Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

**StevieRay** · 07-30-2007, 08:17 PM

Geobob is on the mark. Project Reality is the name. You are in combat, with your sauad and receiving fire from a position accross a street. Your squad is firing but can not get an angle. What would, in a real world situation, a squad leader tell his AT light or heavy guy to do to change the advantage? Fire the AT at the position, then engage on foot.

It is a VERY situational event. Now the point about a pistol as the only line of D for the HAT is another great point because, how many times does the squad actually protect the medic and the HAT? not often. So you instinct, again in reality, is to protect yourself. The kick is for abuse, and in the real world, no HAT would go around firing it like it was his primary, but he would engage ANY position that could net squad level kills or save his life.

I just dont think a ban is deserved. Too harsh a verdict without knowing the situation.

Just my two nickels.

PS, GEo that fish pic cracks me up.

**Morganan** · 07-30-2007, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

Hey TG I wanted to start an open discussion here about your rule regarding Anti Tank weapons.

From what I understand your rule states that Anti Tank weapons may ONLY be used against vehicles, NOT infantry.

Now I can understand the frustration of single infantry getting 'AT sniped' which was especially prevalent in 0.5, however I dont think this rule should still be applied as AT has been changed signifigantly.

HAT now has the following drawbacks:

- 15 second arming time
- 10 second reload time + another 15 second arming time
- only a small level of zoom, making 'sniping' individual infantry quite hard.

LAT is even at a bigger disadvantage because:

- 3 second arming time
- only 1 round which takes a long time to rearm
- no zoom.
- has an arc which makes it very hard to hit small targets at range.

I am bringing this up because recent rounds on Hills of Hamgyong, admins have shouted 'DO NOT USE AT ON INFANTRY' meanwhile this would be the IDEAL solution for bunker busting with the USMC AT. Its a 100% legitimate tactic, I myself personally have trained for bunker busting in Canadian Army and Im sure they do the same thing in the USMC. Why are your rules restricting legitimate tactics? The notion that 'its not fair' does not carry any weight with me. If a player wants to waste his AT rocket on an infantry, then a higher priority target like a Tank or APC could roll up once hes fired and he will be SOL. Priority targetting should be the decision of the player, not the decision of the server.

Still dont believe that very expensive AT munitions are used on hardened targets? http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xgTeAhIM...elated&search=

Id like to invite all TG players to discuss this server rule and form their own opinion.

Anyone yelling about using an AT rocket on a bunker or otherwise hardened position or using it against infantry in a situation where it's your only weapon (insurgents) would be quite frankly an idiot. It's when it gets used against that one or 2 people out in the open where something should be done about it by an admin. Firing a rocket inside a window to take out anyone inside is fine, firing a rocket against that guy crossing a road isn't fine.

The above is just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure following those rules would only get the afore mentioned idiot's complaining and not anyone that matters in the grand scheme.

**khaerus** · 07-30-2007, 09:29 PM

This rule has been discussed, a LOT, a while back. There were a few guys that took AT-sniping to a ridiculous new level, then everybody started doing it, then it got complained about, rules got made, and the problem kinda went away.

As for the situation now, I don't believe it would cause too much trouble to bust a bunker up with a HAT.... that got discussed the first time around too, and I think people would be rational about it now. It would just be a really ugly thing to have the sniping start again, and my guess is that the slope is kinda slippery.... I'd rather have a hard line in place to prevent it, I suppose.

**geogob** · 07-30-2007, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Gahlas

I think ideally what the developers would want is for your squad mates, rifleman, etc to be engaging the infantry, not the HAT guy. It should be used in a support role, not on the front lines taking flags, etc.

Theory is nice. Practice is not that easy. This is an artificial and unrealistic way to promote teamwork.

As an HAT, not having a rifle means I cannot engage enemy infantry effectively. Because of that, I tend to stay further back from the front line action then the rest of my squad does. In the front I'm simply too vulnerable and have not effective way to engage attacking force. I find it also more effective to stay further back to engage armored vehicles from the back, usually staying near a vehicle for rearmament. During movement, I stay in formation, but during engagements, as HAT I stay back.

Many ambush and attack tactics also requires the HAT soldier to hold positions away from the rest of the squad. With 6 players in a squad, unless you have two squad making the ambush (never seen that in PR), there's no man to spare to match each AT gunner with a soldier carrying a rifle.

