No announcement yet.

AT versus hardend positions - discuss

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AT versus hardend positions - discuss

    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?

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

  • #2
    Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

    I do believe that us of HAT or LAT against hardened targets is totally legitimate. This was discussed a lot on the PR forums. I think it was concluded that the use of AT weapons were even legitimate against large groups of enemy personal bunched up, especially when there was no way to engage the targets directly (no LOS).

    But it was clear that the use of AT or HAT in suicide tactics was an offense good for ban an that use of AT and HAT against single isolated infantry was not acceptable either.

    Personally, I avoid using HAT or AT against infantry, even in large groups, as they are way too valuable for this. Ammo is spares, reloads are long. Avoiding enemy infantry is the good course of action.

    Only on one occasion, while I was defending a flag and turned out to be alone (my whole squad killed or dispersed) did I use HAT against infantry. A full squad sneaked up on me and was hidden in a trench-like hole near the flag. After they took a few shots at me before getting their head down, I moved back a bit and fired the HAT in the trench, where I had previously been fired from, killing 6 enemies.

    That's the only kind of situation where I would use - unless ordered to - HAT against infantry not in a bunker.

    It's far from the ideal tactically speaking. Using an HAT to clear a trench is a very bad tactical move and last resort action. Someone doing this on regular basis should be warned.

    During the same round, a group of enemy poped up on a hill overlooking my position 200 away. I was alone in the middle of a field, no cover anywhere close. When shots started to come to my direction, I immediately went prone and started to fire back... until an HAT round came at me from the top of the hill. Now that's not an acceptable use as I was 1) alone, 2) in the open with clear line of sight and 3) the enemy squad had a clear advantage in number and tactical position.


    • #3
      Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

      I am pretty sure this is allowed...

      Originally posted by asch View Post

      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.


      • #4
        Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

        that sums it up pretty well.


        • #5
          Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

          Although I know this was a big problem in 0.5, I think you guys did a great job pushing them to only be used realistically. I do see a problem with the LAT kit however, it is very weak against heavy armor, and it very well should be, but this seems to frustrate the new players which in turn will take it out, sprint around a corner and fire it at the feet of whichever unlucky soul they come across. It's this sort of use that really begins to frustrate the TG players.

          As far as using HAT and LAT against bunkers, I entirely agree with this but I've found a lot of the bunkers are not destroyable especially on Mestia. The 3 story bunkers really need to be made destroyable in my opinion as there aren't a lot of opportunities to use the rockets against fortifications.

          Community, not corporation!

          TG-Irr BetterDeadThanRe(D)


          Irregs PR CO


          • #6
            Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

            Based on what asch said about LAT vs multiple targets inside a bunker being fair game, I would venture to guess that targeting the bunker itself is also fair game.

            The big issue with LAT Sniping has always been the 1v1 targeting that some people like to do.


            • #7
              Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

              Those rules state Heavy AT against bunkers is not allowed, for which Im debating the reasoning behind this...

              If Heavy AT is allowed versus hardend targets (bunkers, trenches, houses, etc) then I think TG admins need to all be aware of it.


              • #8
                Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                Originally posted by fuzzhead View Post
                Those rules state Heavy AT against bunkers is not allowed, for which Im debating the reasoning behind this...
                The rules or asch post? If you refer to that post, it is not clearly stated. His post state the primary purpose and say that the use of HAT should be focused on armored vehicles. Not that it is not allowed.

                I personally think that HAT should be used against reinforced structures and buildings at long range. The video posted in the first post of this thread depicts the use I thinking of. Using it directly against infantry though - no. Unless you're in some situation requiring the use of the HAT.

                This is all a very gray zone and will ever be.

                Maybe there should be something that represents the "cost" of using HAT. For example, make each shot "cost" a few tickets. People will think twice before spamming HAT and will learn to use it wisely.


                • #9
                  Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                  I will post a proper responce in a mo but today my heavy anti tank fire team engaged a group of infantry and killed 4 or 5 of them! It was hilerious, they were so bunched up, they would have giving penguines in the Antartic a run for there money with their Huderling skills!

                  Ofcourse i serverly disciaplined the person who made this absolutely cracking shot and i will continue to strive to ensure such moments of hilarity never happen again.

                  p.s i RL, UK marines use Javilin missiles every week to engage Taliban infantry. And i said H-AT fireteam not H-AT! heheeeee

                  TG-E1st TacticalGamer European Division |


                  • #10
                    Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                    Excellent topcat. Thats an example of something that, although it's funny, shouldnt happen. You did the right thing man.

