HAT kits

[Gracler]

I think he meant younger as in the join date, might be wrong tho.

Your right I did Brainlaag.

Eddie I think you and I talk two different languages and assume things out of the blue, so ill retire from this discussion since I have no more to add. Perhaps if we met we could figure out what is up and what is down, but it is going to take too much typing to make sense on a forum.

[Eddie Baker]

That is great, now base your opinion on something. How do you think a second HAT affects the game and don't bring RL as argument up, because it does not apply to the game.

Well, so much for making any progress in this thread, because I don't recall dismissing anything you have to say or what it is based on as irrelevant. So, here we go again with the circle-jerk of condescension.

I have played previous versions and I helped make 1.0. If nothing "RL" ever was brought up as an argument or made applicable to the game, either here or in the DEV forums, then you wouldn't have many of the things you do in-game. So, I'll bring up whatever I please, and you can do the same. Developers and moderators make the rules here; you do not.

If this is not sufficient for you, or any-Gracler-else, for my opinion to be valid/relevant, then congratulations, you are part of why this community is regarded as a bunch of elitists by outsiders.

Now that that's out of the way, so, as I was saying- I am for the reinstatement of the second HAT kit, because:

• There are now several more more players per team.
• As a result, there are more vehicles per team
• The number of available kits is still going to be based on number of players; it will not always be 2 HAT kits on a map
• CAS is also not on every map to deal with tanks.
• I would like to see people make more asymmetric maps where one faction has heavy armor and the other has only lighter vehicles. Because clone wars are dull.
• Even on maps with "equivalent" assets there are going to be vehicles in the same category that are clearly superior (e.g., Warrior vs. BMP-3); man-portable ATGMs can compensate. Because clone wars are dull.
• Not every HAT kit is an ATGM, and there could be alternate ammunition or completely different weapons (shoulder launched weapons, not variant rifle sights or sub-machineguns) for those factions that have them, as well.
• Not even getting into tables of organization and equipment, since they vary and there are 16 factions to go over (and, you know, don't want to get too "RL" for Brainlaag) but for some reason there are twice as many stalk-trained snipers as platoon-level/medium anti-tank gunners in any group of 50 men, despite a sniper course taking 3-4 times longer, having an actual screening and selection process and a much higher attrition rate than the gunnery course for a man-portable recoilless rifle, rocket launcher or ATGM that any infantryman can volunteer or be voluntold to attend (discounting the USMC where Anti-Tank Assaultman is a full-time MOS and also does obstacle breaching/demo).

[Tonymount]

HAT kits are ment to be self defense weapons against armor, the idea is not to hunt down tanks with it. That's what you got tanks and tank destroyers for.

Who said anything about hunting tanks. As an ex soldier, I have far too much respect for the power that armour deploys. What I don't like is Tanks prowling around in an almost random fashion, which we have all seen, on maps like Kashan or Burning Sands and having no means to deal with them.

[Brainlaag]

If this is not sufficient for you, or any-Gracler-else, for my opinion to be valid/relevant, then congratulations, you are part of why this community is regarded as a bunch of elitists by outsiders.

You got nerves saying this with that attitude and tone of yours. Easy to point fingers but very hard to keep your own backyard clean.

• There are now several more more players per team.
• As a result, there are more vehicles per team
• The number of available kits is still going to be based on number of players; it will not always be 2 HAT kits on a map
• CAS is also not on every map to deal with tanks.
• I would like to see people make more asymmetric maps where one faction has heavy armor and the other has only lighter vehicles. Because clone wars are dull.
• Even on maps with "equivalent" assets there are going to be vehicles in the same category that are clearly superior (e.g., Warrior vs. BMP-3); man-portable ATGMs can compensate. Because clone wars are dull.
• Not every HAT kit is an ATGM, and there could be alternate ammunition or completely different weapons (shoulder launched weapons, not variant rifle sights or sub-machineguns) for those factions that have them, as well.
• Not even getting into tables of organization and equipment, since they vary and there are 16 factions to go over (and, you know, don't want to get too "RL" for Brainlaag) but for some reason there are twice as many stalk-trained snipers as platoon-level/medium anti-tank gunners in any group of 50 men, despite a sniper course taking 3-4 times longer, having an actual screening and selection process and a much higher attrition rate than the gunnery course for a man-portable recoilless rifle, rocket launcher or ATGM that any infantryman can volunteer or be voluntold to attend (discounting the USMC where Anti-Tank Assaultman is a full-time MOS and also does obstacle breaching/demo).

