HAT kits are too powerful and unrealistic

[CanuckCommander]

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.

Don't hate on him too much. He probably knows it's a silly idea (or worse he doesn't)? For Virus, MANPADS would become TEAMPADS?

Jokes aside, I think having HATs with limited range will improve gameplay and INF will actually have to maneuver vs tanks at longer ranges rather than sitting on a hill with a crate. Think about all the times you've had to use the Tandem RPG, and how much you had to sneak and move about just a get a good shot off? I don't about most people, but I sure as hell have fun flanking around and feel challenged by the weapon.

[zombie-yellow]

Totally agree with that. Limit HAT at 1 per team and only available to a 6 man squad. Also, lacking HAT on maps like Kashan would make teamwork a little more mandatory by the fact that if you want to survive at the entrances of the bunkers, you'll have to laze and help CAS do their job.

For maps like Muttrah, you'll have to avoid armors as much as possible, not run into them with your Spartan-Laser like HAT.

Also, for the range, it might be 600m, it'll have to be reduced to meet PR standards. For exemple, the F-16 carries AIM-120 AMRAAM, which, in real life, can fire up to 180km. They can barely fire at the view distance in PR (Silly BF2 engine with its crappy view distance)

So yeah, definitely a good idea.

[Conman51]

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...

No. Just no. i understand you are trying to promote team work but taking away the main advantage of infantry is a stupid idea. Its already hard enough for infantry to survive on maps like Kashan. Dont make this a vehicle whore game.

LOL asset whore much.

Yea...pretty much what i wanted to say.

[chrisweb89]

I personally say keep the HAT, and its unlimited range as it is now. They can be annoying, but if you know where it is just try to position yourself where he isn't as big of a threat(I know easier said than done).

To the removal of the kits, no, just no. A TOW is a defensive weapon, the only time you are going to build a TOW on the offense and kill a tank is if the crew sucks. HATs and AAs are fine as they are.

[Professorson]

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...

Yes they should also give attack helis / jets unlimited ammo and add a button that makes them respawn straight away incase viirus dies (because of someone else's fault) I think that will make cas easier wait did I say that, I meant encourage teamwork

[Mineral]

I never have found being killed by a guided or non guided hat giving me a unfair feeling. If I'm in armour I know that 4 things can happen.

HAT/TOW
enemy armor
CAS
I flip it

I seriously can't see any reason why the current system needs a change. They are already limited, they say they will be limited to 1 for 50 players when 100p comes. What do you want? Limiting the HAT seems pretty ridiculous IMO. It's not about realism in this thread, it's about people bitching about being killed in their precious armor by some squad or lonewolfer and they don't like it.

[Professorson]

it's about people bitching about being killed in their precious armor by some squad or lonewolfer and they don't like it.

is it really

[Brooklyn-Tech]

I never have found being killed by a guided or non guided hat giving me a unfair feeling. If I'm in armour I know that 4 things can happen.

HAT/TOW
enemy armor
CAS
I flip it

I seriously can't see any reason why the current system needs a change. They are already limited, they say they will be limited to 1 for 50 players when 100p comes. What do you want? Limiting the HAT seems pretty ridiculous IMO. It's not about realism in this thread, it's about people bitching about being killed in their precious armor by some squad or lonewolfer and they don't like it.

this mod kind of is about realism...

if something is not realistic in this mod its either on purpose for gameplay reasons or bf2 limitations.

having the HAT be effective to 600m would be:

a) realistic

and

b) more balanced w/ russian/german/militia HATs (gameplay)

so i dont see a reason why this should not be implemented.

and tbh, i think armored vehicles a slightly underpowered in PR.

and this coming from a guy who rarely uses armor vehicles (so you cant accuse me of being an armor asset whore who doesnt like to die)

PR is different from most games because when infantry see's CAS or Armor in PR, they run. Not the case in other games.

[ComradeHX]

x4 zoom on HAT engage over 600m?

... Even if range is not nerfed; it is not that effective for most people without super high resolution.

That is x4 zoom vs. two pairs of eyes + thermals + x8(?) zoom.

Vehicles are already pretty powerful; maybe give tanks a touch of shell drop at over 600m?

[Gracler]

The fact that HAT's are used to snipe snipers...helicopters...pretty much anything and all you need is 2 people and a box of ammo tells me that the HAT is Overpowered for gameplay reasons.

For example on Silent eagle there is only unguided HAT's and they are still a big threat to armor, but they tend to miss more often because not all players spend there day off training with this thing getting the feeling of it right. The Russian and German HAT is effective in PR up to 300m...then it gets increasingly hard to hit. Decreasing the guided Hats so they get hard to hit targets at long range would make armor more valuable.

And please no more of this...your just an asset whore.... even if your playing infantry you would like the friendly armor to be able to cover you more than 1 min without being sniped from nowhere by a lone-wolf. Today most infantry squads tell armor to go away as they are only drawing attention to them.....they should welcome armor and get some superior fire-power from them, and enemy armor and IFV should be there main real threat.

