[quote=""'[R-MOD"]BloodBane611;1400682']I'm very interested, linky?
The problem with that system is that it really is not a realistic portrayal of a LAT's capabilities. Surely a number of light AT rockets hitting in nearly the same spot would be able to penetrate the armor of practically anything, but the likelihood of hitting the exact same spot of an armored vehicle several times over using a LAT is low. Since the BF2 engine won't allow us to have a damage system that that would track damage to certain parts of the vehicle, it's all about playing with the numbers to make things a reasonable approximation of real life.
I think right now the balance is too far towards infantry in regard to AT assets, increasing the deadliness of LATs against armor would be bad both for gameplay and realism.
Some mods (most notably NAW if I remember correctly) have incorporated the Javelin into BF2, and I believe they used two ammo-linked weapons to get the top attack and direct attack modes. It can be done, just takes 2x weapons slots instead of one.[/quote]
Ill upload it somewhere or PM you the file, I had Rudd submit it to the dev team for evaluation but I have no access to it so i'll show you somehow or for anyone else whos interested. I do need to change some things based off of ideas even in this thread so i'll edit it soon.
To what you said about light AT in PR I can see what you mean about how the infantry AT balance against armor is too much in infantry's favor at the moment and I do see that that is a current issue with gameplay I fail to see what you meant by upping the capability of light AT is bad for realism?
I wonder this because current light AT in PR doesn't seem completely realistic as stated earlier in this thread and I have studied by my own research most light AT systems like a AT-4 would leave all modern APC systems inoperable. Yet in PR its by chance with APC's however I guess within balance of the vehicle as well giving APC's a chance while in real life they would almost always become breeched and destroyed. How then would making a LAT do realistic damage affects "realism" when in its self it is realistic? Gameplay wise thats a good point though.
Personally I am for the idea of while AT being realistic be more limited which in itself seems more realistic. This is also something I talked about in the paper I submitted to the developers basically meaning you have 1 HAT kit per team while being dominant against vehicles like they are in real life limited in effectiveness because you only have 1 kit. This could be different depending on fractions who in real life have less effective AT systems where you could keep 2 kits or a similar setup to that(a member in the forums a few weeks back had a suggestion of like 1 kit available every 5 minutes which still being only 1 kit more accessible type of theory).
And in short you then have other types of balance like give the other team a few more tickets and vehicles like say if the US Marines had a Javelin on Muttrah give the MEC 4 apcs again and have like 425 tickets.
As far as light AT goes take the number down to 2 instead of 3 and make it so they are effective consistently up to APC type armor if it is not accurately possible to make them do realistic damage to tanks as bloodbane stated above. And as far as limiting AT and how much it could change depending on the map if thats possible without too much workaround and trouble say for example you still get 3 LAT's on vehicle heavy maps but carry only 2 on a map like Muttrah.
[quote="Teh0""]We should compare vehile and stationary missiles too. Stationary TOW and HJ-8 can always destroy any tank with 1 shot. It feels OK becouse tanks should not rush towards enemies without infantry who can easily kill stationary AT gunner. BMP-3 can only stop a tank by ATGM if it hits to low side and destoy from behind. Bradley can fire 2 missiles fast and take down a tank. I am not sure about AT-BRDM, it can fire 5 missiles very fast but maybe it needs 2 for a tank? Have you got experiense about this from Beirut or Fools? In my mind things are all right but TOW-Humvee feels overpowered becouse it kills T-90 with 1 shot to front armor. Why it is so mutch powerfull than Bradley and BMP?[/quote]
I remember Jaymz saying it was something the developers didn't do properly was match the vehicle TOW power to infantry TOW power something that will probably be fixed in next patch.
Drunkenup wrote:You're not seeing the point. Its not that .50 Caliber MG's are inhumane, its that BOTH teams have a equal chance of countering one/HAVING IT IN GENERAL. Having a Javelin removes the skill required to guide a Anti-Tank weapon, as well as the fact that its the only weapon of it's kind. MEC wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, the Chinese wouldn't have a Javelin equivalent, and I'm sure as hell the Russians don't.
