Project Reality Forums

Dev1200 wrote:Would they allocate a position with a TOW emplacement, even though a light insurgent force doesn't have any vehicles, besides light cars and trucks?

i can tell you right now that we carry light, and medium anti tank weapons with us in afghanistan.. its not meant to take out enemy tanks its meant to knock the taliban out of buildings and bunkers they hide in. Our Leopard 2 tanks are great to be with during an ambush, they just point and start shooting up all the mud huts and walls so we can get around quicker and flank the ambush. We even use TOW's at our FOBs over there. Cause nothing works better then fireing a guided rocket at an enemy position.

Dougalachi wrote:BLUFOR sitting on top of a mountain and shooting TOWs onto almost any part of the central area of the map destroys the gameplay for Taliban. I don't think what's real and what's not was at question. Instead, this is about balance issues and it has been discussed on several occasions in the forums that TOWs are too often utilized in a role not originally intended for the game, and that it causes gameplay issues.

TOW arent only used for AT purpose in real life, even if you can call it an "gameplay issue", in RL and in PR, if you got a explosive missile, of course you will use it. HAT sniping helo, Helo/APC doing blind-fire, Jet doing divin bombin, etc.. there is many issue in the game, but still you can find tactic to overcome it.

Hotrod525 wrote:TOW arent only used for AT purpose in real life, even if you can call it an "gameplay issue", in RL and in PR, if you got a explosive missile, of course you will use it. HAT sniping helo, Helo/APC doing blind-fire, Jet doing divin bombin, etc.. there is many issue in the game, but still you can find tactic to overcome it.

Any tool that can be used to kill, will be used.

Charliesierra-RCR wrote:i can tell you right now that we carry light, and medium anti tank weapons with us in afghanistan.. its not meant to take out enemy tanks its meant to knock the taliban out of buildings and bunkers they hide in. Our Leopard 2 tanks are great to be with during an ambush, they just point and start shooting up all the mud huts and walls so we can get around quicker and flank the ambush. We even use TOW's at our FOBs over there. Cause nothing works better then fireing a guided rocket at an enemy position.

This might make sense if PR had fully destructible environments...which it doesn't, which puts the TOW back as an anti armour weapon in game at least.

Charliesierra-RCR wrote:i can tell you right now that we carry light, and medium anti tank weapons with us in afghanistan.. its not meant to take out enemy tanks its meant to knock the taliban out of buildings and bunkers they hide in. Our Leopard 2 tanks are great to be with during an ambush, they just point and start shooting up all the mud huts and walls so we can get around quicker and flank the ambush. We even use TOW's at our FOBs over there. Cause nothing works better then fireing a guided rocket at an enemy position.

I can't wait to go on the next ROTO, i'm pretty sure ill enjoy those things

PuffNStuff wrote:Any tool that can be used to kill, will be used.

Of course.

Charliesierra-RCR wrote:i can tell you right now that we carry light, and medium anti tank weapons with us in afghanistan.. its not meant to take out enemy tanks its meant to knock the taliban out of buildings and bunkers they hide in. Our Leopard 2 tanks are great to be with during an ambush, they just point and start shooting up all the mud huts and walls so we can get around quicker and flank the ambush. We even use TOW's at our FOBs over there. Cause nothing works better then fireing a guided rocket at an enemy position.

I understand that light AT weapons, and even sometimes medium AT weapons would be used because of the splash damage and effectiveness of infantry in cover. However, It just seems illogical to use TOW missiles against infantry, trucks, etc. Wouldn't they just use an AT4 or SRAW/SMAW?

Also, TOWS ingame are usually used against infantry.. from my experience anyway. Seems a little OP imo. ><

Stop whinning about TOWs and how they can kill u. It is very easy to supress and destroy them. Just don't stay in the open field, get some cover and u can supress them in different ways.
Way 1: RPGs-despite being highly innacurate at long distance, u can dammage/scare/or kill the TOW if u follow one single rule: find a spot where u can stay kneeling and u can stay safe from the TOW, and in the same time, that spot must allow you a clean line of sight to that TOW while standing.Not a house tough, or any area where the TOW can hit and get you. You will aim while kneeling, taking little peeks at the TOW for adjustments, and when about 10-12 sec passed, you can take the shot from the standing position. This can work to distances up to 1000m(depending on map and RPG gunner). I personally did is twice, on Karbala and on Archer. On Karbala i did it from about 600m(killed the TOW gunner, direct hit) and on Archer i did it from about 960m(2 shots, dammaged the TOW untill it blew up).

Way 2: The easiest way, other than with the RPG/sniper/markman kit. Take the RPK LMG. Every insurgent faction has it. It is a good LMG in combat under 400m, and a terrifing Automatic-Sniper on Semi-automatic, under 1000m. Using single shot fire, you can render the TOW emplacement useless if you find a place where you are covered from the enemy line of sight( don't go in the middle of the field and start fireing semiauto on the TOW; you will just get owned), then go prone, wait about 5 sec for the deviation to settle, then you can fire all of your 45 rounds at that TOW emplacement. You will see that ur fire will make the BLUFOR leave that emplacement.

