Remove all guided HAT's?

[[EC]DR.NOobFragger]

I am suggesting to remove all the guided H-AT's from PR, It would be much better for game play and probably more realistic(?). Chinese have an unguided H-AT, Russians are going to have an unguided H-AT, Chechen have an unguided H-AT. I would suggest giving the MEC the RPG-29 like the Russians. Not sure what the Americans would use. SMAW?

I understand this would require a new model and coding and such, which I am not qualifed for in any of the required fields but it is merely a suggestion.

[Spaz]

DR.NOobFragger;1105862']It would be much better for game play

Please explain how this would be better for gameplay.

And the Chinese do have a guided HAT.

If you are going to make a suggestion for something that you think will improve gameplay you should try to explain how you think it will help gameplay.

[AquaticPenguin]

Please elaborate, how exactly would this effect gameplay?

I myself prefer to have some asymmetry in gameplay just to mix things up a bit.

[Jigsaw]

Please explain how this would be better for gameplay.

And the Chinese do have a guided HAT.

If you are going to make a suggestion for something that you think will improve gameplay you should try to explain how you think it will help gameplay.

Chinese H-AT is unguided buddy

But yeah failing to see how this kind of change would be better for gameplay especially seeing as the actual guidance you can give to the rocket in flight is minimal anyway.

[Spaz]

Chinese H-AT is unguided buddy

Oh my bad.

[DankE_SPB]

And the Chinese do have a guided HAT.

they had eryx, now they have "god knows how its called" unguided HAT or you hiding something from us?

i would personally like this idea, but dont think lots of people would, everybody wants Javelin

[[EC]DR.NOobFragger]

No H-AT sniping infantry, I don't see that very much anymore but still. It would also make thing a bit easier for APCs and Tanks. They wouldn't be able to be hit from some insane distance. You would have to work as a squad a bit more since again, you wouldn't be able to make a two man squad with a H-AT gunner and SL with a supply truck and snipe tanks and APCs from afar. Insurgency maps, I see people shooting H-AT's from main, this could be a problem on the new Korengal valley since the main will be where outpost is now, up on a tall hill. You would possible be able to hit caches from up there. Operation Archer, if the US gets a HAT with 2 crates up on the castle, its hell for the people in the village below. I am sure I, or others can think of some more.

[Outlawz7]

DR.NOobFragger;1105883']No H-AT sniping infantry.

Oh yeah, like removing missile guidance would solve people shooting rockets at infantry.
What if it doesn't? What if people who will use AT against enemy infantry, just adapt and "HAT snipe" with unguided AT? Should we then adopt random deviation, so you can't hit anything with AT just because it might be used on something that's not a vehicle?

This idea is just like the one where someone suggested that crewmen should have their rifles removed, because a driver of a BTR60 got out and shot him with the MP5, when he was next to the APC.

Oh and AT is used on infantry in real life.

[ben748]

Hey Fragger, remember, the guidance system takes awhile before it activates, try it on fallujah, it takes i think at least 100m to activate.

[[EC]DR.NOobFragger]

Oh yeah, like removing missile guidance would solve people shooting rockets at infantry.
What if it doesn't? What if people who will use AT against enemy infantry, just adapt and "HAT snipe" with unguided AT? Should we then adopt random deviation, so you can't hit anything with AT just because it might be used on something that's not a vehicle?

Oh and AT is used on infantry in real life.

I realize this, but when your rocket doesn't drop and you can guide it, you can destroy a whole squad from a greater distance than you would be able to with an unguided one. I am thinking about the future maps, a bunch of them are going to be 4km x 4km, so if you had a guided rocket, your advantage would be much greater than those without.

This idea is just like the one where someone suggested that crewmen should have their rifles removed, because a driver of a BTR60 got out and shot him with the MP5, when he was next to the APC.

I hardly see how this is similar to my post. Crewman have PDW's for that exact reason.

Also, I don't see why you had to make your post like you did, trying to berate me and make me look foolish. You could of posted it without the attitude.

[jbgeezer]

Im against this, though it is kinda unfair for china and russia not having guided HATs, but unguided should have something good with it? I doubt somebody would make a weapon that sucks in every way.I just want the game to be realistic though.

[badmojo420]

Guided, unguided, it's all the same as far as the problems you listed. The rocket doesn't drop like an AT4, it flies a straight course, guided or not. The only advantage guided has is if the target is moving at a very long distance. It's easier to hit when it's guided, but if you're good with a HAT you can still hit a moving target without guidance.

Why would you need guidance to hat snipe infantry? They move so slow.

It would also make thing a bit easier for APCs and Tanks. They wouldn't be able to be hit from some insane distance. You would have to work as a squad a bit more since again, you wouldn't be able to make a two man squad with a H-AT gunner and SL with a supply truck and snipe tanks and APCs from afar.

