Project Reality Forums

The more magazines the weapon has, the higher priority? Isn't there a way to go around this limitations? Like giving the LAT houndreds of "magazines" that can't actually be used? Or increase the value of one rocket so that it equals many more ammo-points than everything else the rifleman AT carries?

It really is annoying that the rockets aren't given priority when you resupply from ammo-bags.

STORM-Mama wrote:The more magazines the weapon has, the higher priority? Isn't there a way to go around this limitations? Like giving the LAT houndreds of "magazines" that can't actually be used? Or increase the value of one rocket so that it equals many more ammo-points than everything else the rifleman AT carries?

It really is annoying that the rockets aren't given priority when you resupply from ammo-bags.

So annyoying when u hit an apc and he follows u to the ammo create It happen to me twice on Jabla, close range and dead hits on the side armor. The BTR 60 doesn't seem to become disabled with one hit to the side, but the LAV is another story
What bothers me is that u have one shot, and even if you hit u can still get wtf pwned. I mean come on, I put an anti tank rocket into a side of an apc and I get no reward? At least do something so I don't get owned by the apc, like disabling the gun or something. Sorry if this post was too harsh I think the best solution is a faster reload time, or the apc crew becoming wounded or killed when hitting weak spots.

Most of the time i feel i would be better off taking my shoe of and throwing it at the APC's at least then theres a chance i can scratch the paint lol.

CAS_117 wrote:And our point Jigsaw is that they wouldn't have to. Look at the first 30 seconds of that video... Having one of those land by you is like having someone push a stick through your ears, eyes, nose and mouth.

But it wouldn't kill you.

Which is why it is fine in-game atm, because you will survive but will likely be surpressed and bleeding which is realistic. Not to mention that if the enemy have got into a position where they can waste rockets on you there will likely be a bullet coming the same way too.

jigsaw-uk wrote:But it wouldn't kill you.

That's not sure.

A LAT projectile creates a strong blast pointed in front of it to penetrate armour.
If it's not penetrate armour the blast is reflected and expanded to the sides.
And if its created to destroy armour think what it can do to human flesh.

So if it hits soft ground by your side you maby dont even have a scratch.
But if it hits a rock then you have problems.

Of course its primary role is to destroy armour. It maby kill infantry but not for sure.
When you fire it to infantry its mostly for supression. Not for a kill.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if the pressure of the backblast when firing it from inside a house is enough to kill you, then the actual hit is far worse.
The interior of an APC is a small confined area.

You saw the video, fire and stuff, no one survives that.

Why can't we have the best of both worlds? (if doable)

Same killing damage as now, to reflect the AT part. But a reasonable splash, but teh splash has low damage, so you'll just need a field dressing or a quick medic touch up (or a heal if you prefer) DD

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Why can't we have the best of both worlds? (if doable)

Same killing damage as now, to reflect the AT part. But a reasonable splash, but teh splash has low damage, so you'll just need a field dressing or a quick medic touch up (or a heal if you prefer) DD

To add to that, I'd love to see the Spaling effect as Cas described it. WE already have it to an extend with BTR-60 drivers

But ye, just me thinking to myself, there would probably need to be some changes because the Spalling effect wouldn't be as big of a splash (one would hope) as the splash when it's fired into a building, and I dunno how that would work.

jigsaw-uk wrote:My main point was that the designers of the weapon IRL would not tweak it to make it more effective against infantry, so why should the designers of the weapon in-game do the same?

They do, Did you look at the video of Saab electronics, They have special charges which breach building walls/doors/windows and have a second charge which blows up INSIDE the building, Would they be created to destroy vehicles inside buildings?

the MG i havent experienced overheating for a long time now. never encountered that problem. seems fine to me

LAT it is an anti tank weapon, it is designed to pierce armour, the blast is directed therefor lower blast radius. the reason it is used on infantry is not out in the open but when they are behind walls or in buildings where blowing up the wall would send chunks of wall into the enemy. it's effectiveness against enemies in buildings has nothing to do with blast radius but the force the directed blast. the difference with what you're asking for is say if you were standing X meters in front of the wall and the rocket hits the wall, you're not likely to be hurt that much besides going deaf. where as you're standing X meters behind a wall. that rocket is going to send a huge blast in your general direction and launch plenty of pieces of that wall.

of course this varies between which weapon system you're using. an russian RPG for example has different types of shells as do most other systems that have reloadable tubes, this of course includes all weapon systems such as HAT where the tube is disposable but the targeting interface is separate like the javelin missile. whereas the western countries generally use disposable weapon systems such as the M72 LAW, and the AT4 light antitank weapons.

