The AT is ANTITANK! not ANTIPERSONAL!

Major Ursa Norte · Post by **Major Ursa Norte** » 2006-05-30 14:50

It seems that conventional wisdom gets thrown out the window here on a regular basis. The only practical solution to stopping people from usingthe AT weapon as an anti infantry/first strike weapon is to give the AT class a rifle. Make it a short M16, a CAR. Short, lightwieght and effective for personal defense. And don't reply with all of that "a rifle would be unrealistic due to the additional weight" ****. Having ONE man operate as an AT is unrealistic. That whole scenario is total ****. Anti-Tank is a TEAM. One man to shoot and one man to spot/reload and BOTH men carry the system. Just like mortar TEAMS and sniper TEAMS.

This is what happens when you carry the idea of "realism" too far. You take away gameplay. By limiting the personal defense weapon of the AT class to a pistol, you encourage people to use the rockets against infantry. Having the AT class use ONLY a pistol as a personal defense weapon is NOT the same thing as a sniper having his pistol. Snipers are not supposed to be in close support of infantry. The AT class MUST be in close support. # rockets means that you must hang close to those that can re-supply you. Which now, unrealistically, is the Assault class. Where are the Assault class players in a firefight? AT THE FRONT.

If you want to whine and complain about people wanting to stay ALIVE in a GAME by using a rocket to take out a bad guy, then ditch the crappy, underpowered, 9mm pistol and give then a light, short automatic weapon.

Jimeny Cricket! This stuff is NOT Brain Surgery.

Iasthai · Post by **Iasthai** » 2006-05-30 14:54

Major Ursa Norte wrote:It seems that conventional wisdom gets thrown out the window here on a regular basis. The only practical solution to stopping people from usingthe AT weapon as an anti infantry/first strike weapon is to give the AT class a rifle. Make it a short M16, a CAR. Short, lightwieght and effective for personal defense. And don't reply with all of that "a rifle would be unrealistic due to the additional weight" ****. Having ONE man operate as an AT is unrealistic. That whole scenario is total ****. Anti-Tank is a TEAM. One man to shoot and one man to spot/reload and BOTH men carry the system. Just like mortar TEAMS and sniper TEAMS.

This is what happens when you carry the idea of "realism" too far. You take away gameplay. By limiting the personal defense weapon of the AT class to a pistol, you encourage people to use the rockets against infantry. Having the AT class use ONLY a pistol as a personal defense weapon is NOT the same thing as a sniper having his pistol. Snipers are not supposed to be in close support of infantry. The AT class MUST be in close support. # rockets means that you must hang close to those that can re-supply you. Which now, unrealistically, is the Assault class. Where are the Assault class players in a firefight? AT THE FRONT.

If you want to whine and complain about people wanting to stay ALIVE in a GAME by using a rocket to take out a bad guy, then ditch the crappy, underpowered, 9mm pistol and give then a light, short automatic weapon.

Jimeny Cricket! This stuff is NOT Brain Surgery.

But then AT becomes asort of uber class, he can kill inf And tanks, whats gonna stop him if hes one and two shoot killing Everything on the map?

Major Ursa Norte · Post by **Major Ursa Norte** » 2006-05-30 15:00

Isn't that what people are complaining about now? One shot from the AT rocket = one kill with NO revive.

Iasthai · Post by **Iasthai** » 2006-05-30 15:02

Major Ursa Norte wrote:Isn't that what people are complaining about now? One shot from the AT rocket = one kill with NO revive.

Yes but he can only do that 3 times and then he cant kill armour, give him a rifle and he'll be poping heads and armour left and right....

~WPN~callum247 · Post by **~WPN~callum247** » 2006-05-30 15:04

You know a good idea. Take the AT class away all together and make a class have a disposable rocket. Then make the AT class a vehicle, becuase thats more ralistic. Then you've solved your issues with this topic and realism.

Major Ursa Norte · Post by **Major Ursa Norte** » 2006-05-30 15:12

~WPN~callum247 wrote:You know a good idea. Take the AT class away all together and make a class have a disposable rocket. Then make the AT class a vehicle, becuase thats more ralistic. Then you've solved your issues with this topic and realism.

I like that Callum. Make AT tied to a vehicle. Like it old DC days. Slap a TOW on the back of a Range Rover and then give out shoulder mounted LAWS type weapons as pick up kits from the vehicle or main uncap base.

