Re: Password night, could be better, could be worse

**Paul386** · 05-29-2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by sloth

I'm not clear on when using an RPG or Anti Tank is acceptable and when it is not. I have read forum posts from a number of different people who I think are authorities on SOPs and I'm still not clear. Is the insurgent's RPG treated different from any other AT weapons?

Is L-AT treated the same as RPG (since it seems to perform the same) or should the splash damage possibility of the L-AT be ignored (for bunker busting and things like that) in favor of using it as only an anti-armor tool?

When people say someone was L-AT/H-AT sniping do they mean purely that the person took out a player with the weapon regardless of location and situation, that the person was camping somewhere with the sole intent of taking out infantry, or what?

Why are they getting so upset with the "rocket sniping?" I haven't personally seen it used that much. However, shouldn't people be allowed to use it. It seems perfectly legit and real to me.

If a squad is too close, well, it is their fault if they get hammered by an AT missile (and kudos to the guy who shot the missile). If a guy is using his AT missile to kill individual infantry, he will run out of ammo before he can do that much damage.

It is easy to defeat the rocket tactic. Don't stand close to teammates, walls, and don't get in bunkers. It is a real life concern and this is a reality mod (isn't it?)

Because the TG community is vastly (or supposed to be) different than everyone else. It is a question of mentality. Everyone here knows its a game. But we also know that many of us here have somethign in common - that is a desire to make this game as much of a tactical simulation as possible for better or worse. We do things very differently than other gaming communities - especially the BF community as a whole. The example you gave of bunny hopping is a good indication that perhaps you aren't too worried about striving for tactical realism. But most of us are and we dislike anything that brings BF PR close to halflife and away from a simulation.

I am not saying that the whole bunny hopping doesn't derive the game from being "tactical." What I am saying is that it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. I don't see it happening that much and I can't understand why it would bother someone so much that they would seemingly make it their biggest concern with the game.

**mingmong** · 05-29-2007, 11:25 AM

It goes against "The TG way". The ethos and methods of this community.

That is enough.

**ednos** · 05-29-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Paul386

I am not saying that the whole bunny hopping doesn't derive the game from being "tactical." What I am saying is that it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. I don't see it happening that much and I can't understand why it would bother someone so much that they would seemingly make it their biggest concern with the game.

A gamer who would practice crackjumping or any other of the actions specifically banned in the SOPs displays a distinct lack of maturity and respect for realism; the bunny hopping or AT sniping actions themselves may be easy to counteract tactically, but the attitudes of such gamers are not welcome and are harmful to the gameplay and the community.

**sloth** · 05-29-2007, 12:04 PM

My questions still aren't answered. Maybe this would be easier. Could some people who have been around longer than me tell me if the following situations are good/bad/ugly?

-An insurgent with an RPG is on a rooftop and sees three USMC huddled by a wall. Firing the RPG at the wall he kills the enemy infantry with splash damage.

-The same scenario as above but instead of an insurgent with an RPG we have a USMC with L-AT firing at a group of insurgents huddled by a wall.

-A soldier equipped with L-AT sees enemy activity in a bunker on the hilltop he is assaulting. Firing the L-AT into the window of the bunker he attempts to kill the enemies hiding in there.

Are any of these tactics acceptable? For this issue in particular I don't find the SOPs sufficient to help me understand.

**Belhade** · 05-29-2007, 12:23 PM

From what I gather in this thread (and this is my only experience with it)

These are such things that have been discussed for, well, years. Mostly they relate to the Reality aspect of this specific mod. Since you're new here you haven't been reading all the old posts but the rules are actually laid out in the required reading. I can sum up a few of these points.

Bunnyhopping is obviously out. You'll never see any infantryman running and jumping repeatedly on a battlefield. People use it in the game to try and avoid fire but it generally just makes you look like a dope.

Anti-tank sniping is still being discussed; there's actually a multi-page thread currently active here. Most of it breaks down to a few simple rules:
Anti-*TANK* weapons should primarily be used against vehicles, specifically armor (tanks, APCs). Heavy AT (HAT) since they are specially-requested kits should never be wasted on infantry.
Insurgent RPGs are acceptable for use against infantry.
Light AT kits (L-AT) can be used against masses of infantry, or to clear out an enclosed space (bunker, house, etc).
The AT kits should never be used to take out a single infantry out in the distance. This is the tactic being referred to as AT-sniping and is flat-out banned.

For more in-depth discussion please refer to the other thread still under discussion.

