AT Class needs a PDW!!!

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-05-02 19:18

~WPN~ Buggies - is wrong, whether yuo like it or not, it is realistic and if you dont like realism go play BF2 - not getting angry it is just a very very simple fact.
Sorry for wasting space asking about riflemen with AT rocket. But if we are at present talking about a soley AT man why complain about him jsut getting a pistol. His job is taking out tanks and nothing else, if you want more fire power jsut go for rifle guy with single rocket, i really cant see a decent argument here.
In my opinion he should not get an smg, and if all things come to the worst a machine pistol might be accetable, i a squad of 6 i would love to know there was a guy who could give me almsot complete protection against tanks and not some half assed man who might, but will probaly jsut run ahead with his smg but get taken down by a single ak round from twise his possible engagement distance= smg's have very little place on a modern battlefield.

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-05-02 19:20

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']ive seen manny times AT guys running arround with squads right next to me for portection. Also you are in a clan, you should easily be able to work with one of your clan mates with a small 2 man AT squad, 1 assualt, 1 AT. Also there is somthign called ingame VOIP, that is used quite alot in PRMM, so pubbies can use comms if they have a mic.

You know full well that MOST players in pub games do not work together as they should and do not put the TEAM first and points second. I play this game everyday and I still see the same **** and lack of team work all the time.
Comparing a clanmate to some random pubbie is apples to oranges.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-02 19:39

i see plenty of team work when i play, maybe its because i only play the GH server or the TC server? But then again i only play when i see "EJOD/ARRC" or familar names from the forums playing. because i know ill find teamwork on the server.

the AT kit is perfect and since the .3 will be out soon, i dont feel like im spilling a great amount of info when i say the AT kit gets more then 3 clips.

you only need AT kits in 32+ player maps, and when playing on maps that big i always see squads. AT guy watches the squads back squad protects him, he defeats vehicles, works for me like a charm!

mrmong · Post by **mrmong** » 2006-05-02 19:50

give him a bigger pistol maybe? maybe a colt for the american team and a glock with burst fire for the MEC side..

perhaps aiming the pistol fires it semi auto but unaimed it fires a burst

~WPN~callum247 · Post by **~WPN~callum247** » 2006-05-02 19:55

I don't see how a main weapon makes him more deadly. The asault can take on cars with the M203 but still has a rifle. So why cant anti tank be able to take on tanks and have a rifle. And realistic the anti tank guy would have a rifle.

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-05-02 19:56

I think the solution as mentioned in another thread is to give the AT class a dumbfire rocket with potentially less power (though the reduction in accuracy kind of helps the balance). AT troops will need to start aiming, rather than swerving those things at distance. What does this mean? The AT class now requires more skill to fire those rockets. Yes, at reasonably close range a rocket's going to kill people, but anything further than 'close' and people will miss. From long ranges rockets will be effective if the user knows how to lead targets properly judging by their speed. Because of the reduction of the rocket's usefulness, we can give the AT class a nice light rifle, perhaps a folding stock rifle, perhaps an SMG. The AT class shouldn't be isolated to tank duty, especially on the new increased timers for vehicles. An AT guys downs a tank with his rockets, then he's forced to play pistol for quite a while (5 minutes at least isn't it? I know the deterioration rate is 7 minutes so it'll probably be even longer), by which team it's down to luck whether he sees the tank before something else does. What does this mean? Our AT guy will try to adapt, and it's very hard to not use rockets when you're the AT guy and there are no real vehicles around. I love using the pistol, but it's just not got the stopping power needed to keep the AT guy alive. Yes, I know there's such thing as teamwork, but there's not much chance we'll see universal teamwork anytime soon, especially not on public servers.

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-05-02 19:58

Malik wrote:I think the solution as mentioned in another thread is to give the AT class a dumbfire rocket with potentially less power (though the reduction in accuracy kind of helps the balance). AT troops will need to start aiming, rather than swerving those things at distance. What does this mean? The AT class now requires more skill to fire those rockets. Yes, at reasonably close range a rocket's going to kill people, but anything further than 'close' and people will miss. From long ranges rockets will be effective if the user knows how to lead targets properly judging by their speed. Because of the reduction of the rocket's usefulness, we can give the AT class a nice light rifle, perhaps a folding stock rifle, perhaps an SMG. The AT class shouldn't be isolated to tank duty, especially on the new increased timers for vehicles. An AT guys downs a tank with his rockets, then he's forced to play pistol for quite a while (5 minutes at least isn't it? I know the deterioration rate is 7 minutes so it'll probably be even longer), by which team it's down to luck whether he sees the tank before something else does. What does this mean? Our AT guy will try to adapt, and it's very hard to not use rockets when you're the AT guy and there are no real vehicles around. I love using the pistol, but it's just not got the stopping power needed to keep the AT guy alive. Yes, I know there's such thing as teamwork, but there's not much chance we'll see universal teamwork anytime soon, especially not on public servers.

I agree. AT class is out of place in PRM.

freebirdcjb · Post by **freebirdcjb** » 2006-05-02 20:29

I still think that the AT should have a better weapon for self defense. If youre the AT class and you get in close quarters combat with someone who has an assault rifle, your dead. Its no contest. It doesnt matter that the AT can take out tanks. In my experience in playing PR you get into far more infantry engagements than being confronted head on with armor. And the AT soldier should be equiped with more than a pistol so you could be the AT kit and work with the squad in those types of engagements.

