HAT kits are too powerful and unrealistic

[CanuckCommander]

I believe HAT kits have become way too powerful for their real life counterparts. For the SACLOS versions such as ERYX and SRAW, the real life max range is only 600m according to Wiki, but in game, they are just as accurate at 1500m. For the none guided HATs other than the German and Russian RPGs, they just fly straight forever and there's no drop. This leads to silly and unrealistic gameplay really where a single HAT guy can just jack in the box (Crouch/Stand) tanks from max view distance without fear of dying.

I suggest reducing HAT kit ranges to realistic values (600ms for most SACLOS), and introduce projectile drop for none guided HATs (Chinese and Israeli HATs), so that tanks out range INF like would with their optics in real life. If INF wants to destroy armor at long ranges, they would have to build TOWs. I believe this would lead to better gameplay and less HAT spam as a whole. Since HATs would be less effective, I suggest giving more HAT kits to each team, maybe up to 3-4. This way more powerful AT weapons would have to be introduced in game like the Javelin for Blufor or a mobile Kornet for OPFOR (limited to 1) per team OR inf would have to rely more heavily on friendly armor and aircraft for help against enemy armor.

[Heavy Death]

Thats actually extremely good. Guided HATs get the benefit of being guided, however ineffective further than 600, while unguided have the benefit of unlimited range but no guidance. that would balance stuff out.

[CanuckCommander]

Thats actually extremely good. Guided HATs get the benefit of being guided, however ineffective further than 600, while unguided have the benefit of unlimited range but no guidance. that would balance stuff out.

That's not what I meant. I think unguided should have projectile drop as they would in real life. Now, realistic sights would help but in truth they are not necessary since the human brain can become so good at approximation that it only takes some practice shots for the gunner to get good at guessing.

All rockets should have limited range unlike how it is in PR currently as they all have fail safes that force the warhead to detonate after a certain range to prevent collateral damage. Therefore even unguided AT rockets should exploded after a certain flight time. I know this is doable in the engine, because I've seen it done.

[mockingbird0901]

Not sure about giving each team 3-4 HAT's but other then that, I would support this. A tank should out range most things on the ground. Hitting stuff from far away is their thing after all, unless you talk indirect fire ofc.

[Spook]

HATs are way too powerful. Tanks and APCs are dead as soon as they enter a city with a good squad in it, who can properly operate HATs. Muttrah is the best example. AAVs or the MTLBs have no to zero effectivity since they get shot as soon as they enter enemy territory to support the attacking INF, or some lone wolf HAT kills them a couple of minutes after they leave their base.

Some will say...Nahhh I had so many epic rounds in Muttrah in APCs...well, then you probably played against a bunch of uncoordinated publics. Me as someone who plays commander all the time experience the OP HATs every time. Even though we probably have the best ground vehicle squads I have ever seen, as soon as I send them inside a city to support our INF squads, they and me know that they most likely won't make it out of there alive. But thats the way it goes. Sacrificing one APC is Ok, if your INF gets an advantage of it...at least for only a couple of minutes. Vehicles are just underpowered right now.

Thats why I hope that they will add dbzao's idea of giving each team only ONE HAT and more LATs. That would heavily improve vehicle gameplay. They would be much more dangerous to the enemy if they are operated by good crews...at the same time the enemy is still able to get rid of them, by just shooting LATs at it. It probably won't kill them, but at least they will be forced RTB and give you some time.

[Heavy Death]

You dont need a good squad. You need a lone wolf, which is in a squad with 2? people in total and has a crate nearby. Voila, tank down. I really do hope special kits are only requestable from main in 1.0.

[Mikemonster]

Spook nothing personal (I don't know you) but that post stank of elitism [in an arcade game, seriously?].

I like the OP's suggestion, in that it might help simulate an advantage tanks have on a battlefield that cannot be accurately portrayed in PR. I.e. they will have a bit of a stand-off advantage.

Not sure about increasing the amount of HAT kits, but the suggestion is definitely a step in the right direction in my eyes.

Plus it will make the kit less attractive to hill-camper types, and it might be available for the squads that need it to defend themselves.

[40mmrain]

only 1 HAT/team in 1.0. This improved the game quite a bit with the DB mod, before 0.98

[Lange]

Really pleased with this notion, other than increasing amount of hats available reduce them. With 32 per 32 a team thats not even a platoon so having 1 heavy handheld AT per team is realistic.

I had a notion a while back to actually make HATs more realistic in other ways like actually implimenting Javelins and guided AT but thats for another time. However yes HATs should have realistic distances, and sometimes 2 hats on city maps like muttrah is overkill when essentially you can technically have up to 8 AT assets in a small area. Everytime I play APC im usually screwed no matter what team I have as one poster mentioned.

Anti armor should be relied on more with things like CAS and friendly armor which would help the teamplay just not some rambo HAT guy running around with an almighty kit.

