[Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

[=]H[=CubCadet1972]

Eitherway, making the claim " US Forces don't deploy Javelins into places where there is no armor" is obviously incorrect, and un-sourced.

My source is from my days in the Army. They were assigned to specific units tasked to destroy armor. The average grunt had no fucking clue how to operate one, and wasnt to be trusted with $120,000 worth of one shot hardware. Now a LAW on the other hand, those things were everywhere.

[gazzthompson]

I edited in a US army source showings its extensive use in both OEF and OIF .

And as i said, the British army also extensively use it.

[=]H[=CubCadet1972]

Eitherway, making the claim " US Forces don't deploy Javelins into places where there is no armor" is obviously incorrect, and un-sourced.

edit:

http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2009/ ... 200907.pdf

In the early days of the invasions, armor encounters were expected, therefore the use of man-portable heavy anti-tank weaponry. Are there some javelins in country, yes, are they even remotely available? not on your life.

[Zimmer]

H[=CubCadet1972;1353002']Reality: US Forces don't deploy Javelins into places where there is no armor. They are too expensive. Same with Stingers.

Stingers obviously, but if you have seen Ross Kemp in afghanistan you would know that Javelin is atleast in that docu frequently used as a support fire weapon.

YouTube - Ross Kemp in Afghanistan EP4 4/5

30 seconds out in the vid.

[Haji with a Handgun]

Good point actually. I can't recall any moment which I needed a HAT kit as BLUFOR in insurgency maps.

To take out Gary xD

[KingKong.CCCP]

I don't know if this can be done, but I strongly agree with the first post.
There are three reasons why someone would take a HAT:
1. is completely new to the game and is a bit of a **ck.
2. not so clever kind of guy... like, not even close...
3. he is a saboteur

There is no other reason.

IF POSSIBLE, BAN HAT, CE AND AA RIFLEMAN FROM INSURGENCY

[gazzthompson]

H[=CubCadet1972;1353019']In the early days of the invasions, armor encounters were expected, therefore the use of man-portable heavy anti-tank weaponry. Are there some javelins in country, yes, are they even remotely available? not on your life.

Read my source, "JULY –SEPTEMBER 2009".

British troops, in particular, are having
great success using Javelin to defeat
irregular targets at extended ranges.
Of the more than 1,200 Javelins fi red
by British troops, none has been used
against armored targets.

Following the neutralization of the
armored tank threat in the early days of
OIF, Javelin continues to see extensive
use in the unconventional battlefi elds
of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army,
USMC, and British allies are effectively
employing Javelin against a wide range
of secondary targets, including lightskinned
vehicles, bunkers, buildings,
and other fortifi cations, as well as personnel.

[illidur]

the difference between insurgency and all other gamemodes is the fact that the blufor have NO reason to use a hat on any insurgent map where on some aas maps they do... you explained it yourself. whats the reason for having a hat on blufor side again? heavy anti tank against no tank? its worse against light vehicles due to deviation.... i can count on my finger how many strategys work with the hat.

it also makes it unrealistic for insurgents to shoot hats all round.

aa kit is a given.....

ce kits c4 could be like the ied and problem is solved.

[snooggums]

Wow, you guys are dead set to believe that there is zero use for a HAT in Insurgency. There are reasons to use it:

Base/FoB defense
Patrols in the open, where the HAT stays in the vehicle except when getting out to fire. Won't lose the KIT when in a vehicle.
Using a piece of open, high ground with all avenues of approach covered to defend against bomb vehicles trying to flank armor at distances further than a LAT can reach or in addition to a LAT.
On servers that allow base attacks it makes a great base defense for BluFor.

C4, when captured by insurgents, is basically an IED with some tape they can stick to something. It simply moves their very effective AT from defense to offense, and like the patrol with HAT, the kit is unlikely to be lost on bomb patrol if the player stays in the vehicle except when needed.

[ralfidude]

But how many times do you see that happen snoogums?

Like 1 out of 1000 times i see that kit taken out perhaps.

There just arent enough competent people to use these kits correctly.

Yes, IRL they have HATs and use them. IRL do they lose them to the enemy? Not really. Perhaps it might have happened, but even if so, will they be able to reload it after shooting it once?

No

THATS THE ISSUE AT HAND about the HAT kit. Otherwise there would be no problem with its use to defend the main base. Thats what i use on Korengal Valley, but im smart enough to stay inside with it or suffer major consequences on a map that small.

[snooggums]

Same argument applies to grenade traps, which primarily kill friendlies and would be addressed through the same server variable by having an alternate KIT layout option.

How about LMG kits like the SAW with scopes? They are constantly lost to the enemy and get BluFor mowed down and can be reloaded and used at a distance.

TOWs are really annoying, let's make a server restriction for those for Insurgency.

Or, as in the situations above, a server could simply make a rule prohibiting X. They could have the players report issues to them so they don't have to watch the player list constantly. If someone griefs by intentionally giving a kit away, ban them for griefing. This is no different than someone one manning a vehicle out of a main, someone has to bring it to the admins attention or they see it on the player list. Once aware they address it. Adding a server option outside of vehicle layouts has never been an option in PR, either the kit would be removed entirely or not based on previous changes in PR (not speaking as a DEV or anything, just going off history). Was there a rally point option for those that wanted to play X way? No.

That is why I am opposed to removing something that is realistic (HATs are used in insurgent areas) that is simply a player problem because if it is removed for one server it is removed for all. There is no precedent for a server option like this. Servers with no base rape rules don't demand a magic barrier option to enforce that rule nor do servers with no one manning out of main rules, why make a game change to allow easy enforcement of something because taking admin action is difficult?