If someone did the statistics on HAT's vs armor then 1 HAT guy dien should cost the team probably about 50 tickets, as he can easily kill 5 tanks before getting killed. also Hat kits "re-spawn" in 10 min, and armor re-spawn mostly within 20 min so Hat's can focus on lesser targets like infantry and logis and everything else while they wait for another easy tank to kill.
The fact today is 2 tickets lost for the HAT guy and 50 to 70 tickets lost for the armor.... is that balanced?

Removing the guided Hat's is too radical... just limit there range and its good... armor moving into cities should fear hat's more than vehicles anyway. Wheeled apc's and there speed is many times going to out-maneuver a HAT guy in that case.

Apparently some changes are happening in 1.0 so hopefully more balance is achieved.

[Henrique_Dalben]

I agree with OP, i find it hilarious that a single Eryx will take out an Abrams. But what's sadder is that the HAT kit is the ultimate AA kit (along with SPG techie) being able to take out any helicopter at any range with a single unavoidable shot. But then again, if they removed HATs they should also remove the ATGMs on APCs, it's fun picking off A-10s flying low with the BMP3, but not realistic at all. But since they can't just remove AT weapons, and the current system is a great balance between fun and realism, the only way to improve is to to what some other guys said and only give 1 HAT kit per team.


Poor Kiowa, thought he could fly around SPGs

[Lange]

One other point to bring up is many of the HAT's in PR are very unrealistic in functionality in different aspects . The hats that have infinite range to speak like the SRAW should not even be used because it is unrealistic to have for the US faction as it is. They should at least be replaced by a SMAW if a Javelin is not able to be implimented. A SMAW has a max range of 500m and just change the warhead based on the map. If its INS use the heat warhead, then for conventional maps use the Anti Armor warhead.

The British NLAW should work like real life where you track the target for 3 seconds and it top attacks and destroys the armor however it only has a range of 600M. Or to not be realistic maybe impliment the LAW 80.

The other factions with like the ERYX just reduce the range depending on what it is realisitically.

[Mikemonster]

Everyone keeps mentioning realism without defining which aspect of their wish is the realistic aspect.. Just a note.

PS. Henrique, guided AT missiles are a real threat for attack helicopters, as are the main guns of tanks, and the cannon of APC's. In 'real life' obviously - I'm not necessarily saying the way PR represents this is realistic or intentional.

[Murphy]

(along with SPG techie) being able to take out any helicopter at any range with a single unavoidable shot.

One spg hit, even on HEAT cannot take out a blackhawk or a huey (maybe not since they messed hueys up). But other then that you make a very valid point.

[F33bz]

I've noticed that MTLBs and AAVs die way too quickly on Muttrah by HATs. To be honest, there's no need for them on maps with anything else but tanks.

So a compromise? Remove HATS from maps which do not have tanks in order to balance it a little better? Sure, it will take a few hits from LATS to destroy them, but that is why they carry more then one rocket!

Can leave the emplacements in, but should see if the kit itself can be disabled on those maps like Muttrah or Jabal for example.

[Rhino]

A modern force would take Heavy Anti-Tank weapons where ever they go, hell they even take the Javelin and many other forms of AT to Afghanistan where they are up against no armoured vehicles because its so effective at so many other tasks, like taking out buildings or counter sniping (since most AT weapons can out range a sniper).

[chrisweb89]

I've noticed that MTLBs and AAVs die way too quickly on Muttrah by HATs. To be honest, there's no need for them on maps with anything else but tanks.

So a compromise? Remove HATS from maps which do not have tanks in order to balance it a little better? Sure, it will take a few hits from LATS to destroy them, but that is why they carry more then one rocket!

Can leave the emplacements in, but should see if the kit itself can be disabled on those maps like Muttrah or Jabal for example.

The lats don't carry more than one rocket, except for RPG-7s. Of course the armour dies quick on muttrah, its an urban map with lightly armoured vehicles.

[ShockUnitBlack]

There are two major issues with HATs:

One is the infamous jack-in-the-box tactic.

Two is the inability for tank shells to penetrate most surfaces and hit back at threats behind cover.

At the same time, no competent attack helicopter crew should ever die to a HAT operator. If they got killed, they either were extremely unlucky or incredibly stupid for lingering at a single point long enough for the HAT operator's deviation to settle.

Damage from HATs is fine - maybe a reduction to damage vs. tank side armor, but nothing more. Pretty much all other tank deficiencies vs. HATs can be compensated for by a skilled crew and good team communication.

[Heavy Death]

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.

This.Guided HAT limit of 300-350, unguided 800+.

[ExeTick]

FGM-172 SRAW have an effective range from 17m to 600m. same with Eryx.

Rpgs have maximum effective range at 500 meters. before they lose accuracy.