[Spook]

Spook nothing personal (I don't know you) but that post stank of elitism [in an arcade game, seriously?].

Then you got me wrong. I would never say that we are the best or something. Yes we have a couple of awesome players, like some of our APC/Tank drivers. But most of our infantry would get pwned easily on a skirmish round against SRF, 3dac, OD-S etc...

But we try to compensate the lack of skill of each individual by using combined arms tactics as much and as good as possible. We play for success and not for fun (well we obviously have fun, but thats just a nice side effect). For some people PR might be arcade, for some others its a military simulation including a little more action than the usual simulators (ArmA etc). You decide it by playing it the way you prefer most. But thats OT, just had to mention that.

[CanuckCommander]

Really pleased with this notion, other than increasing amount of hats available reduce them. With 32 per 32 a team thats not even a platoon so having 1 heavy handheld AT per team is realistic.

I had a notion a while back to actually make HATs more realistic in other ways like actually implimenting Javelins and guided AT but thats for another time. However yes HATs should have realistic distances, and sometimes 2 hats on city maps like muttrah is overkill when essentially you can technically have up to 8 AT assets in a small area. Everytime I play APC im usually screwed no matter what team I have as one poster mentioned.

Anti armor should be relied on more with things like CAS and friendly armor which would help the teamplay just not some rambo HAT guy running around with an almighty kit.

I don't think the number of AT is the problem in urban maps because armor is vulnerable in cities no matter if you give the enemy ERYX atgms or just plain old RPGs. My OP is for big maps like Kashan and Iron Eagle where tanks have no advantage over HATs in the open desert because those atgms have unlimited range. Really, they should either fall to the ground or explode after their realistic max range values. At longer ranges, the HAT's advantage is super pronounced because it is such a small target compared to a huge hulking tank.

You guys all want to use APCs like tanks and drive around like nothing can kill you, but that's not realistic either. Think Russians in Grozny or SAA vs FSA. Their armor got fucked hard just by some old *** RPG-7s. The problem is that INF rarely fights alongside armor, not that there's too much AT.

[viirusiiseli]

All handheld HAT/AA kits should be removed imo and just add anti air vehicles and ATGM vehicles instead, or force the team to build static AA/TOW, more teamwork. Less lonewolfing and rushing with a logi and hat kit on kashan without any team support. Or sniping boats/helis from fortress on muttrah...

[Mikemonster]

I believe OP mentioned it as well, but the 'range' is relative to other weapons (in this case tanks).

I.e. If a HAT has a range of 700m in real life, in PR that should really be reduced to reflect the fact that in 'real life' a tank's gun has a range of ~2 miles. Making the 'new' HAT only shoot 700m wouldn't change the dynamics of the game, as most view distances are under this.

Virus, I think if you removed all HAT/AA the assets would be even more whored and unbearable to play against on any map without a city. And the city would only be tenable for infantry if the buildings were indestructable, which itself is a massive exploit against one of CAS's greatest 'RL' strengths.

[Mouthpiece]

Agree with OP.

[ComradeHX]

In game, where do you find view range greater than 600m?

[40mmrain]

In game, where do you find view range greater than 600m?

kashan, iron eagle, black gold, burning sands, qingling all have over 600m of DD by a large margin. Quite a few other maps probably have close or more.

[tankninja1]

HATs are the infantry's mobile anti-TANK weapon, the LATs can only kill APCs and sometimes they barely have the power for that. Besides from my experience most of the time the HAT goes to some lone wolf idiot who goes into a random corner of the map and is never seen or heard from again.

Further HATs don't always kill with the first shot. If a tank driver is smart he always keeps the frontal armor pointed in the direction of the most danger, something I always do, and 90% of the time when I'm hit by a HAT I survive long enough to RTB.

Hats can be annoying but less annoying than TOWs. If you take the time to try and out think them they are rarely a problem.

[Pvt.LHeureux]

Agreed with OP.


MODS DON'T LOCK THIS THREAD PLEASE.

This looks like a suggestion but it's FEEDBACK, what is feedback? Suggesting things that ALREADY exist be changed.

All handheld HAT/AA kits should be removed imo and just add anti air vehicles and ATGM vehicles instead, or force the team to build static AA/TOW, more teamwork. Less lonewolfing and rushing with a logi and hat kit on kashan without any team support. Or sniping boats/helis from fortress on muttrah...

LOL asset whore much.

[40mmrain]

the opposite, I think, The HAT is an asset. Killing dumb armour pieces with them is like candy from a baby. People use it as much as a tank

[Pvt.LHeureux]

He said to remove handheld AA, that way it's easier for CAS to spot fixed positions or vehicles on thermals than a guy in a window. AKA he's sad that his Cobra gets shot down on Muttrah from a shitty manpad launched from a window.