Charity Case

This thread is in response to a number of other threads specifically Disturbing Trend (LAT/HAT/TOW/AA) and a post made by Wolfe. What I am proposing is to prohibit the "camping" or entering of the enemy main base (when it is un-capturable) and to modify the guidelines for the use of anti-tank weapons. I'm proposing this because the current rules regarding main bases and AT weapons are, in my opinion, complicated, obscure, and hard to enforce.

First Proposal: Prohibit the attack/sabotage/entry of un-capturable main bases.

The rule governing UCB attacks is a throwback to vanilla battlefield, in which sabotaging the enemy base was an effective tactic. But in PR, sabotage is not an effective tactic because the only asset within the enemy main is the command post and destroying it has little tactical value. To me, the amount of grief caused by ignorant sabotage squads greatly outweighs the minor advantage of destroying the enemy command post. So, I propose that we prohibit the entry and sabotage of UCBs and, for the sake of consistency and simplicity, prohibit the sabotage of the bridge on Fools Road and the runways on Kashan and Qinling.

Second Proposal: Modify the rules governing the use of anti-tank weapons.

As it stands, we have no hard and fast rule regarding the use of anti-tank weapons. Also, the rules we do have are complex and hard to enforce. So, I propose we simplify or do away with these rules. I think we should allow LAT to engage all targets (read: single infantry). But I have mixed feelings about HAT: I think that using HAT/TOWs on infantry is exploitable and unrealistic, yet I feel that a simpler rule will be easier to understand and enforce. So, I think we should either allow HAT to engage vehicles and assets only, or allow it to be shot at anything.

I'm not trying to dumb down the server or promote exploits, but I feel that our current rules are not working. HAT snipers are had to catch, LAT sniping is trivial, and saboteurs often break the rules by shooting people who are not attacking them. And, because I'm lazy, I haven't really backed up many of my proposals, but I'm eager to hear what the rest of the community thinks about these issues.

__________________
|TG-6th|Charity Case

Elwenil

I completely agree with the first proposal. I feel that the Spec Ops squads going into the enemy Main is a waste of infantry troops that could be more effective taking flags rather than blowing up useless things and spending all that time sneaking around the UCB for little gain.

On the second proposal I agree that the rules should be modified but based on the real life precedent that L-AT is rarely used on infantry except in movies and the fact that they are expensive to both the US/NATO forces and OPFOR, I suggest that we simplify it and just outlaw the use of BOTH L-AT and H-AT against infantry in the open in anyway. Allow L-AT and H-AT against all vehicles and bunkers and other field emplacements but not against infantry moving in the open or hiding in cover in the field. In other words, keep it simple, L & H-AT can be fired on vehicles and buildings but not on troops that are not near or inside vehicles or buildings.

Just my .02

__________________

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

These are already being discussed by the admins.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

A.WICKENS

Spot on guys, the use of LAT vs troops seems to be on the increase. My squad was LAT'd 4 times in a row, on a riverbank, on password night! The proposed change is simple and very clear and easy to understand and should leave no room for excuses.

I support this 100%, great idea.

__________________

Nero

Oh man, this is exactly what I've been thinking for a while but haven't been wanting to ruffle feathers!

1. No entry to UCB whatsoever - YES, CO assets are rarely in the UCB's now with flexible battleground deployment

2. Allow LAT vs Inf in any situation - this would make life so much easier if everyone KNOWS and keeps to the same rules. The problem with current rules are that there are too few people who know appropriate LAT use.

3. HAT vs Inf - No I don't think this should be allowed.

I don't think these changes change the realism that much and would make the TG server much less antagonistic to some.

__________________

[TF21]Wolfe

As long as you're using my post to support this proposal, I feel it necessary to clarify something that I should have made more clear: While it's true that "if/and/or" types of rules create confusion, not having any rules also allows exploits. Neither is fun and both create problems. The best way to eliminate both of these is not a complicated and debatable rule system, but to remove the issue that is causing the problem in the first place: the blast radius of LAT/HAT.

If the community requested the PR devs to severely limit the blast radius of a LAT/HAT round (similar to that of the non-heat AT shell fired from tanks), then the problem is solved. Firing a LAT/HAT at infantry would do minimal damage against infantry and only be effective against hard targets, rather than a glorified, long-range grenade launcher.

Until then, any decision is a short term fix to a long term problem.

squadexodus

That right there is the best opinion ever.
Charity almost had it right

__________________

I am the leader Of the Zombie Defense Militia. We hold think tanks on how to live in a zombie apocalypse.
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.

Charity Case

Like you, I would prefer to see L-AT used in a realistic manner. But, I also want clear-cut and enforceable rules. And while your proposal is certainly clear-cut, I wonder if it can be enforced? I can foresee some major headaches for the admins if they try to track down and punish all the L-AT snipers out there. Anyway, it should really be the duty of the players and specifically the squad leaders to promote the correct use of AT weapons.

