Project Reality Forums

Before this get's locked

Your rockets are used against infantry all the time if there is a ready supply of Ammo for them they are used Thous. infect ever since they where invented they have been used against fortifications and infantry.

And as for removing the guided HAT's are designed to be able to take out targets at long ranges now days.

I think the Guided HAT is a balancing feature on certain maps

e.g. Qwai and Kashan where the Opfor APCs are superior

I don't see the problem with current guided HATS apart from their use against helicopters which seems rather unrealistic. If there was a way to reduce damage done to helis from them then they would be perfect.

'[EC wrote:DR.NOobFragger;1105862']I am suggesting to remove all the guided H-AT's from PR, It would be much better for game play and probably more realistic(?).

No, it wouldn't be more realistic. Javelin ATGM are part of a rifle platoon weapons squad (light infantry, including airborne and air assault) or are issued on an as-needed basis to trained soldiers in the rifle squads (Stryker motorized and Bradley mechanized infantry) in the US Army. In the USMC and in UK infantry units (including the Royal Marines), they are in a battalion level anti-armor unit.

The Mk-153 SMAW is used only by the USMC, except during ODS when the Army borrowed a few to try out. They did not buy-in. The US Army hasn't used reusable, man-portable rocket launchers in quite a while. The 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle is only used by the company weapons platoons of 75th Ranger Regiment and by other SOCOM units.

The "Goose" is still used by the Canadian Forces infantry units alongside the Eryx, but the conventional UK units retired it after the Falklands in favor of single-shot, disposable LAWs.

The Eryx is a short range ATGM and also employed at the company level or lower, depending on the state and service. The MEC is a fictitious organization whose equipment is based on the best of what several mid-east states have to offer, and one of the Gulf Cooperation Council members started receiving Eryx deliveries about 10 years ago.

There is going to be a technology gap between some forces.

crAck_sh0t wrote:I don't see the problem with current guided HATS apart from their use against helicopters which seems rather unrealistic.

not really, if its slow and low there is no difference for missile between it and land vehicle, somebody already posted part from field manual about TOW and instructions how to attack choppers
this is unrealistic only for Eryx, considering it has max range ~600 meters, so its at the same time unrealistic to engage far land targets

damn ninjas

'[EC wrote:DR.NOobFragger;1105883']No H-AT sniping infantry, I don't see that very much anymore but still. It would also make thing a bit easier for APCs and Tanks. They wouldn't be able to be hit from some insane distance. You would have to work as a squad a bit more since again, you wouldn't be able to make a two man squad with a H-AT gunner and SL with a supply truck and snipe tanks and APCs from afar. Insurgency maps, I see people shooting H-AT's from main, this could be a problem on the new Korengal valley since the main will be where outpost is now, up on a tall hill. You would possible be able to hit caches from up there. Operation Archer, if the US gets a HAT with 2 crates up on the castle, its hell for the people in the village below. I am sure I, or others can think of some more.

you can fire as many HATS from the outpost as you want, your still not going to get the caches that way so eventually your going to have to leave the outpost.

also i still dont understand why people blowing up a group of infantry with a HAT is somehow the wrong way to play.

Meh it was only wrong back in 0.5/0.6 when they had no deviation/settle time and with unlimited ammo sources you could spam them forever and again in 0.75 when bunkers and firebases still resupplied ammo, so you could sit on one and spam rockets into infinity.