Hey there everyone! I have given HATs a lot of consideration in my time in playing PR and with the coming of this thread I decided to take a chunk of time and come up with a detailed writing of my thoughts. In PR I noticed how HAT weapons had worked and knew there was a lot lacking in realism and now as Celestial had started his thread on “specialization” it made me think “how can we advance hats and specialize them more. If any of you may of known I made a thread in military technology asking if the US Army used the SRAW and that generated some discussion about HATs in PR. In brief many do wonder about the current system of how they are used and really do need a overall and ill share some points here.
My goal with this document is to
-Share my personal opinion on where the developers came from in the past with having HAT's in PR and why I feel they should be advanced.
-Discuss my ideas of how HATs can work realistically without making gameplay unbalanced.
-Share how the current HAT weapons in PR can be improved or HAT weapons that aren't in PR that I believe should be for realism
-Comprehensive information on adding the Javelin for the US Army how it would work in game and implimenting it on a map by map basis
-Thinking of options of how a certain thing would work and listing options and how I feel about a option and what might be best based on what i've thought of.
-How other factors go into certain concepts
-Lastly putting what could be done as early as 1 or two releases and should be done just to make some significant improvements short term that I feel should at the very least be made
Firstly all I would like to talk about the current HAT system in PR and why I even want to discuss advancing in the first place. As you all know we get 2 HAT kits per team with the basic concept of giving infantry the ability to take out armor and well it works for the most part, but only realistic to a degree but gameplay wise fine to a degree to this point, all of them have a long deploy time for game play realism. The Devs did a good job of making them balanced to take care of vehicles but with having 5 total AT systems at once available if chosen plus TOW's maybe its time to take it another direction by reducing total AT but increasing the effectiveness.
1. To me it just feels wierd when I play as the US army and the HAT in game is a weapon system they don't even use in RL. I understand that it takes a lot of work to model a new HAT and the SRAW model was ingame but it really is time to move on ASAP with getting rid of that and implimenting something better and more realistic for the Army, and this is what I think.
2. I do agree about the Javelin very much, and the main concern in consideration for this is all the problems of loosing it to the enemy, being overpowered balance etc. However if we can find a solution to this it may not be too overpowered after all.
Firstly ill talk about options i've thought of for implimenting the Javelin kit and go from there.
How would it work? Well many people have said things in the forums over various times how it would work but the general ideas I got was:
-long deploy time over 30 seconds
-Time for lock
And what I personally think would be:
Option A:
-Could only be rearmed from supply crate limited amount of rearms per crate to simulate limited missle tubes, supply etc maybe 1 rearm per crate to utilize supply line for such operations and in the future find other team assets that need supply whereas not to just spam supply for Javelin rearm:
Or Option B:
Only rearm from main base but would be extremely frustrating to gameplay especially on 4K maps and would require a lot of coordination to work at all (trans back to main etc) don't really think its a good idea but would really limit its use.
Basically you'd have the options of making it a 1 man kit with the system no rifle for defense, and not go LEET/ninja with something like “Javelin, smoke, knife binoculars”
Or option B you give the gunner a iron sights rifle and its carried much like this which would maybe look like this:
In real life its sometimes/often operated by a team for just maximum ease but designed to be carried by 1 person if need be weighing 22 kgs. Idealy maybe the Javelin kit layout could be
Knife, Javelin, rifle, Smoke, maybe binoculars,
with the rifle maybe only have a few clips to be only for personal self defense. Like a final layout:
Javelin, M4 iron sights 4 clips, smoke, Binoculars
In real life a Javelin “team carries a tube or 2 and the launch unit however in PR and with the BF2 engine not really a good way of doing 2 man kits and hasn't been seen yet as people have suggested them but if their was you could say one could carry the tube one could carry the launch unit and use it as one weapon but that would require you to be in the same squad etc and would take away from other roles and not work for the forseeable future.
