ATGM vs Human... an Open Discussion

**Strikeman** · 04-06-2006, 10:10 PM

Now I like playing on TG servers, it provides a much higher level of play as opposed to playing on the pubs where TK's for airplanes and kick votes for blowing up assets is common.

But...I think its really lame using ATGM's as the primary weapon to kill non-armoured targets(IE human). There is no reason why you cant switch to the primary and let off a couple of rounds. Having rockets flying all over the place reminds me of Unreal Tourney. I don't know about you but I play BF2 over Unreal Tourney because its style of game play.

I really dont mind getting killed by ATGM's but the thing that annoys me is that its highly unrealistic. Nobody is firing ATGM's at eachother in the real world, that why marksmanship is taught in bootcamp. Now Im not looking to start a BF2 realism debate, but I think we can all agree that ATGM's vs Humans is unrealistic....can't we?

This may turn into a flamewar but I hope not, I just want to open a discussion and see what everyone else thinks on this subject.

Strikeman

**ed_chiang11** · 04-06-2006, 10:24 PM

* If you have seen "Black Hawk Down", you probably will remember the scene which a RPG almost hits a Ranger and it blows up behind him.

AT is just like an RPG, and I am envious of those that can hit people with AT round because I think it takes some skills due to their small moving speed and relative low blast radius. If you can kill me with an AT round while I am shooting you with a machine gun, then I have nothing to say but "damn, what a newb I was to get hit by a AT round."

Ed

**SuperDudeBT** · 04-06-2006, 10:31 PM

Ok, I agree to u to some extent, but honestly, who is going to switch to their machine gun while they have their rocket launcher out? It'd take waay too much time, and be too risky, cuz they might whip around and shoot u in the process.

**Hephador** · 04-06-2006, 10:37 PM

I have a feeling this is one of those topics that will get ugly in a hurry. Suffice it to say that I don't like the practice, I bitch about it (much to my squad's annoyance I'm sure) everytime I'm killed by one and I think it's ridiculously cheap more often than not. But I also realize it's going to happen and I don't know that there's much to be done about it. I have no problems with the times you walk around a corner and are face to face with an enemy and fire real quick (cuz I know that argument is coming) but I don't think it necessarily takes skill to sit somewhere and use the damn thing like a guided sniper rifle. But I can live with it. If you see it coming, you have a chance to avoid since it moves slow enough. But more often than not, I don't see it coming. Just have to grin and bear it. Now to wait for the complaints about how weak the AT smg's are.

**WhiskeySix** · 04-06-2006, 10:50 PM

since this thread will get silly soon, here's more fuel for the fire: what about jumping over one to avoid it? still considered bunny-hopping?

**derdmeh** · 04-06-2006, 10:51 PM

I have no references for this claim, but I'm fairly certain that bazookas and panzerfausts were occasionally used against infantry in the second world war. if things were more realistic in bf2, the blast radius of an AT round were be much greater, and people would be blasting AT rounds all over the map. i take AT vs. infantry kills to model a certain slice of reality AND suitably preserve gameplay. you have to play pretty fast and loose with the "reality" that is being modeled, but it's a game. for me, the warrant for the tactic is simply that there is some real-world equivalent for "anti-tank weapon used to kill infantry."

**Nikolas** · 04-06-2006, 11:11 PM

I'm sure American troops don't like dealing with RPGs either.

**Lucky Shot** · 04-06-2006, 11:27 PM

I hate dying to AT rounds. Getting sniped is horrible. Bombing is tied for my least favorite way of death. Not too fond of C4 traps. I despise being knifed. All are legitimate ways to die.

There are plenty of things that we personally classify as being fair/not fair. I don't like dying to the AT weapon as it's unrevivable, and it's one shot kills. It's a legitimate use of the weapon though as it's designed to create splash damage when it strikes a surface, including animated flesh. A human in real life would not expect to live from an AT round, why should you expect it in a realistic game?

Lucky Shot

**Strikeman** · 04-06-2006, 11:37 PM

ATGM=Anti-Tank Guided Missile
RPG=Rocket Propelled Grenade

ATGM's are moddeled in BF2, RPG's are not(might be in SF but I dont have it so I dunno).

In regards to the Black Hawk down comment. Yes I saw the movie, but I also read the book. The bad dudes were not firing ATGM's... just your garden variety russian made RPG.

