Project Reality Forums

Maybe we could get some good use for Delta Farts SPG9

I got a very simple idea in order to prevent current TOWs (being deployable as proposed) from being used as artillery pieces.
And with that, you don't need to reduce the TOW's firepower, hopefully!

as we all know, those that will want to use it as an artillery piece will usually set it on a high position with a good overlook on the area, right? Well, that's the common ''thinking'' anyway ..

Why not just restrain the aiming Y(vertical) angle to [70, -10[ degrees? That'll make ''artillery TOWs'' from being used like so, because they just won't be able to aim lower enough to be effective on high ''offensive'' positions. That'll force them to be placed in lower ''defensive'' positions wich means a more appropriate use.

Whaddaya think?

Thats better than just allow them on the horizontal plane. That way you do have some defense for when a tank is up on a hill or a slope but you cant use them as an arty piece. Altough when you place 'm on... say mosque than its still high enough.

Or you can use an unguided projectile


I'm no expert but a TOW seems pretty expensive, where as an unguided missile would cost less and be more common, and cut down on the accurate ancillary.

Tannhauser- reducing the firepower shouldn't be an issue as we don't have a static TOW. Realistically, they are deadly, with a miminim of at least a 'track kill' for a direct hit- (welcome to real life). A static system should be deadly, because it should only be used at 'close quaters'. i can see your point about the y axis but realistically, it is a last means of defence, and giving it an angle of +70 to-10 will only allow the global conflict of using the equipment as an arty piece. (although i do concur with your thoughts).
Cyberzomby- why would you want it on top of a hill (although i do see your thinking because some idiot may try and use it as an arty piece). If you have a base on the top of a hill then you are asking for trouble! This is a flat ground means of defence only so therefor, would not work any other way. The horizontal plain does have at least a 10% gradient and like for real, would not be deployed unless it was required (i.e can't be put on top of a 3 storey building).
Incomplete Spark- politically now, there is no cost to a human life- a static TOW would save lives, therefor creating savings. There are really no differences between static/hand held as they are the same weapon just mounted differently (i.e cost of a bit of metal compared to cost of human).
Some extremely awesome points here and i just hope that a DEV can acknowledge the conversation- as long as this is not a programmable thingy, then at least we can agree to disagree.
Hand on heart, i still feel that having one in a firebase is viable, with certain programmable rules. Thankyou to everyone

airkn0cker wrote:A static system should be deadly, because it should only be used at 'close quaters'. i can see your point about the y axis but realistically, it is a last means of defence, and giving it an angle of +70 to-10 will only allow the global conflict of using the equipment as an arty piece. (although i do concur with your thoughts).

I just understood why you say that, players might use the wire-guidance to fire in the air then guide it lower on a far away position..

Then I guess making it restrained to a Y=[30, -10[ or Y=[20, -10[ axis would prevent this kind of miss-use. And really, if you are building in an open area in Kashan, you are just asking for tanks to hit you..?




PS : On a side note, I was wondering if there was going to be tweaks made to the deploying system that got modified for 0.85 (in order to prevent glitching) that prevent current players from building ''under'' roofs. For example, now one cannot easily deploy an FB inside Kashan bunkers wich keeps player from using them properly. It is possible, but very hard and annoyingly glitchy, so I was wondering if there was going to be more tweaking in order for 0.9?

Just make them with very low blast radius and let them be unguided. You can still use it as a artillery piece but its just useless, its like a Tank AP round against inf.

Edit: 1 more thing, adding a drop might help to limit the effective range.

Is it actually easy to use a TOW as artillery?

I would support TOW being buildable and could easily live with them being unguided.

I'd rather have something capable of taking out a tank than not having anything at all. It bugs me that APC's can just roll into an FB and blow it up because all the AT kits are down the road in other squads because someone decided to take it because it's cool to have a special kit.

I think TOW is nice idea, but should make half of the dmg, like 2 shots against tank(so they have enough time to fall back and repair the dmg) and u can deploy it once per firebase..AA or TOW not both.

i diont think it would hurt to have both- unless the aircraft is at ground level the TOW wouldn't be effective as is using the AA against vehicles (lucky shot). You should at least be able to get an M Kill.

Can someone explain how a TOW with 3 rounds can be used effectively as artillery? Shooting tanks outside the view range with guidance sounds like something that might have happened to someone at some time but come on, this will not be a huge problem. The HAT kit works exactly the same with the added bonus of mobility and in havent heard anybody complain about that being used as artillery. And they can be rearmed at the same crates needed to build the TOW anyway.