Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2010-05-28 13:33**

gazzthompson;1353409 wrote: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.

Statistics are funny that way. If you don't like the answer, just change the rules.

Javelin Anti-Armour Missile - Army Technology

I was trained on the Dragon, as the Javelin was not in existence when I was in.

As the javelin is built now, it is designed specifically for anti-armor, However I see now that an anti-personnel (fragmentation warhead) version is in the works.

Posted: **2010-05-28 13:53**

mat552 wrote: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"

improperly placed grenade traps dont cost tickets. and saws have a purpose. any other useless refrences?

Posted: **2010-05-28 14:12**

F no.

Don't punish experienced players because of noobs.

I say RED target mark the guy's who loose kits like Snipers and HAT into enemy territory.

I've killed countless caches with HAT and C4, Never lost a kit. Oh I died sometimes.. but in a vehicle.

Example:

HAT - You in Basrah, Intel mark on a group of buildings, long range siege occurs. You spot the building with the cache kits, Shoot a HAT thru the window, and blamo. Cache down.

C4 - There's a cache in a cave or basement or 2nd level of building. Lots of bluefor around but they can't get to the cache due to a tight well guarded entrance. Strap c4 on the ceiling or top of cave/basement, clear out the building and kaboom. Cache down.

Posted: **2010-05-28 14:22**

BlackwaterSaxon wrote: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.

As I mentioned before, any CE kits should not be re-loadable by opfor. This way insurgents will still have a chance to take out armor unit if they can get their hands on a HAT, but will not be able to reload it afterwards. same goes for any other CE kit IF it's all possible by game code.
I really think it would balance out nice, not only on insurgency but AAS as well. Hopefully it would make people think before they shoot a hat round at a single infantry.

Posted: **2010-05-28 14:22**

JohnnyTheIED wrote:F no.

Don't punish experienced players because of noobs.

I say RED target mark the guy's who loose kits like Snipers and HAT into enemy territory.

I've killed countless caches with HAT and C4, Never lost a kit. Oh I died sometimes.. but in a vehicle.

if its not removed then we get punished anyways because of noobs or people who think the hat's use on insurgency outweighs the obvious huge negatives.

you cant use c4 through walls anymore but arty ied can. a tip for pro cache killers is to use a grenadier instead of hat because you get 20 rounds that do the exact same thing. plus its harder to track ( no giant smoke trail ). with that in mind hat is useless unless ur insurgent.

Posted: **2010-05-28 14:25**

'= wrote:H[=CubCadet1972;1353526']
Statistics are funny that way. If you don't like the answer, just change the rules.

Javelin Anti-Armour Missile - Army Technology

I was trained on the Dragon, as the Javelin was not in existence when I was in.

As the javelin is built now, it is designed specifically for anti-armor, However I see now that an anti-personnel (fragmentation warhead) version is in the works.

Your "statistics" did not make sense to the question in hand, unless the US forces have every single soldier and javlien deployed at all times? Also your source said "More than 1,000 rounds have been fired[/quote].

The point was, you said "US Forces don't deploy Javelins into places where there is no armor". This was obviously incorrect, as the army AL&T source says;

Javelin continues to see extensive
use in the unconventional battlefields
of Iraq and Afghanistan

Posted: **2010-05-28 14:29**

illidur wrote:if its not removed then we get punished anyways because of noobs or people who think the hat's use on insurgency outweighs the obvious huge negatives.

you cant use c4 through walls anymore but arty ied can. a tip for pro cache killers is to use a grenadier instead of hat because you get 20 rounds that do the exact same thing. plus its harder to track ( no giant smoke trail ). with that in mind hat is useless unless ur insurgent.

20 rounds, unscoped, under nme fire? Exact same thing then one big punch that can destroy a building? I doubt it.

Just have a recovery team or something if you can't stand noobs loosing kits.

Insurgents get raped constantly because of noobs firing from unknown caches. Plus, Doesn't the US army use alot of LAT and HAT against insurgency? To destroy buildings and strongholds? They even have special versions JUST for that

Its war

P.S: I think its only artillery now that can't kill caches. I've C4'ed many caches. However I might give it to you now it takes a couple packs for big obstacles.