All this has two consequences:
1) My squad being close to the fight sometimes dies off and I'm the last one sitting in the back with my pistol and HAT.
2) I often get cut of by enemy troops moving between the squad front line and my position.

The best course of action is evasion. But that doesn't always work out. In those situations a rifle would be useful.

Another situation that is common with the HAT... often, when the squad is under fire from an enemy APC or MBT, the squad leaders orders someone to spawn at the nearest bunker, firebase, base or APC to get and HAT kit and rejoin the squad to engage the enemy armor.

Doing this, you are necessarily alone with only the HAT and a pistol. You sometimes have to cross long distances to reach your squad position or you can be surprised a the base you spawn at (this is what happened to me when I had to use HAT against a full squad hidden in a trench).

There are situations where you are forced to use HAT when a rifle would be even more appropriate, but where a pistol can't simply cut it.

**snooggums** · 07-30-2007, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by geogob

There are situations where you are forced to use HAT when a rifle would be even more appropriate, but where a pistol can't simply cut it.

You are never forced to use the HAT against infantry, you can always fire your pistol even if it is not effective. This fits the real word situation where you cannot simply run around and fire an antitank weapon from the hip. Use your pistol if you cannot evade, it really isn't that bad.

Yes I use HAT often and get the least amount of kills as I save it for armor only. I also wait back and don't engage infantry, instead using my binoculars (or the weapons zoom) to spot enemies for my squad members to kill. This is a bigger resource than people realize, so I'm not just sitting on my hands waiting for an APC to kill.

**BigGaayAl** · 07-31-2007, 12:59 AM

I have another problem to add: stealing HAT kits.

I have no problem with someone taking my squad's HAT, but I have a BIG problem with someone taking it and holding it the whole round. It just makes no sense. If they get and hold both your HAT's, then you have pretty much lost, while in real life, you would just go the the ammo depot or whatever and get a spare one. These are regular armies (if not counting the insurgents), they should
ALWAYS be able to get two HAT's on both sides. If there is one stolen, fine the enemy has three for some time, yet you should still be able to get 2.

It is the equivalent of stealing heavy vehicles in vanilla/most other mods.
You can say "well look after it better", but in all fairness this is fantasy. Most of the time you will get killed a couple of times in a round. You can protect all you want, but sooner or later your squad will go down, with the possibility of totally impairing your team.

**geogob** · 07-31-2007, 01:09 AM

The point is that there are conditions where the use of HAT against other targets than MBT and APC is appropriate. These occasions do not occur often (seen only twice as HAT), but you have to be aware of the possibility.

And I agree with BigGaayAl on kit stealing. I guess it's some sort of mad way to balance the game. It doesn't work out well. I've seen squads that their sole purpose was to sneak on enemy snipers to stole their kits so the enemy don't have any and have the to snipers sit back safely at Main Base with the two enemy kits. I would say that's close to an exploit to me. Using some feature of the game to do something totally unrealistic. A penalty for loosing a kit to an enemy would be more appropriate. Like a few minutes where you can't access the kit... 1 or 2 minutes. But not a whole game.

**geogob** · 07-31-2007, 12:02 PM

Just to add to the discussion... here's a quote from the FM 3-22.37 JAVELIN MEDIUM ANTIARMOR WEAPON SYSTEM.

I think that the Javelin is even more specialized then the HAT currently in PR. The one in PR is, as I understand it, a secondary support weapon to use alongside the Javelin for short and medium range engagement. Both play similar roles.

4-1. ROLE

The Javelin’s primary role is to destroy enemy armored vehicles. When there is no armored vehicle threat, the Javelin can be employed in a secondary role of providing fire support against point targets such as bunkers and crew-served weapons positions. In addition, the Javelin CLU can be used alone as an aided vision device for reconnaissance, security operations, and surveillance. In mechanized Infantry units, when Bradley fighting vehicles (BFVs) are part of a combined-arms team with tanks, the Javelin becomes a secondary antiarmor weapons system. It supports the fires of tanks and TOWs, covers secondary armor avenues of approach, and provides observation posts with an antiarmor capability. The Javelin gunner should be able to engage up to three targets in 2 minutes making him very effective against any armor threat.

emphasis is my own. I also think buildings and entrenched positions can be considered as "point targets", but that's also my own interpretation of the field manual text.

