Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 08-01-2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

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.

Well thats the whole point isnt it. Infantary are highly mobile and are not suitable targets. A tank is much slower, buildings obviously, etc

**Terminal Boy** · 08-01-2007, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

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.

What's worse than the enemy stealing your H-AT and L-AT kits?

People in other squads on your team taking all the AT kits and sitting at Temple when you're trying to fight off 2 Warrior APCs at River Fort with just rocks and harsh language...

**Murderous** · 08-01-2007, 02:06 PM

Would be a cool thing to try out (probably only have a shot at doing this on password night,) if you actually had to request permission to take the HAT kit from the CO. That way HE would know what squad actually is his HAT squad and who would be held responsible for any APC's wreaking havoc unchecked. You guys like the sound of that or is it too restrictive?

**Murderous** · 08-01-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

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

I agree with the 1 round and rifle idea as long as the 1 round will kill a fully repaired tank. Maybe not destroying it completely, but definitely jamming the turret, forcing it to retreat.

**Terminal Boy** · 08-01-2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Murderous

Would be a cool thing to try out (probably only have a shot at doing this on password night,) if you actually had to request permission to take the HAT kit from the CO. That way HE would know what squad actually is his HAT squad and who would be held responsible for any APC's wreaking havoc unchecked. You guys like the sound of that or is it too restrictive?

I don't think a squaddie should just pop-off a very expensive and powerful weapon like the H-AT without SL permission.

Perhaps creating a "Tank Killer" or "AT" squad with H-AT and Combat Engineer kits would be another idea.

**Steiner** · 08-02-2007, 03:26 AM

Well, then there is also those moments of divine justice, as in when a player equipped with a HAT use it against infantry in a 'non-suitable' situation, only to find himself run over by a tank moments after. Kind of laughed my pants off when I saw that one.

**snooggums** · 08-02-2007, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

Well thats the whole point isnt it. Infantary are highly mobile and are not suitable targets. A tank is much slower, buildings obviously, etc

I've found tanks to be much faster than a running man, and getting into a good position would reset the 15 second timer so you would have to stand or crouch in th open to get a shot off, and if you are shooting at a chopper they come and go in 15 seconds. For testing all you have to do is keep a 15 second timer with you or count to 15 after bringing the scope up, it is way longer in game than you think. I found that at three seconds I'm generally not feeling comfortable (easy target) and by 8 either the target is moving out of sight or I get picked off (note this is on any map with cover or streets, so don't count Karkand or whatever the desert map is).

I agree with your solution, I just disagree on the time frame. I'd suggest a simple 4 second delay from the time you bring the scope up.

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 08-02-2007, 01:36 PM

Tanks and the warrior especially is faster yea (my bad) but they are also a much easier/bigger to hit target.

If you cant hit a chopper then we have a seperate kit for that. 15 seconds is pretty long I agree but watching the javelin being used by brits on the tv the other day I dont think these HAT are supposed to be so quick to fire though we dont have the whole aquire and lock thing in game.

I will do the whole 15 mississippi thing next time Im in game but I think that time is about right but the main issue is probably wether it can be done at all

AA javelin sim
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b0LzOW0up...elated&search=

Directions for use of javelin
http://youtube.com/watch?v=D35iEJLIy...elated&search=

"dont forget direct attack"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6O6275L7vU&NR=1

Originally Posted by Steiner

Well, then there is also those moments of divine justice, as in when a player equipped with a HAT use it against infantry in a 'non-suitable' situation, only to find himself run over by a tank moments after. Kind of laughed my pants off when I saw that one.

Ironic yea but he'd have got more points for the infantary kills then using it on the tank. 5 mins later he's probably doing the same thing

**geogob** · 08-02-2007, 04:32 PM

Anyway, a good practice is to confirm any non SL-ordered HAT engagements with the SL before doing so.