Serious tank killing weapons are in REAL life too heavy for one man to carry and operate by himself.

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2006-05-30 15:25

Major Ursa Norte wrote:It seems that conventional wisdom gets thrown out the window here on a regular basis. The only practical solution to stopping people from usingthe AT weapon as an anti infantry/first strike weapon is to give the AT class a rifle. Make it a short M16, a CAR. Short, lightwieght and effective for personal defense. And don't reply with all of that "a rifle would be unrealistic due to the additional weight" ****. Having ONE man operate as an AT is unrealistic. That whole scenario is total ****. Anti-Tank is a TEAM. One man to shoot and one man to spot/reload and BOTH men carry the system. Just like mortar TEAMS and sniper TEAMS.

This is what happens when you carry the idea of "realism" too far. You take away gameplay. By limiting the personal defense weapon of the AT class to a pistol, you encourage people to use the rockets against infantry. Having the AT class use ONLY a pistol as a personal defense weapon is NOT the same thing as a sniper having his pistol. Snipers are not supposed to be in close support of infantry. The AT class MUST be in close support. # rockets means that you must hang close to those that can re-supply you. Which now, unrealistically, is the Assault class. Where are the Assault class players in a firefight? AT THE FRONT.

If you want to whine and complain about people wanting to stay ALIVE in a GAME by using a rocket to take out a bad guy, then ditch the crappy, underpowered, 9mm pistol and give then a light, short automatic weapon.

Jimeny Cricket! This stuff is NOT Brain Surgery.

As much as I'd love to see a colt commando and its PLA & MEC equivelants in the game (come on devs, you know you hate the M4) I dont think it's right to give one to the AT class. I propose that we give them a small SMG, such as a Vz.61/Vz.82 Skorpion for the MEC, and, well, i cant think of any for the USMC or PLA right now, but, it makes them so they can defend themselves at short range with a full auto weapon, but it is very hard to use at longer ranges.

Also, the M16 (well, the ones made by colt, most in US service are made by FN) is a CAR. CAR = Colt Automatic Rifle, it was attached to the Colt Commando series for some reason.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-05-30 15:46

The plain simple fact is you need:

A man who has a assultrifle, lots of equipement (e.g frags, scope, smoke, ammo) and a disposable AT rocket (1 or 2 - can be decided later)

A man who has a assultrifle, very limited equipement and a relodable AT rocket launcher.

THE QUESTION IS HOW TO IMPLAMENT THIS, NOT IS THIS REALSITIC, BECUASE IT SI REALSTIIC.

We are faced by a number of problems, being, we do not want to have too many classes, system must be simple and must improve PR gameplay (improve = enhance tactics by encouraging them, therefore encoruages team play however it must be accepted that changes to other equiptment might be neccessary to enable this improvement to keep gameaply balanced, balancing can be done realsiticly and must only be done so)

I will listst a few options as to how to implament the 2 AT weapons, some have allready been mentioned.

The below are possible options for the relodable AT rocket launcher, assultrifle and limited kit.

A) - the relodable rocket launcher becomes a pick up, where your present class equpitment is all dropped, and you are given the launcher and assultrifle and limited extra equiptment.

B) - the relodable rocket launcher, assultrifle and limited kit come in the form of a AT class

Below are possible options for a disposable rocket, assultrifle and equiptment

A) IT is provided in the form of a rifleman class

B) IT comes as an option for the assult class, who can either choose a grenade launcher or disposable rocket. The equiptment can be discused later, but it is possible that the disposalbe rocket option comes with equipement that is accosaited with a rifleman, and therefore, you combine combine the rifle man and grenadier into 1 actaull class, reducing class numbers.

I hope this makes sence. The idea is you choose 1 option for each AT type.
I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFULL IF I COULD GET ALITTLE FEEDBACK ON THESE IDEAS, AND COMMENTS ON HOW TO IMPROVE THEM. thanks alot.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-30 18:28

this makes me laugh, i cant beleive how big this thread has gotten, my simple arguement are ******** that use AT rockets on purpose to take out infantry. people are saying "well give him a rifle" if these people wanted to kill people with a rifle.... we have 5 other classes with that capability.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-30 18:30

GRRRRR remember KISS!