I like Celestials idea of HAT squads which could mean you have a squad with a spotter which is how it works in RL. Maybe someday a forward observer kit can be implimented into PR for this kind of function or for now or foreseeable future a Officer kit.
Looking at this on maps you could go with just 1 kit as Celestial had said and compensate with changing how LATs are somehow, or possibly even limiting them. Now you have 1 important specialist in this regard with the Javelin and may not be used on all maps.
Take a map without heavy armor say Qwai, a Javelin could see a lot of the map and take out apcs without a issue so possibly not have one available here but beef up the AT-4 for use as a HAT as I have suggested below later on. At least on certain maps and this can be considered on a map by map basis, We could consider the following:
Option 1: For every map the US Army has 1 Javelin kit as the only HAT kit and the rifleman AT kit vary's depending on the map from AT-4 scope from the standard AT-4 kit and the map im thinking of is Kashan.
This way instead of 2 SRAW's inf can have a fighting chance against armor a little more effective than the current LAT, as on Kashan, i've rarely seen a LAT used because of its short range the way the terrain is and if the armored vehicle gets close enough to use your dead and its current power makes it virtually useless against tanks.
-For the MEC give them a telescopic LAT of some kind maybe modify the RPG-26
-Limit 3 on map 4 players in squad to get the kit which is the requirement now.
MEC setup current HAT or RPG 26(in the future) im not as inclined to say what kind of weapon they must have because its a fictional army etc however RPG-26 is used by Iran in RL which the MEC seems to be the main country of in most discussion. Or at least make the ERYX more powerful to kill abrams in 1 hit.
Option 2:
Have 2 HAT kits 1 Javelin plus the AT-4 telescopic which could be gotten by left clicking on it for a total of 2 HAT specialists but only one has the true HAT. The rifleman AT stays the same. Not big on this option personally as it would give some variety and give inf squads some kind of anti-armor outside of your teams HAT Specialist.
How would the Javelin work? my ideas:
-Must use the redicules to get as lock as the real Lock possibly by holding a button or interesting enough this guy coded it to be like a TV guided missle with :
-to deploy takes more time than the typical HAT in a source I read it takes 30 seconds for the thermal imaging to work so possible 15 to deploy to see out of plus extra 30 for the thermal imaging and to switch views for a total of 45.
-Next you can use any of the field of views (Day, Wide, Narrow, and seeker, with the last view having 9x magnification)
-direct attack which probably works similar and can used in that respect like current HATS
once you see a target you move the brackets around the vehicle to establish a lock then fires after a few seconds
infared tracking to identify vehicle possibly working as tank shows up in RED shading/highlighting
A new interface would need to be designed to be realistic
Deviation pips or something similar to prevent moving around with system deployed then being able to fire Deviation pips would need to be coded as to not move when moving the system slowly though. Even better because deviation pips would be funky and not right, you can only walk slow with the system out even with jumping on the BF2 engine have like a “warmup or something everytime you look through the sights for the infared or something
New deploy animation with attaching the command unit and launcher
Now how this works in gameplay
It is true adding this with realistic features makes it so the US in any case will have a great tool in their hands but even with realistic features its not a walk in the park pros and cons:
Advantages:
Will destroy/disable any armored target in 1 hit
Effective features obviously ultimate AT missle even in game
Disadvantages:
-Much longer time from deploying and getting the shot off than opforce HAT's
-Long use time makes you exposed to armor even from longer distances
-If tank or vehicle goes behind a structure or hill etc loose all tracking both realistic and gives the vehicle a chance, unless you want to try to attack with the direct attack through a opening etc.
-Hands of public players always that possibility of using it in a dumb way etc-but other ways to compensate
-Cannot fire at a armored target under 150 M with the top attack mode similar deal to current HAT coding creatively the round would rise and detonate in the air
-Supply crate per Javelin as to not reload and camp or 2 reloads per crate- just something to prevent easy overuse as explained below:
What we could also change:
Another thing is that in RL the range is up to 2500 M(about 2 miles) but in PR this obviously isn't feasible so im thinking max range could be max view distance like many tanks or TOW can even see now (800-1000M or something) and its not xray vision you can't shoot tanks behind a hill or behind a structure must be directly viewable.