And here the quote from FM 23-24 DRAGON MEDIUM ANTITANK/ASSAULT WEAPON SYSTEM M47.

The M47 seems even closer to the PR HAT system than the Javelin. Pretty much the same role as I stated previously.

3-1. DRAGON ROLE

The Dragon's primary role is to destroy enemy armored vehicles. When there is no armored vehicle, the Dragons can be employed in a secondary role of providing fire support against point targets such as bunkers and crew-served weapons positions. Combat and CS units normally use the Dragon in a self-defense role during rear operations.

**ZZEZ** · 07-31-2007, 12:54 PM

I have to agree with BigGaayAl, if you want to eliminate HAT sniping infantry at open fields then just give the kit a rifle.
Nothing is more frustrating then watching your squad engage in medium-long range combat with their rifles and all you have is a weak pistol.
I'd like LAT to be a selection kit again, with the reduced accuracy and arming time I don't think it will be a issue sniping with this kit, I mainly use it to take out light transports or bunkers as if you aim at anything smaller then these you'll surely miss your target.

It might not be realistic that you can run around with a huge rocket launcher AND a rifle, but it isn't realistic to die and respawn 30 seconds later.

OK, to much off topic

**fuzzhead** · 07-31-2007, 07:49 PM

We debated this back in May with the devs and the idea of HAT with a rifle was the ideal solution. Kit makeup:

1) knife
3) Assault rifle 4+1 mags
4) Heavy AT 1 round only
5) smoke x1
8) field dressing

The problem is in vanilla reloading of single shot (1 round) weapons. Its really gimpy and does not work properly. egg and co have been working on some way of making it work, so in the meantime we have the HAT with a pistol and 2 rounds.

I agree a HAT with only 1 round and an assault rifle would make alot more sense and would cut back big time on the temptation to use it versus infantry because youll have a perfectly good rifle to use, and only 1 shot to use against those armor threats.

Hopefully by v0.7 we will have a solution and this new setup will be enabled.

One thing you wont see is a return to AT weapons being avaliable at spawn, or a drastic increase of avaliable AT kits. Vehicles are now much more powerful due to the decreased avaliability of AT weapons and to go back to the v0.5 would be silly. It wasnt too long ago where if you had an APC bothering you, you would just get your entire squad to spawn as AT to take out the threat, those days are gone

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 07-31-2007, 08:15 PM

LAT I think should be used on anything people choose to and its dam hard to use at long range anyway. If you blow yourself up using it then you deserve lots of minus points for being a doofus plus no kill credited unless your an insurgent

HAT is still powerfull and I dont agree with it vs infantary unless a ticket cost for the ammo could be assigned which doesnt seem possible at present (ie. I dont think its a balanced weapon yet).
Firing into a bunker is fine though even when its not destructible. Also I use it against buildings in general.

I liked your idea of 15 seconds lag every time the zoom is used, not just when the weapon is first equipped. ie. every shot must be aimed and primed over 15 seconds

**Zybon** · 08-01-2007, 06:27 AM

Dunno if anyone has seen this: youtube.com/watch?v=AgA2Yd0wODE

Obviously the SRAW in-game is the MPV. So.. if the enemy is behind a wall or in a bunker, I'd say its fair game if you blow them away by aiming so the blast kills the people in cover (since the engine doesn't allow most walls/buildings to be blown up.)

Your personal feelings about it being cheap are irrelevant.

**snooggums** · 08-01-2007, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

I liked your idea of 15 seconds lag every time the zoom is used, not just when the weapon is first equipped. ie. every shot must be aimed and primed over 15 seconds

At 15 seconds your target will likely just move away, but I agree to a delay like 3-8 seconds after zooming instead of the long wait after equipping we have now that you can nullify by just leaving the weapon out.

**Donagel** · 08-01-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Re: Fuzzhead - as far as HAT vs bunkers goes, I believe in the spirit of the rules, if you're using HAT to take out one guy in a bunker, then no, you probably have better targets to be aiming for.

5 people, 1 person or nobody, if you perceive that there is a bunker that is a threat, then blowing it with a HAT/LAT is perfectly legitimate.(especialy when it is destructable).

**Steiner** · 08-01-2007, 11:42 AM

I agree, if an enemy engage my sqaud from a bunker or from inside a room in a building and the squad have a hard time eliminating this threat, then I will quite surely use the LAT to remove that threat.

Thread Tools

Display