Welcome to Tactical Gamer

User Tag List

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 81
Discussion: Project Reality / PR:BF2 - Intended use of vehicles & weapons - Thanks asch, for taking the time to clarify. Even if some of 'em still don't
  1. #16

    7ShadesOSin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    35
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Thanks asch, for taking the time to clarify.

    Even if some of 'em still don't seem to get it...

    7Shades

    How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
    And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
    - from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

  2.  
  3. #17

    Donagel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ellicott City, Maryland, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Just a clarification. The LAT is different than the insurgents RPG, correct?

  4.  
  5. #18

    EBODude's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bolingbrook, Illinois
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Donagel View Post
    Just a clarification. The LAT is different than the insurgents RPG, correct?
    In my opinion, I think the RPG should be considered a L-AT.

  6.  

     
  7. #19


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Hardly fair, as it throws the whole "you should engage the enemy with your rifle" argument out of the window.

  8.  
  9. #20

    Belhade's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York (no, not the city)
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,714
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
    Personally, I'd love to see some kind of locking system in place that requires a fix on a solid background calibrated for angles above normal ground (i.e. you cant aim at the road or low dunes, but you could aim at a mountain, wall, vehicle or rally point because of the high angles of the terrain/device), for a couple seconds before firing.
    Some problems I forsee with that include AT ambush from high ground (shooting down onto a tank) and leading a tank in motion.
    |TG-6th|Belhade
    "I am actually looking forward to watching Jon and Kate plus 8." - Dirtboy





  10.  
  11. #21

    Ferris Bueller's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    1123 6536 5321
    Age
    32
    Posts
    9,177
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Well, then simply make it so that it can only lock onto vehicles and not personnel or terrain.

    The RPG is a different weapon entirely. You have that and a pistol, not exactly the best choice of weaponry, but still. You also have 2 rounds with it, which you cant kill a tank with unless you get REALLY lucky. But I think similar rules should apply to it as far as anti-personnel. Dont go one one one with it. As an insurgent, you shouldnt be running around on the ground with it out anyway. You should be on rooftops shooting down at groups of them. Much easier and better for the team as you're bound to die less.

  12.  

     
  13. #22

    Sabre_Tooth_Tigger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    eurasia
    Posts
    3,438
    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Its all restricted next version. The RPG appears twice on basrah as a pickup kit, it will become a rarity to see one.
    In 0.6, engineer class seems the only way to spawn and kill a tank now for any side.

    Just saying, I wouldnt argue too hard about it all when its changing anyway


    If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

  14.  
  15. #23

    EBODude's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bolingbrook, Illinois
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger View Post
    Its all restricted next version. The RPG appears twice on basrah as a pickup kit, it will become a rarity to see one.
    In 0.6, engineer class seems the only way to spawn and kill a tank now for any side.

    Just saying, I wouldnt argue too hard about it all when its changing anyway
    That's the way it should be. I love being sneaky and placing 3 packs of C4 on a tank.
    Last edited by EBODude; 06-08-2007 at 08:26 AM.

  16.  
  17. #24

    Cpt_RatBastard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cali!
    Age
    34
    Posts
    53
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Since when did the engy get 3 packs of C4?
    <img src=http://webpages.charter.net/elmo130/tntcptratbastard%20(2).gif border=0 alt= />

  18.  

     
  19. #25


    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    141
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Since the invention of riflemen


    (edit)

    The key diference I always saw between LAT and insurgent RPGs was the fact LAT had pretty much 0 deviation, whereas the RPG could easily miss a smallertarget merely by flying anywhere but the place you aimed.
    "It's nothing to do with Stalker, really"

  20.  
  21. #26

    EBODude's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bolingbrook, Illinois
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Cpt_RatBastard View Post
    Since when did the engy get 3 packs of C4?
    The insurgents get 3 packs. IMO, 3 packs>2 RPGs

  22.  
  23. #27


    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    The ambusher class in .6 is the guy with C4 now and he only gets 2 packs. He can reload them and have a max of 4 (?) setup in game.

  24.  

     
  25. #28

    EBODude's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bolingbrook, Illinois
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Does he have a scoped rifle? Grenades?

  26.  
  27. #29

    Sabre_Tooth_Tigger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    eurasia
    Posts
    3,438
    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Scoped rifle is for riflemen I think and grenades, I dont think so.

    Ambusher has mines, c4 & a shotgun - insurgent & militia mines do not ever display the red warning sign above them unlike normal forces but you still get the normal red sign at the sign of the screen that happens with friendly and hostile mines in every game.

    I put a couple screen caps in the main 0.6 thread
    Last edited by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger; 06-10-2007 at 11:31 AM.


    If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

  28.  
  29. #30

    Switch's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,357
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer View Post
    Ugh, I got LAT'd in plain view, and it pissed me off quite a bit.

    I was in the middle of a road. The guy ducks down after I fire at him, so I keep walking forward. I'm about 20m out from him. He comes back up with a damn LAT and blows me up. Infact, I'm almost certain it was an AT4, and he is chinese so... He purposefully picked it up.

    LAT vs obstacles/entrenched enemy, sure.
    LAT vs Lone infantry. Psh.
    If he picked up a US kit, there's really no qualms what so ever about using a LAT on infy, if you think of it as a situational decision. Who cares about wasting an expensive round on a nominal target, you just took the weapon off the corpse of an enemy.
    |TG|Switch

    Better known as:
    That noob who crashed the chopper.
    That noob who ran over the mine.
    That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
    That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

  30.  

     
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


  
 

Back to top