You brought up points why you'd like, or for the matter, why you think it should be added and except from one (point 7) not how it can be balanced. Now I ask you, how do you want make it fair considering the bigger picture? As already said, in an organized environment, with two fairly equal teams, a guy that knows what he is doing can WRECK enemy armor, or in the case of a crew that is less daring, simply slow it down to the point it become almost useless, that is due to the nature of the kit. Simply handing out another god kit for the sake of "balance" does not work.

I'm not against more HAT kits in general, I'm against more HAT kits in their bugged and simply unbalanced form. Remove jack in the box and you can add 4 per team if you ask me. Then you can have all your points covered without the drawbacks.

[Spook]

Indeed Brainlaag, increase setup time to its old values and make it somehow possible that crouch/standing has impact on the weapon centering and you can put 2 of them ingame again. But with the current OP setup of the HAT kits, one is enough.

[Eddie Baker]

You got nerves saying this with that attitude and tone of yours. Easy to point fingers but very hard to keep your own backyard clean.

No shit, but you get what you give, Golden Rule, glass houses and getting stoned, etc. Gracler's self-assurance set the tone for how I responded to him, and you set the tone for how I am treating you in your reply to me. A reply, I might add, when I wasn't even addressing you. Thus the cycle perpetuates.

No one is saying you have to do anything but if you already have nothing to contribute, at least stay quite

Sorry, you were saying something equivalent to me taking my own advice?

Are you getting the point, or does this aspect of our conversation really need to continue?

You brought up points why you'd like, or for the matter, why you think it should be added and except from one (point 7) not how it can be balanced. Now I ask you, how do you want make it fair considering the bigger picture? As already said, in an organized environment, with two fairly equal teams, a guy that knows what he is doing can WRECK enemy armor, or in the case of a crew that is less daring, simply slow it down to the point it become almost useless, that is due to the nature of the kit. Simply handing out another god kit for the sake of "balance" does not work.

Just as one guy in an A-10/Su-25 who knows what he's doing can wreck enemy armor . . . just as one guy who knows what he's doing in a tank/attack aircraft, with an MG can wreck enemy infantry . . .

"Jack-in-the-box" or "hit and run" behind cover or concealment is what is going to be done by infantry when engaging armor (guided or unguided weapons), either in-game or in real life, because if you don't kill or cripple it on the first hit and it sees you it WILL kill or cripple you. Terrain will not always allow you, or them, to do this.

I'm not against more HAT kits in general, I'm against more HAT kits in their bugged and simply unbalanced form. Remove jack in the box and you can add 4 per team if you ask me. Then you can have all your points covered without the drawbacks.

And infantry players will cry because tanks have fake-thermal imaging in game. So much so, in fact, that they're crying for thermal imaging to be completely removed in PR: ARMA 3, an engine orders of magnitude better than this one.

To put it simply, given the limitations of this engine, certain issues are likely never going to be fixed. And even it they were "fixed" it's NEVER going to be "fair," and it certainly is never going to please everyone; where you stand depends on where you sit, opinions are like ********, etc. As a result of this, "bugged," "broken," "unfair" and "unbalanced" are heard so often about so many different things, that they have practically become code words on this forum for "I am not invincible, as I should rightfully be." Even among testers and DEVs playing the game you're going to get different opinions. Look at emmanuel15's sig-line on the previous page; it cannot be stated any better than that. And you're going to tell who's crying wolf with psychic powers?

