Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intended use of vehicles & weapons

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    The issue has been raised multiple times about the use of certain vehicles and weapons. The most recent discussion has been around the use of Light Anti-Tank (LAT) and Heavy Anti-Tank (HAT) weapons. Let me spend some time relating this topic with the Tactical Gamer Primer.

    There are several things to consider here:

    1) THE REALISM ARGUMENT. This is largely a topic on its own so I'll briefly make a few statements. The game engine has its limitations which restricts the developers from creating a fully realistic environment. We can argue for months on every feature being completely realistic or not. Every case will rarely, if ever, be satisfied. What we want to do is try to capture a majority of cases.
    Example: The Reality Mod contains a mini-map that displays the current location of friendly units. This is not realistic. However, we're provided this feature to compensate for the lack of situational awareness that you cannot accomplish with the BFx engine on a 2D screen.

    2) THE DEVELOPERS INTENT. It is not always possible to know or fully comprehend the developers intent with some of the game features. We're lucky in the case of the Reality Mod to have open forums and inside connections with the developers themselves to shed light on many of these issues.

    3) THE ENVIRONMENT WE'RE SIMULATING. This largely falls on the shoulders of the Tactical Gamer Primer and ties closely with the developers intent. One of our goals at Tactical Gamer is to simulate the environment we're given. In the case of the Reality Mod we're simulating a war between factions using modern day weapons and vehicles.


    Every player on a Tactical Gamer server should make every attempt to understand these things to facilitate their judgment and actions when playing. Let me cover an example to help players better understand.

    Mobile Anti-Aircraft

    The intended purpose of this vehicle is to harass and destroy aircraft. When an aircraft is in the vicinity, this vehicle should be focusing on that target. However, there may be situations where there is no aircraft to target but plenty of infantry units within range. This vehicle may adjust and begin attacking these infantry units. While infantry may not be the primary target, this type of use is possible.

    Where the use of Mobile AA against Infantry becomes a problem is a) when there are aircraft within range that this vehicle should be tarteting, and b) when the player / drive utilizes this vehicle with the sole intent of attacking infantry units, neglecting the primary use against aircraft.

    Players should be positioning this vehicle to focus on the primary targets.

    Light Anti-Tank (LAT)

    On to the topic of the Anti-Tank kit. I'll start off by first discussing LAT. The primary targets for this weapon consist of lightly armored vehicles like the Humvee. I don't believe there is a question of use here.

    The questions begin to circulate when it comes to the LAT use against infantry. This is a large grey area and very much situational-based. The use of LAT against infantry does happen in the real world. It's how and when that is not always correctly reflected with our use in-game.

    A common use for LAT is as a bunker-buster when rifle fire does not suffice. This use isn't necessarily based on the number of infantry units, rather how the infantry unit(s) are entrenched and what objects are nearby for the projectile to hit and cause collateral damage. If we can remember this, hopefully our use of LAT against infantry will better simulate the environment.
    Examples of CORRECT use:

    a) The enemy infantry unit(s) are defending within a bunker. The LAT is a valid weapon to fire into the bunker to cause damage to the maximum number of targets.

    b) The enemy infantry unit(s) are hiding behind an option like a barrel, tree, or wall opening. The LAT is a valid weapon that is intended to destroy the object providing cover and cause collateral damage to the enemy.

    c) The enemy infantry unit(s) are moving along a wall, however they are not behind any objects as cover. This particular example allows for the use of LAT or rifle fire.

    Hopefully we can see the commonality of those examples. The enemy unit(s) are entrenched with solid objects nearby for the projectile to hit.

    What we don't see in those examples are the LAT projectiles directly impacting the enemy unit or targeting units not entrenched near some solid object. We should not be targeting infantry units directly in the open field at close to medium range.

    I mention close to medium range purposefully. Long range LAT use against stationary infantry in an open area is a different situation that many call this AT SNIPING. Let's define "long-range" as a distance that rifle fire can not easily take down a target. In this situation the player must use their best judgment. If a target is off in the distance and not reachable by normal rifle fire, then they may switch to the next best feasible weapon at their disposal. The LAT kit can be properly used here.

    EDIT for clarification: Using the LAT at long range still requires some object to be targeting. Using in the open field probably isn't the proper use, however if the enemy infantry unit(s) is on a mountain side, the mountain will provide the solid backdrop.

    Heavy Anti-Tank (HAT)

    The primary purpose of the HAT is for use against heavily armored vehicles (e.g. tank, APC). These kits / projectiles are considerably more expensive and less available than their LAT counterpart. Players carrying the HAT should focus solely on vehicles.

    I hope that this clears up the question on vehicle / weapon use for most players, especially that of the LAT and HAT.

    Some may ask why this is not a hard and fast rule. One of the reasons that this is not a rule is because we want to keep a short list of clear and concise rules. What I've described here is very much situational-based and the players intentions and use is not always clear.

