Intended use of vehicles & weapons - Page 5

Morganan · 06-15-2007, 01:11 PM

Why not? It cut's down on the spamming of these things and makes sure they get used properly. The HAT for example would still rearm before the tank it destroyed respawns.

What better way to promote the intended use then to penalize people not using them in the intended fashion?

mingmong · 06-15-2007, 01:41 PM

You're penalising them for using them at all. Do you really think most people would be willing to spend 5 mins next to a supply crate for every 5 mins they spend actually playing the game?

Morganan · 06-15-2007, 03:23 PM

The weapons main intended use is destroying vehicles, is it not? As long as the ammo resupplies before the vehicle respawns, what's the big deal? You know what it would mean? People wouldn't take HAT to get easy kills, they would take the kit to destroy armor, you know, like what it is meant for. The LAT kits would be reserved for destroying buildings and light vehicles, like it's meant for. These are all request-able kits in .6, so they aren't considered "normal use kits" so why can't different rules apply? The quick reload is probably the biggest factor in the misuse of these weapons currently, why not take steps to address that?

Sam Hoy · 06-15-2007, 03:33 PM

I don't think we have much to worry about as far as H-AT being used against infantry in .6, in fact I've yet to encounter one instance of it yet

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger · 06-15-2007, 03:38 PM

As has allready been said they cant seperate the weapon types for rearming time or amount

In the next ver, the HAT does take longer to reload the next round and the scope takes longer to use also. Theres no double scope on it anymore either. I think you have to crouch to use it, not sure

Morganan · 06-15-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hoy

I don't think we have much to worry about as far as H-AT being used against infantry in .6, in fact I've yet to encounter one instance of it yet

That's just because the "general public" isn't playing that version yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

As has allready been said they cant seperate the weapon types for rearming time or amount

Quote:

Originally Posted by loyalguard

Morganan-

Here is a quote from eggman(one of the devs) on the engine limitations with ammo bags and the differences from the BF1942 engine.

From the PR forums:

Quote:
...engine limitation that there is no longer different "types" of ammo.

gonna try more experimentation at other ways around it, but using the old BF '42 ammo type properties is no longer possible.

it's the same reason an ammo bag carries RPG rounds

Since different weapons already have different reload times, there is probably a value that can be adjusted either direction to make them longer or shorter. Maybe make LAT 1 minute 30 seconds, and make HAT 2 minutes for both rockets, but this would be the first area I would look at to make adjustments. I wasn't suggesting 5 minutes as a "take it or leave it" number, but it is an option that could be used if indeed it is a value that can be adjusted.

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger · 06-15-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa

Hmm, i think a marksman should be dedicated to a squad, but a sniper shouldnt be in most cases.

I was going to say the same thing, marksman (inc. svd) is still rapid fire and the zoom also is easily adjustable. Sniper is slow fire and the zoom is awkward and its not anymore lethal for it ?

If I had a sniper in my squad, I would ask him to watch a largely empty flag. Spotting any enemies at long distance and killing if forced to. His role would mainly be as a minder and alarm

Asking anyone to take a mainly defensive role is usually very hard to do. The tactical play on the server usually revolves around the team advancing too quickly and falling flat on its face (then moving far too slowly to recover)
Iam hoping just the change from top left AAS messages to permanent and immediately available info via the viable flag indicators on the main map is going to help change this but how many pub players use the main map

The HAT reload time changed in 0.6 due to them fixing a bug rather altering any value afaik. If they could change the ammo rearming time then surely they'd have done it allready.

If rearming (the ammo point counter that goes up or down) cant be changed then do you mean the actual reloading time for the weapon. A minute for LAT and 2 minute for HAT sounds reasonable at first but:
I had a tank take two hat last night and carry on fine so 4 minutes to kill a tank is going to give them alot of time to get away or return fire. I dont think they want to compromise a weapons main purpose

Belhade · 06-15-2007, 06:17 PM

If a tank took 2 HAT and kept on truckin' then you hit it in the wrong spot - probably against the front of the hull, where the thickest armor always is. Always shoot against the back of the hull (weakest spot) or against a tread if you can.

**TheSkudDestroyer** · 06-15-2007, 09:47 PM

You know...

LATS and HATS are perfect for descimating small buildings. Or even large... Annoying? Yeah. But if you're in a building, expect grenades or a rocket to fly in the window before a whole unsuspecting squad.

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger · 06-16-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belhade

If a tank took 2 HAT and kept on truckin' then you hit it in the wrong spot - probably against the front of the hull, where the thickest armor always is. Always shoot against the back of the hull (weakest spot) or against a tread if you can.

Yea your right it was the front armour and I know thats the strongest but I was lucky to stay alive nevermind get choosy where I hit it.

Are the weak spots exactly like BF2 ?

**Jevski** · 07-30-2007, 03:29 PM

Since we get new players all the time, shouldnt this be written into the rules?

That an admin has his own opinion of how a weapon is used may lead to alot of confusion, unless its the official view of the TG. I had no idea of the rule untill i saw an admin warning against it...and at that time is was used as a bunker buster.

Having rules interpreted many different ways leads to confussion and anger among the players.

I do agree that it shouldnt be used as a sniping tool, but what would you do in real life, when you have the weapon ready to fire, and an enemy suddenly pops up behind a tree not 50 yards from you?