Go to the polls, you say? Centuries ago consensus was that the sun revolved around the Earth, people with different color skin than you were sub-human and that slavery was A-OK. We later found out that the Earth revolves around the sun and that lawmakers are sub-human.

And putting everything on a poll will get NOTHING done.

[ComradeHX]

I support having more HAT.

But make them NOT one-shot Armour from front.



People don't usually go "hunt" armour because armour generally have thermal optics and will easily shoot infantry.

[Heavy Death]

HATs are like sniper... not really for this game, IMO.

2 per team? Yes, when you fix the OPness and make them requestable only from main (As with other special limited kits).

[Spook]

I support having more HAT.

But make them NOT one-shot Armour from front.



People don't usually go "hunt" armour because armour generally have thermal optics and will easily shoot infantry.

Actually in 90% of all cases they DO!

Nothing easier in PR than to snipe a tank from anywhere without him knowing your position before. Just move to the tanks position without being visible for him, find a good spot where you can stand/crouch. Crouch while in cover, wait till HAT is setup and focused, stand up, shoot, kill and crouch again. Tank down without him knowing where it even came from.

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

That's in this thread:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f252-p ... ement.html

this does not answer my question, this topic is about the splash damage and not the damage RPG HAT vs APC

[Brainlaag]

Just as one guy in an A-10/Su-25 who knows what he's doing can wreck enemy armor. . .

No he can't. I've shot down more jets/helos with tanks that tried to take me down without a laze than the other way round.

just as one guy who knows what he's doing in a tank/attack aircraft, with an MG can wreck enemy infantry . . .

No he can't if there is a HAT, which is usually me.

"Jack-in-the-box" or "hit and run" behind cover or concealment is what is going to be done by infantry when engaging armor (guided or unguided weapons), either in-game or in real life, because if you don't kill or cripple it on the first hit and it sees you it WILL kill or cripple you. Terrain will not always allow you, or them, to do this.

The thing in PR is, terrain will allow it most of the time and since you are facing a team composed of random individuals, rather than an organized army, it's unfair to demand from a whole team to work together smoothly in order to counter act a single guy. Making the HAT a two to three men thing might change that aspect. I, however, doubt that is anyhow doable on the engine.

Have you even played the game after 0.6, because it sure as hell doesn't look like it. Word of advice, P L A Y the game before pointing out how things work/should work. Seriously.

And infantry players will cry because tanks have fake-thermal imaging in game. So much so, in fact, that they're crying for thermal imaging to be completely removed in PR: ARMA 3, an engine orders of magnitude better than this one.

I have always been for making the game as hard and unforgivable as possible (arma clone with a decent netcode). I can't think of anywhere on these forums I've ever "cried" about something being too hard. Just felt like adding this, even though it has not really something to do with the whole discussion.

To put it simply, given the limitations of this engine, certain issues are likely never going to be fixed. And even it they were "fixed" it's NEVER going to be "fair," and it certainly is never going to please everyone; where you stand depends on where you sit, opinions are like ********, etc. As a result of this, "bugged," "broken," "unfair" and "unbalanced" are heard so often about so many different things, that they have practically become code words on this forum for "I am not invincible, as I should rightfully be." Even among testers and DEVs playing the game you're going to get different opinions. Look at emmanuel15's sig-line on the previous page; it cannot be stated any better than that. And you're going to tell who's crying wolf with psychic powers?

Go to the polls, you say? Centuries ago consensus was that the sun revolved around the Earth, people with different color skin than you were sub-human and that slavery was A-OK. We later found out that the Earth revolves around the sun and that lawmakers are sub-human.

And putting everything on a poll will get NOTHING done.