-A direct fire mode that can be fired minimum 65M like in real life but less powerful will not destroy a tank in one shot will disable APC for realism/balance purposes
Now with all this it may seem that the Javelin might be too much to even use at all and of course not! Now its just making the HAT a more specialized team role with some realistic and gameplay drawbacks as not to be overpowered but naturally it will be able to be used on armored vehicles in a more defensive manner with tactics and strategy required, though giving the enemy a fair chance.
Also now the use of Rifleman AT will be a more important role as well depending on map etc.
Kashan Desert proposed layout
US Army 1 Hat requestable Javelin as your teams HAT specialist
Infantry may have up to 3 AT-4 HP.
MEC infantry may have up to 3 similar RPG 26s.
1 Eyrx or 1 RPG 26 with power to disable tanks with a front armor shot.
Vehicle balance thoughts and considerations:
As quoted by Ninja Dan:
“The problem with using certain weapon systems is that you need to find a balance between realism and game play. Unfortunately for MP games, where balancing is vital, certain weapon systems are just not likely to ever be feasible. The Javelin is one of those weapons.
If you try to make the Javelin realistic, then it is no doubt going to make which ever team has it overpowered. The Javelin in real life is the ultimate ATGM, and even with limited numbers they can quickly unbalance any armored conflict. But in order to balance the weapon system out for a "fair" game play use, you'd be knocking down the Javelin's realistic capabilities to the point that it's so far away from realistic that it sort of defeats the purpose of even adding it in the first place.
Personally, I'd love to see the Javelin in game for me to play with. But then I know what it would actually end up doing to the game, and prefer not to see it. I can imagine a few scenarios in which you could make a Javelin operate realistically, and still retain a proper level of game balance. Such as decrease the number of armored units on the US team, maybe reduce the max armored vehicles by 2 for every 1 Javelin. But even if you could come up with specific scenarios and a balanced force ratio, you're still going to have frequent problems with the players themselves. If someone inexperienced gets their hands on the Javelin, you're screwed. Or if the other team is packed full of idiot tank crews, they're screwed. Unless both teams have equal balancing of players, introducing such a powerful weapon system is just asking for trouble.
So the only viable solution that I can see at this time is to simply leave the Javelin out of the game, and try to rely on other weapon systems and support tactics to compensate. By having other AT methods available, the Javelin will not be missed much. Players just need to get it out of their heads that a single Javelin will win the round.”
Now how do we deal with these problems at least to be considered here's a few things I thought of:
First lets look at the concern that everyone has said about loosing the kit your screwed. I would agree and about everyone would agree that if that happens and with the current kit system happens yes that would be the case if the Javelin would work realistically, and which we would want as Celestial said and as Ninjadan said in that post its not worth it if it doesn't, so we want to find reasons for balance.
We could do for a map like Kashan:
-4 respawning MEC tanks and BMPS instead of 3
-Only 1 TOW to build for US and MEC and add a TOW Humvee then MEC a Spandrel
-Or 2 TOWS modified as discussed in the feedback forums
-Concept is to make armor effective once again as now its extremely hard to do anything against the enemy with armor but HAT's are beefed but with the US HAT you must be extremely careful to do anything to not loose the HAT etc.
-50 ticket increase for MEC.
Other general map considerations:
Take a map like Qwai for example where with a Javelin the US would have the ability to take out enemy armor from far back with little fear so should it be on those kind of maps with its inclusion for balance you'd have to:
Give the Chinese more vehicles and a few more tickets to compensate for the extra vehicle losses like a 25 extra ticket increase or such. Like same 3 armored cars, possibly 4 apc's instead of 3 etc.
Even so with the concept of making armor stand more of a chance a Javelin would ruin that even though it wouldn't exactly make the US win the battle with ticket and armor increases, would armor even be effective? Or just be able to get destroyed at every turn?