Arty IED has a beautiful realistic kill radius now. I'd love a little more damage on close armor.

Feels unreal when you get a perfect arty ied hit on apc or tank and they go away barely scratched. Don't get me wrong I put 2 arty or more and the job is done, its just a pain in the *** to go find ammo often.

0331SgtSpyUSMC wrote:As I mentioned before, any CE kits should not be re-loadable by opfor. This way insurgents will still have a chance to take out armor unit if they can get their hands on a HAT, but will not be able to reload it afterwards. same goes for any other CE kit IF it's all possible by game code.
I really think it would balance out nice, not only on insurgency but AAS as well. Hopefully it would make people think before they shoot a hat round at a single infantry.

C4 = 90% RDX + 10% plastic.

RDX = 3 ingredients one can get easily. One of them is an overproduced phosphorous powder from world war 2, now also known as a Nitrogen fertilizer. Good luck buying that stuff in America or Canada tho.

I'd put my hand in the fire IED bomb makers know how to make c4. So would the average trained farmer...

Posted: **2010-05-28 14:43**

Oh cmon guys, stop this. Youre on the best way to create an inf only mod for PR, and i think everybody has seen how this option can ruin a game.
You could also say lets ban jets, because noobs take them and crash them. wheres the sense?
if CE and HAT are used right in insurgency they are really good kits. you just cant ban them just because some people abuse them, almost everything in the game can and is being abused for annoying and noobish actions.

and dont try to tell me that you can destroy a cache with a rifle man kit as good as with a HAT, thats not true. destroying it with a well placed HAT missile from safe distance with 2 or 3 supporting squad members is obviously the safer way.

a discussion like this led to that fucking inf only option which totally ruined bf2 ! so dont let it get pr...

Posted: **2010-05-28 15:58**

gazzthompson wrote:Your "statistics" did not make sense to the question in hand, unless the US forces have every single soldier and javlien deployed at all times? Also your source said "More than 1,000 rounds have been fired

.

The point was, you said "US Forces don't deploy Javelins into places where there is no armor". This was obviously incorrect, as the army AL&T source says;[/QUOTE]

Like I said, statistics are funny that way. Both your and my stats are correct. It only depends on how you do the math.

Fine. I was incorrect that they aren't used, but I can bet dollars to donughts not one of them was fired on anything less than a hard target. Javelins currently are not currently designed/used as an anti-personnel weapon as you infer.

Posted: **2010-05-28 16:07**

i didn't add the "its realistic to have but not realistic to use in game" debate. because its a game first. but heres a pros and cons

reason for remove-
-hat = heavy anti tank, when there is no heavy opposing armor.
-its deviation, setup time and number of rounds makes it less useful than a lat for light vehicles that move quickly.
-a tow can do the same thing better without risk of losing the kit.
-if the kit is lost it enables the insurgents to 1 hit your friendly armor which is more useful and worth more tickets than whatever your using it for.
-last but not least people dont understand these things ingame.... which makes me feel like im wasting my time here since its probly the same deal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reason for keeping-
-it can destroy a cache from a distance.
-it can be shot from main without fear. (shouldn't be camping main)
-we would lose a kit from selection if this is accepted.

i can add any more to either side. and about ce kit is it possible to make the c4 not sticky to vehicles for gameplay reasons? sorry earlier if i offended anybody. this post should be more clear on my view of this subject.

Posted: **2010-05-28 16:12**

Zoddom wrote:Oh cmon guys, stop this. Youre on the best way to create an inf only mod for PR, and i think everybody has seen how this option can ruin a game.
You could also say lets ban jets, because noobs take them and crash them. wheres the sense?
if CE and HAT are used right in insurgency they are really good kits. you just cant ban them just because some people abuse them, almost everything in the game can and is being abused for annoying and noobish actions.

and dont try to tell me that you can destroy a cache with a rifle man kit as good as with a HAT, thats not true. destroying it with a well placed HAT missile from safe distance with 2 or 3 supporting squad members is obviously the safer way.

a discussion like this led to that fucking inf only option which totally ruined bf2 ! so dont let it get pr...

