HAT kits

[Spook]

Yes, it's much more endangered now that the maximum amount of deployable AT positions (now bugged with no zoom) has been changed from 2 to a whopping 3 to "compensate" for the removal of the second AT kit (whereas there are still 12 anti-aircraft positions) and the Rifleman AT kit has been increased to 5 for the same reason. So, are you now saying that armor is less endangered by a second AT kit than all this? If so, then make up your fickle mind.

Indeed it is. LAT kits are the perfect weapon to compensate the lack of a second HAT. They kill light vehicles and disable or damage medium to heavy vehicles, giving them at least a chance to fall back and repair instead of going down instantly. And its effective for INF since they can get rid of vehicles much faster now. Win Win for both sides.

And about the third TOW emplacement: I rarely see two completely build up FOBs with AA, TOW and everything and I cannot remember ever seeing a third one. Usually its only 2 TOWs active anyways and I do not feel like that all armor is getting owned by TOWs since 1.0 ... especially since they got nerfed aswell and cannot be used as an offensive tool as good as before anymorePM?

[Brainlaag]

Since this was not clear, allow me to expand. Are you saying that the addition of all of this (referring to 1 additional stationary, nerfed AND bugged TOW and 2-3 additional LATs) is more dangerous to armor than the way it used to be, with less of those (ditto) but with the second, in your own words, "god kit" that you have been decrying for 5 pages? Because, if so, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You said 2 of them was game-breaking, but the way it is now is more dangerous but it's okay?

When I refer to the HAT kit being a "unbalanced" kit, I always spring from the premise the guy using it is an expert and knows what he is doing.

Looking at the overall picture armor has more assets to fear but it will, most of the time, be able to avoid/survive contact with those threats. I shouldn't have used the word "endangered". They simply have more things to face that can damage/kill them but all of them, apart from enemy armor, can not directly affect the armor (as in the ATGM being static--> avoidable and quite an easy target for the team and the CAS being not as effective on their own). Also, I have not yet seen some guy being unusually proficient with the ATGM compared to others. HAT kits attract either the biggest morons, if I may so, or those that can pack quite a punch, both of which I don't find very positive for the experience in-game.

I should have been more clear on that, my apologies.

Nonetheless it's not that much of a deal as I make it seem. I have to underline it happens only now and then that I stumble over a proficient HAT guy. It's mostly me that wants the AT role to be fun again. I know, quite the selfish thinking, I just like this aspect of 1.0 more compared to other versions. It just seems to me that with 1.0, they/you have hit the sweet spot in balancing infantry<-->ground assets<-->air assets. Especially in APCs/IFVs and INF facing APCs/IFVs it's much more fun, as there are plenty of LAT kits around, which can kill the armor but will not one shot it (more driving around for logistics/repairs, more salving tracked vehicles, more defending those tracked vehicles).

[Kerryburgerking]

I have not yet seen some guy being unusually proficient with the ATGM compared to others. HAT kits attract either the biggest morons, if I may so, or those that can pack quite a punch, both of which I don't find very positive for the experience in-game.
.

The thing is that ?f you're using the AT-vehicles you how to have 100% commitment. Had a round on Black Gold AAS with the WZ-550 AT-vehicle. Took down 3 tanks, 1 BMP-3 and 1 Tunguska. It's most important to utilize the asset to it's fullest potiential and what it is best at. You shouldn't run around searching for targets as much as syou shoul be stationary in a good position and wait for the perfect time to shoot (i.e when the target stands still or is moving slowly) You also should engage targets which is hard or near impossible to hit, such as fast vehicles on the move and enemy fast moving aircrafts.

[Brainlaag]

The thing is that ?f you're using the AT-vehicles you how to have 100% commitment. Had a round on Black Gold AAS with the WZ-550 AT-vehicle. Took down 3 tanks, 1 BMP-3 and 1 Tunguska. It's most important to utilize the asset to it's fullest potiential and what it is best at. You shouldn't run around searching for targets as much as syou shoul be stationary in a good position and wait for the perfect time to shoot (i.e when the target stands still or is moving slowly) You also should engage targets which is hard or near impossible to hit, such as fast vehicles on the move and enemy fast moving aircrafts.

I meant the ATGM emplacements.