Possibly cut down on US Tows to 1 instead of 2 and keep the TOW humvee or rid of it which they have now.
What it comes down to the bottom of is HAT balance of the Javelin vs large wide scale armor maps or a smaller scale map with light armor like Qwai.
Not just thinking of the current maps but maps similar in the future. I personally think that a Javelin may be ok in this case as one kit with some slight balance tweaks as I mentioned ^^ and if theres any way to code only to view distance and the Javelin is more confined with the hills across the river and building structures for the APCs to go into so its not as effective as a map like Kashan, plus its fairly easy for the APC to see you with the lack of terrain cover. You could get people who just 1 man a HAT and go get supply crates with logis which would be much easier to do than wider maps then again with the time it takes to fire maybe that might not matter as much.
Thinking of a lot of factors though maybe you have 1 or 2 HATs of AT-4 with scopes and keep the current AT asset layout unless TOW's are nerfed etc it would be a lot like the current HAT system.
If the Javelin could work without too much trouble would be the most realistic and would keep consistency thought but this scenario of these maps I really am quite uncertain of the balance.
Next ill explain why I am for
To prevent all is lost if your HAT is stolen questions and points to consider:
-If possible in game remove ability to pick up enemy specialized kits however with BF2 engine not sure if its possible to implement on the BF2 engine.
-Still can pick up normal kits to simulate using weapons for emergency ammo but can't reload those weapons.
These might be more possible to change in PR?:
-Cannot reload on any supply crate enemy or friendly(as is the case now) or reload from ammo bags etc if you take the HAT its one shot or done
-Cannot reload any kind of ammo for the HAT kit rifle etc(which honestly should be fixed for all kits in the future as its not realistic the enemy wont have access to your weapons in most real life cases and all rifles and the type of ammunition for that weapon NATO ammo vs other countries ammo etc.)
No non US allies use the Javelin or NATO caliber ammo etc
-I know its a common practice to hold enemy kits so they can't have them but even these changes would highly discourage this except for the most determined.
-Change kit time from 5 minutes as it causes a huge problem in game now as kits either stay on the field too long to reclaim once downed when you need them and not too often can you go back to hot areas to get them in as with PR game play enemy do not move out of areas too fast and are concentrated so you don't usually get them back anyway.
-5 minutes just gives the enemy more time to take your kits and usually does happen
-3 minutes is more suitable or a similar time and would help with this
So if the enemy does have your HAT what do you do?
-Be able to request one as long as its not on the map for YOUR team(not sure if its possible coding, so if the enemy picks it up its virtually useless other than for 1 shot and holding it does nothing in this case.
-However this doesn't prevent the enemy from using their resources such as destroying a tow etc does and maybe not the best path as it would cause unbalance NOT to be able to destroy enemy resources, as is a huge part in PR in the huge vehicle respawn times getting rid of FOB/TOW emplacements etc.
-Another idea is to compensate in other ways such as your LATs which would be the case for most maps TOW emplacements and having 1 HAT would even more discourage not being strategic and careful as mentioned in this thread
-Implement a kit confiscation or kit destruction system in PR to help with the unrealistic use of enemy kits. (to be discussed in more detail however ill give brief ideas here)
The kit destruction system im not entirely sure about right now as I have never seen a post explaining a idea other than it being mentioned but I assume somehow you could drop your kit somehow and get rid of it somehow if you suspect enemy taking it.
Kit confiscation was something I was planning on suggesting at one point where you can go over a enemy kit and press a button and its gone for a certain period of time like “10 minutes” where the enemy can't request that kit again but you can't pick up a enemy specialist kit. You can press G but it wont pick up so then again you add the kit symbols back to important kits to know or not or as some fractions have just the kits laying on the ground but for ease possibly add kitbags for those.
-AT-4s may not be 100% realistic but for balance and specialization purposes its a lot better and more realistic than having a SRAW. Who knows in a situation like that the Army might have a few AT-4s on hand.