Wait, you want to make it easier for armor? I guess you don't notice the guys getting 30-0 scores in a tank. And how is taking guidance away going to stop 2 man HAT squads from happening? Guidance does not increase the range.

Insurgency maps, I see people shooting H-AT's from main, this could be a problem on the new Korengal valley since the main will be where outpost is now, up on a tall hill. You would possible be able to hit caches from up there. Operation Archer, if the US gets a HAT with 2 crates up on the castle, its hell for the people in the village below.

Oh no! The coalition is defending their main? Or an elevated position above their main, and using that position to their advantage. They must be stopped!!! </sarcasm> Really, removing the guidance would have little to no effect on things like this. People can still blow up a cache with a straight shooting rocket.

So, do you have any other reasons this suggestion might be good? These ones aren't convincing me.

[[EC]DR.NOobFragger]

I guess when I thought of this, I was thinking of maps like Kashan and Qin Ling in mind. Wide open maps, that with a guided rocket it would be easier to hit a moving target than without guidence.

Ill admit this suggestion was a bit of a spur of the moment and it sounded good and fair when I thought of it and posted it and perhaps it should of been posted in the General Discussion thread since suggestions are serious business.

If I can't persuade you of why this would be a good idea, than perhaps you could persuade me of why we should leave them in.

[badmojo420]

Realism.

I honestly have no reason for wanting to keep them in the game other than it might be realistic.

My problem with your suggestion wasn't the fact that it would remove guidance from the HAT. It's the fact that the reasons you suggested it be removed, would not be achieved from simply removing the guidance. The weapon would still be used the same way. Players are hard coded, they don't care if something is harder than it was before, if it works, they'll do it.

[Outlawz7]

DR.NOobFragger;1105890']I realize this, but when your rocket doesn't drop and you can guide it, you can destroy a whole squad from a greater distance than you would be able to with an unguided one.

Well duh, that's the point of using AT on infantry. I can also claim the same for SAWs and pretty much all vehicle weapons. Also unless the squad walks glued together, you'll have to be pretty lucky to kill them all in one shot and as far as 4km maps goes, a squad walking in the open will be mowed down by much higher ranking weapons on the "food chain" before they got to being hit by AT.

I compared this to the suggestion about removing crewman PDWs, because they both suggest removing something just because it kills other players - and the person suggesting it seems to be on the receiving end too much or just has an odd pet peeve with the whole thing.

[bloodthirsty_viking]

what, the ins on..whats the map called... with the castle in the middle... ins dont shoot the rockets up and over the wall?

i think that it will be about the same, but without the guided, there stil gona aim and hit long range... the guided is just easier for the ppl who are not as good at the hat class to learn them

[Solid Knight]

What's wrong with shooting INF with the HAT? You don't always have a vehicle to shoot and those INF clusters are asking for it and it's a good counter-sniper weapon. I've seen plenty of AT4s and Javelins being used against snipers in real life.

[Thermis]

The current HAT kits are somewhat unrealistic if you really want to look at details. The US doesn't even employ the Dragon anymore we've switched to the Javelin. Which is not in game because that would be really unfair.
If you look at it on a world wide realism vaule most modern Armies employ a guided type of anti tank rocket, along side smaller rockets.
Now removing guidance just to cut down on HAT sniping would be totally unrealistic, it happens in the real world. Trying to get rid of HAT sniping would be just as unrealistic as trying to tell Tanks that they can't use HE rounds on infantry targets.
Since the HATs are very limited and have a considerable warm up time, their ability to be guided to their intended target should remain in game.

[[EC]DR.NOobFragger]

I didn't want to get rid of the guidance because of the ability to kill infantry. That was just one of the things that could possible come from removing the ability to guide. I guess the reason for suggesting this would be because with the other factions having unguided H-AT's, I don't know, it would just make sense and be a bit more fair?

I know this isn't Project Fair but I don't know, I can't really explain things very well, I am sorry for this crucial inability. I come up with Idea's that I feel are good for PR but I don't think about them much until after I make a rash and hasty decision to post them without thinking. I guess that's why I don't play Squad Leader.

[Tirak]

DR.NOobFragger;1106127']I didn't want to get rid of the guidance because of the ability to kill infantry. That was just one of the things that could possible come from removing the ability to guide. I guess the reason for suggesting this would be because with the other factions having unguided H-AT's, I don't know, it would just make sense and be a bit more fair?

I know this isn't Project Fair but I don't know, I can't really explain things very well, I am sorry for this crucial inability. I come up with Idea's that I feel are good for PR but I don't think about them much until after I make a rash and hasty decision to post them without thinking. I guess that's why I don't play Squad Leader.

Asymmetrical balance. The different weapon make ups of each faction make them interesting. Otherwise all guns in game would do the same damage, have the same scope and have all the same firing modes.