Re: Disturbing Trend (LAT/HAT/TOW/AA)

**imnotacanadian** · 03-31-2008, 06:44 PM

Good. I think this will be for the better.

**SamO** · 03-31-2008, 06:50 PM

elaborate disposable

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 03-31-2008, 07:33 PM

When there is something to post about it, we will.

**kilroy0097** · 04-01-2008, 08:38 AM

Today on the map Road to Kyongan'Ni some time around the 3am time period my squad was attempting to take back Airdrop after it was taken by the Chinese. In the process several time we were taken out by HAT sniping from on top of the cliff just to the West above Airdrop.

After the first HAT I said over server chat that HAT use on Infantry was not allowed by server rules. After the second HAT death I demanded that whoever was on the Chinese team on the cliff above Airdrop to be reported for this use. After which I got a snide remark from |PR|CATA|AtomicBong that I should stop my complaining. I pointed out it is the rules of the server and if they don't like it they don't have to play here. That was followed by another comment by AtomicBong that the rule was retroactive. For exact wording you'll have to visit the Battlerecorder footage.

Now I've seen AtmoicBong on the server many times since playing on the TG PR server and honestly how can we expect newer players to respect any of the rules if someone such as himself, who is pretty regular on the server, doesn't respect the rules nor supports them?

How can we police the server if regulars on the server don't care to report offenders? And why does everyone view anyone who is attempting to keep the peace on the servers and protect the rules as a dick? I'm just trying to keep the bar high.

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 04-01-2008, 11:35 AM

I'm starting to think that those that tell others to 'stfu' or 'quit crying' or whatever else when someone asks for help trying to police the server are just as guilty as the player who is actually doing it, and they should probably be treated the same. Perhaps then we'll see a change in the behavior on the server. It's only going to be through the efforts of everyone that we can keep TG as TG and not just some other server.

Wickens - download the BR file and find the offender. Send me some screenshots and his name.

**LeadMagnet** · 04-01-2008, 11:56 AM

I see all these posts about how the use of L-AT against infantry just isn't done in the World. To those posters I say "you sir are an idiot". Our boys have found new respect for the use of M-72's against troops in Afghanistan. The effect on troops in bunkers and hiding behind walls has been impressive to say the least.

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 04-01-2008, 12:07 PM

Lead - we're talking about H-AT, not L-AT. Re-read the posts again.

Also, don't insult people by calling them idiots. It's impossible to have a productive discussion on something when you are flaming people.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 04-01-2008, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by LeadMagnet

I see all these posts about how the use of L-AT against infantry just isn't done in the World. To those posters I say "you sir are an idiot". Our boys have found new respect for the use of M-72's against troops in Afghanistan. The effect on troops in bunkers and hiding behind walls has been impressive to say the least.

I agree with you, minus as disposable pointed out telling people they are idiots, but what happens in the real world doesn't necessarily apply to the rules at tacticalgamer.com L-AT is allowed to be used for the most part on infantry, H-AT is not at all........and that still is a major problem that not only hinders our server but is also a plague on mostly every other server in the PR community.

And disposable has brought up two very good points in his last few posts that should be put into effect immediately, when you play on any of TG servers it is expected that you are a mature gamer who enjoys teamwork and coordination, and you abide by their rules that have been put in place.

in a sense there is somewhat of an honor code that isn't necessarily shown, but if there is someone breaking those rules whether it is on your side or the other side and you have witnessed it, it should be reported, especially the use of H-AT: Heavy Anti-Tank on infantry.

**Elwenil** · 04-01-2008, 02:21 PM

Another point is that Lead himself said that "The effect on troops in bunkers and hiding behind walls has been impressive to say the least", which would not violate my idea of no L-AT against soldiers in the field. Firing AT at vehicles and buildings is one thing, firing them at soldiers running in a field or crawling in the grass is very unrealistic. In most cases, the round would probably not even detonate since there is no solid target for it to strike.

**Googol** · 04-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Elenwil makes a very good point. It's very unrealistic to fire on troops in open ground. But I gotta say, there have been problems with LAT/HAT fire on bunkers. On a round of Mestia I was in a rebel squad defending East Tower. I saw at least 10 rockets fly into the building with a minute or two inbetween each rocket. I personally think that it is in an exploit to simply keep resupplying and hitting constantly.