[Anderson29]

if all HAT kits were like the marines and russians on serrema i would be in favor of 2 or even 3 HAT kits per map.
wire guided HATs are Over Powered in my opinion.
and if that upsets people then i would be in favor of having a new Medium Anti Tank(MAT) kit in which 3 or 4 kits per team with only 1 HAT kit (here the HAT would be wire guided) per team. then everyone is happy (<--lie) right?

[K4on]

Not really, tanks and aps would be too be afraid to drive anywhere.

[ghostfool84]

3 or 4 kits are way to much, even for an unguided HAT. But a single MAT Kit additional to the excisting HAT kit would be a good compromise i think. But thats one more kit on the list that is only requestable by only one guy and the list itself is long enough. But i think gameplaywise it would be a good idea. Now i dont see anyone choose the unguided kit (only by mistake), so people would start to use it. Maybe its possible to give the alternative kit to the second requester if the standard kit is taken.
So people without guided HAT would have a chance to fight tanks, but it wont be that easy and Tanks have not to fear it that much, but they have to care about it.
At the moment there are 2 scenarios: Infantry has HAT -> Tanks are going down to fast, Infantry has no HAT -> Tank can do whatever it wants

[Brainlaag]

Not really, tanks and aps would be too be afraid to drive anywhere.

2 Panzerfaust 3-T/SMAW/PG-7VR-like HAT kits would be a fair compromise to me. They are not one hit kill weapons, nor are they pin point accurate, tanks/IVFs will have to fear them but won't get completely blocked, or owned by them.

A bit off-topic:

Does every faction in-game have that (as in Panzerfaust 3-T/SMAW/PG-7VR) kind of AT equipment in the first place?

[Eddie Baker]

Does every faction in-game have that (as in Panzerfaust 3-T/SMAW/PG-7VR) kind of AT equipment in the first place?

You forgot PF-98 in there.

Yes and no. And by this I mean some don't have that at all and others only have something not-quite like it or something like it in limited service.

France (Not-Quite): APILAS, which is rather heavy in both carry and explosive weight for a "light" anti-armor weapon, but it isn't a reusable system. And from what I read it's firing signature is so huge that it can burn the gunner even if he hits his target. And if he avoids that and misses, the firing signature, again, is so huge that the gunner will still get burned- by his target.

US Army (Limited Service): Carl Gustav M3 used to be only Ranger Regiment and SF, but they test fielded it to some conventional units based on UOR in Afghanistan a couple of years ago; no word on if it's going to stay. Some M67 90mm recoilless rifles were also brought out of storage and used in theater, but more CGs were bought because those aren't in great shape and the armorers who knew how to fix them retired or got RIF'ed ages ago.

IDF (Limited Service): B-300 (basis for SMAW) and Shipon (has electronic fire-control) are used by the various "sayerets," and I have heard of the CG being in use only with the Israeli Navy on patrol boats. MATADOR depicted as HAT in-game is disposable; should really be an ALT Rifleman AT weapon with Spike-SR or MR as HAT.

UK (No Equivalent): "Charlie G" used to be in every infantry section; hasn't been for a couple of decades. 'Course, "no equivalent" and "no-longer used" hasn't kept the MILAN out of the UK faction or the M167 VADS and dual-Stinger turret out of the US faction just so every conventional faction could have identical deployable or static assets.

MEC: Doesn't exist and equipment model is based on "Syranarastan." RPG-29, RPG-32/Hashim/Nashab, PV-7VR, APILAS and CG are all in use in the region, but information on basis of issue for them in their respective forces is not as easy to find.

But even if they all did have reusable, shoulder-launched weapons in wide, general service in conventional forces alongside man-portable ATGMs? Fuck that clone wars shit; and if you want to play a game that only has bazookas and RRs for man-portable anti-tank, play one of the period minimods or reinstall Battlefield '42.

[Rhino]

UK (No Equivalent): "Charlie G" used to be in every infantry section; hasn't been for a couple of decades. 'Course, "no equivalent" and "no-longer used" hasn't kept the MILAN out of the UK faction or the M163 VADS and dual-Stinger turret out of the US faction just so every conventional faction could have identical deployable or static assets.

Brits don't use the MILAN, they use the TOW as their Place Holder Deployable AT, although the MILAN may be more appropriate since they use to use it, what they really need is the Javelin on a tripod but we don't currently have that model.

And we don't have a M163 VADS and I can't recall you or any of the MAs saying the dual stinger "LML" wasn't appropriate for the US in the past as their deployable light AA? Although now you mention it, it looks like the US don't use it, only sold abroad but can't think of anything more appropriate for them?