You are confusing me with one of the crybabies on the forums that can't have it the easy way. I'm not on the receiving end but on the giving one. I've always loved the challenge and was up to the hard task, being the AT guy was one of my favorite roles. Now days I'm simply bored when doing it, because I score ridiculous kills with very little effort. Winning by doing hardly anything is not something I consider good, or fun for that matter. It's, as said, unfair.. for the others.

I remember back in older versions with the visible 3d markers me trying to take out assets on the large maps with a LAT. I even had a few drawn lines on my screen to adjust for the range. Why? Because it was something you had to work for and the result was even more satisfying. HAT is nothing of that, you might as well just add a Javlin, or whatever the equivalent is, if you want to make the game click and win.

Furthermore, you mentioning Emmanuel's sig, well, why don't you listen to your own advice. You keep insinuating something while lacking the right perspective (you said it yourself, your PC isn't up to spec and you can't play, how do you know it is balanced in the game right now, if you are not playing it. It's like me giving you military advice without any knowledge, while you have the experience and training).

[Eddie Baker]

For the sake of brevity, I'll summarize

Do you even lift, bro?

For the record, not and never have been military. Was library researcher for a US military staff college and a security studies graduate student (before that also got too expensive). Give me military advice all you like.

Since your argument seems to be "I'm not a crybaby, I'm an e-badass" and saying my perspective is insufficient/incorrect, then there seems to be no point in us continuing to talk. I've got bills to pay and am saving up to finish my degree, so a new gaming rig isn't in the cards for a long time. So, there's no way for you to prove it to me and because I've heard it so many times before, I'm not just going to take your word for it.

[Brainlaag]

For the record, not and never have been military. Was library researcher for a US military staff college and a security studies graduate student (before that also got too expensive). Give me military advice all you like.

You probably still have a more vast knowledge than I do regarding that subject. It was an example, how should I know what your personal career looks like.

Since your argument seems to be "I'm not a crybaby, I'm an e-badass" and saying my perspective is insufficient/incorrect, then there seems to be no point in us continuing to talk. I've got bills to pay and am saving up to finish my degree, so a new gaming rig isn't in the cards for a long time. So, there's no way for you to prove it to me and because I've heard it so many times before, I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Good thing you have an eye for the core statement, picking out the essential all the way . You can read into my post whatever you like and from the looks of it you can get past your personal grudge with people disagreeing with you. Buy your new rig, I wish you the best of luck to get that money together, play the game and then I'll gladly listen to your opinion. Right now you are just making assumptions.

[K4on]

Back to topic guys

[Mats391]

I think it is time that kits get treated the same way like vehicle assets. So they cost more tickets, have longer respawn times (for kit and operator) and can be specified by the mapper.
The players operating HATs dont really fear death right now when facing a tank. They know when you hit him its 100% worth, if you miss you just lost 1 missile. Increasing ticket costs and respawn times might work, atleast it does for vehicles.

Also since most are arguing that the wire guided HATs are OP, maybe it would be a solution to just remove the guidance. This way infantry will still be able to defend them self against tanks, but hunting tanks/choppers wont be as effective. afaik the only real wireguided one is the eryx anyway.

All in all 1 HAT is enough in its current forms, but when changes are made i could see more working

[Frontliner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your infantry expects to see the enemy using heavy armour, you're likely to be equipped in SUFFICIENT numbers with counter measures, let's be real, an RPG or anything of that sort is not even remotely as costly as a tank.

Right now there's one dude with Ultra AT, and a handful of others with ok-ish AT(I say ok-ish here because it does it's job despite it's shortcomings) against more armoured vehicles and ground troops than ever before, and to top it off, the enemy CO can see almost everything. Sounding great already? Now combine this with the AT kit disappearing for 10 minutes should you go down. All of a sudden everything on foot is basically cannonfodder for the MBTs and IFVs alike. And before anyone says, well yeah, don't die with the HAT then, do I have to remind you again what makes PR 1.0 so awesome?



Now excuse my cynicism, but the one HAT dude has so much shit to worry about that isn't armour yet he's shouldering the only mobile thing that disposes of hostile armour. Once again I have to question how this imbalance is overlooked or ignored.


@Spook

Der Panzervernichtungstrupp (BW-Lehrfilm 198 1/4 - YouTube [German Bundeswehr instruction video of 1988, "Der Panzervernichtungstrupp" (~ The Tank buster fire team)]
I cite 4:27 onwards(context is the end of the 2nd World War):"Since tanks often enough couldn't be attacked from positions the infantry occupied, small combat groups, called the tank busters, had to engage them."

It is by no means an extraordinary tactic to get in close to the enemy armour(as an infantryman) and hit them where it hurts.

[rodrigoma]

Now excuse my cynicism, but the one HAT dude has so much shit to worry about that isn't armour yet he's shouldering the only mobile thing that disposes of hostile armour. Once again I have to question how this imbalance is overlooked or ignored.

Excuse my cynicism, but what?

[Frontliner]

Talking about infantry there. Last I checked neither TOWs nor Mines are particularly mobile so yeah. Your cynicism is excused.

[Kerryburgerking]

Talking about infantry there. Last I checked neither TOWs nor Mines are particularly mobile so yeah. Your cynicism is excused.

But ATGM veichles, CAS aircraft and Tanks/APCs are.

[Brainlaag]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your infantry expects to see the enemy using heavy armour, you're likely to be equipped in SUFFICIENT numbers with counter measures, let's be real, an RPG or anything of that sort is not even remotely as costly as a tank.

Right now there's one dude with Ultra AT, and a handful of others with ok-ish AT(I say ok-ish here because it does it's job despite it's shortcomings) against more armoured vehicles and ground troops than ever before, and to top it off, the enemy CO can see almost everything. Sounding great already? Now combine this with the AT kit disappearing for 10 minutes should you go down. All of a sudden everything on foot is basically cannonfodder for the MBTs and IFVs alike. And before anyone says, well yeah, don't die with the HAT then, do I have to remind you again what makes PR 1.0 so awesome?

Now excuse my cynicism, but the one HAT dude has so much shit to worry about that isn't armour yet he's shouldering the only mobile thing that disposes of hostile armour. Once again I have to question how this imbalance is overlooked or ignored.


@Spook

Der Panzervernichtungstrupp (BW-Lehrfilm 198 1/4 - YouTube [German Bundeswehr instruction video of 1988, "Der Panzervernichtungstrupp" (~ The Tank buster fire team)]
I cite 4:27 onwards(context is the end of the 2nd World War):"Since tanks often enough couldn't be attacked from positions the infantry occupied, small combat groups, called the tank busters, had to engage them."

It is by no means an extraordinary tactic to get in close to the enemy armour(as an infantryman) and hit them where it hurts.

Not true, the only kind of assets that has been increased a lot is CAS.

What makes you think there was a general increase of armor per map?

A few examples:

Kashan (Layout Large):
-7 Tanks (4 at start, 3 respawn, unchanged since 0.9 IIRC)
-4 IFVs (1 added since 1.0)
-3 Trans (1 added since 1.0)
-2 Jets
-2 Attack Helos

Silent Eagle (Layout Large):
-4 Tanks (unchanged since 0.9)
-3 IFVs (1 added since 1.0)
-3 Jets (1 added since 1.0)

blablabla...

As you can see there is from 50%-100% more CAS (depending on STD or ALT, there were only 2 jets, or only 2 attack helos on Kashan f.ex.), for the same amount of heavy armor. Medium armor has been increased by one vehicle. This list goes on and is valid for most bigger "asset" maps.

Now on the other hand, you have a lot more infantry and transport/logistics running around, assuring more FOBs and with those, more deployable assets are being built. Looking at this, I think armor has become more endangered than it used to be. But it's fine as it is. There are plenty of careless morons out there (almost 40 more per server to be precise), thus giving you more to shoot at.