**SmokingTarpan** · 04-07-2006, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by ed_chiang11

* If you have seen "Black Hawk Down", you probably will remember the scene which a RPG almost hits a Ranger and it blows up behind him.

AT is just like an RPG,

Critical difference that I believe is being overlooked: RPG's ain't for shooting just one soldier in the open field. Yes, I know they're physically capable of doing so. You are also physically capable of firing a ship-board missile at a single soldier, but it doesn't happen.

Now, were the AT rockets being fired into a group of enemies or a bunker, fine, that's akin to an RPG. Knee-jerk reaction when coming around a corner, lame, but understandable. Sniping with your AT rocket at a single enemy soldier 200m away, not cool. Firing your AT rocket at a single enemy soldier close/medium range, missing and reloading to fire another rocket instead of using one of your other weapons, really not cool.

One of the problems I have with the "just dodge it" solution is that a good chunk of the time, you can't. Most of the time they're fired from 5m or so away, so good luck with that. The rest of the time is what I experience: being shot at while prone. Since it takes longer to get up from the prone position now, by the time you realize there's a rocket coming at you, it's pretty darn hard to move. On top of that, the blast radius is bigger than you'd imagine; I had a rocket land about 5-7m away from me today and still took me out.

Will things ever change? Doubtful.

thebleakaffinity · 04-07-2006, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

since this thread will get silly soon, here's more fuel for the fire: what about jumping over one to avoid it? still considered bunny-hopping?

I'm curious about this as well, because jumping is often the best way to avoid AT fire, and I don't see it as being particularly unrealistic or noobish if it's just a single jump over the projectile.

**Coridon** · 04-07-2006, 12:45 AM

My personal view on killing with AT is as follows:

Someone playing AT should have their SMG out 90% of the time. If you round a blind corner with an AT rocket on your shoulder, you're just asking to piss someone off. What do you really think, you're going to round the corner, see a tank and get the "jump" on it because your have your AT rocket at the ready? Taking down a tank with a guided rocket is not a "twitch" skill; it normally requires defilade, displacement, and knowing when to fire and when not to fire.

Now, if you see a soldier sitting stationary and he's out of SMG and pistol range, I don't have a problem trying to snipe the guy with an AT rocket; the rockets are slow, easily avoidable, and frankly it's the only weapon you personally have to take the guy out.

But if you're in CQB with your AT rocket out, I frown in your general direction...

**icky** · 04-07-2006, 12:49 AM

In my "Open" opinion, the AT rocket should not be used against infantry at all. If you were trying at all to play in the spirit of TG, you would not use it as your primary weapon.

I will allow the many people around here with actual military knowledge to give an educated opinion, but I highly doubt that in a real conflict with tanks on the other side that you would use AT rockets to kill single infantrymen. I would guess that it might be used in a desperate situation, but not otherwise. It is only effective in BF2 because valuable rockets materialize all over the place.

**Kilrogg** · 04-07-2006, 01:07 AM

Very few things in BF2 are realistic.

AT has zero effectiveness at range unless he uses the missile, which can be easily dodged since you see both the huge AT launcher (or the position of the guy's arms if you're out of weapon draw range) and the big puff of white smoke that appears when you fire an AT missile. If you're fighting an AT soldier at range, keep moving and only stop to fire 1-2 shots then move again. I get killed by AT missiles about twice a month and I can't kill anyone that's moving with it, yet I still kill a lot of people with it at range because everyone's reaction to enemy contact in this game is to hit prone instead of actually moving and using cover.

The pistols are accurate at range despite taking 7 shots to kill someone, but the MEC pistol's ironsights are completely off target and it's near impossible to hit someone far away with it.

**B. Clawhammer** · 04-07-2006, 01:46 AM

I like using the AT rockets to try and "snipe" a sniper lol. I've had it done to me a few times and I feel like Ed. "wow, i'm about to get hit by an AT rocket and I'm a sniper" I feel hella stupid and then vow to hunt the jerk down.

However, that is not the way I play AT on a regular basis. I enjoy taking people out with the SMG because it's a powerful gun if you get the hang of it. Using an AT rocket to kill infantry is pretty lame, but if it's all you got (pretty doubtful since you also have the pistol and knife) then it's all you got. i realize this is somewhat hypocritical, but like I said, I enjoy the challenge of using SMG as well.