Project Reality Forums

I don't whine about hat sniping but the truth is a small squad sized group "platoon" might have 4 total. and take weeks to get more they do not have magic ammo bags.The simple fact is Heavy Anti Tank weapons are engineered to destroy armor not bunkers or infantry.
The idea that a game has to make every possible miss use an option just cause someone could do this is crazy the game should work toward realistic play and tactics (even if it has to modify the abilities of weapons to stop typical players from miss using them).
Use a javelin in real life against 6 men and you will be pulling dorm guard for one hell of a long time! and the next piece of hardware you get will be a mop or paint brush guaranteed!

I absolutely agree that there should be more defenses to a Bunker/Firebase placement.

To both a Bunker and a Firebase I would suggest a deployable MG mount on a waist high tripod station. It would fit the bill and be an object to itself to have HP and be destroyable. i.e. a couple of grenades or direct fire from another MG could destroy it. This object could be placed as a commander asset and only one is allowed per bunker/firebase. It would have a 360 degree rotation and obviously be as effective as a Light Vehicle mounted MG. Same characteristics and effect.

To only a Bunker I would support the TOW emplacement. I see no reason why a firebase should have such a power weapon at it's location due to it's forward positioning. Bunkers are generally put down in locations that are much more secure and have the "invisible supply line" benefit. Hence placing a TOW emplacement at a Bunker is perfectly acceptable. Although then one could argue that an AA emplacement should only be placed at a Bunker as well. Why would an AA emplacement be needed at a firebase? That's what you have the AA kit for. Same goes with the HAT kit for firebases.

So my thoughts...

MG, AA and TOW for Bunkers. Only MG for Firebases. Remove AA from Firebases.

BloodBane611 wrote:times.
An infantry squad? The AA was changed to missiles because AAA was used mainly against ground units, which was super lame and generally unrealistic.

Unrealistic !? The AAGun was a very effective multi role station, is like to say "hey dont use .50 or M249 against helicoptere cause its unrealistic" or "APC dont fire 25MM against that infantry thats super lame."

SAM station dont stand a chance for defend the area... you are exposed, unarmed, awaiting to get lock on the right square in range of all kind of hostils...

Laggy_dagger wrote:I don't whine about hat sniping but the truth is a small squad sized group "platoon" might have 4 total. and take weeks to get more they do not have magic ammo bags.The simple fact is Heavy Anti Tank weapons are engineered to destroy armor not bunkers or infantry.
The idea that a game has to make every possible miss use an option just cause someone could do this is crazy the game should work toward realistic play and tactics (even if it has to modify the abilities of weapons to stop typical players from miss using them).
Use a javelin in real life against 6 men and you will be pulling dorm guard for one hell of a long time! and the next piece of hardware you get will be a mop or paint brush guaranteed!

Just for your information:
On liveleak.com, there is somewhere a video of a British unit in Afghanistan, suppressing some Taliban in a building complex hundreds of meters away.
They have two Rovers on a hilltop, firing the .50 cals, a squad in the valley, firing LMG's and, guess what, on the hilltop, they had a H-AT firing round after round into the buildings, without even having a real visual target, just simply shelling them until the airstrike arrives.
So, there you have it: H-AT "sniping" IS realistic.
I'll add a link if I ever find the video again. I think it was some sort of documentary.

Laggy_dagger wrote:
Use a javelin in real life against 6 men and you will be pulling dorm guard for one hell of a long time! and the next piece of hardware you get will be a mop or paint brush guaranteed!

[R-DEV]Gaz (who is, you know, the commander of a Javelin section in the Royal Irish) says, and IIRC, has done different.

British Soldiers engage insurgents with Javelin, Basra, Iraq, 2007

And again (warning, adult language)

Well, the problem besides the infantry trying to blow the bunker, are the incoming cars spawnraping the bunker. As the mines are replaced by the shotgun it is really hard to prevent those cars to move towards the bunker. (LAT is the only problem for moving cars) My idea would be to deploy a 360 degree minigun with around 15 degree height aim and a deployable AA like is now. If possible of course...

Mines haven't been replaced.


They're mapped to key '9', the invisible weapon slot.

Hotrod525 wrote:Unrealistic !? The AAGun was a very effective multi role station, is like to say "hey dont use .50 or M249 against helicoptere cause its unrealistic"

50's are used for AA in many situations.

maybe a TOW emplacement like firebase with a TOW in the middle of it.
Like road to mestia has a firebase with a AA gun on it.

Acronym that come with it??????????

Hard-to-understand humor is no reason to make a pointless reply...

Anyway, I do agree that a transport with a .50 cal can be all the firepower a firebase needs, but those vehicles ought to be transporting people to the front lines, not acting as permanent defense.

What I'm focusing on is a fixed weapon usable only at the firebase, not an asset that would be needed somewhere closer to the front and possibly wasted defending a tranquil firebase.

I was replying to Tef, not to your post. In fact, I like your post, and it reminds me of something: if the problem with the Javelin is that only the US use it, why didn't this stop the M2 SLAM from being implemented? I don't see (or haven't heard of) any foreign equivalents for the SLAM...

But I digress from the topic.

Well, not really. Chechnya, Angola, Serbia, Vietnam, Korea, Panama...

I would add Iraq and Iran to that list. By generally I should have said by western armies, but anyhow.

The AAGun was a very effective multi role station, is like to say "hey dont use .50 or M249 against helicoptere cause its unrealistic" or "APC dont fire 25MM against that infantry thats super lame."

Let me clarify: Super lame in this case meant "people deploy it where there are no air targets, and mainly use it against infantry in the open". In real life, there are armies that have been known to use AAA against ground targets, but its primary use is...you got it, as an anti-aircraft weapon. In PR it was not that. The new missiles at least don't let people spam thousands of rounds unrealistically.

gclark03 wrote:Hard-to-understand humor is no reason to make a pointless reply...

Let me guess, today your girlfriend dumped you, your mother and father are having a divorce and you found out your sister is sleeping with everybody on the football team. I see now about the super-hat earlier I just over-looked it which isn't un-common I just had a round were the Sl didn't even know where a firebase was placed.

On a serious note, I think that on maps without air assets or with almost no air assets that you should get a tow. Javelins has I think 3 firing mode IIRC one of which did not go straight up into the air and come down on the enemy, but rather flew a straight path to the enemy.

Salah ad Din wrote:Just for your information:
On liveleak.com, there is somewhere a video of a British unit in Afghanistan, suppressing some Taliban in a building complex hundreds of meters away.
They have two Rovers on a hilltop, firing the .50 cals, a squad in the valley, firing LMG's and, guess what, on the hilltop, they had a H-AT firing round after round into the buildings, without even having a real visual target, just simply shelling them until the airstrike arrives.
So, there you have it: H-AT "sniping" IS realistic.
I'll add a link if I ever find the video again. I think it was some sort of documentary.

Yes I've seen that video and yes they used a HAT to take out the building and keep their heads down suppressing them.

Have you recently seen a single enemy soldier running across a location and have a marine take out a HAT to kill that one enemy soldier? I don't think so. That's when they take out their RIFLE and shoot them. One bullet costs a hell of a lot less than one missile.