**loyalguard** · 05-29-2007, 12:30 PM

There has been a lot of debate on L/H-AT misuse lately. Here are my opinions on your scenarios:

-An insurgent with an RPG is on a rooftop and sees three USMC huddled by a wall. Firing the RPG at the wall he kills the enemy infantry with splash damage.

This is legitimate for me. For an Insurgent RPG'er, the RPG is his primary weapon, the pistol is not a good choice to take on three enemy. Assuming he has no other squadmates to engage the enemy with a semi/automatic rifle (in that case I spot and call for support) or grenades, I use the RPG. The RPG is an abundant and low cost weapon system and using it in this manner is acceptable when considering available resources.

-The same scenario as above but instead of an insurgent with an RPG we have a USMC with L-AT firing at a group of insurgents huddled by a wall.

This is not legitimate for me. The L-AT is not his primary weapon system. His assault rifle or a squad mates grenades are a better/more effecient choice. Unless it was my last option (out of bullets/enemy is so deeply entrenched there is no other method), I would not engage with the AT-4. Think of it this way, say you use your AT-4 to take out three insurgents, but now a jihad car comes around the corner and barelling straight for you...betcha wish you had your AT-4 now. Or possible, a worse fate, you take out three insurgents with your $1,400 one-time use AT-4 rocket when a couple dollars worth of .223 rounds would have done the same, and now you have to explain yourself to the Gunny!

-A soldier equipped with L-AT sees enemy activity in a bunker on the hilltop he is assaulting. Firing the L-AT into the window of the bunker he attempts to kill the enemies hiding in there.

This is legit. Bunker/fortification clearing with L-AT is an acceptable tactic.

Try to develop litmus test for yourself when considering use of L-AT. Is this the proper/most effecient weapon system? Do other options exist to face the current threat? What are the long-term effects of "expending" a rocket in this circumstance?

**ednos** · 05-29-2007, 12:33 PM

To clarify, I have been informed in the past by the administration team that the RPG is not considered Light AT. Furthermore, I have been informed by soldiers that RPGs are indeed used against infantry in real life.

Also, refer to this thread:
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ing-heavy.html

**Dick Blonov** · 05-29-2007, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by sloth

Is L-AT treated the same as RPG (since it seems to perform the same) or should the splash damage possibility of the L-AT be ignored (for bunker busting and things like that) in favor of using it as only an anti-armor tool?

I looked and thought about this and other threads before throwing in my 2 cents. Consider this:

1- The intent of the game/mod developers.
2- The intent of the players.

The first, is somewhat documented. The fact that exploits are fixed by developers clearly indicate that a player is «using» a feature, limitation, bug, in a manner that is contrary to the intended game play.

The second is not always that clearcut. TKs for the purpose of obtaining an asset, not following orders are no brainers. Proper usage of weapons, vehicles, not always an easy call.

Here goes:

(please look at the naming of the kits):

Anti-Tank Rifleman:
Knife
Assault Rifle with open sights (6+1 magazines)
Light AT weapon with 1 round
Smoke Grenade x 1
Field Dressing x 1
Body Armor

Use the rifle against infantry. No reason whatsoever to use the LAT

RPG Gunner:
Knife
Pistol (4+1 magazines)
RPG7 (1+1 rounds)
Binoculars

OK, you can use your pistol. But you are an Insurgent, not a trained specialized soldier. If you were to see one or more enemies, you would go for the RPG. You are not an Anti-Tank Rifleman, you are an RPG gunner. Sniping lone soldiers ? No way, you only have 2 rounds and supplies are scarce. Going after 2 or more walking in your ambush, or surprising you ?. You betcha.

From the PR Wiki:

Insurgents & Militia
There are two different "Civilian Uprising" factions in Project Reality. Both fight under the same flag and for the same cause, but there are some distinctions due to the stage of evolution as an Insurgency faction.

The first is the "Insurgent" faction. This is largely made up of civilians who have taken up the call to arms against a conventional army. They are typically poorly equipped but have many unconventional means at their disposal to fight the conventional armies.

This is how I slice it:

LAT/RPG sniping, not allowed.
RPG gunning 2 or more enemies by the Insurgents: acceptable and realistic.

edit: Loyal beat me to it

DB

**Plan6** · 05-29-2007, 12:41 PM

The main problem I have with the L-AT rule is it is way to subjective. I have sniped a single infantry man with my L-AT rocket. Mind you, it was a infantry man ripping apart another squad with a 203 from a hill where they couldnt fire back. I saved both the squad and their RP from being wiped off the map.