Bringerof_D wrote:the MG i havent experienced overheating for a long time now. never encountered that problem. seems fine to me

I'm sure the MG reference is about HMGs, specifically. They overheat soooo quickly.

MaxBoZ wrote:They do, Did you look at the video of Saab electronics, They have special charges which breach building walls/doors/windows and have a second charge which blows up INSIDE the building, Would they be created to destroy vehicles inside buildings?

jigsaw-uk wrote:There are different round types available which give better penetration against buildings and structures (for ex. the CS AST), so I would support the introduction of this type of round into PR but it should be done so there are 2 separate ammo types rather than trying to get the best of both worlds out of 1 round, which is unrealistic.

Read the damn post Max.

jigsaw-uk wrote:Read the damn post Max.

Then I suggest you remove the part I quoted from your post as your post states opposites..

They don't conflict, he said they wouldn't tweak the HEAT round to do more damage against infantry, they would make a different round, which they did.
Everything adds up. ^^

qaiex wrote:They don't conflict, he said they wouldn't tweak the HEAT round to do more damage against infantry, they would make a different round, which they did.
Everything adds up. ^^

What he said

jigsaw-uk wrote:Would it be used this way in RL? No. So you shouldn't need to in PR. It does it's job as it does in RL and that is all it needs to do.

Well how dou explain HE antipersonnel ammunition then?

"The HE (high explosive) warhead is a general-purpose explosive warhead for use against unarmoured targets such as infantry, unarmoured wheeled vehicles, and fixed positions. The HE warhead detonates upon impact. The warhead case and charge generate a moderate amount of fragmentation, which can pass through many obstacles without stopping."

Rocket-propelled grenade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Plus they have a variety of these,say,exploding not with impact but with range(to kill entrenched personnel,rocket explodes over them)

Kruder wrote:Well how dou explain HE antipersonnel ammunition then?

jigsaw-uk wrote:Aiite think enough people have ripped me up for saying L-AT is never used against infantry. What I meant was that this is not it's primary role, as is implied by the name. It was designed to destroy light armoured vehicles, which it does just fine. When used against infantry in RL it is usually a case of improvisation rather than using it the way it was designed to be used.

My main point was that the designers of the weapon IRL would not tweak it to make it more effective against infantry, so why should the designers of the weapon in-game do the same?

Referring to this excellent video:


You'll notice that the round used in the early part of the video (HEAT, the same round used in PR) is a penetration round, able to penetrate armour up to 420mm thick, but it creates very little area effect as the force of the explosion is directed into a very small area to allow said penetration.

There are different round types available which give better penetration against buildings and structures (for ex. the CS AST), so I would support the introduction of this type of round into PR but it should be done so there are 2 separate ammo types rather than trying to get the best of both worlds out of 1 round, which is unrealistic.

I've already explained myself, and feel no reason to do so again. Try reading the whole thread.

Also the link you posted was for the RPG-7 which of course is used in anti-personnel activities however the discussion has mainly been centered around the attributes of the AT-4 L-AT used by coalition forces. Again, read the thread. The round used in PR in the RPG-7 is the HEAT round which is for destruction of enemy vehicle assets not the HE round which is for anti-personnel. Hence my suggestion to introduce different round types into PR.

I think a comma in the title would be nice, when I first saw 'machineguns LAT' I thought it was some retarded idea to either have LMGs that fire rockets or fully automatic AT launchers.

Also IIRC Jaymz said that for 0.9 all ATs will have their own characteristics.

jigsaw-uk wrote:I've already explained myself, and feel no reason to do so again. Try reading the whole thread.

Also the link you posted was for the RPG-7 which of course is used in anti-personnel activities however the discussion has mainly been centered around the attributes of the AT-4 L-AT used by coalition forces. Again, read the thread. The round used in PR in the RPG-7 is the HEAT round which is for destruction of enemy vehicle assets not the HE round which is for anti-personnel. Hence my suggestion to introduce different round types into PR.

The AT4 HEDP round sounds like it would suit our needs. Still kills light vehicles like humvees and jeeps, but can be used to blow up entrenched infantry.

Modern Firearms - AT4 / M136 antitank grenade launcher

M.

Our needs are anti armour, APC's and up, humvees and jeeps can be shot down with small arms fire.
We only get a few L-AT rockets per team, and since this game isn't reality and you're very, very likely to get shot and incapacitated at LEAST twice an hour, and they're not on the spawnscreen, most of them never get fired.
So when you actually do manage to carry a L-AT and encounter an enemy APC. If you get a clean shot, you want it to kill the ********.