Static Anti Tank in Firebase

[airkn0cker]

Just a thought-
Recently i have noticed that fire bases are more and more getting hammered by APC's. Seems strange that an anti air missile system can be deployed and built along with MG's, but not a static form of Anti tank, such as the tripod mounted BGM-71 TOW, or even the ground mounted MILAN. I am sure that as developers you have already looked at this route, but i am curious as to the reasons.
Thanks

[Welshboy]

Resugestion, make sure you search before you post and look in the already suggested sugestions thred.

[airkn0cker]

i did- couldn't find anything- will look again

[McBumLuv]

Search "TOW FOB" and you get some. I am for it, personally, but you'd need to give a demonstration on how it wouldn't become spammy or anything, and how it would help gameplay.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... tions.html
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... ments.html

Here are a few threads on it, as well.

[airkn0cker]

That would be why then, i was searching via the weapon name. If the only reason is spamming, then limit the ammo and reload time. Not to worry.

[nick20404]

Ammo and reload times are already limited. if they limited it anymore you would only have 1 shot making the thing useless anyways. If you are getting your fobs killing by apcs or tanks all the time that is a good sign you need to practice setting up hidden fb's. Place landmines en route to your FOB also so they won't get to it. Or if you really have to make a crappy fob out in the open guard it with a HAT kit.

[Qaiex]

Should it really matter?
It's static, and the whole point is to defend the firebase, would you really tell a professional army: "Hey, lets give the enemies a chance to get close with tanks and APC's, otherwise it isn't fair."?
No, you set up defenses meant to keep them as far away as possible from the firebase.
We have AA guns to keep planes and heli's away, HMG's for infantry, it's only logical to put Anti-Armour there aswell.

[Tannhauser]

It has been suggested a lot, and I partly agree, only partly.

IMO, if your firebase is being gunned by enemy armor, most of the time it means it was poorly placed in a bad spot... And I usually set up some good HAT defenses while defending an FOB anyway.
But this would help, and is kind of logical. It can't be TOO spammy anyway, seeing how slow the reload time of the TOW is and how Armor could rape the FOB anyway, even with a TOW emplacement, it isn't a bad idea either.....

What you could do with that, is restrain the number of TOWs like the number of AAAs : either one TOW, or one AAA per FOB, never both. (Either you get raped by planes/helos, either you get raped by armor.)

But w/e, it's not really important IMO.

[DeltaFart]

My CNR would make vehicles think twice about closing on the FOBs

[R.J.Travis]

you can kill apc/tanks with a tow from 500 meters easy sl marks a tank 500m away behind a hill and you just guide it in.
Ejod is a good example the tow's out front of the us base if your good you can pop a tank at the mid of the city.

[Hoboknighter]

LAT emplacement-type gun instead, so it's more like a weak stationary RPG launcher than AT. It wouldn't pack much of a punch, but a few rounds would help do the trick on helping keep away armor. Perhaps for balance another 2 or 3 seconds for the reload of this thing would help.

[cyberzomby]

But you will not prevent it from being used as a static artillery piece. I can already imagine where the MEC dudes are going to shoot at when they deploy one of these on mosque roof or construction site.

[ReaperMAC]

The tow will need to be reduced in damage as well. Considering that the static TOWs right now do a 1-hit kill against Armored Vehicles to prevent 'baserape.'

But, I do agree in some cases it would have been nice to have said TOW emplacements.

[airkn0cker]

Being able to constrct it in a sandbagged parapit with 360 degree rotation, but only at a horizontal aiming aptitude. Only one can be built per firebase with max 3 rounds and a reload and aim time of approx 20 secs... I couldn't honestly see it being used for infantry spamming (although i am sure there will be people out there who will try) as the squad leader would blatently kick them for ammo wasting! Another thing (just to dice things up a bit more), is the back blast of the static weapon- Squad leaders would seriously have to think about the TOW locations (or other emplacements) due to the backblast. Think of all the TK's that people would get if only using it on infantry. If there was armour in sight, everyone would be in cover. IMO- I like taking them out with AT anyway (when i can ever get hold of the kit) lol

[Tartantyco]

-I support any defensive emplacement that can lock down an area, making it an objective to take out for the other side.

[cyberzomby]

-I support any defensive emplacement that can lock down an area, making it an objective to take out for the other side.

Thats already the case. Many times when you cant take down a flag its because theres a firebase in the cap zone that keeps reinforcing it.

Im really against the offensive FOB weapons that can have such a huge impact as a HAT missile.

[airkn0cker]

Im really against the offensive FOB weapons that can have such a huge impact as a HAT missile.

Surely two MG placements are a larger impact against infantry? i only say this in reference too the HAT emplacement not being able to be used as anti infantry- as with any of it, a simple white phos taking it out. Cant an anti air rocket be aim towards inf/buildings? Don't get me wrong, i can see the worry about people using it incorrectly, but if set up correctly, people would only really be able to use it against armour/vehicles as a last resort defensive weapon- (remember the 3 rounds bit at a horizontal plain), giving the defending sqaud at least some time to get either correct kits or at least to bug out safetly- it is after all, a fire base.

[cyberzomby]

But MG bullets cant be directed by binocs at the front. 3 missiles is still 3 tanks taken out while they are getting in to the fight. Horizontal plane might look good on paper, but that will make the weapon almost useless with the engine placement gimmick.

[airkn0cker]

Horizontal plane might look good on paper, but that will make the weapon almost useless with the engine placement gimmick.

You see, those are the sorts of things i don't understand or know about- if the weapon isn't viable due to programming constraints, then fine, thats the answer, if not, is it just a global conflict of interests within the community? Its not the be all to end all is it, there are HT kits available, its a "would be nice" really