Way 3: sneak around it. Get a bike/car, and flank it. Go on foot if u are close enough.

But more than everything else: TRY, and DON'T WHINE because you did not TRY.

9/10 of the times you will follow these rules u will kill that TOW.

I would make several points, yes hat's are quite powerful and do take on a anti inf fob defense role a bit more than they should. However:

1. Its *really* easy to get sniped out of one, or forced to get out of it due to even a small amount of incoming fire since its easy to see where the rocket is coming from and the profile is quite large. If you do get killed in one, your dead completely as with any vehicle. Contrast this with the MG which is very defensible from all sides, great to use even if your just going to lay down in it and use your own weapon. I love mg nests, I very rarely prefer being on a tow.

2. There are quite a few destructible buildings on certain maps.

3. Remember why they were put in. Previously defending a fob from vehicles was a *******. If a tank (or often a couple apcs even) rolled up on you and you didn't happen to have one of the two hats available to your team you were basically just sqrewed. Naturally thats less of a concern in insurgency, however on most of the AAS maps they are very important.

4. Since you can no longer have perma rally points, stronger fob's are quite welcome since they matter so much more than they used to.

Considering the other thread was a clone thread, we should continue constructive discussion about it in the original one, right? I think we should continue this discussion as it is relevant to what could be happening to the TOW in the next version. And in reply to what BloodBane was saying:

You may keep discussing the gameplay reasoning behind such a decision, but it is certainly not realistic in any way, shape, or form.

Uday and Qusay were not run of the mill Insurgents and I don't have to expalin why.

Deliberately building one in the Karbala desert to simply kill lone Insurgents is the definition of unrealistic. The videos that ZZEZ showed above weren't TOW's at all, they were rounds from the Israeli Spike ATGM which, like the Javelin, is used against enemy personnel.



The TOW on the other hand is a dedicated anti armor weapon which requires training on how to operate it properly. I sincerely doubt that a TOW would be specifically set up for the sole purpose of killing an enemy combatant as much as it is in PR.

Awhile ago I set up a TOW to shoot buildings in the B3 area on Karbala to destroy a cache. Shooting over 20 shots (IIRC, rebuilding twice), that equates to over $3.6 million US dollars worth of hardware used by a single soldier, when trained infantry are meant to do the job.

Do you honestly think that this is a realistic alternative to actually using clearing tactics to get the cache?

Is it realistic that a sniper, infantry officer, medic or simple grunt can use a system which takes special training?

As this article states, the TOW can - and is - used for fire support in tandem with infantry, currently in PR, it is used as as a sniper for the sole purpose of killing infantry. I think its safe to assume the TOW is used against infantry and snipers much much more than it is used to kill armor.

dtacs wrote:The videos that ZZEZ showed above weren't TOW's at all, they were rounds from the Israeli Spike ATGM which, like the Javelin, is used against enemy personnel.

What??? Those weapons were not meant to be used against infantry. Hardened targets--yes, that has become their primary use in counter-insurgencies like Iraq/Afghanistan, but then again, the TOW is used in the exact same capacity.

To be short and blunt, I'm with the "Suck it up and deal with it like a real man/insurgent" crowd. Complaining that a TOW is counter-sniping you? Obviously a person with such a problem needs to improve their sniper habits. As a sniper, dieing within 8 seconds of entering the LOS of a TOW is an unacceptable performance. I know it's harsh and I don't mean to be personal, but that seems to be the military fact of it.

If the enemy takes the high ground and uses it to retain control over an entire plain/valley/what-have-you, then it's only because you have made the strategic error of letting them set up there. That should have been your high ground. And, to echo what's already been said on this thread, it's perfectly natural for a well-organized blufor to use their superiority in firepower to dominate certain parts of the map. I agree that many still need to understand that unconventional factions inherently means unconventional tactics. This isn't asymmetrical AAS, it's insurgency.

What??? Those weapons were not meant to be used against infantry. Hardened targets--yes, that has become their primary use in counter-insurgencies like Iraq/Afghanistan,

What exactly are you reading from my post? I never said they were to be used against infantry, and for that matter FRONTLINE infantry. I mean enemy personnel as in unconventional insurgenst/militiamen, as shown in the video where they used the SPIKE.

but then again, the TOW is used in the exact same capacity.

No, it isn't. TOW's are clearly used from static, long term positions such as forward outposts complete with HESCO barriers and sleeping barracks, not quickly erected defensive positions as we see in PR.

To be short and blunt, I'm with the "Suck it up and deal with it like a real man/insurgent" crowd. Complaining that a TOW is counter-sniping you? Obviously a person with such a problem needs to improve their sniper habits. As a sniper, dieing within 8 seconds of entering the LOS of a TOW is an unacceptable performance. I know it's harsh and I don't mean to be personal, but that seems to be the military fact of it.

I don't see where you're reading that I was ever sniping nor complaining about being sniped by a TOW. Quite honestly I haven't had it happen to me in a LONG time, but when I see it happen or am on the giving end, it feels wholly unrealistic and insane that its being used for a single guy with an AK as opposed to something important, like an enemy sniper team which yes, IS a valid target.

it's perfectly natural for a well-organized blufor to use their superiority in firepower to dominate certain parts of the map.

By that logic we should have multiple tanks on Insurgency maps simply because they're available to BLUFOR troops, in addition to Apaches etc.

I think if they decide to snipe infantry, they can.

TOW is limited in number anyway... more TOW sniping infantry = less TOW stopping Gary/big red/little red. And less people searching for cache.

If insurgents get the city defended with IED, mines, RPG...etc., they should not be sniped by TOW or anything else for that matter (it may mean abandoning cache outside the city, but those can be booby trapped to reduce BluFor tickets considerably, or have IED everywhere for a self-destruct button when BluFor gets in).

Christ guys... Why don't you simply wait for the release of .95 and see what they changed before you keep up discussing this matter at all cost?

The DEVs said they changed the current TOW in some ways to make it less effective against infantry or maybe somewhat limited it's use so it is not a considerable choice to use against infantry anymore (They didn't say WHAT they actually changed). So just wait, drink a cup of tea or whatever and stop the arguing until you have tried the .95 TOW.

AFAIK there won't be any changes in the files for .95 anymore and so there is absolutely no point in this arguing.

The DEVs said they changed the current TOW in some ways to make it less effective against infantry

Source on this? I didn't know they said that, sort of puts me at ease then.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f257-v0-91-general-feedback/81242-comprehensive-feedback-deployable-tow.html

Last post of the thread by [R-DEV]Jamyz:

Locking this. Appropriate changes have been made for the next release.

Actually: This "suggestions" is more like a feedback and that's why this issue has been discussed in the feedback forums. ^^


Edit:
After reading the next answers I seriously wonder wether some guys read what has been posted last before replieing...
This is A POINTLESS DISCUSSION! Don't you get it?
You complain about things that might have already been changed. Just wait for the next release before you keep on complaining. It's not like I don't hate the current TOW snipers, but at least I am patient enough to await the changes that have been made and take a look at the new TOW before I demand changes on something I don't know.
Just calm down, be patient and take a look at the next release...

Jonny wrote:I would like to see this going further than just INS maps.

The available kits and assets should depend on the expected enemy. ie, no HAT on maps where you are against infantry and light vehicles, regardless of the map mode.

This, omg . <3

no way don't take the TOW out it is a valuable and realistic asset..I don't think the Devs would take it out just because it was used incorrectly a few times..

dtacs wrote:What exactly are you reading from my post? I never said they were to be used against infantry, and for that matter FRONTLINE infantry. I mean enemy personnel as in unconventional insurgenst/militiamen, as shown in the video where they used the SPIKE.

It's semantics, but I don't think most people draw any significant differences between an "enemy militiaman" with an AK, or "enemy infantry" with an AK. Are you arguing with me the difference between enemy infantry and enemy "personnel" who are foot-mobile and carry small-arms?

When you say: The videos that ZZEZ showed above weren't TOW's at all, they were rounds from the Israeli Spike ATGM... like the Javelin, is used against enemy personnel. I get the impression that you're saying Spikes and Javelins were meant for taking out targets other than armor, namely infantry or foot-mobile "personnel".

dtacs wrote:No, it isn't. TOW's are clearly used from static, long term positions such as forward outposts complete with HESCO barriers and sleeping barracks, not quickly erected defensive positions as we see in PR.

Ok, so I think this is a genuine misunderstanding. I meant that all these rocket weapons are indeed being used in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts to take out (sometimes single, sometimes grouped) bad guys. What you say is true; Spikes and Javelins are shoulder-fired and carried by infantrymen, whereas TOWs are strictly mounted on Tripods or vehicles.

dtacs wrote:I don't see where you're reading that I was ever sniping nor complaining about being sniped by a TOW. Quite honestly I haven't had it happen to me in a LONG time, but when I see it happen or am on the giving end, it feels wholly unrealistic and insane that its being used for a single guy with an AK as opposed to something important, like an enemy sniper team which yes, IS a valid target.

Easy there, cowboy. I was referring to a totally different person who had this complaint earlier in the thread, this was my brutally honest opinion on his problem. Although I do believe that when deployed, a US/Canadian/British or whatever other nationality soldier would not hesitate to use any and every asset he had to kill an enemy--numerous, armored, or otherwise. So to me, every target is valid under normal conditions.

dtacs wrote:By that logic we should have multiple tanks on Insurgency maps simply because they're available to BLUFOR troops, in addition to Apaches etc.

I see where you're going with that, but the point I was driving was that its reasonable for the blufor to get certain advantages in insurgency, because the forces are asymmetrical and certainly shouldn't play like AAS. Blufor can expect to have overwhelming firepower, as well as air superiority, armor, UAV etc. While the insurgents enjoy home-turf advantage (for what it's worth), use of dramatically powerful arty IEDs and bombcars, collaborators, and can play with no regard for their lives as it doesn't affect ticket count.