Very true if the US had a Javelin and it worked realistic it would just be that the US had a high powered AT system and that would be one unique thing about their fraction. As someone else stated war in realife is not balanced perfectly and fractions sometimes have things over other fractions, obviously this can't be 100% protrayed in game or else the best fractions as they are in real life would always dominate but for the AT prospect, if a Javelin was put in game it would be that the US just have a AT system that in game would be something they have that is dominant.
You then think how to balance this out to give the opposing team a equal chance to win in other aspects other than the HAT kit such as:
More available vehicles tickets that sort of thing.
Other aspects that team might be strong in so if the US is strong in AT the MEC or whatever other opforce has something else better than the US like more vehicles tickets or whatever might be reasonable.
I talked a LOT more about this in the paper I wrote so if you want to know what I had said more in depth give that a look but I wont say too much more about it now.
Hotrod525 wrote:I'm only talking about
man portable ATW. even if FGM148 is barely portable [ i just dont imagine a soldier carrying all he's damn kit + that huge tube + the CLU. Even just 1 of the 2 ].
TOW, HJ8, Milan etc... in fact any H.A.T.W. like those i just said will probably breach a MBT. When you think about it, a LAV25 (without armor addon) do not withstand
M903, surely not the
Mk211 or even just the simple M2*. I dont know for other vehicle, since i dont work with them, except the LAV3 but it wont sustain those round either. So i guesstimate, that IFV and APC that have about the same weight will have about the same level of protection. So if you take a missile that goes as fast as mach 3, you can be sure it will breach alot of armor thickness. Kinetic speed + HE = wreckage. ( witch mean my chance are inexistant if my vehicle is hit by those thing
)
Armored vehicle are primary target in conflict, so its pretty obvious that country field weapon that will take them out easily.
*.50 BMG cartridge type.
Nice input and knowledge again man. I wanted to point out what you said on the Javelin not being easily man portable. In order to make it feasible in PR it likely would be best served as 1 kit and this would not be entirely realistic but pretty much the only reasonable method. Right now we don't have 2 man kits which is how the Javelin is mostly used in real life is by a 2 man team but it has been documented from what i've seen to be carried by 1 man, that I saw in a source but probably very uncommon. Basically not entirely realistic but how it would likely have to be done in game.
danger01 wrote:so what if one side does not have anything to "counter" it oe be an equivalent , war is hell, having equality on both sides all the time is itself unrealistic, but take mutra as an example on your statement, mec have nothing to counter the cobra when it is flown correctly, no one moans about that.
A good point and I agree as I talked about above.
for the Russians i suggest the Kornet
Antitank missile system Kornet | Missilery.info
for the Chinese the HongJian 73 C version
HongJian 73 (HJ-73) Anti-Tank Guided Missile - SinoDefence.com
and as the MeC receive there missiles from Russia they could use the kornet
but as a counter to the HaT kits, i present the sniper team
no real skill is needed to hit a tank or any other vehicle for that point with a ToW, sure its not FaF, but keeping a cross-hair on a target is easy.
More interesting ideas for the balance aspect however I ask you would those be deployable's or portable infantry AT or "HAT kits". Those systems wouldn't be very realistic to be the main HAT kits of those fractions that you could request, however it may come down to that if the DEVS truely feel that if the other fractions can't have it noone can. Or as another option be implimented as "deployable's" or as some other aspect.
Basically if you want my opinion I feel HAT's need a big upgrade as its true currently in game we really one have 1 moderately realistic HAT system being the EYRX, and the other's don't function realistically or aren't portrayed in game realistically as main AT. I mainly went on about the US having a Javelin but if its possible have other systems use tracking like the NLAW and such then find ways to balance, and I stated this in my last post in this thread and in the document I wrote not to repeat myself though, lol.