I figured as much, hope you don't mind me bringing it out into public.
I agree that the H-AT blast should be reduced, but reducing the blast of the L-AT could prevent it from being used effectively against non-destructible bunkers. If this suggestion is brought up on the PR forums, I will be sure to promote it.

__________________
|TG-6th|Charity Case

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

This is probably the best solution to what is a major, major headache not only on this server, but a lot of others.

With regard to not allowing any type of LAT on infantry, this is not realistic. Militia forces and insurgencies around the globe regularly use these weapons on dismounted infantry. To say only US, Chinese, and British forces (in PR) cannot use these weapons, but Militia and Insurgents can is somewhere you don't want to go.

Currently, the ability to distinguish between L-AT, H-AT, and TOW (either mobile or fixed) is difficult in the heat of battle, and a monumental pain to figure out who the guilty party is. Personally, I'm of the opinion of allowing each of these weapons to be utilized however you see fit. They are in the game for a reason (against vehicles and fortifications), and if you decide to use them elsewhere then Murphy will probably jump up and bite you squarely in the rear end when that APC comes rolling around the corner after you just used your H-AT to take out that sniper 300m away. SURPRISE!

The UCB rules do need to change, but regardless of what the final rule change is (if there is one), there are always going to be issues with UCB camping. Can't enter it? Ok, can I sit 50m outside and ambush troops/vehicles as they leave? No, ok, how about 100m? 150m? 200m? There will *always* be people trying to find an edge and push things to the limit. No matter how many rules you put in place, they will find a way to exploit them to their advantage - it's just a fact of life.

The best solution is the one that is easiest for everyone to understand and therefore easy to administrate.

Since a lot of issues have cropped up with the rules, I'm asking my fellow admins to review them and possibly change/clarify them. We'll keep you updated if and when any changes occur.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

IcemanGER

100% agree with Elwenil !!!

Edit: good point with Militia and Insurgents using RPG's

Pwn3ge

100% agree- modifiying it to that would reduce confusion with bans and what happend-
(I had this happen to me, me and nardini agrued for a while-- he won)

__________________

TheSkudDestroyer

I abstain from commenting on this due to an extreme amount of 1337 TG'ers that will probably take offense.

EDIT: Pwnage will constantly remind us all until the day he dies.

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud

[TF21]Wolfe

Please see the PR suggestion forums titled "Reduce HAT/LAT blast radius". I am unable to provide a link to that forum due to the minimum 15 post rule this forum uses. TG admins, feel free to add the PR link to this thread.

Delta*RandyShugart*

Found this on the internet:
I agree with you wolfe on the blast radius, but in reality, the blast radius for both kits is large and if you fire at a vehicle and a soldier is nearby and gets hit, its his tough luck IMO.

what i found from the internet regarding the M72 LAT version used in the US Armed Forces.
The M72-series light anti-tank weapon (LAW) is a lightweight, self-contained, anti-armor weapon consisting of a rocket packed in a launcher. It is man-portable, may be fired from either shoulder, and is issued as a round of ammunition.

The M72 was designed in the early 1960's for use against light tanks of that era. More recent and improved versions of the M72-series LAWs were produced in the 1990s and include the M72A4, M72A5, M72A6, and M72A7.

Although the M72 is mainly used as an anti-armor weapon, it may be used with limited success against secondary targets such as gun emplacements, pillboxes, buildings, or light vehicles.

Replaced the anti-tank rifle grenade and M20 3.5" rocket launcher in U.S. service. Was to have been replaced by the M136 AT4 rocket, but remains in U.S. service to support the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).


Now, the thing that gets me is why don't we make it an honor code type rule, if you see someone on your side misusing the LAT or HAT kit, report them, or alert the community in game who it is etc......i have done it over TS alerted an admin when asked but i haven't seen it happen in global chat. That way the necessary actions can be taken, even if its copying and pasting the persons hash, and then if it is reviewed over BR, or if the person takes an SS.


I do want to add one more thing, entering the uncap to destroy a CP can be attained by shooting at it from the outside.....this should be allowed but I don't necessarily agree with the idea of not being able to enter it, if its to blow up a CP, now if done right as Dirtboy did last Thursday while i was arguing with the LB squad, was perfect he snuck in right under my nose, put the slams down and dispersed, and it ticked the heck out of me.

Its a tactic that if done right by one or 2 people will make the commander put the CP somewhere else and it also as we know inhibits bunkers and FBs to be built.

Its those who linger in the base that need to be punished, or those who try to instigate the other team to fire on them, if you intend to blow up the CP it should be a dump and go job, no lingering inside the main, this tactic works great on OGT I've done it many times as a british engineer or spec ops.

__________________

P.I.C. No F.S.
NYY NYR

caffeine

I agree here. Only potential abuse I see here is spamming. But there is always a way to outsmart the opposing side (don't whine. overcome!). If you use the weapon improperly, the op-for will see to it that you don't last very long.

__________________