One AT per assault, medic, spec ops

Schiller · Post by **Schiller** » 2006-02-19 15:28

In real life it's not possible to have 5 AT-rockets on your back. You fire your gun and then throw it away, it not refillable

My suggestion

Make the attacking classes assault, medic, spec ops and maybe support get one AT-rocket each, it's the only logic thing. The AT-class is worthless when it comes to anything but apc, tanks and jeeps.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-02-19 15:48

It has been suggested that the Assault class recieve a single unguided AT weapon and I think that is a good idea. I don't think it would be realistic to have a medic carry one, or a support (WAY too much power, plus it would be able to refill it's rockets). Also it's possible that the Spec Ops class will get removed as it isn't implemented very realistically as of right now.

As for the AT class being 'useless' except for APCs, MBTs and other vehicles... that's the idea. When no other class can take out the APCs or MBTs the AT class becomes very useful.

Schiller · Post by **Schiller** » 2006-02-19 15:51

Maybe the idea that only Assault have at-rocket is really good. That way fewer people will play as support. I wouldn't mind if the spec ops class was removed, it doesn't fit with the regular marine firing squad. It's a better solution to remove AT-class in favor of only assault or maybe another class too could have one at-rocket each.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-02-19 16:07

Well on the battlefield there certainly are dedicated AT soldiers who carry a few disposable AT rockets, though as you said definitely not 5 (PRMM has 3 I believe). These dedicated AT soldiers would certainly rely on their teammates to do the trigger pulling against infantry targets (=more teamwork in game).

I think the best option here is to remove AT on maps where there are no tanks/APCs and replace them with a class that has a rifle (no suggestion on what it should be from me). On maps where there are not MBTs or APCs give a certain class of riflemen a single AT weapon (for humvees, vods etc.).

Then, on maps like Steel Thunder the dedicated AT class will be available again and the riflemen should still get the single AT weapon. I think that would work out nicely. What do you think?

Schiller · Post by **Schiller** » 2006-02-19 17:43

To be honest I don't have a detailed picture of a squads built up in USMC. I refer to the swedish army and about half of a typical firing squad has AT-rockets. The squad is divided into squadleader, co-squadleader, 3 infantry with at-rocket, 1 machine gunner (sometimes w. loader) and one assault with grenade launcher. However it varies quite a lot.

The map-based idea is good, but maybe hard to code. Although I dont think that AT-class should be witout a proper firearm in any case.

Rifleman · Post by **Rifleman** » 2006-02-19 17:54

I will stick to the idea with new AT class to maintain teamwork...
Assault will provide cover again infantry but put head down when seeing tank... and here comes AT guy... and medic is waiting behind corner..

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-02-19 18:34

Is it possible that each squad could have one AT guy (maximum)?

His kit would look like this:

M4 or M16A2/4
AT-4
2 frags
1 smoke
Knife

Rifleman · Post by **Rifleman** » 2006-02-19 18:40

Hmm... not to many AT around? It would make tank guys hard day...
Too many ATs around... let's keep teamwork.. AT guy is AT guy

CplMilhouse · Post by **CplMilhouse** » 2006-02-19 21:42

Lets take a real-life look at this.

In the canadian and american militaries, there are a few basic anti-armor weapons. the Dragon (I believe thats what is modeled into the game) would likely be carried in a heavy weapons det or dedicated anti-armor platoon. Maybe one in a standard infantry section, but keep in mind they're heavy buggers. More common in an infantry squad (at least up until recently) would have been the venerable M72 SRAAW. Not capable of defeating an MBT, but LAV's and other light IFV's had better watch out.

In the canadian forces our MRAAW is the 84mm "Carl Gustav" which packs quite a punch. With the new ammo we're getting for it, it is possible to defeat an MBT, although not likely from a frontal hit. In an infantry section there may be one of these, with a total ammunition load of between 2 and 4 rounds. Keep in mind that I"m not an infanteer, so my knowledge of their squad application isn't very in depth. I've used the weapons, and on a c*ck course we got to carry them everywhere.

So to have the assault troop armed with a single M72 wouldn't be a bad idea. Then having the AT class armed with a Dragon is fine, but as for additional rounds, I'm not sure how that would work. This is why I'm suggesting the 84mm. The gunner will usually have a number 2, but you could get away without it. Reload would be pretty bad unless in a set up position.

Anyways, I'm sortof rambling here, so I'll just close.

-Scott

Zantetsuken · Post by **Zantetsuken** » 2006-02-20 00:08

"When no other class can take out the APCs or MBTs the AT class becomes very useful."

EXACTLY if you go and give AT rockets to half the class selection, nobody would use AT

AT kit isnt *entirely* useless (except when you dont have any unlocks and its just the MP5), many times I take the DAO over the Jackhammer (and its gotten much more useful (not just CRC) since the patch added the P90), and if you're worried about the AT kit not being able to hold against infantry, swap out the MP5 for the medic's M16 - MP5 isnt even used out in the open field or in cities such as Karkand, its more reserved (AFAIK) for counter-terrorists/SWAT/GSG9/SAS clearing office buildings, banks being robbed, and houses with nutcases in em...

On to the point of why vanilla BF2 AT kits have so many rockets, you would think the guy'd break his back... in real life, I would imagine it would take at most 2 or 3 rockets to take out a tank - BF2 massively underpowers the AT rockets. The reason for this is, if the rockets packed a real life equivalent punch, nobody would use tanks, they just wouldnt get anywhere - the first or second enemy with an AT kit would take out the tank, EASY. Which is exactly why they made rockets less powerfull, and gave more (ammo wise) rockets to AT guys

Schiller · Post by **Schiller** » 2006-02-20 00:19

A solution could be to let assault players chose if they prefer grenade launcher or one at rocket.

Zantetsuken · Post by **Zantetsuken** » 2006-02-20 00:53

you could try this and use it to lower the number of AT kit rockets, but like I said, you wouldnt wanna make the AT kit worthless, would you? not to mention most people would probly still take the nade launcher so they can noob tube

the 1.2 patch was supposed to make it so you couldnt noob tube, and ya, I see a lot less noob tubers, but its still pretty much possible to noob tube people...

{YBBS}Sage · Post by **{YBBS}Sage** » 2006-02-20 03:03

Grenade launchers are supposed to be nasty on the battlefield... right? It's supposed to be a step between hand grenades and mortars.

I like the suggestion of giving a rifleman class one AT weapon per player. Then we could do away with the AT class all together, or make a different class.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-02-20 08:32

How about this.

AT class when you have him, give him a decent weapon, with less clips then normal soldiers, like an M-16, but only 2 clips so he has to stick with his squad, of course give him the slower sprint, give him 3 rockets, and make an animation where the AT guy takes the peices off his rocket, before he can fire it. im pretty sure there is a cap or something you have to take off an AT-4.

and im happy with the idea of giving assualt a choice between grenade launcher and a single rocket. that way tehy have to rely on their support.