Give up? or take a shot at him with the AT

Using the Light AT in a narrow area is with the 06 alot different now that the rifle man only has 1 ammo pack. It just isnt possible to keep sniping, since you cant keep getting ammo.

So please implement weapons handling in the rules, or let reality take its course.

/Jev

**Ferris Bueller** · 07-30-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asch

Light Anti-Tank (LAT)

On to the topic of the Anti-Tank kit. I'll start off by first discussing LAT. The primary targets for this weapon consist of lightly armored vehicles like the Humvee. I don't believe there is a question of use here.

The questions begin to circulate when it comes to the LAT use against infantry. This is a large grey area and very much situational-based. The use of LAT against infantry does happen in the real world. It's how and when that is not always correctly reflected with our use in-game.

A common use for LAT is as a bunker-buster when rifle fire does not suffice. This use isn't necessarily based on the number of infantry units, rather how the infantry unit(s) are entrenched and what objects are nearby for the projectile to hit and cause collateral damage. If we can remember this, hopefully our use of LAT against infantry will better simulate the environment.

Examples of CORRECT use:

a) The enemy infantry unit(s) are defending within a bunker. The LAT is a valid weapon to fire into the bunker to cause damage to the maximum number of targets.

b) The enemy infantry unit(s) are hiding behind an option like a barrel, tree, or wall opening. The LAT is a valid weapon that is intended to destroy the object providing cover and cause collateral damage to the enemy.

c) The enemy infantry unit(s) are moving along a wall, however they are not behind any objects as cover. This particular example allows for the use of LAT or rifle fire.

Hopefully we can see the commonality of those examples. The enemy unit(s) are entrenched with solid objects nearby for the projectile to hit.

What we don't see in those examples are the LAT projectiles directly impacting the enemy unit or targeting units not entrenched near some solid object. We should not be targeting infantry units directly in the open field at close to medium range.

I mention close to medium range purposefully. Long range LAT use against stationary infantry in an open area is a different situation that many call this AT SNIPING. Let's define "long-range" as a distance that rifle fire can not easily take down a target. In this situation the player must use their best judgment. If a target is off in the distance and not reachable by normal rifle fire, then they may switch to the next best feasible weapon at their disposal. The LAT kit can be properly used here.

EDIT for clarification: Using the LAT at long range still requires some object to be targeting. Using in the open field probably isn't the proper use, however if the enemy infantry unit(s) is on a mountain side, the mountain will provide the solid backdrop.

Heavy Anti-Tank (HAT)

The primary purpose of the HAT is for use against heavily armored vehicles (e.g. tank, APC). These kits / projectiles are considerably more expensive and less available than their LAT counterpart. Players carrying the HAT should focus solely on vehicles.

I hope that this clears up the question on vehicle / weapon use for most players, especially that of the LAT and HAT.

Some may ask why this is not a hard and fast rule. One of the reasons that this is not a rule is because we want to keep a short list of clear and concise rules. What I've described here is very much situational-based and the players intentions and use is not always clear.

Should we see a player misusing a vehicle or weapon, our first step is to educate them on the reason why we feel they are using it incorrectly and what the correct use is. Should this behavior not change, an admin may take action to remove them from the server. We do want players to attempt to simulate the environment the game provides.

So, referring to the bolded parts of the bossman's post, the LAT you saw being used as a bunker buster was fair game and the admin scolding for it was in the wrong. The big issue with LAT is when people use it 1v1. However, if you have 4 guys huddled in a bunker, using the LAT to destroy the bunker and inflict maximum damage against multiple targets within a hardened facility is merited.

**Ghost Dog** · 08-01-2007, 08:53 AM

I once took out an entire squad with a H-AT when they were spawning in on their SL, preparing for an attack on my squad 's position. That was the only time I used it against infantry and I still see it as being a valid attack, even though the 'rules' state only to use it against armoured vehicles. If I hadn't taken the shot we would be outnumbered 3 to 6 with the chance of losing the H-AT kit... which would be much worse than losing one of the two rockets.

geogob · 08-01-2007, 10:49 AM

GhostDog, the only rules I've seen state that the H-AT primary role is to engage armoured vehicles but not that this is it's only role. This is really situation based.

This is a good example where engaging the infantry group with AT round protected your team's position. It was necessary and within the objectives of the game. Considering the problems of kit attributions and stealing, this is even more important, as you point out.

A more reprehensible behavior would be to use AT against Infantry all the time or when it's totally unnecessary, wasting ammunition.

Terminal Boy · 08-01-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Dog

I once took out an entire squad with a H-AT when they were spawning in on their SL, preparing for an attack on my squad 's position. That was the only time I used it against infantry and I still see it as being a valid attack, even though the 'rules' state only to use it against armoured vehicles. If I hadn't taken the shot we would be outnumbered 3 to 6 with the chance of losing the H-AT kit... which would be much worse than losing one of the two rockets.

What range did you take that shot at? Where the enemy squad in cover? Did your SL order you to take the shot? Did you ask the SL for permission to fire the H-AT at a non-armoured target? Was this on a map that even had armoured targets to shoot at?

At the moment, I'm reading your post as "I went against the TG PRM Server rules so I didn't die or loose my shiny H-AT kit."....

Personally, I'd have reported you for H-AT sniping to an Admin if I'd be on the receiving end of the incident you describe.