Project Reality Forums

thats because HoH is not a pr map , is more like a ww1 charge map , it simple dont work in moder combat.

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:an overpowered super soldier that is UBER against everything

It's really not. I mean,
- the pistol sucks
- in close quarters an auto will either always beat a HAT, or both guys will die (from the rocket)
- long range a HAT can be sniped at with a sniper, marksman, or any scoped gun, and the HAT can't fire back if he's trying to save his rocket


If it really was so uber, then everyone would try to get a HAT in every situation, but they clearly don't because sometimes I go to request the HAT just for fun and it's available a lot. The only times it isn't is when there is a lot of vehicles around.



And @ the people talking about Hills. In my experience pubbing for the last couple months, Hills is totally unbalanced towards USA, not China. USA can just walk in and cap the flags and China can't even recover them. Once the mapper placed rally points disappear 5 minutes in, China has to spawn at their main, because there is literally only 3 places to put rally points, and 1 of them is out of bounds and not very safe from americans, the other (and BEST one) is down in a stupid valley, and the 3rd one is basically half way to the US base and can't be kept alive.

Now maybe in an organized match between 2 smart and skilled teams it might be a different story (for example, in pubs you never see the chinese building a bunker up on the hills, and they obviously should), but for your basic pub game, china is so screwed by the map design (and dumb squads) that I refuse to even play on China on that map. (Although, I think I will next time, I'll be the commander and try and build a bunker up in the hills and see how it alters things.)

The pistol is nice.. super accurate with no recoil, but not the best choice at range.

I just wish the pistol had the same kind of iron sighted view as every other gun. It's really dumb how it doesn't. When you look down the pistol, the sight should line exactly up with what you are shooting at like it does on the m16. Instead you shoot like an inch above the gun (or some distance..)

i use H-AT against armour most of the time, unless its a map with loads of bunkers, for example, Hills of Hamyongang, then i just cant help blowing infantry out of there holes!

'[T wrote:BludShoT;525509']It's really not. I mean,
- the pistol sucks
- in close quarters an auto will either always beat a HAT, or both guys will die (from the rocket)

1. What are you doing with H-at in CQC.
2. you should have a 5 man squad babysiting you!
3.it is up to you and your SL to move using routes that are less traveld to avoid confrontation.

'[T wrote:BludShoT;525509']It's really not. I mean,
- the pistol sucks
- in close quarters an auto will either always beat a HAT, or both guys will die (from the rocket)
- long range a HAT can be sniped at with a sniper, marksman, or any scoped gun, and the HAT can't fire back if he's trying to save his rocket


If it really was so uber, then everyone would try to get a HAT in every situation, but they clearly don't because sometimes I go to request the HAT just for fun and it's available a lot. The only times it isn't is when there is a lot of vehicles around.

And thats the way it should stay. If we were to start making him better off, we'd be going down that road.
At range, the HAT is almost as competent as a marksman. Its called HAT sniping for a reason. This is because it is so damn good at counter sniping enemy snipers.


If you had HAT on a hill and a sniper on a hill, the HAT would perform many times better, providing he has an ammo source.

...mongol...

Someones leaking .7 WIP details

Possible delay fuse?

Well I'm excited none the less, because *major* flaws in PR are fixed over time, or they get a big bandage on a gaping wound to fix the problem!

The time I think HAT is wrong:

Maps with no APCs/IFVs/Tanks on infantry ( Not vehicles )
Though light does the same job on light vehicles >.> Hat just has TWO shots ( One of the reasons id take it on say... operation pheonix for bunker busting / hitting long range vehicles )

Have I HAT sniped, of course, when there are no targets and I have an infinite ammo source I do - but there are scenarios when I know there is armor on the lurk ( hiding inside flags in al kufrah, never wasting rockets )

I almost always hold onto the HAT and avoid wasting shots on any maps with greater than light vehicles....

Though when you *know* an entire wave of armor isn't coming back for 15 minutes, and you spot an enemy rally / cluster of infantry / bunker - I will use it if I'm supported by more than 3 people covering me...

Though I would rather prefer that there was some method to keep HAT sniping from occuring as bad as it can now ( Thank god its not like .5 now - BOOM reload BOOM reload BOOM reload... )

Okay, let's settle this once and for all.

HAT sniping is okay as it is done in the Real World, OK?


You want evidence? A guy on a bicycle carrying an RPG-7 on his back was shot with a Javelin. It was the weapon at hand and reached the distance necessary and included the fact that the guy wasn't likely to survive and fire back.

Next, as to cost and wastage. Two sniper at a location were holding up an entire patrol from their duties. So an aircraft came over and dropped its entire ordinance, 16x 1,000lb bombs on those two guys. Just so the patrol could go on about its duties and keep to the timetable.

These details have straight from the mouths of fire control guys who serve/served out in the combat zones saying they will use anything and everything in their arsenal to ensure that the enemy cannot kill our forces or delay them too long.


Making artificial rules ingame about HAT sniping is to ensure that the "reality" in "project reality" becomes a lie and a poor description. The AAS2 push system and generalised rule about main base raping is a separate rule that benefits the game generally. It doesn't have the same artificial effect on gaming that a no-HAT sniping rule does.

(note on some servers including iGi we allow forces to enter enemy bases and destroy commander assets, mine and c4, but not actively start raping troops when they spawn! can return fire when retreating out, but not actively target troops. A death zone the mapper placed on certain bases is for realism/storyline purposes, relevant to maps location.)

Well said MrD. I can´t think of one reason that H-AT sniping annoys me.

