Improve AT again

[3ti65]

Most AT's are horrible now. With the delayed shooting and the nerfed damage its way too easy for asset whores to rape shit.

Example:

HAT to the side of a T90 on Kozelsk playing as Militia. Tank is only smoking. Used to be tracked / burning before.

AT Guns + SPG static vs. Tank. 5 shots AP from the AT gun + 3 SPG HEAT shots. Tank NOT EVEN SMOKING.

I mean it might be realistic, but it sure as hell isnt balanced. Militia is fucked on Kozelsk now. Used to be okay if you had capable guys doing AT.

> Alot of maps are horribly balanced since the patch. Either due to AT nerfing or just playing with shit assets versus good assets. And too many assets still.

> You basically did the asset whores a big favor and every newbie gets raped so they will leave quicker then they came.

[piratepengu]

the land asset hores do better because of IR smoke and AT nerf. The air asset whores do worse because snail helicopters and magic AA missiles. Who knows about the sea asset whores

[Jacksonez__]

What, the rpg-7 tandem warhead rocks as HAT. Militia AT kit is good anyways. 2x shots + 2x AT grenades = 1 sure armor kill, up to 3 potential armor kills with one load. AT cannons (zis-3) isn't really effective against modern MBTs with ~1000mm front armor. You can consider teaming up with LAT guy and then go after the T90. Worked multiple times for me.

E.g MEC lat kit is only 1x RPG-26 that cannot one hit any armor. Needs more shots.

Chechens wrecked Russian armor in 1&2 Chechen war with guerilla tactics. Unconventional vs. conventional war is not meant to be symmetrical. If HAT is jerking off somewhere, Militia still gets 2x Bmp1 & 2x t60.

but I think militia could get 1-3x HAT pick up kits in main, like FSA gets in Sbeneh.

[Rhino]

Overhauling our Handheld AT Weapons is something I'm currently working on, but don't expect any straight forward "buffs" to any individual weapon or class of weapon from its current setup

E.g MEC lat kit is only 1x RPG-26 that cannot one hit any armor. Needs more shots.

You guys do realise that the RPG-26 in its current setup, dose exactly the same amount of damage as the AT-4, yet the AT-4 is assumed to be far more powerful?

The reason for this is not the weapons themselves, but because a few of the OpFor APCs such as the MTLBs and BTR-60 etc have very thin armour, yet an AT-4 can only one shot the MTLB (at least put it into critical damage), but can't the BTR-60 at full HP (although not far off from putting into critical damage).

[viirusiiseli]

but can't the BTR-60 at full HP (although not far off from putting into critical damage).

IIRC BTR-60 was one-shotted by AT-4 last time I took shots on them.

But yeah, what you're saying is right. BLUFOR APCs do have better armor and this makes everyone think RPG-26 sucks.

With this LAT system it's not really a problem to get up to 4 LATs into the same squad in <5min. That means you can go tank hunting well equipped even though your HAT guy is not doing it.

[Jacksonez__]

Rhino;2088465']Overhauling our Handheld AT Weapons is something I'm currently working on, but don't expect any straight forward "buffs" to any individual weapon or class of weapon from its current setup



You guys do realise that the RPG-26 in its current setup, dose exactly the same amount of damage as the AT-4, yet the AT-4 is assumed to be far more powerful?

The reason for this is not the weapons themselves, but because a few of the OpFor APCs such as the MTLBs and BTR-60 etc have very thin armour, yet an AT-4 can only one shot the MTLB (at least put it into critical damage), but can't the BTR-60 at full HP (although not far off from putting into critical damage).

What.

I tested this now

100 m AT-4 shot to freshly spawned BTR-60s

BTR-60 shot in the side: destroyed after burning, 2-3% hp was left (vehicle debug)
BTR-60 shot in the back: destroyed after burning
BTR-60 shot in the front: destroyed, 3-4% hp was left (vehicle debug)

Basically, the BTR-60 would have no chance to get repairs since it was >5% left after AT-4 shot
25 m AT-4 shot in LAV25 back: not destroyed, sparkles yet not tracked

I have video also if you need it lol.

[Rhino]

ah ye I forgot to count for the explosion damage of the warhead, only counted for impact damage

[Jacksonez__]

ah ye I forgot to count for the explosion damage of the warhead, only counted for impact damage

so technically AT-4 can't one shot BTR-60 but practically it can? RPG-26 also one-shots BTR-60, tested this earlier.

e: okay

HAT kills T-90 easy, either 2x HAT or patient guy uses 1x HAT + AT grenade. Or HAT+RPG-7 LAT combination.

