AT4

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
arjan
Posts: 1865
Joined: 2007-04-21 12:32

AT4

Post by arjan »

i was making an thread about the AT4 on oftopic.. than i thought this should belong to suggestions
---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrmAaG6lwS0[/youtube]


As you can see,, these AT4's are much stronger than the PR's AT4's
So i suggested make them more powerfull , like killing all infantry in an apc
Movie can be used as some information ;)
Raymond.Reiloff
Posts: 176
Joined: 2007-05-17 08:53

Post by Raymond.Reiloff »

What! is the AT4 swedish?
Image
bosco_
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 14620
Joined: 2006-12-17 19:04

Post by bosco_ »

There's something called 'balance'... if one L-AT would be enough to take down an APC, the number of kits would have to be reduced.
Image
arjan
Posts: 1865
Joined: 2007-04-21 12:32

Post by arjan »

this is all about reality right ???
Balance is a B¡tch
and i think that at4 must be used much more..
maybe as normal kit,, in maps like kashan
(even for support)
Last edited by arjan on 2007-10-06 10:49, edited 1 time in total.
Ragni<RangersPL>
Posts: 1319
Joined: 2007-08-13 10:44

Post by Ragni<RangersPL> »

I have another video about AT-4 :razz:
This should also be implemented in PR :razz:
(JOKE)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=18f_1191580020
ImageRANGERS LEAD THE WAY!!!
:29_slaps: Do not post stupid suggestions just because you had a bad round in PR :fryingpan
arjan
Posts: 1865
Joined: 2007-04-21 12:32

MEAN!!

Post by arjan »

Last edited by arjan on 2007-10-06 10:59, edited 1 time in total.
Epim3theus
Posts: 1110
Joined: 2007-01-03 13:23

Post by Epim3theus »

It's a Saab! The backblast doesn't seem to be really big in this video seeing how the fire it from inside a house and all.
arjan
Posts: 1865
Joined: 2007-04-21 12:32

Post by arjan »

Ragni<RangersPL> wrote:I have another video about AT-4 :razz:
This should also be implemented in PR :razz:
(JOKE)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=18f_1191580020


YES!! should be impleted if you shoot without aiming
Xander[nl]
Posts: 2056
Joined: 2007-05-24 13:27

Post by Xander[nl] »

arjan wrote:this is all about reality right ???
Balance is a B¡tch
Yes, but it's still a game, and games have to be balanced.
and i think that at4 must be used much more..
maybe as normal kit,, in maps like kashan
(even for support)
Personally I hate using anti-tank weaponry as anti-infantry weapons, if that's what you mean with 'support'.
But I think L-AT kits are not used on big maps like Kashan, because they are short/medium ranged weapons which can only take out light armoured vehicles. And since Kashan has more tanks then apc's...
Image
arjan
Posts: 1865
Joined: 2007-04-21 12:32

Post by arjan »

I meant the support kit
Farks
Posts: 2069
Joined: 2007-01-20 00:08

Post by Farks »

Raymond.Reiloff wrote:What! is the AT4 swedish?
Yep, it's made by Bofors as you can see. But the export version (AT4) and the swedish version (Pskott m/86) are a little bit different.
AnRK
Posts: 2136
Joined: 2007-03-27 14:17

Post by AnRK »

Is having 5 (it is 5 right?) on top of 2 heavy ATs for every 32 players that realistic anyway?
77SiCaRiO77
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 4982
Joined: 2006-05-17 17:44

Post by 77SiCaRiO77 »

agree about the balance thing ,BUT NOT MIRROR BALANCE, isn't this a reality game ???

AT4 has a better penetration power than the pf89 (and equal to the rpg26) .

and BTW all the LAT(except the pf89) ingame are capable of take out any APC (btr90,lav25 and type-zomething :p ) with one shot.

well, if you want balance we can make something like this:

US LAT: 1 at4(+-10 kg) w/o optics
PLA LAT: 2 pf89(+-6 kg) with optics (the pf89 weigh less than the at4)
MEC LAT: 1 rpg26 with out optics

the reason is that both , at4 and rpg have more penetration power than the pf89.
{GD}Ghost
Posts: 210
Joined: 2005-09-22 06:08

Post by {GD}Ghost »

Balance....shalance. With all this talk of reality in (eh hem) Project REALITY, the emphasis should be on reality wherever possible. After seeing this and a few other vids regarding the use of anti-tank weapons, I and I'm sure a few other people feel cheated.
Image

Image
Eddie Baker
Posts: 6945
Joined: 2004-07-26 12:00

Post by Eddie Baker »

AnRK wrote:Is having 5 (it is 5 right?) on top of 2 heavy ATs for every 32 players that realistic anyway?
Actually, yes. AT4 (US M136 / UK ILAW) and other single-shot, disposable light anti-armor weapons are usually issued, depending on mission factors, to at least one rifleman in every four-man fire team. Medium anti-tank weapons like the Javelin are found in a platoon weapons squad or are attached to a platoon from a company or battalion anti-tank section, usually two per rifle platoon.
Cp
Posts: 2225
Joined: 2006-04-17 18:21

Post by Cp »

BTW what warhead is portrayed in PR, Is it the HEAT or HP (High penetration)?
Image
AnRK
Posts: 2136
Joined: 2007-03-27 14:17

Post by AnRK »

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Actually, yes. AT4 (US M136 / UK ILAW) and other single-shot, disposable light anti-armor weapons are usually issued, depending on mission factors, to at least one rifleman in every four-man fire team. Medium anti-tank weapons like the Javelin are found in a platoon weapons squad or are attached to a platoon from a company or battalion anti-tank section, usually two per rifle platoon.
Cool, was just wondering, seems like alot of ballache, but I guess if they've got them down to 10 or less kilograms it can't be that bad.

I'm really not too bothered about the balance though, I'd prefer it myself if things like these started to make notable differences between armies.
arjan
Posts: 1865
Joined: 2007-04-21 12:32

Post by arjan »

its not about engine,, its about balance xD
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”