-Having only 1 HAT per team makes more slots open in a full server to using other kits etc.
Also any heavy vehicle maps in the future may have a similar layout
The US Marines in my opinion can stay with the SRAW, even though they do not use it in real life on a active combat basis I feel that its possible they could dig it out of the warehouse for the types of fighting environments PR has simulated where a Javelin would even for game play reasons just be ineffective to use and imbalance the game for the following reasons:
Only light armored vehicles on Marine maps so the Javelin would just be overkill in a good position you could just take out all of those in a matter of time playing effectively.
From en.Academic.ru
Advantages
"The Predator is a useful complement for Javelin since it has a significantly shorter minimum range, especially in direct attack mode where it can be fired window to window across a typical street. It is also much lighter than Javelin which makes carrying one or additional rounds easier where the situation warrants or allows a lighter and shorter range solution. Additionally, because it utilizes a different guidance mechanism it is more difficult to defeat both threats with a single defense."
My point being even though MA's have confirmed its not a very used weapon system in the Marine corps, at least they do use it and its still in their inventory's while the US Army it was never deployed at all, we could keep it as a HAT for the Marine maps with light armored vehicles instead of the Javelin. We can look at some maps for example and see why it may not work to have a Javelin:
Jabal: Terrain is much too ruged and hill covered, many obstructions etc, when you have the threat of that BTR coming with realistic Javelin physics are you going to be able to deploy it and fire it by the time it becomes to be a threat? In RL possibly the Marines might consider giving the SRAW a try in such a environment.
Muttrah: This may not be so bad as their are some more open spaces in some of the bigger lots but often the armor can use the buildings for cover and their are very few spots on that map other than the docks area/hills main road to deploy the weapon get a lock etc. Possibly another reason to keep the SRAW is because of only 3 BTR's give them a fighting chance with TOW's/Javelin that's like BTR's can be only scared little children.
For other balance maybe bump it back to 4 BTR's and possibly reduce to 1 TOW per side, but some minor changes for balance whatever they would be.
Now if we keep the SRAW for the Marines and their maps it needs to work as it works in real life at least to a degree that's best possible.
Barracuda:
Now this one doesn't have much of a armor threat at all, the armored cars that China gets hardly can do much anyway due to LAV's TOW AT-4 you name it. On this map possibly only have 1 HAT available and same with China too, and for AT make use of TOW AT-4 for armored cars, China doesn't need 2 HATs themselves anyway as the US only gets 2 LAV's for any sort of vehicle, and Chinese LAT's can make short work of those too.
Well that covers pretty much my point for making the Marines for the maps we have in PR use a Predator that functions similarly in real life and why instead of a Javelin, for balance reasons if HAT's were redone and to keep it in PR even though Javelin is the standard for Marine AT realistically.
I'd say no matter what get rid of the wire guidance, on all heavy AT systems in PR that use it when its not in real life. With the use of TOW's now its not needed and most of the time you can end up missing anyway unless its a stationary or slowly moving vehicle. This would apply to the NLAW/SRAW.
Next lets consider how it could operate in game ideally in the future. After seeing what people have said on the forums about its RL operation and after studying internet information I've thought of the following.
First in RL up to 200 meters the Predator can hit a moving target after tracking for 2 seconds reliably up to 200 meters. Now in PR this could be implemented as well by first deploying the SRAW letting the deviation pips settle and be able to move the telescopic sight slowly to a degree without moving the pips and if you have tracked the armored vehicle for 2 seconds within 200 M(which could be you can fire and the missile will go into it hit. However if the vehicle is making too many movements other than in 1 direction or goes behind a structure its miss. If this cannot be coded however make it so its mostly a sure hit within 200 M maybe much like laser guided bombs?
Over 200 M its just firing the SRAW straight fire with the sight to hit your target and since the SRAW is now the MPV in RL it could keep its current structure splash damage to take out enemies in buildings, fornication like a MG bunker etc which seems good as it is now.
