View Poll Results: An AT in the squad is...
- Voters
- 42. You may not vote on this poll
-
worth two in the bush.
5 11.90% -
better than a tank in the ass.
25 59.52% -
as vital as a medic on a dead SL.
8 19.05% -
as useful as tits on a boar.
4 9.52%
+ Reply to Thread
Results 16 to 26 of 26
Discussion: PR:BF2 / PR:BF2 - Tactics & SOPs - The case against ATs - burble that is my point exactly. That is how I try to employ my ATs.
-
10-13-2005, 01:34 PM #16
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- NORTH ATLANTIC (offline)
- Posts
- 584
Re: The case against ATs
burble that is my point exactly. That is how I try to employ my ATs. That's how I've seen the most effectiveness out of them. But like you say they inevitably run out of ammo or get countered by enemy infantry. Again like you said the instinct is then to assign some other riflemen(or support) to support them. But then your squad is divided and can be defeated piecemail or your active defense can get too distant from the CP and someone can stealth you. On offense this is less of a problem, but it is still a two man solution to a one man tank problem.
Xbox Live Gamertag: TG ABRA
live.xbox.com/member/TG ABRA
Friend me!
-
10-13-2005, 01:40 PM #17
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Age
- 25
- Posts
- 371
Re: The case against ATs
a six man squad with one AT and no armor in sight can still be an effective six man squad.
likewise, a six man squad, consisting entirely of assault, can have zero effectiveness.
why? becuase everyone's skill level differs. hell, depending on the night, their luck differs. just becuase i'm AT, doesn't mean i'm ineffective. just becuase i'm assault, doesn't mean i am.
i've played assault and at times hardly been able to move without getting popped in the head. i've played AT and taken out a six man squad by myself (interesting story, that). does that mean that AT is more effective? no, it just means that you can't always assume how well your squad is going to function just because the the kits they have. even with a perfect (by whatever standards you keep) kit loadout, half the squad may be constantly eliminated before they have a chance to do any good. it's just the nature of the game.
again, this thinking is your problem. you can't consider a tank a one man problem. if a squad rolls in with two tanks and four infantry, and your entire squad downs the tanks, but is killed by the infantry in the process, does that mean you've failed? does it mean four people did nothing? i don't really think so.but it is still a two man solution to a one man tank problem.
you might as well expect one single infantry on the ground to be an effective counter to a jet, as well.
[TG]epheneh
-
10-13-2005, 01:53 PM #18
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Age
- 36
- Posts
- 553
Re: The case against ATs
Being effective doesn't always kill an oppenent. AT's, against infantry, function almost as well as any class on point. If you encounter a squad, that point man HAS to find cover. If not, they die. AT's have some body armor, rockets are deadly accurate at long range, and the SMG is very affective at short. This combo makes a great point guy IMO. Besides, one of the point man's primary functions is to find, distract and keep an enemies attention. Effective doesn't always mean killing the enemy.
-
10-13-2005, 02:29 PM #19
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Canuckistan
- Age
- 30
- Posts
- 1,233
Re: The case against ATs
Just look at my thread on AA to see people using that very logic...
Originally Posted by burble
-
10-14-2005, 01:34 AM #20
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Age
- 22
- Posts
- 3,353
Re: The case against ATs
Most people dont really know how to use the AT kit, but those that do are very good against infantry. If they know that their pistol is strapped to them, they will be very good at killing infantry. Its not a rarety to kill an assault guy at medium range with a pistol, so long as youve practiced some. He'll also be able to get kills like this because of the fact that 5 other people are supporting him and shooting as well.
Also, you dont neccesarily need to assign a support guy to them. When they run out of ammo or are about to, quickly send a support guy over there to drop plenty of ammo packs, and tell him to come back if you need him to.
In any map with moderate to high amounts of armor, i bring 2 at guys with me. If you dont, youll find yourself not getting ANYWHERE because all an armor piece has to do is kill your one at guy and you're screwed. Sometimes you have to accept the fact that to attack or defend anywhere, you need AT guys. In my book, theyre the second most important guy on a squad next to the medic.