[Eddie Baker]

Sorry, meant M167 VADS. And I thought the TOW/MILAN issue had already been fixed since it was brought up prior to the release.

[Rabbit]

US Army (Limited Service): Carl Gustav M3 used to be only Ranger Regiment and SF, but they test fielded it to some conventional units based on UOR in Afghanistan a couple of years ago; no word on if it's going to stay. Some M67 90mm recoilless rifles were also brought out of storage and used in theater, but more CGs were bought because those aren't in great shape and the armorers who knew how to fix them retired or got RIF'ed ages ago.

Wouldn't say it looks good for the Gustav. All the units I talked to (along with what we had) was LAW, at-4cs, Javelin, and for some strange reason the SMAW seems to be finding its way into the ARMY. But the seals might have just given them to us.

Though this was only in Afghanistan, so really should be taken as an idea to use the smaw for the us.

[Eddie Baker]

Wouldn't say it looks good for the Gustav. All the units I talked to (along with what we had) was LAW, at-4cs, Javelin, and for some strange reason the SMAW seems to be finding its way into the ARMY. But the seals might have just given them to us.

Though this was only in Afghanistan, so really should be taken as an idea to use the smaw for the us.

They mean the Mk-153 SMAW or SMAW-D(isposable)/M141 BDM? I had only heard of the Mk-153 being tested by the Army during ODS, whereas SMAW-D has been type-classified and fielded.

[Rabbit]

They mean the Mk-153 SMAW or SMAW-D(isposable)/M141 BDM? I had only heard of the Mk-153 being tested by the Army during ODS, whereas SMAW-D has been type-classified and fielded.

Yeah that's the one we had, but like I said, I have no idea why, and we only had a few former marines who had been qualified on them, or at least knew how to use them.

[Spook]

love the new ballistics

look at the sudden drop just before the impact. it was like a couple of cm above the ground and somehow made it over the hill. Now it even takes a little bit of luck to hit something. Makes HAT a little less OP. Thats great and realistic IMO.

[Rudd]

great shot

[sold67]

Hey everyone! I thought I should leave some feedback on something I think is an issue in-game. The HAT kit seems to have been restricted to one per team now and this is an issue - I think - for multiple reasons. The reason I think it is an issue is that against tanks the LAT doesn't really cut it so even with the increased number of LATs it makes it very hard to take down tanks or even APCs but mainly tanks especially when they work together effectively. The person using it isn't always guaranteed to be competent or effective with it either. I've seen people take the kit and run off to the wrong side of the map meanwhile the tanks kick our *** on the complete opposite side of the map.

The area I think this is mainly an issue is on maps with unconventional forces such Gaza Beach or Fools Road. On these maps it is the standard for those factions to take an *** kicking mainly driven by the armor support they have. I personally can't remember a round in recent memory where I have won on Militia side on Fools Road even with stacked teams such as prWARs and HOG on the same team but I don't think the issue is restricted to only Fools Road.

I think even on conventional maps it is a problem. It isn't as much of an issue but if the other teams tank squad is working together effectively and staying within close proximity of each other then it can be extremely hard to take those tanks down as the LAT doesn't pack enough of a punch. I'd personally like to see the number of HATs available put back up to two again. Thanks!

[Daniel]

Isn't there just one Challenger tank on Fools Road? Afaik that map is balanced completely fine...

[sold67]

Isn't there just one Challenger tank on Fools Road? Afaik that map is balanced completely fine...

Yeah you are right Daniel. I'm mainly referring to conventional maps when it comes to armor squads sticking within close proximity to each other. It isn't uncommon for APCs to sometimes stick with the tanks and cooperatively defend or attack flags though. Just had it happen yesterday coincidentally on a round of Fools Road I had where the APC and tank were staying together near a flag which kept my squad hidden and pinned down.


In regards to Fools Road being balanced I would have to disagree. Start to take a note on how many times you win as Militia on that map and what the ending score is I feel fairly confident in saying you will find that the number of British wins will heavily out weigh the Militias. My main issue isn't how I feel Fools Road is unbalanced it is just the HAT kits have been limited to one which I think makes armors survivability on maps such as Fools Road too high. Just my personal feelings after playing for a while now with the HAT kits limited.

[Kerryburgerking]

HATs are defensive weapons, not offensive weapons.