If the kit was modified...for insurgency maps only...there is no reason that this would turn into an infantry only mod. Some posters are simply taking things to an extreme.

illidur wrote:i didn't add the "its realistic to have but not realistic to use in game" debate. because its a game first. but heres a pros and cons

reason for remove-
-hat = heavy anti tank, when there is no heavy opposing armor.
-its deviation, setup time and number of rounds makes it less useful than a lat for light vehicles that move quickly.
-a tow can do the same thing better without risk of losing the kit.
-if the kit is lost it enables the insurgents to 1 hit your friendly armor which is more useful and worth more tickets than whatever your using it for.
-last but not least people dont understand these things ingame.... which makes me feel like im wasting my time here since its probly the same deal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reason for keeping-
-it can destroy a cache from a distance.
-it can be shot from main without fear. (shouldn't be camping main)
-we would lose a kit from selection if this is accepted.

i can add any more to either side. and about ce kit is it possible to make the c4 not sticky to vehicles for gameplay reasons? sorry earlier if i offended anybody. this post should be more clear on my view of this subject.

That's why I would support changing the loadout to multiple AT-4s instead of the javelin. The AT-4 is far more common simply in the fact that it's cheaper and disposable.

Posted: **2010-05-28 16:48**

JohnnyTheIED wrote:
C4 = 90% RDX + 10% plastic.

RDX = 3 ingredients one can get easily. One of them is an overproduced phosphorous powder from world war 2, now also known as a Nitrogen fertilizer. Good luck buying that stuff in America or Canada tho.

I'd put my hand in the fire IED bomb makers know how to make c4. So would the average trained farmer...

You missing my point. What I mean is mainly HAT reloaded at cache. Now unless you can make those rounds at home as well, they should not be re-loadable. as the matter of fact same goes for C4, to make it you would need a place and time, but WE are still talking about GAME here, and for the game sake you just don't get to reload it. After all you dont sit at the cache and make an IED, or reload your mags round by round.

Posted: **2010-05-28 16:59**

'= wrote:H[=CubCadet1972;1353618'].
Like I said, statistics are funny that way. Both your and my stats are correct. It only depends on how you do the math.

Fine. I was incorrect that they aren't used, but I can bet dollars to donughts not one of them was fired on anything less than a hard target. Javelins currently are not currently designed/used as an anti-personnel weapon as you infer.

Your stats, tho correct are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Showing how many rockets and CLU's the is military has nothing to do with how many are, and how often they are used in theaters.

'= wrote:H[=CubCadet1972;1353618']. Javelins currently are not currently designed/used as an anti-personnel weapon as you infer.

Say what? i have not implied this.

Posted: **2010-05-28 17:12**

gazzthompson wrote:Your stats, tho correct are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Showing how many rockets and CLU's the is military has nothing to do with how many are, and how often they are used in theaters.

You are correct and wrong at the same time. The military would never deploy all of its Javelins in theater. A percentage would remain in storage, deployed to other units not actively deployed to a combat zone or be used for training only. I was giving the largest amount possible to show how rare a Javelin actually is to the common grunt....My main reason for stating that a HAT kit be less accessible. I do realize that in no way, shape or form that all US ground troops are deployed.

gazzthompson wrote:Say what? i have not implied this.

I reread the thread, You are correct, I apologize for my error. I missed this part of your post....and is actively defeating not only armored threats, but also other vehicles, fortifications, and urban targets in theater.

Your post also states that it is deployed only in Brigade level deployments...At best PR is Company level action. For this level of activity, if there was to be a Javelin, It certainly wouldn't be even so remotely reloadable. At best 3 or 4 missiles for Bluefor, and no ability for INS forces to use or reload. That is my primary reason for suggesting the switch to multiple AT-4's or maybe a LAT kit per squad.

Posted: **2010-05-28 17:23**

Shooting a cache through a widow using a HAT feels cheap to me...isn't the point of the INS gamemode that the BluFor have to go in and do something? Ok it's not an easy skill, but the INS team have a 'right of reply' (strategy and tactics wise) to all other BluFor's possible strategy, in therms of Gary - Tanks, Bombcars - APC, INS weapons + CQB - BLuFor Scopes and longrange (and ruling out taliban, non-punished medics) This balance needs readjusting, otherwise it wouldn't be particularly fun, getting owned despite a normally solid cache defence.