Razen · Post by **Razen** » 2006-05-02 21:04

You guys may be interested in these..

All photos courtesy of Militaryphotos.net

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-05-02 21:10

Yea, but that is not what the AT class has in BF2 or PR. But that is what many people want. Rifleman with an at4.

Post by **Rhino** » 2006-05-02 21:31

yes thous are only light anti tank weapons. the AT weapons in BF2 are heavy AT weapons.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-05-02 21:50

cant we just have a light AT guy and a heavy AT guy. Both with rifle mabey and jsut one has a scope, grenades and ammo bag (light one has extra equiptment).
This might be the plan but i have been made very confused about what is the "plan"?

THis would keep the guys who wnat rifles happy cos what ever they choose they get one and those who like AT power still get a guy that has 3 (mabey 4?!?) rockets who is easily capable of bringing a MTB down! simple and all are happy (i am goign to get an unhappy commnet but hay i tried)

C-Hawk · Post by **C-Hawk** » 2006-05-02 22:18

I used to be AT specialist when with 21CW - BUT - I HATE being AT in PR with only a Pistol to protect myself with - even with "team work" or not. I might as well throw the damn pistol as fire it!

Please give AR more than a Pistol.

Post by **RikiRude** » 2006-05-02 22:29

my choice would be heavy AT rocket and Pistol, or light AT rocket and rifle. which wont be able to be implemented until we can have the whole unlocks thing figured out.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-05-02 22:42

Agreed, there is all this talk about choices but we (PR) have not really got it to work.
This debate is goign on on like 3 threads adn i repeat my self but hay.
I am not sure either, about how to properly implament rockets BUT I KNOW THIS:
- we need a heavy adn a light
- light must have a rifle

THE QUESTIONS:
- how many dumb fire rockets does lgiht AT get
- does heavy AT get rifle
- how rockets does AT get
- does light At get smoke, and grenade and if so how many
- fi heavy AT does nto get rifle does he get a pistol or machine pistol

oTHER quesitons are: if we make a change is it permantent and i am sure taht if we have a light AT with rifle peeps would stop complaining and jsut use that. And those who dont mind jsut a pistol would take a heavy AT wehn needed and no one would complain.

~WPN~ Buggies · Post by **~WPN~ Buggies** » 2006-05-02 23:00

Top _Cat the great wrote:~WPN~ Buggies - is wrong, whether yuo like it or not, it is realistic and if you dont like realism go play BF2

This has nothing to do with realism. Pictures have been offered up in past posts of real AT gunners with rifles. Yes USMC at gunners do carry rifles. So realismn has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with certain folks egos... point blank.

I DON'T CARE if AT class gets a rifle or not... really... i'm over it. But don't throw the "it's that way for realism sake" card out there. Some USMC units (which ARE what is being represented in bf2) do give at soldiers rifles. So somewhere in "real world" there are AT gunners carrying rifles.

So please don't say i'm wrong. We ALL have our own oppinions. Thats why PRMM is great.

Eglaerinion · Post by **Eglaerinion** » 2006-05-02 23:17

Just have an assault kit stripped from its grenade launcher, add one AT rocket. And have another assault kit and give them different sorts of grenades for their grenade launcher (e.g. smoke, frag, stun, phosphorous).

So basicly you have a grenadier and a standard assault trooper with 1 AT rocket. Imo it's more realistic and still balanced.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2006-05-02 23:50

I would happen to think that the assault class would be given the single-shot disposable AT rocket launchers such as the AT-4, like the devs have said before. Now, the assault class would primarily engage infantry and light vehicle targets (Jeeps, APCs). ATGM systems should act as pick-ups, spawning at several flags in concealed locations. Or maybe have a supply truck that carries a bunch of special weapons in the back.

Post by **Rhino** » 2006-05-03 00:07

what you guys seem to forget that we cant wip this stuff up in afew hrs.....

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-05-03 00:09

~WPN~ Buggies wrote:This has nothing to do with realism. Pictures have been offered up in past posts of real AT gunners with rifles. Yes USMC at gunners do carry rifles. So realismn has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with certain folks egos... point blank.

I DON'T CARE if AT class gets a rifle or not... really... i'm over it. But don't throw the "it's that way for realism sake" card out there. Some USMC units (which ARE what is being represented in bf2) do give at soldiers rifles. So somewhere in "real world" there are AT gunners carrying rifles.

Yes, it does have to do with realism, but it is also balanced with what we are trying to accomplish with PR; improved teamplay. And having to rely on your fellow Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines for support is reality.

Bjorn described the standard operating procedure of the assault section he works with. As I have said in the previous thread, prior to this, three other Marines, all infantry, stated to us and in open forums that the assaultmen they worked with carried only sidearms. Is what is SOP for Bjorn's unit now true for the entire Marine Corps? We don't know. All of the photographs we've sifted through on the USMC's own image gallery (high-res, good references) indicate that the majority of assaultmen don't carry the M16 in addition to the SMAW, which agrees with the TM found on the USMC School of Infantry website. Is the assault team SMAW gunner having only a sidearm realistic? Yes. Does every unit go by the TM TO&E? No.