    Should we see a player misusing a vehicle or weapon, our first step is to educate them on the reason why we feel they are using it incorrectly and what the correct use is. Should this behavior not change, an admin may take action to remove them from the server. We do want players to attempt to simulate the environment the game provides.
    Last edited by asch; 06-06-2007, 06:50 AM.
    |TG-12th| asch
    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

    i was just wonderin about the LAT and HAT and one other use i know about. Picture it this way, your squad is pinned down by a enemy squad ontop of a hill, and recon says there is an rp. Is it possible to fly in a heli and blow up the rp via HAT? I think that in that case it makes perfect sense. Just need your opinion.
    sigpic


    Do you really want invincible bears running around raping your churches and burning your women?

    Intel i7 3930k @ 4.4ghz, 8gb RAM, 2x GTX 570 1gb, OCZ Vertex 3 120 gig SSD

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

      In that case you're using the Little bird/Blackhawk as a HAT platform, which goes against the primary use of the vehicle.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

        I would sticky this tread

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

          Due to the back-blast involved, firing either LAT or HAT from the skid of a LB would be a very bad idea in real life...


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

            Would the the soft-launch capabilities of the HAT not enable it to be fired from a chopper?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

              Either way, theres much more effective ways of destroying an RP. If you miss with the LAT/HAT, then you just wasted your weapon. Better off to find a close LZ and deploy to the RP as fast as possible and take it down.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                I personally learned the purpose of such weapons. It became much more clear to me that the HAT and even the LAT should not be used vs infantry.
                No one is saying you can't use them vs. infantry, rather they should not be used against them.

                What that means is still rather situationally dependant. If you have a HAT and troops are moving in on your location, and it makes sense to take out as large a group as possible, then fire away.
                However, if you request the HAT kit on a map where there is no armor at all, and you are imploying this weapon purposely and repeatedly against single or multiple infantry, then this would be considered misuse. I've been guilty of both cases, but in the future I plan to focus on the nature of the task at hand. Less vBf2, more PRBf2.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                  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.
                  Skud


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                    You may never fully know the enemies situation. Maybe he was a downed pilot and survived the crash. Giving up his pistol for an AT4 kit would have been his only option. Maybe he was out or low on 5.56 ammo and decided the AT4 round would look better in your pocket then still loaded on his rotting corpse?

                    Point is, getting kills using weapons are one thing. Purposely and with premeditation is entirely another.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                      And therein lays the problem. You just can't know on a case by case basis without looking at the history. Coming up with hypothetical arguments is, in my view, an exercise in futility. But I think that if one person is making the bulk of his kills against infantry with L/HAT throughout the round, then the case against him becomes pretty cut and dry.

                      I would also add that, in this particular case, your hypothetical situation will most likely never happen except for on very rare occasions, even in PR. That a pilot might bail in the first place and would then set about looking for a stray kit to pick up secondly, and thirdly, that it just so happens to be an L/HAT kit further stretches what might reasonably be applied to this debate.

                      These sorts of things are probably quite low on most pilot's list of priorities when their vehicle suddenly red-lines. I'd say it’s a safer bet that 97% of all pilots prefer to go down with the vehicle so that they can be back at the pad when they respawn. After all, you are talking about a group of guys who, for the most part, probably don't get their kicks out of slugging it out on the ground when given the choice.

                      What that leaves is a lone L/HAT kit squaring off against a lone rifleman. That L/HAT kit now has to explain why he's cut off from his squad, unsupported as he is with what is in reality both a relatively expensive and cumbersome weapon system, taking on other lone infantry on his own. When the dust settles, it just doesn’t add up very nicely.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                        The big thing being resolved by this is the 1v1 argument. In a single combat situation, theres no excuse for using LAT/HAT. Those are used for anti-vehicle or mass anti-personnel operations. You still have a regular gun to use.

                        The major situation I see with it right now is one or two guys with LAT/HAT coupled with one or two supply personnel camping at a chokepoint with a decent view range and continuously "LAT sniping" anyone who comes across their sights, regardless of whether or not its one person or a whole squad. The weapon wasnt designed for that.

                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                          Originally posted by MacMurchu View Post
                          Would the the soft-launch capabilities of the HAT not enable it to be fired from a chopper?
                          Depends on how much you like the idea of the guidance wires ending up wrapped around the rotor mast's tilt and pitch mechanism I guess...


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                            Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
                            Either way, theres much more effective ways of destroying an RP. If you miss with the LAT/HAT, then you just wasted your weapon. Better off to find a close LZ and deploy to the RP as fast as possible and take it down.
                            +1 I can't hit anything from the choppers with personal weapons. The mini-guns in the BH and the Cobra weapons, sure. But personal weapons are hard as heck to hit with.
                            submit7

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Intended use of vehicles & weapons

                              Regarding the use of AT vs. RP, in v0.6 which will be out soon RP's will be able to be destryoed with a knife so hopefully we will see far less use of AT or grenades to destroy enemy RPs.
                              LoyalGuard

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X