Just a thought

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 04-01-2008, 08:13 PM

There is absolutely, positively, 100% nothing wrong with firing LAT or even HAT into a structure like a bunker or a tower.

**SamO** · 04-01-2008, 08:24 PM

no-one said there was. I use LAT where ever however, HAT i know the rules on.

**Googol** · 04-01-2008, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0

There is absolutely, positively, 100% nothing wrong with firing LAT or even HAT into a structure like a bunker or a tower.

Ok, it's nice to get a confirmation on my questions.

**kilroy0097** · 04-02-2008, 12:45 AM

I posted this in another thread.

Originally Posted by kilroy0097

LAT against Assets, Buildings, Vehicles and Defensive formations.
HAT against Assets, Buildings, Vehicles and Defensive formations.
TOW against Assets and Vehicles only.
AA against Air Assets only.

No mention of infantry at all in those rules. Which implies none of the AT should be used against infantry.

I was asked to clarify "Defensive formations". This would be referenced to Sandbags, Razorwire, Cement Walls like in Kashan, Cement Bunkers that can be destroyed and anything that could be used for cover. For example do you have a Automatic Rifleman behind a fallen tree spraying down your squad with constant suppression fire? You as the Rifleman AT move to the flank a bit and aim for the tree directly behind that SAW gunner and fire the LAT taking out the enemy soldier freeing your squad to move up. Perfectly ok in my mind. Use common sense people.

All people who use the LAT in questionable ways or illegal ways know exactly what they are doing and are not oblivious on the usage. They are simply bad players and/or have poor common sense. They are malicious players and are doing it on purpose. I find it very hard to believe that this many people are using the LAT improperly unknowingly.

**Charity Case** · 04-02-2008, 03:43 PM

Kilroy, I think your definition of "defensive formation" makes the rules of engagement for H-AT and L-AT even murkier than the current rules. Do you intend to allow heavy and light-AT to be fired at any "cover" object in order to kill nearby infantry? Because that is what your definition allows. And while I like what you are trying to do, I feel that any new rules should decrease the grey area instead of adding to it.

And, to everyone proposing new rules, I ask these two questions: "How will you explain your rule to the public?" and "How do you propose to enforce your rule?" I don't mean to pick on you Kilroy, but your proposed rule is a good example of what I'm talking about. First off, how would you explain your rule to a pubber who is new to TG? Sure, you could rattle off what you've written, but parts of your rule would still be unclear. For instance, in your original post you say that "...none of the AT should be used against infantry." but then you contradict yourself by giving an example in which you shoot L-AT near an infantryman in order to kill him. Other things that are unclear include your definition of buildings and assets. Can you shoot the side of a building with H-AT in order to kill the infantry in front of it? Can you shoot into a wooden shack as it is, technically, a building? I know you say to use common sense, but many public players don't understand how these weapons are used in the real world. The more complicated the rule, the harder it is for people to understand and follow it. And this is why I feel we need clear-cut rules like "Never shoot AT at infantry." or "Shoot AT at whatever you want."

And then there is enforcement. I'm not sure what the standard punishment for H-AT sniping is, but I doubt it's anything too serious. So is it really worth my while to fire up Battlerecorder and spend half an hour trying to find the one guy who shot me with an ERYX? I've done this in the past only to find the offender in my squad the very next day! And the only other option is to hunt the guy down during the game which, 99 times out of 10, is impossible. This is not a dig at the admins, I think they're doing a great job, but it's time people realized that some rules may hurt more than they help.

As for L-AT sniping, these days we mostly let it slide. So what's the point of having a rule on the books if nobody wants to enforce it? And if you're really concerned about L-AT sniping, why don't you download a Battlerecorder file, sift through the footage, screenshot or record the offenses, write a report to the admins, and then ask yourself if it was worth it: spending an hour documenting the heinous crimes of SmackSniper2000, who is not a registered member of TG, so the admins won't have many options other than to ban him or ignore him.

Just some food for thought...

Thread Tools

Display