A good AT person will:
1)Try to get a rocket on any piece of armor as soon as hes reloaded. I hate when people wait and wait and wait for the "perfect shot" when he could have gotten 2 off already.
2)Use every gun he has.
3)Know his place in the squad. Know that if you get that armor down, your squad will give you cookies. Chocolate ones.
When someone follows those (basic) guidelines, youll have a very effective squad against infantry and armor.
-
10-14-2005, 01:59 AM #21
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Posts
- 307
Re: The case against ATs
Dunno if this is intended or not, but tonight I saw buggys drive over my mines and actually knock them forward several yards..., so ya, i'll be sticking with my trusty c4 now
-
10-14-2005, 03:34 AM #22
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 974
Re: The case against ATs
There's rarely a purely infantry vs. infantry fight. It's all about killing their vehicles fast enough that you have your's and they don't have their's. Two tanks going toe to toe may kill each other. Back up a tank with an AT and that enemy tank may not even get a shot off. Then their squad may be more effective against infantry but who cares? Your tank is going to do unspeakable things to them.
-
10-14-2005, 07:00 AM #23
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Posts
- 5
Re: The case against ATs
In my opinion, the mines aren't useless,
I got blown up yesterday by one(maybe 2)
, with a full healthy tank.
Second it has happend to me that i needed 7(I got killed once, but spawned on the SL) AT rockets to kill one tank, maybe noobism at my part, or an engineer in it.
I often play medic, but when it is needed I switch to AT and take care of the sucker, especially on karkand, which I'm addicted 2, If the enemy takes the spawnpoint before the bridge, u know they are comming with that apc over the bridge.
-
10-14-2005, 08:56 AM #24
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Age
- 40
- Posts
- 6,210
Re: The case against ATs
Last night, a full squad of AT tried to get past three members of the 42nd on Fushe (2 assaults, one sniper). With limited success.
They only eventually capped the flag because our CO was yelling at Sabre because the UCB had been infiltrated.
The key issue: at range, you have to use the tube. You miss: boom, headshot.
And forget about going prone: you look like a big moving rock. 2ATs split left and right, and I called it out to the team and Sabre's response was "Where? Oh...there!"
Easy kill.Last edited by Mateo; 10-14-2005 at 10:51 AM.
-
10-14-2005, 10:33 AM #25
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 2,380
Re: The case against ATs
I tend to think the AT is only really effective in pairs. So I generally prefer my guys to spawn in something that is useful against infantry and if a tank happens to pin us down, I request the next few guys to spawn in as AT. If I can stay alive or hold the flag for 20 secs we have all the AT support we need.
|TG-12th| SHINER
-
10-14-2005, 02:50 PM #26
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- California, USA
- Age
- 36
- Posts
- 29
Re: The case against ATs
I play medic and some support, heres my 2 cents...
Pro:
AT's are armored, giving them longer life span against small arms fire...
A shot from the rocket will usually GIB someone, thus no revival... very good tactic if you know who the enemy SL is and can get a rocket on them, will force the squad back to the nearest flag. Question: will rocketing a corpse GIB them? Trials are needed....
All maps have armor/jeeps/boats and such. I think AT is almost esential for fending off these bad boys who can wipe out whole squads.
As said previously, any AT soldier detected by enemy armor will draw 100% of its attention... many stategies can be drawn from this.
Poping jeeps, boats, and choppers full of soldiers is beautifull...
Con:
Slow, large profile target.
Very difficult to use proficiently (maybe just me).
Always seems to go down before finishing off target (maybe just me again.)
Opportuinity cost... having some other kit when AT isn't needed.
Overall:
When I squad lead, I usually want one of these guys around. Having someone who is good with their AT kit in your squad can be a real boon. Most squads im in usually have one or none, but quickly have 2 or 3 kit switchers when serious armor threats roll in, as it is a good 'situational' kit for the relativly untrained.
I like em... not good at being one yet though...
Reply With QuoteThread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks