Adriaan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-09, 23:21   #23

McBumLuv's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

Basrah - Brit
Ramiel - Either
Karbala - D/C, or US infantry
Archer - Taliban, though USMC is fun
Konrengal - Either
Fallujah West - Insurgents

I feel like the taliban insurgency rounds are fun for either side, but some insurgent rounds are extremely bad. Al Basrah being a prime example, there's little to no incentive to sticking as a squad as insurgents.

McBumLuv is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-09, 23:30   #24
Retired PR Developer

Tim270's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

Basrah really does need some tweaking, its just the blurfor camping the city until they get enough intel points and then half the time dont even bother going in.

Tim270 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-09, 23:32   #25

Tomato-Rifle's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to Tomato-Rifle
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

I dont care, i choose the one with people i know are on and have a good time with them.

Tomato-Rifle is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-10, 01:01   #26

alexaus's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

Fallujah - US
Archer - insurgent
Basrah - brit
Korengal - insurgent
Ramiel - insurgent
Karbala - US
alexaus is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-10, 01:10   #27

Wh1tE_Dw4rF's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

I like playing taliban but I hate playing insurgence.

Insurgency's lack of medics and crappy civilian gameplay ruins the fun for me.
Wh1tE_Dw4rF is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-10, 01:28   #28
Supporting Member
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

I like playing insurgents because i find insurgents do their jobs better. It's not always that way, but there is a tendency for newer/weaker players to jump over to coalition, which usually ends up in a very unorganized/unexpirenced bunch of squads, who rarely work together. On the side that heavily requires team work.

Insurgents on the other hand can work in small groups or on their own very effectively. And since the insurgents on their own are fairly weak, there are more people using team chat, or voip to organize or call for backup, or even just reporting where the infidels are headed.

I guess you could say that a random group of gamers, thrown together for a battle without training, is similar to how real insurgents operate. Now, if you throw the same untrained and unorganized group into the role of a professional military, they don't show the organization and tactics that make those real life militaries so strong and effective.

But, there the odd occasion where a clan or good group of guys organize the coalition in a way that is realistic. For example when the whole team works together in a convoy, supported by air, armor, etc. Those games i soak up and love every minute of it. Of course the next round is back to 1manning humvees and 2 sniper teams, single squads attacking caches, etc etc.
badmojo420 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-10, 02:07   #29

Zi8's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?

Originally Posted by Kruder View Post
2)Archer=US to pilot a heli,if none available disconnect
Basrah,Karbala and Fallujah=Lonewolf insurgents.
Heh, Korengal at the moment is a blast playing with the Taliban imo One of my favorites.

Lately I've been enjoying playing as Insurgents on Karbala and Fallujah. The maps are very good for them (compared to Archer for example) and most of the times give really nice games.

Ramiel & Basrah are pretty much the only maps where I prefer U.S / Brit side over the Insurgents

Zi8 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-10, 03:34   #30
Supporting Member

Snazz's Avatar
Default Re: Which side do you prefer on Insurgency?


- From my experience the Coaliton team is always way more organised, which PR rewards.
- It's a lot of fun travelling around in a group/convoy hunting caches.
- Not a fan of waiting around as an Insurgent to defend a cache that might get surprise attacked or completely ignored during a round.
- Neither interested in running around trying to setup a good ambush and waiting indefinite amount of time for it to have a worthwhile effect. It makes good fake-jihad-PR-videos when you use the magic of editing to cut out all the boring & frustrating moments.
- Players similar to myself get over the waiting game and try wandering off to find something more fun which results in a team spread out all over the place, which usually doesn't acheive anything either except give the Coaltion more to shoot at.
- I have no interest in playing as civilian/collaborator and neither do most people, so there's relatively no medic-teamwork (which keeps squads together) compared to the Coalition.
- I can't help prefer advanced weaponry and assets over bikes, suicide cars, IEDs and AKs.

It's difficult to encourage mates to really play PR when their 'memorable experience' of deployment is being autobalanced to a team of aimless Insurgents with long spawn times.

The Taliban are relatively more enjoyable with their better guns and proper medic class, but still not Coaltion.

I find it a pity personally because Insurgency is generally a cool gamemode concept and is about the most realistic part of PR (compared to the rediculous Chinese/MEC WW3 scenario), I just honestly get quickly tired of playing the nutered underdog.

In public matches I always see a lot of players teamswap to Coalition, I actually had some obbsessive jerk join my squad once and yell at me over voip for doing it.

Ideally IMO there wouldn't be so many servers with auto-balance (easier to play with mates, assymetric in numbers) but that's another matter.
Snazz is offline Reply With Quote

conventional, insurgency, prefer, side, team
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:43.