However, LAT can also kill T-90 with RPG-26 kit. Shoot RPG-26 in the back, toss 2x AT grenades on the tank and it cooks off. It doesn't work with RPG-7 LAT, RPG-26 deals more damage to the tank.

[Rhino]

so technically AT-4 can't one shot BTR-60 but practically it can? RPG-26 also one-shots BTR-60, tested this earlier.

No I said I forgot to account for the explosion damage of the missile, since I was only working it out from the code, which is why I miscalculated and yes, it can.

[Cossack]

MEC and Russians needs rpg-29 and gg blufor.

[Navo]

Maybe give MEC some BTR80's alongside their BTR60s? It's a bit silly they use MTLB's in combat roles anyway.

[Souls Of Mischief]

Yeah, I kinda disliked how certain factions (Russians, MEC) are forced to rely MT-LBs, when BTRs and BMPs are widely abundant in those parts. That's not to say MT-LBs are not, but their role in PR boils down to APC lite .

[Jacksonez__]

MEC and Russians needs rpg-29 and gg blufor.

RPG-29 would be (alt)-HAT in my opinion Weighs 11,5 kilograms + rocket grenade itself. RPG-29 would be good for MEC in urban maps and good for Russians in long-range maps.

[Frontliner]

Already suggested Medium AT with so many APC/IFV being able to survive a LAT hit. RPG7 goes MAT while RPG29 goes HAT.

[Murphy]

I do not feel there is a need to put more AT on the field. You all know I'm an asset whore, but I'm pretty good with AT myself and have played infantry a bit more recently with OD-S spreading out between squads (at least on our own server) I believe the number of LATs available is a nightmare for derpy APC/IFV crews. It's good that those kinds of assets have a bountiful hard-counter because it keeps them from getting too influential on the round. On the same token I believe adding more AT might imbalance it to where assets are more often than not a ticket waste.

At present if a squad wipes you can spawn with a LAT kit as if it were any of the specialized kits, this depends upon the number of players in your squad which encourages cohesion. If said squad retakes their previous position with an effective counter-attack they very likely now have 2 LAT kits, and dropping a kit to request another is also an issue. The number of AT guys out there is pretty good IMHO, having seen it from both sides APCs don't have the easy life they once did.

Addressing this same issue with MBTs is very different, infantry can easily become and often is stuck up a creek without a paddle. TOWs and HATs are more difficult with the 3 second delay and it has all but got rid of the old "Jack-in-a-box" issues that was the bane of any Armour near HAT Hill on Kashan.

Keeping all that in mind I think adding a new class of AT weaponry will mean a revision of the availability of it on the overall, which might mess up the nice balance they have just recently reached between Infantry squads and Armor. I'm all for adding more variety, more tools will make a proper squad much more effective but that might not be such a good thing on the other side of the picture.

TLDR Having an MAT would make sense to even the field with MBTs but it makes APC/IFVs fall behind.

[Xander[nl]]

Infantry already have so many means to take out enemy tanks. HAT kit, TOWs, CAS, allied tank/IFV (TOW) support.
Hell they could even call in an area attack.

If all that fails to get rid of enemy armor, you deserve to be overrun/dominated by it IMO.


It's a game. One about war even. I think it should not be completely artificially balanced.
If one team's assets manage to do good they should deserve to win the match.

[Cossack]

;2088633']Infantry already have so many means to take out enemy tanks. HAT kit, TOWs, CAS, allied tank/IFV (TOW) support.
Hell they could even call in an area attack.

If all that fails to get rid of enemy armor, you deserve to be overrun/dominated by it IMO.


It's a game. One about war even. I think it should not be completely artificially balanced.
If one team's assets manage to do good they should deserve to win the match.

Have you ever seen complete pub team with not a single guy with a clan tag in opposition? The rofl stomp is real.

[Frontliner]

;2088633']Infantry already have so many means to take out enemy tanks. HAT kit, TOWs, CAS, allied tank/IFV (TOW) support.

You get 1 HAT kit and 2 TOWs and maybe the map allows for good mines, but that's about it for hostile tanks. The rest you mentioned isn't Infantry equipment at all lol.

[FluffyThumper]

Don't think it's at all possible, but it would be awesome if Militia and MEC could get something like a kit with a Malyutka that needs 1 more person near the operator to be deployed.

[Kerryburgerking]

Why not just give MEC ALT LAT 2 x RPG 7 doesn't even have to have scope.