Now for the damage aspects: In the video I watched the MPV seemed to be only for light armor, as the did a test vs a M133 so we can compare this to maybe a MEC BTR or BMP.
The M133 was destroyed in the RL test so that's a given as the M133 in game is like paper, so we think about a BTR we could get the possible damage ratios:
back armor: either disabled or inoperable possibly not destroyed but should render it unusable due to that a SRAW MPV and the damage it could do however im not sure obviously as who knows in RL, basically what I propose is dim down the current SRAW's power down to close to a LAT.
Front armor shot: heavy damage possibly track/disable or heavy smoke.
This would give the enemy armor a fighting chance due to the realistic features of the SRAW being implemented and instant hit within 200M.
Oh and for the SRAW now or the future take the operation range down from 50 M to 17M as that's frustrating sometimes or 20 M as the minimum detonating distance.
Or if it doesn't work for the community or for military advisors use the Javelin or AT-4 but what I suggested would be pretty cool if possible and could just possibly be my own opinion about the SRAW use.
Now with that I'd add the similar features to the British NLAW as it is a similar weapon correct but by a different country, but with more power, at the very least for this concept if possible and agreed upon if you don't for the SRAW or its rid of.
You may think at this point I am just for the blue force AT however that is not the case. I believe almost every HAT weapon in PR needs a modification of some kind. Ill go over the other HATs in PR and what could be done.
Lets look at the Chinese HAT the PF-98. As far as I could research it has no locking system other than it puts a light spot on the optical sight and has can capture target range which would be sweet to add on the Chinese HAT and really give it some cool stuff to work with. Also in RL its a 4x telescopic optic sight which would also be nice to implement as im not sure if it has zoom now.
-The EYRX to this point actually seems to be spot on with a new scope designed that seems pretty realistic, and the system in game operates realistically but possibly check the zoom level though?
-Our Canadian friends can still keep the EYRX with similar functions if its realistic. Maybe add a deployable EYRX for a TOW with a certain amount of zoom?
-A matter of personal opinion to give the MEC some edge maybe replace their HAT with a RPG-29 with optical sight in the future? It would be a 1 hit kill/disable on tanks with much a powerful warhead and give them a little bit of counter to what the US have to counter armor.
-What about the Matador MP? It has a range finding function and other features outside of its current telescopic sight would be cool to add.
Last and not least we have insurgency. It has been discussed many times what could be done on insurgency and the way the weapons work in INS could be much simpler and not require any complex setup other than damage/splash changes new model etc.
Lets look at each fraction and what could be done on insurgency maps. and also several points to go along:
Few general points:
Firstly no HAT weapons will be the same on ins maps except for Russia, and for sure no Javelin or whatever. Possibly the only HAT setup that can stay the same.
LAT weapons could be possibly changed depending on whats realistic which ill go over.
After much research and compiling research and what MA's have said a SMAW would be appropiate in ins for US fractions or just the Marines, which as of now i'm not sure if the Army and Marines use or just the Marines. This has been discussed several times as I said but here's some of my ideas:
SMAW for a HAT kit for at least the Marines on Fallujah and future Marine ins maps be good for would be 1 or 2 a team, and I would possibly say 1 to make it a specialized role once again and the layout for the KIT would make it so its effective splash blast as it is in RL that can be used against hideouts, roofs buildings with caches etc and make it a effective insurgent blasting machine. For balance possibly turn cache amounts to 8 even though this may not make a huge gameplay impacting difference. Would work as in 1 or 2 reloads per supply crate cannot be rearmed from small ammo boxes that inf vehicles carry nor ammo bags as I said before, and a kit layout similar to all other HATs but maybe like the rifleman AT- give him the option as a scope as I see it like using a AT-4 or leave off the scope for his rifle whatever might be best.
-For rifleman AT keep the current kit or modify it to work like the AT-4s used in Iraq(MA confirm?) max of 2, down from 3 as to keep other roles more used for soldiers on ins even though LAT isn't popular anyway at this time.
