Give Anti-Tank a rifle?

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-05-14 20:56

TII wrote:Neither is giving every single Assaultman a M9 with a SRAW.

Perhaps you did not read Eddies post?

Post by **eggman** » 2006-05-14 20:59

We do have balance issues to consider here, so the arguments about realism and how those over ride game play are a bit semantic.... game play will win out where it creates a potentially grave concern around balance.

You could argue .. in the context of realism .. that once you get kiled, you are out for the round or .. maybe we uninstall PR?? These are theoretical arguments... we're talking about a game that allows reincarnation and jets that you can learn to fly in 15 minutes... it's gotta be fun and playable as well as being guided by the context of reality, but not bound to it when it makes thing not fun.

We will be adding some form of light AT weaponry and taking a look at all the classes for a future release. We've had a bit of a breakthrough recently on a new class system, so we'll be taking a look at a total class system overhaul in an upcoming release. The changesd we made with 0.3 are for balancing and learning purposes.

egg

TII · Post by **TII** » 2006-05-14 21:11

Pence wrote:Perhaps you did not read Eddies post?

I read Eddies post fine. SRAW and SMAW are not the same thing. AT class needs a javelin, or the assault/medic class should be given M136s.

Bottom line is the AT class is not particularly fun to play. Multiple shots on vehicles (and even hummers require multiple shots with the gunner being completely unaffected) usually ends up with the AT guy dead unless the driver of the vehicle in question is a completely incompetant son of a *****.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-05-14 21:16

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']
We will be adding some form of light AT weaponry and taking a look at all the classes for a future release. We've had a bit of a breakthrough recently on a new class system, so we'll be taking a look at a total class system overhaul in an upcoming release. The changesd we made with 0.3 are for balancing and learning purposes.

Sounds like i was right? Good luck with that team!

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-05-14 21:25

While we're at it, let's give the commander control over tactical nuclear strikes from an offcoast nuclear submarine. I imagine in such a conflict the USMC wouldn't hang around with those. Naturally, I'm not going to mention the MEC and Chinese upgrades because that would be unfair, and seeing as they're 'not real' why would anyone bother to argue about those?

And anyway, why's it just the Americans who care so much about the loadouts? I sure hope us Brits don't get so uptight about the BA when they get included.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-14 21:28

Just about to make the same point.

Eddie, the SMAW is a light AT weapon (as you will know) and has variations for the destruction of fortifications (HEDP), and then a incinirating round (NE) and an anit LIGHT armor round (HEAA). It is also a fire and forget weapon like the SRAW but its usage amongst specialised AT units has declined recently.

The SRAW is a heavier weapon which I believe you are modelling in PR. Due to its increased weight and size I would agree that for realism a pistol would be used at this point in time. However, at this point in time there is no war between the PLA and the MEC and USMC. There maybe such a war in ~5 years lets say. By then the AT specialist will have replaced his 9mm for a PDW of a similar size, with a greater effective ranges and ROF.

If you are going for realism, then I do not understand your previous post as it shows no usage of the SRAW and is therefore out of date (pre 2002) when SMAW was seen as the replacement to the LAW and AT-4. In modern combat, if the SRAW is used, it is used as a non specialist FAF weapon by non specialised troops who also carry other arms.

It has been replaced, by the SMAW, due to its greater range, guidance qualities, and piercing capability, with AT specialists.

I am confused though as the in game model is a SRAW and you are talking about SMAWs....

luizinhuu · Post by **luizinhuu** » 2006-05-14 21:32

just for the record
mp5 for the engineer ended out as a AWESOME change, it got very well balanced being an engineer

about the AT class, i think it has to be the way it is. if you give AT a rifle half of a team will be AT on maps with tanks, and this is annoying. i haven't seen much ATs on the servers (comparing to bf2)! neither much supports (comparing to 0.25), it is damn well balanced

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-14 21:36

luizinhuu - Check out an MP7 its power as a weapon. It is more than a pistol but well short of even an MP5. It would make AT's happier in CQB and also at longer ranges.

TII · Post by **TII** » 2006-05-14 22:25

I'd be happy if the ATs were given the shotgun with only .00 buck. Anythings better than the pistol.

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-05-14 22:33

Well we're going to have to come to some agreement seeing as how the DEVS are having so much trouble unlocking the unlock system.

lonelyjew · Post by **lonelyjew** » 2006-05-14 22:57

Arg! Brought up so many times! Head going to explode!

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-05-14 22:58

AT can destroy a $50 million dollar tank but gets wasted by a $1000 rifle. Sounds fair to me.

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-05-14 23:07

'[R-CON wrote:NikovK']AT can destroy a $50 million dollar tank but gets wasted by a $1000 rifle. Sounds fair to me.

I always find this funny.

Post by **eggman** » 2006-05-14 23:08

TII wrote:I'd be happy if the ATs were given the shotgun with only .00 buck. Anythings better than the pistol.

I also like this idea, but not sure how realistic shottys are on an AT guy ??

egg

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-05-14 23:24

Well in an urban environent marines carry them for breaking house/gate locks to take cover from fire quick. As to engineers or AT guys carrying shottys on a map like El Alamenin XXL for example i can't see this being realistic at all. I mean by the time a shotgun becomes useful on a map like that it will be useless compared to rifles or even pistols.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-14 23:27

The 'AT' weapons such as the SMAW and SRAW are used as fortification breaching weapons. Perhaps in future releases - the AT should be given the option of what type of round he wishes to use. HE, etc

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2006-05-14 23:28

Profe wrote:Forget your balance, I want realism,
Oh my what's that in his hand, no not the huge as javelin, what is that in his other hand!?

That is an M16. And, oh my, do you see the Command Launch Unit attached to the Javelin missile he is carrying? He could be an assistant gunner. But the CLU might be in that bag on his left hip. Either way, is the Javelin in ready-to-fire position? Nope.

Maverick, I think you are mixing acronyms. The Mk-153 SMAW is unguided. Fire-and-forget means it is guided. The SRAW is going bye-bye; right now it is a place-holder and it was not modelled by PR, but by the BF2 staff. The Predator SRAW program has been placed on indefinite hold, if not already scrapped. Eventually we will have the SMAW and other unguided launchers (with multiple round types) in addition to the Javelin.

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-05-14 23:30

'[R-PUB wrote:maverick']The 'AT' weapons such as the SMAW and SRAW are used as fortification breaching weapons. Perhaps in future releases - the AT should be given the option of what type of round he wishes to use. HE, etc

I would like to see the AT troopers given the option of what round they would like to use in a particualr situation.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-14 23:32

Fire and forget is not about guidance it is about the fact the munition will detonate at the optimum distance from the target by using heat sensing technology.

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-05-14 23:35

Good to know so if fire and forget is instuited you fire at say a APC and then by it's self it would blow up at a particualr distance from the APC based on what it tells it's self.