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » 2006-05-30 18:47

hi every one, i been reading the forums for a while (long time stalker 1st time poster)

i been playing PR for a while now and am getting a bit sick of it and was thinking of ways to fix it, most people have come up with same ideas, marines all complete basic training as a infantryman not matter what they do in the service

so having them carrying a rifle or PDW is not a bad idea

there is a few images of marines armed with m4's and carrying SMAW maybe they the basic light anti tank guy could be armed with a light anti tank weapon for knocking out jeeps and APC and a Assualt rifle to back him up

then a heavier anti tank rocket as a pick up kit, which would be have to be deployed to shoot, only having a pistol to back him up.

some one posted about giving him a desert eagle, no way would a soldier be armed with one of those, its a pure hollywood gun, its calibre is far to big to be used effectivly as a pistol.

wikipedia SMAW

also the answer could lie in the ammunation used aswell modern HEAT rockets use shaped charges which burn through the armor, so the force of the explosion would be directed into the target meaning they would be a small blast radus, and it wouldnt do much damage as there would be very little sharpnel as its designed to punch through armor plate not kill infantry.

rockets also have a arming fuse so the rocket is armed after it is a safe distance from the launching team.

if i am wrong on this feel free to correct me.

G.Drew · Post by **G.Drew** » 2006-05-30 19:03

y not just get rid of the anti-tank kit its is now and have the light AT guy in its place, btw the preadator IS a disposable AT launcher (but u could have the LAW or AT$ or something like that) but then again that would lead us with a dilema:
wat would we have for the MEC/CHINESE (because i think they were going to have the RPG-7 in the MEC) btw, give the engineer of AT guy a STINGER!

Iasthai · Post by **Iasthai** » 2006-05-30 23:55

G.Drew wrote:y not just get rid of the anti-tank kit its is now and have the light AT guy in its place, btw the preadator IS a disposable AT launcher (but u could have the LAW or AT$ or something like that) but then again that would lead us with a dilema:
wat would we have for the MEC/CHINESE (because i think they were going to have the RPG-7 in the MEC) btw, give the engineer of AT guy a STINGER!

Why get rid of the AT? what does that solve? how would inf kill tanks then? a light AT weapon wouldnt so much as dent a MBT as i understand.

G.Drew · Post by **G.Drew** » 2006-05-31 12:19

well, best attack against a tank is another tank!
they should keep the predator as it is disposable, and the eryx, but how would u fit the RPG-7 in fot the MEC?
hmmm, i wonder...
mybe the light AT guy could be the engineer?

Iasthai · Post by **Iasthai** » 2006-05-31 13:13

G.Drew wrote:well, best attack against a tank is another tank!
they should keep the predator as it is disposable, and the eryx, but how would u fit the RPG-7 in fot the MEC?
hmmm, i wonder...
mybe the light AT guy could be the engineer?

I would say the best tank destroyers are all airborne

But the point is Inf need a way to kill armour, they always have done and always will so simply saying someone/something else can do the job is not good enough.

Post by **Wraith** » 2006-05-31 13:39

I say we add an arming delay to the AT rockets. They must travel X meters before they are "Live." This way it eliminates a lot of the AT spam that we are seeing.

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-05-31 14:28

JellyBelly wrote:Well I know if im AT and some Assualt dude runs at me, im gonna put a rocket in his face. Using the pistol is about as effective as throwing dust at the enemy.

aim for the legs and head if did it a lot you can.

G.Drew · Post by **G.Drew** » 2006-05-31 15:11

Iasthai wrote:I would say the best tank destroyers are all airborne But the point is Inf need a way to kill armour, they always have done and always will so simply saying someone/something else can do the job is not good enough.

well, theres the spec ops to kill tanks
but is there any other way to have this 'light AT' guy in PR?
i mean u could have the light AT guy as engineer (give him a light AT weapon) or u could have the engineer kit in bases near vehicles (and pilot kits near jets)

G.Drew · Post by **G.Drew** » 2006-05-31 15:15

also give the heavy AT this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-L ... ult_Weapon
and have the light guy the preadator.
Also, give the heavy AT for MEC the RPg-7 and (possibly eryx)
give the PLA a AT weapon and have them with the eryx

S.O.P · Post by **S.O.P** » 2006-05-31 15:16

Having an arming time is good but it still doesn't solve the problem of the AT missile being a sniper at times.