Project Reality Forums

The Tactical Gamer server does not allow this tactic. We enforce this rule heavily! When people say "Well I didn't have a choice" it makes me laugh. You have a pistol and you should be moving with another person if not your Squad.

The only time we allow it is...

1. Bunker or Firebase
2. Static bunkers
3. Vehicles
4. AA guns

Dirtboy wrote:The Tactical Gamer server does not allow this tactic. We enforce this rule heavily! When people say "Well I didn't have a choice" it makes me laugh. You have a pistol and you should be moving with another person if not your Squad.

The only time we allow it is...

1. Bunker or Firebase
2. Static bunkers
3. Vehicles
4. AA guns

An artificial rule that will suit a certain small player base who don't like getting killed by weapons from a range greater than their own rifles can fire, but most certainly won't sit well with the realism of the battlefields and anyone who is able to read the already mentioned two Real World incidents of HAT usage against troops at approx 1000m. There is a minimum arming distance with HAT now, it is time to revise that ruling.

Nice scan there, I did not honestly think javelin was so sensitive but on mountain tops in the night I guess body heat would be distinctive

I havent used HAT yet but I can say you devs have made ammo like gold dust now. Its a dam pain compared to what it was before. I keep expecting to jump in a jeep and have full ammo again but nope I have to chase riflemen on my knees begging

Someone sitting next to an ammo crate could maybe spam rockets still especially in a city area since the splash damage is always nice. I shall have to see whether thats feasible or not and see how point blank it is


Theres definetly a better feel to alot of things in this release and thats all the tg rule is about imo

Can anyone explain how H-AT sniping is "unrealistic"?

Dirtboy wrote:The Tactical Gamer server does not allow this tactic. We enforce this rule heavily! When people say "Well I didn't have a choice" it makes me laugh. You have a pistol and you should be moving with another person if not your Squad.

The only time we allow it is...

1. Bunker or Firebase
2. Static bunkers
3. Vehicles
4. AA guns

Says the guy who banned me for killing one guy with one who was gona die anyway. Gota love how they will do it to you freely and not complain a bit then soon as it happens to them they start kicking and banning people. Map before 7 gates which is what i got banned on, MEC team which was what the TG guys were stacking on was camping the US main with 2 H-AT and a AA, players on the US team complained, they did nothing. Next round, I shoot one guy, they ask who did it, I admitted and apologized and they ban me. Take it like a man, don't just enforce it if it's not in your favor.

Was in 0.6 BTW

Armand28 wrote:So when you get shot you uninstall the game and toss your computer out the window?

After all, respawning is not realistic....

Isn't that kinda of stupid argument against the forum rules? Either way it's looked down upon by most people, you could say that to someone complaining about the prospect of having the millennium falcon in game.

AnRK wrote:Isn't that kinda of stupid argument against the forum rules? Either way it's looked down upon by most people, you could say that to someone complaining about the prospect of having the millennium falcon in game.

How is my analogy inappropriate? Complaining that "shooting people with an anti-vehicle weapon is unrealistic" while you miraculously resurrect after being shot in the face and that's OK is a bit hypocritical.

My point is that you can respawn after dying, which isn't realistic but realism in that case would not be fun. Therefore the decision that realism is important only if it doesn't kill the fun has been made, so arguments based on realism alone shouldn't automatically be given merit.

The devs handled it correctly: Since in real life these weapons do not arm instantly and therefore can not be used for CQB kills making the in-game weapon follow that rule makes sense, and since the weapon is now fairly realistic you should allow any kill you can make with it.

I don't know of a single jet shot out of the sky by a tank's main gun in any war, so do you want to ban people from shooting at jets with a tank's main gun? If not, that would be hypocritical and if so then you are being silly.

Make the weapons realistic and let people use them as they see fit. If I wish to use my anti-tank weapons against infantry then so be it. If they aren't used that way in real life then they aren't used that way for a REASON, so find the reason and integrate it into the game rather than making SILLY RULES to try and impose your preferences on the game.

In WWII the most effective anti-tank weapons was an AAA gun! The 88mm gun was an anti-aircraft weapon (designated FLAK36 in fact) yet the troops figured out that it's immense round could cook even the most heavily armored allied tanks so they started aiming them at ground targets. Should the Germans have punished their men for using the weapon in this way? Then why should you.

Armand28 wrote: The devs handled it correctly: Since in real life these weapons do not arm instantly and therefore can not be used for CQB kills making the in-game weapon follow that rule makes sense, and since the weapon is now fairly realistic you should allow any kill you can make with it.

You never used Milan. On a firing post with two of us we could reload that sucker in about 5-6 seconds and we went out in pairs of posts with about 49 missiles between us. We'd stack em up behind us and excepting heat decoy drills, we could menace armoured columns with them in principle.

I don't know of a single jet shot out of the sky by a tank's main gun in any war, so do you want to ban people from shooting at jets with a tank's main gun? If not, that would be hypocritical and if so then you are being silly.

Anyone remember round against me on Al Basrah back when the Insurgents still had tanks? Every US A10, Gunship and Blackhawk coming over the Village was target practise. It was a hoot and the derision in global chat helped to infuriate I think

Make the weapons realistic and let people use them as they see fit. If I wish to use my anti-tank weapons against infantry then so be it. If they aren't used that way in real life then they aren't used that way for a REASON, so find the reason and integrate it into the game rather than making SILLY RULES to try and impose your preferences on the game.

As long as they aren't breaking the server licensing agreement they are fine to do what they want. However changing game dynamics mean that that rule needs to be looked into fast. I wouldn't mind being the infantryman hit by HAT as it's one long time till the HAT guy replaces that round and in the meantime my sides armour storms through to kill 20 of the enemy!