Britain-MA would need to confirm whats been used in Al Basrah in RL engagements however I doubt it was a NLAW- so maybe the AT-4 combo would be feasible?
So what if that pesky insurgent steals your AT kit?
-SMAW would be ineffective against a Abrams and only cause moderate damage possibly right around a RPG-7 type damage or even less.
-SMAW would not do much damage to a APC either probably about the current 2 or 3 hits for kill.
-The only real advantage over a RPG-7 is range but would be a lot better than a HAT kit for US blueforce, the SMAW gunner would be encouraged to be in a inf squad or 2 man team and play cautiously.
-Could only be reloaded off of main US supply crates as with any AT weapon if this is possible to code for just ins instead of the *** policy of not being able to reload enemy AT weapons off of anything. Possibly more realistic to just stay the same anyways so they steal it its 1 shot or nothing if its been used.
-Finally other AT-4s could be HEAT based or just current power which generally LAT is acceptable to use on current INS anyway.
Goal: A more realistic effective for the setting HAT for blueforce that doesn't cause a big fuss if lost but still isn't something you want to donate to the insurgent cause.
-For all HAT's possibly make the maximum operating distances realistic?
Now what could be done short term?
What I have proposed would take quite a bit of effort and work so what could we do as early as within a few releases?
Replace US Army HAT with a AT-4 with a telescopic sight, and simulated as a High Explosive Anti-Armor warhead and scrap the SRAW. Beef up its power to be able to take out all light apc's and do some good damage to a T-90 but be weaker in that respect than the MEC HAT or Chinese HAT etc.
Keep US Army LAT as it is simulated as a high explosive dual purpose warhead, but be a little more effective against the typical T-90 as it seems to have the power of a standard RPG-7 which really isn't right and probably a consistency issue with all LATS.
Keep the SRAW for the Marines but make it straight shot only scrap wire guidance-same for NLAW. AT-4 same as US Army LAT as it is now for Marines as well for their LAT. Or if the SRAW isn't wanted at all use the AT-4.
Add 2x zoom on SRAW/NLAW telescopic sights.
Finally this would at least make what weapons are what a little more realistic and help things in that respect and if developers would want add a Javelin modify other HATs in the future etc.
See Various other points I mentioned above
Now for a little disclaimer as to not be taken the wrong way or flamed:
As I am in no way a developer or have any control of anything whatsoever in this mod or. Im just a teenage guy who uses the forums on a regular basis ever since I could regularly play the mod in January of 2010 and a regular player of PR. I am simply a guy with ideas after the mod has compeled me to research/consider many things and what I have said about HATs is just one idea I feel strong about. Though I honestly feel that my thoughts are pretty good in my opinion to at least consider by the devs/community and probably a lot has already been considered, but to be quite frank im not just pulling smoke out of my *** with all this to try to BS stuff to someone.
I also said above I realize the devs have considered this a lot too and I am not dissing their work on AT weapons etc for whats done already as I realize theirs possible limitations and a lot of work involved.
I am no way a important person of this community or in any way or does my opinion matter any more than anyone else, everyones opinion is equal, the only difference here is I took a lot of time and consideration writing this.
Lastly a lot of these concepts I don't know for sure how stuff would work like the Javelin 100% if all I proposed in feasible by the devs/community etc, or all the balance on maps. However I think I thought of some pretty good things that might work in those cases.
I would like your feedback on all this as well so feel free to post. Also will possibly add other points to document/post outside what I have considered.
Videos:
NLAW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIVtB-8fQ7E
Javelin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg3UXzseLTI
SRAW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVXXpP2DXIk
EYRX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRbhH4si6X8
AT-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xsMqHu ... re=related
Final Note: Javelin Video actually shows the weapon interface through the sight which I haven't been able to find on any other of the Real life anti tank weapons!
Also a thread that I had started that discussed a lot of good points:
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f22-mi ... -game.html