Elwenil

My rule would be simple. "Absolutely NO L-AT, H-AT, or TOW can be fired at Infantry."

The way I would explain it would be:

"You CAN fire L-AT, H-AT, and TOW at vehicles, bunkers, buildings, walls, and other fortifications (sandbags, razorwire, etc), but you CANNOT fire AT weapons on Infantry soldiers. Your initial target MUST be a vehicle, bunker, building, wall, or other fortification. If the blast radius takes out infantry near the target, that is fine, but you cannot target the infantry soldiers themselves. This mean no firing AT at soldiers in an open field, crossing a road, or just milling about in the open. That is what bullets are for, save the AT for a armored target. Also, ditches and hills do not qualify as fortifications."

I think that is very simple and easy to understand. For realistic ROE and logistics reasons, AT weapons would not be wasted on infantry soldiers. Also, most AT weapons would not even detonate if they struck a soft target such as a human body. Firing at the earth could also cause the weapon not to detonate so there would be little need or reasoning to fire it on infantry targets in the open.

__________________

Katanama

well sir I dont know how much you know about a weapon like the AT4 for example, I personally would not use it to clear a building since I couldn't be sure that everyone in the room was dead because its a chaped charge and its directs most of the blast in 1 direction.
personally i never had the need beccause the danish army have the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle that have ammunition designed for such tasks but i would have some in my sq suppress while some move up. lob some nades in the window and move in when they go off.

The reason I use the AT4 as a reference is because its the only AT weapon ingame I have personal experience using. And my personal oppinion is that an lone infantry man is alot easier to take out using a rifle that a weapon like the AT4 because its more accurate.

So my point sir is that I it is not a good way to clear a building, if i remember correct I was ones told of a story where someone had fired it throu a window into a room, 30 sec later the guy in the room got up and started shooting again.

kilroy0097

In reply to Charity Case who brings up a very good point.

Is there a way to show the logs of a match textually and have in those text logs the Player A killed Player B with (Weapon) without them actually showing up on the server chat?

You know what I mean when someone died in BF2 vanilla you saw the player that killed them and with what weapon. Couple that log with a !reporting message such as !REPORTING: Unknown for Using HAT/LAT against infantry. So while the person reporting the offense may not know who did it it would be within a short time period of the playerA killed playerB message in which playerB is the one reporting.

I personally can look through a log for a single game using a find function and find every single incident in which someone is killed and see who killed them and with what weapon. Couple that with a specific find function of "!reporting" without case sensitivity and looking at the time stamps for each I can piece together two messages and create an estimated time period. Now if can do further investigation on the matter. Will I be able to look through every single battlerecord footage? No, there just isn't enough time (grrr to DICE and their moronic footage viewer). But I can notice patterns for a certain player. Such as if that player has an unusually high number of LAT kills. Not multiples in a row such as taking out a vehicle but singular kills over and over again which is a pattern for primary LAT usage or HAT sniping. I see if that player kills things with a rifle or something else in between and has a logical progression.

Example:
If I see a player with (1 rifle, 1 rifle, 1 grenade, 1 rifle, 2 LAT, 1 rifle, 1 LAT) in that order I'm not going to worry about it. However if I see a player with (1 rifle, 3 grenade, 1 rifle, 2 LAT, 1 LAT, 1 rifle, 1 LAT, 1 LAT, 1 rifle, 2 LAT) and they are all within a close time period, I'm going to start wondering. Then I go to the footage to the approximate point when the !report was filed.

Offense proven. Punishment pending review. This depends on the punishment scale admins want to put on members and non-members. Maybe it's a 12 hour ban, maybe if it's a repeated offense they get a 1 week ban or 3 weeks or whatever.

This is only an idea if such text logs could be gotten without kill messages appearing in game.

__________________

LeadMagnet

While I haven't the same experience with the at4 as I do with the m72 I can almost guarantee that the at4 would produce the same cone shaped spalling effect when fired at a wall. As for my comment it wasn't even directed at posters here in TG, more so the growing sentiment I've seen here and on the pr forums where another armchair commando tries to tell me that L/AT is not used in real life against troops. As for it being used excessively as one poster mentioned on Mestia, in the real world if we ran into that tough of a nut that we couldn't crack then you can be certain that Tac Air would be turning it into a rock farm shortly after. ;}

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

First, I'm stunned we're still discussing this.

Secondly, no one has issues with using L-AT or H-At on infantry if those infantry are in/behind some type of structure or vehicle as long as the structure is the target, with the splash damage inflicting casualties on the nearby infantry.

What everyone has a problem with is the one or two guys in the open - let's say running across a field or the desert - that get blown to smithereens by an AT4 round that people have issues with. It is a cheap way to kill them. You have a rifle for a reason, use it.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3