But really, what is a mass of troops? Two troopers? 3? 4? Is it ok to attack a support kit, which out guns you in every way? What about 203 kits that are mauling your squad?

This rule of the L-AT being ok some of the time, but not others just leads to arguments. Asch has already said that some members are "enforcing" rules that dont really exist, and this could lead to more of than.

If there is a rule, I would like it to be clear, not subjective and iron clad. This ok when you see a mass of troops, which can be 2-4 troopers depending on what kits they have and their ability to take you out in return is just to wishy-washy for me.

**Tempus** · 05-29-2007, 12:47 PM

At this point, when debating the use of ATs, please note that it is H-AT use and abuse that we're trying to discourage.

**sloth** · 05-29-2007, 03:10 PM

Thanks guys for all the feedback. I have been trying to follow the other forum threads but there are a lot of conflicting ideas and I don't at this point know who makes the rules and who is just bickering

I think this clears it up for me at least. I have also read reports of US troops using anti armor weapons to take out snipers inside of buildings and such, but since the consensus seems to be to not use these weapons against single targets I will refrain from doing so. It is not worth doing something that is questionable if it ruins the enjoyment of the game for a number of people.

**ednos** · 05-29-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by sloth

I have also read reports of US troops using anti armor weapons to take out snipers inside of buildings and such

The story like this that I heard was from a marine stationed in Fallujah. The round was used to destroy the minaret from which the sniper killed the point man. As of PR .5, this is rarely an option, but if much more terrain is destructible in .6 ("explodistan"), these weapons will probably see a wider range of legitimate implementation. I won't make any assumptions, though; when the TG server runs .6, I'll ask the administrators if the appropriate uses expand to include this behavior.

**Paul386** · 05-29-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Belhade

These are such things that have been discussed for, well, years. Mostly they relate to the Reality aspect of this specific mod. Since you're new here you haven't been reading all the old posts but the rules are actually laid out in the required reading[/URL]. I can sum up a few of these points.

Bunnyhopping is obviously out. You'll never see any infantryman running and jumping repeatedly on a battlefield. People use it in the game to try and avoid fire but it generally just makes you look like a dope.

Anti-tank sniping is still being discussed; there's actually a multi-page thread currently active here. Most of it breaks down to a few simple rules:
Anti-*TANK* weapons should primarily be used against vehicles, specifically armor (tanks, APCs). Heavy AT (HAT) since they are specially-requested kits should never be wasted on infantry.
Insurgent RPGs are acceptable for use against infantry.
Light AT kits (L-AT) can be used against masses of infantry, or to clear out an enclosed space (bunker, house, etc).
The AT kits should never be used to take out a single infantry out in the distance. This is the tactic being referred to as AT-sniping and is flat-out banned.

For more in-depth discussion please refer to the other thread still under discussion.

I can find these terms acceptable. However,

A perfect and VERY realistic example of this would be the US Army's method of killing Uday and Qusay Hussein. They used TOW missile, which are specifically designed to kill vehicles, to kill these men in a well defended building.

I my opinion, in war, a soldier is going to use all available resources (weapons) at his disposal to kill the enemy. It is called pragmatism.

**ednos** · 05-29-2007, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Paul386

I my opinion, in war, a soldier is going to use all available resources (weapons) at his disposal to kill the enemy. It is called pragmatism.

There's a limit to the adaptation of equipment to unintended purposes. In PR, players use the AT kits to "snipe" because the weapons are more accurate *and* have splash damage, making the targets easier to kill, *AND* because they have an unlimited supply of rockets, since a rifleman, APC, or HMMWV/Vodnik carries an undefined number of extras. That's really why using the AT kits to "snipe" is a game exploit, not a real life tactic.

**ChernobylKinsman** · 05-29-2007, 04:23 PM

Asch has already said that some members are "enforcing" rules that dont really exist

I believe that was in reference to the guy taking the chopper from the squad and me saying he should have read the rules before getting the password.

Thing is, I was refering to "following CO orders" with reguards to the use of assets, as the asset squad thing is a gentlemans agreement.

The big difference between insurgent RPGs and regular Light AT/MEC RPGs is the accuracy, there is pretty much 0 deviation with the regular kits and we all know how the insurgent ones are.

That said, if the admins are fine with LAT sniping, discussion may as well end.

Thread Tools

Display