Maybe IRL you would do it to save lives, but we're playing this to have some fun as well (on BOTH sides) right?

Posted: **2010-05-28 17:36**

chimpyang wrote:Shooting a cache through a widow using a HAT feels cheap to me...isn't the point of the INS gamemode that the BluFor have to go in and do something?

its still pr, and i think you know that irl in some situations (p.e. when its to dangerous to go in, in this case i would use hat ingame) you call an airstrike, gunstrafe or helisupport.

above wrote:If the kit was modified...for insurgency maps only...there is no reason that this would turn into an infantry only mod. Some posters are simply taking things to an extreme.

one thing leads to another ... so you could say "there is no enemy armor, why do we have mbts then? apcs are more realistic blabla" its the same thing. i believe in the chaos theory

Posted: **2010-05-28 17:39**

chimpyang wrote:Shooting a cache through a widow using a HAT feels cheap to me...isn't the point of the INS gamemode that the BluFor have to go in and do something? Ok it's not an easy skill, but the INS team have a 'right of reply' (strategy and tactics wise) to all other BluFor's possible strategy, in therms of Gary - Tanks, Bombcars - APC, INS weapons + CQB - BLuFor Scopes and longrange (and ruling out taliban, non-punished medics) This balance needs readjusting, otherwise it wouldn't be particularly fun, getting owned despite a normally solid cache defence.

Maybe IRL you would do it to save lives, but we're playing this to have some fun as well (on BOTH sides) right?

it is cheap. it can be done using armor,lat,203s,lbs and tows also.

i dont understand what you mean. i know what you mean by "right of reply"or strategy against a strategy but what is that getting at?

@zoddom the mbt is for taking extra rpg damage and 1 hitting vehicles, these are things apcs can't do

Posted: **2010-05-28 21:12**

illidur wrote: @zoddom the mbt is for taking extra rpg damage and 1 hitting vehicles, these are things apcs can't do

yeah i know i know, but if youd give the apcs rpg cages they would be much better against inf because of their fire rate etc.
irl MBTs are total overkill, too, and so they are in pr, imo. but do we want them to be removed? no.
so wheres the aspect of being more realistic in removing HATs, i dont get it.

Posted: **2010-05-28 21:25**

illidur wrote:improperly placed grenade traps dont cost tickets. and saws have a purpose. any other useless refrences?

True, it's not like they frequently kill spawning defenders because some overzealous insurgent is placing them like fraking raindrops everywhere around the cache, which bluefor then investigate due to frequent explosions and kill, because all the defenders are busy respawning.

Saws DO have a purpose, you're right. They can, if used correctly, do pretty tremendous damage at long range to a very small area, make the enemy think twice about popping their heads up or doing anything other than hiding, and can be used by an ins team to wreak havoc on bluefor when they lose them, from range.
Actually, that doesn't sound anything like a HAT.

I'll try to stop with the useless references, how silly of me.

EDIT: I missed something here, doesn't PR use the Predator SRAW for the US/Brits? Haven't DEVs explicitly stated we either won't be getting ever or in the foreseeable future the Javalin? For "balance" reasons?

Posted: **2010-05-29 04:52**

Zoddom wrote: so wheres the aspect of being more realistic in removing HATs, i dont get it.

Not everything in this mod revolves around realism, regardless of the name of the mod itself. Some things need to be balanced for gameplay, and to take into consideration the vast amount of numpties found on the servers these days. The tactics employed by the INS side on numerous servers, by a few might I add, involve spawning as BLUEFOR, requesting a HAT, driving off to a secluded area, killing yourself, switching to INS and picking up the kit so that it can be used against the only armour on the map, it's cheap, and it's not realistic, if people didn't do these things, then people wouldn't complain about it on the forums.

Also, the comment about taking jets out, I wouldn't mind seeing that, hardly ever see them make a difference, most are piloted by 12 year olds and they always end up TKing me.

Project Reality Forums

[Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode

Re: [Server Option] Disallow HAT and CE in Insurgency mode