                    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. But, if you have like 5 people in a bunker/destructible building/firebase/whatever, then take the shot. However, use discretionary measures when doing it. If you have LAT available, use that instead of wasting the precious HAT shot. If your intel says theres only one guy, move in and neutralize manually. The rules are set to govern overall smart gameplay. I very seriously doubt any admin would reprimand you for knocking down a bunker full of guys with HAT if there was no LAT to be used. I also agree with you on the point that all admins need to make sure they know the rules regarding AT vs Hardened targets. We dont need the admin staff arguing and bickering over whats right and whats not, their job is hard enough already.


                    • #11
                      Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                      Always thought that AT vs bunkers was ok.

                      As far as i'm aware it is ok....... i ve never had a prob

                      AT in the open though vs infantry should be bannable


                      • #12
                        Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                        From what I understood in-game these rules do not apply to LAT.. maybe that's wrong, but its really difficult to take out infantry in any situation with its weak explosion.

                        If HAT wasn't meant to kill infantry as well, it wouldn't have a huge explosion. And then there are the maps (like Hamgyong) that have nothing but infantry for HAT to target.

                        Just think of it as a ranged C4, the AT is only in the name. It's really just a catch-all guided missile system. I'm sure they could separate into two separate missiles, but it's probably unnecessary (none of the in-game nations actually use the Eryx anyway.)


                        • #13
                          Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                          A few remarks.

                          -Allowing use of HAT against any grouping of enemies detracts even more from game-play imo. A wise guy that just wants to snipe hAT at infantry only already saves his ammo, because as a kill-wh*re fits, that will get him more kills.

                          -Why are there even bunkers in hills of hamgyong? you are just HAT bait. The bunkers are of no use at all if HAT is allowed here, and that totally defeats the purpose of the mapper in placing those nice bunkers.
                          ====> The only good solution would be to have NO HAT available at all in that map.

                          -The problem is getting increasingly lame as all people do now is OH I see 2 enemy and hit it, and do that all round. Effectively they use the HAT much, much, much more against infantry then there are tanks in the map.

                          I have no real suggestion on the rules, but I am increasingly homesick; I want a AT kit available as a standard kit again. They are worthless against a good tank anyway. I also wish the HAT worked like I believe a Javelin works; going high up, to fall down on the armor. This would solve the chopper sniping which is still very easy. Another Idea is to DO AWAY with L-at and give more HAT. Or let the CO spawn them? Let them spawn like the vehicles at fire-bases?

                          Just shooting some Ideas, I know. In general I don't think the problem is in TG rules, rather in the kit system. Too often the enemy is sniping you with HAT, while you cannot get one for different reasons, creating a gamey imbalance.

                          A good squad cannot consistently get a good squad layout. E.g. the support gun is not available if you spawn on SL, while it is a weapon that is essential to any decent squad tactics.

                          These problems aren't easy to solve in the end because we are trying to use in game mechanics to steer player behaviour, which is impossible IMO. Thus the limiting system mainly hampers good cooperating squads, while the wrong players hug the most useful kits. I never get 2 HAT in my squad, in case someone else need it, but how many people are like this?

                          I hope the kit system will keep evolving a lot, until I don't have to worry about these gamey things so much, and can get the squad decently equipped. That way I will be able to focus on tactics, and not on logistics. For now, I would like to see a HAT with NO SPLASH. It's not realistic perhaps, but look what was done to the UH-60 miniguns. They were totally nerfed, so whynot do the same with HAT? It would solve soooooooo much.

                          PS all the delays on the HAT do nothing imo. As you taught me yourself Fuzz, all you have to do is keep the HAT out, and you can shoot immediatly at whatever you want.

                          Originally posted by geogob View Post
                          Maybe there should be something that represents the "cost" of using HAT. For example, make each shot "cost" a few tickets. People will think twice before spamming HAT and will learn to use it wisely.
                          An idea worth looking into IMO. Fits nicely with other rts elements included. This is like company of heroes, where special abilities cost "ammo" which you have to earn.


                          • #14
                            Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                            One thing that would help is to give a real rifle to the HAT kit carrier. The pistol is useless in the battlefield unless you're in closed quarters. There are situations where you are tempted to use the HAT against infantry when you know very well that, having only a pistol, you are out of options.


                            • #15
                              Re: AT versus hardend positions - discuss

                              Originally posted by geogob View Post
                              One thing that would help is to give a real rifle to the HAT kit carrier. The pistol is useless in the battlefield unless you're in closed quarters. There are situations where you are tempted to use the HAT against infantry when you know very well that, having only a pistol, you are out of options.
                              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.




                              TeamSpeak 3 Server




                              Twitter Feed