Here's an alternate rule fix that doesn't require constantly watching the BluFor: Insurgents are not allowed to use HATs or AA captured from BluFor. If someone finds and uses it against BluFor find out who it is and address it there. Heck, make that part of rule 6, if Insurgents don't have reloads for the kit they shouldn't be using it right?

[Total_Overkill]

Got just 1 question for ya Snoog's

Does having the option to remove HATs, AA, CE kits from a server effect your choice in the matter, to run your server as you see fit?

[snooggums]

Got just 1 question for ya Snoog's

Does having the option to remove HATs, AA, CE kits from a server effect your choice in the matter, to run your server as you see fit?

A similar option to limit certain items has never existed in PR and would open a floodgate of requests to add extra options on other things. Their implementing a rule to not allow HATs and AA on their server affects me in no way. Asking for a limitation because there is 'no reason to use that kit except griefing' would affect me because there will either be a removal or not, there will not be a server level option just like there wasn't one for rally points.

So I'm pushing the option on the server admins, because the only change would be complete removal from everyone's server, and yes, that would affect my server.

[Total_Overkill]

A similar option to limit certain items has never existed in PR and would open a floodgate of requests to add extra options on other things. Their implementing a rule to not allow HATs and AA on their server affects me in no way. Asking for a limitation because there is 'no reason to use that kit except griefing' would affect me because there will either be a removal or not, there will not be a server level option just like there wasn't one for rally points.

So I'm pushing the option on the server admins, because the only change would be complete removal from everyone's server, and yes, that would affect my server.

Right, so you're not against the option, you're just against being railroaded by gameplay mechanics that you feel would be a detriment to yourself, your playstyle, and your server.

*hint hint, nudge nudge*

Glad to see some common ground between sides in this debate!

[Dev1200]

Having an anti tank weapon issued to you when there aren't any tanks doesn't sound realistic.

It's also stupid for people to sit up on hills and hatsnipe infantry.

Also, if the insurgents steal it, then they can basically own the entire map of blufor armor. =\

[BlackwaterSaxon]

Having an anti tank weapon issued to you when there aren't any tanks doesn't sound realistic.

It's also stupid for people to sit up on hills and hatsnipe infantry.

Also, if the insurgents steal it, then they can basically own the entire map of blufor armor. =\

While anti-armour weaponry IS used on targets other than tanks and armoured vehicles, for purposes of gameplay, I think it would be best if the HAT was left out of insurgency, others in this thread have backed up claims stating that the Javelin system is used and yes, it is, but this is a game, we want both sides to have a good fight, and when people are requesting HAT, running off into the desert and changing sides, it kills the realism and just pisses people off.

[=]H[=CubCadet1972]

Read my source, "JULY –SEPTEMBER 2009".

Us army has fired 1000 Javelins throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations combined... 10 years, 1000 missiles fired = 100 pear year. Less than one every 3 days. You and I have very different definitions for extensive.

US army and marines combined own 6600 CLU's

US Army: 549,015 Active personnel
563,688 Reserve and Guard personnel

Marines approximately 243,000 active and reserves.

Total= 1,355,881 troops

That means one CLU for every 205 troops.
205 divided by 32(Total number of bluefor troops per map)=6.4 rounds before one HAT kit should appear.

Sorry so late replying, I had to work.

[barbdwyer22]

I'm an admin, I know what I'm talking about.

I was referring to real life, like, I have been to Iraq twice as a Marine infantryman.

As far as doing my job as an admin, the less headaches the better. I should be able to play more, admin less, these are all just suggestions for the devs to consider.

[gazzthompson]

H[=CubCadet1972;1353356']Us army has fired 1000 Javelins throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations combined... 10 years, 1000 missiles fired = 100 pear year. Less than one every 3 days. You and I have very different definitions for extensive.

US army and marines combined own 6600 CLU's

US Army: 549,015 Active personnel
563,688 Reserve and Guard personnel

Marines approximately 243,000 active and reserves.

Total= 1,355,881 troops

That means one CLU for every 205 troops.
205 divided by 32(Total number of bluefor troops per map)=6.4 rounds before one HAT kit should appear.

Sorry so late replying, I had to work.

1. My use of the word "extensive" was from the US military source i quoted, The US military say its extensively used.

2. Your number crunching is pointless and wrong, How many of them serving and reserve personnel will be deployed at any one time? how many will be "front-line" units who would even come into contact with a javelin team? (dont answer, it dose not matter)

3. Source on the "Us army has fired 1000 Javelins throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations combined." please.

4. You wrongly divided your "number" by 32, should be by how many tickets the team has as tickets are there to represent a larger force, so should be 250? or how ever many tickets is the norm for INS maps.

5. you have yet to provide one source, i provided a US military source saying the javelin is "extensively" used in Iraq and Afghanistan against 'soft' targets.

[mat552]

Same argument applies to grenade traps, which primarily kill friendlies and would be addressed through the same server variable by having an alternate KIT layout option.

How about LMG kits like the SAW with scopes? They are constantly lost to the enemy and get BluFor mowed down and can be reloaded and used at a distance.

Oh I like that, those are much bigger issues that simply skate under the radar.

How many enemies do grenade traps actually kill? 1 out of 25? 50? I rarely see them placed any more because all they do is kill friendlies. And those saws are DEVASTATING when just carelessly thrown into the hands of insurgents, gotta do something about that too. And come to think of it, they get their hands on an awful lot of field dressings for some illiterate peasant army, would they know how to use one? The instructions are in english.. Perhaps we should remove every kit but unarmed and give that a shovel. We can call it "Civil Reconstruction: Iraq"