I've been working as HAT with a few good SL on TG server and good communication between SL and HAT turned out to be a valuable asset. The last SL I played with was fuzzhead and I think we did an excellent job, creating havoc both among US air and ground vehicles in Al Burj.

Communication is the key. If you're to engage something with the HAT, squad leader should know about it. If you're at the point where you're going to engage something you're not supposed to, SL will tell you. A few times, asked "May I move to x location to engage target y" and the answer was, "negative stay at location z at this time". You shouldn't just run off with the HAT and engage at will.

**geogob** · 08-02-2007, 08:52 PM

Here's a good example of bad HAT usage...

We are on USMC site on the map "hills to <some crappy place in china>". Did I ever mentioned that this is the worst map ever?

Anyway, we spawn down in the killzone and my squad leader starts running immediately in the open. He is alone, 50 m in front of me when I see an HAT fly down from one of the bunkers on the hills and hit directly at his feet.

That happened multiple times. I'd like to see what your CO would say in real life if you fired a 60k+ AT weapon at a single guy who was in a very bad strategical location and could have been taken down easily with small arms without even putting anyone at risk.

**Asiafyed** · 08-03-2007, 01:31 AM

i agree with geobob there, thats a waste of HAT. i've also been keeping up somewhat with the discussion, so ill go ahead and lay out my opinion (even though they probably dont mean too much lol): HAT against bunkers and firebases, ok with me because sometimes its suicide to use c4; AT versus infantryman, wrong unless its at least a squad so its not just one guy

**Ghost Dog** · 08-03-2007, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

AA javelin sim
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b0LzOW0up...elated&search=

Directions for use of javelin
http://youtube.com/watch?v=D35iEJLIy...elated&search=

"dont forget direct attack"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6O6275L7vU&NR=1

Nice movies.

This Swedish rocket looks pretty effective too... not much left of that tank

.

**Sabre_Tooth_Tigger** · 08-03-2007, 09:34 AM

Yea I was going to put that one in but I thought it was OTT

In the comments for that vid

cfoscope (3 weeks ago)
A.) It's not a swedish missile. It's the american Javelin.
B.) The targeted tank is stuffed with explosives to create this huge hollywood-like fireball explosion that rips it into thousand peaces.
Check out another youtube-video to see what a Sharped Charge Anti-tank missile actually does (creates "only" a small hole): it's called "javelin anti tank missile impact".
(Reply)
8Ball2k6 (2 weeks ago)
/agree I'm in the Para 2nd and even I know the American Javelin is not Swedish. Yes, it is packed with explosives also. This guy obviously is either in the army, or knows his stuff

I saw a demo for POE and they have player guided Tomahawk missiles in there, that'd be of a match for this level of damage

**Steevo** · 08-03-2007, 11:29 AM

To get back at how the HAT-kit whould be more effective against infantry (to reduce rocket-sniping)

1) knife
3) Submachine gun 2 clips
4) Heavy AT 2 rounds
5) smoke x1
8) field dressing

I believe that the HAT soldier should not be given a rifle, a HAT should be considered a heavy and cumbersome weapon, and giving it an assault rifle will only make the gunner less coutious and more willing to engage infantry, thus increasing the change to get killed and having the kit get stolen.

**Terminal Boy** · 08-03-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Steevo

To get back at how the HAT-kit whould be more effective against infantry (to reduce rocket-sniping)

1) knife
3) Submachine gun 2 clips
4) Heavy AT 2 rounds
5) smoke x1
8) field dressing

I believe that the HAT soldier should not be given a rifle, a HAT should be considered a heavy and cumbersome weapon, and giving it an assault rifle will only make the gunner less coutious and more willing to engage infantry, thus increasing the change to get killed and having the kit get stolen.

Somebody give this man a cigar! H-AT is the one kit the Vanilla BF2 got right. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the same rationale applies to the Combat Engineer and Crewman kits in that they are carrying too much crap to cope with a full length rifle (C. Eng) or wouldn't be able to fit it into their part of the AFV (Crewman).

Thread Tools

Display