Simple solution. Call the NATO and have them change their definition of these weapons. From HAT-Heavy Anti Tank to HAT-Hit All Things. End of story.

So let me get this straight

YOU are complaining about how the ENEMY is choosing to kill YOU his ENEMY with HIS weapons.

Right?

Well then lets continue

YOU think that HE is WASTING HIS WEAPONS on YOU

Correct?

So you are mad about

A) Him wasting his resources on you

or

B) Getting killed by said ENEMY resources

Hmmm I'm gonna need to call upon the powers of MS paint for this...



I think people need to understand that it costs $250,000 to train a warm body to kill other warm bodies through the use of extremely hot, extremely fast moving lead or molten copper bodies. This concept has been around in every army since like the Korean war; Expend things not people... unless you're the PLA.

nice cas, another one of your ms paint storys i think you should stat a little thread with all of your little ms paint things so that people could have a good laugh. but come on his watch just died!

ironcomatose wrote:Simple solution. Call the NATO and have them change their definition of these weapons. From HAT-Heavy Anti Tank to HAT-Hit All Things. End of story.

What about LAT?

During the falklands war you might have heard about Colonel H, a British nutcase who led his troops from the front up a hill against bunker, just to get chopped to pieces. So some bright spark said, "feck this for a game of soldiers, pass the LAW66" and promptly started firing LAT into the enemy bunkers to successfully clear out the Argies.


If they didn't change the name of LAT to Light Anti-Bunker Weapon after this many years, you have no chance now with HAT !!!

(that said, the Brit army changed the name of it's guided droplet weapons to avoid it being called a (morally banned) cluster bomb, so they can change some things in some cases)

I can't say that using of HAT against me is annoying, I would rather say that is funny or stupid. This is mostly because when I hear big "whooooosh" in the air, I just hit prone and missile mostly misses, leaving me unhurt. Next fired round gives me exact location of crazy HAT sniper, and he goes down.

Realistic part of HAT use on infantry is something completely different.

You can't use HAT on infantry in the open area. HAT round is not explosive round, and it will not cause explosive blast unless it hits something explosive or flammable. HAT round has funnel shaped, cumulative explosive charge (3),



which is designed to focus the effect of the explosive energy into just one spot, which causes immediate melting of armor in that spot. Through made hole, extreme heat entering the inside area of armored vehicle/object, causing instant melting of everything inside and it triggers explosion of ammunition and vehicle's fuel. That is also the main reason why that round is also known as HEAT round.
Heat round can be triggered only if it hits firm object, like armor or bunker, if it hits some soft surface, like ground (soft soil, not rock) or human body, it wont be triggered.
In other words, if you hit the ground with HAT, right in the middle of group of 20 soldiers, you wont kill anyone. You may injure few of them, but to kill, hmmm, very hard. Direct hit in human body will certainly kill that unlucky dude, but that will be one very very lucky shoot for shooter because of completely erratic behavior of projectile during flight, it is designed that you can hit big target, but small targets like human body - almost impossible.
HAT on work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_P5Fk26648

On other side, most LAT weapons uses two type of rounds, cumulative and explosive rounds.
LAT explosive rounds are very effective against infantry, vehicles or non fortified objects, they are causing quite a large and deadly explosion blast which will certainly kill all those 20 soldiers in group.

H-AT sniping is when you clearly are in no real danger, you could spot the advancing enemy using your massive zoom to let other team members near by know the location of said enemy squad.
Instead your nuber massive head fires rocket 200-500 meters across map to take down enemy squad with retarded l337 giggles of laughter..

Thats H-AT sniping, if your underfire you have to protect the kit with any means available but Using it as a cheap scoring epeen enhancer is ****..

GruAncH wrote: Thats H-AT sniping, if your underfire you have to protect the kit with any means available but Using it as a cheap scoring epeen enhancer is ****..

Yeah, i'd go with that for a compromise

...mongol...

slightly off topic, but been mentioned in this thread before, please remove the stupid lock warning in tanks when the HAT is shoting at it.

Burlock wrote:slightly off topic, but been mentioned in this thread before, please remove the stupid lock warning in tanks when the HAT is shoting at it.

Maybe that represents seeing the smoke trail? or even modern locking computerised systems painting the target with a laser or equivalent and a tank mounted device senses it is being targetted on a certain wavelength/frequency relating to their enemies HAT?

I was anti tank. We'd fire Milan over 1200m approx and expect 10-12 seconds to striking a tank. The commander of a tank could potentially see the path of the missile and give warning.

But worse still, back then we only had second generation Milan and soviet tank commanders would have a pole on the turrets with a flare on the top with a pull cord if they knew their business. If they saw the smoke trail and assumed 2nd gen Milan incoming they'd pull the cord, the flare would go off, brighter than the flare in the back of our missile and the guidance system would get confused and 'bye bye' £20,000 of missile wiggling out of control over the hill.

[R-PUB]MrD wrote:Maybe that represents seeing the smoke trail? or even modern locking computerised systems painting the target with a laser or equivalent and a tank mounted device senses it is being targetted on a certain wavelength/frequency relating to their enemies HAT?

I was anti tank. We'd fire Milan over 1200m approx and expect 10-12 seconds to striking a tank. The commander of a tank could potentially see the path of the missile and give warning.

But worse still, back then we only had second generation Milan and soviet tank commanders would have a pole on the turrets with a flare on the top with a pull cord if they knew their business. If they saw the smoke trail and assumed 2nd gen Milan incoming they'd pull the cord, the flare would go off, brighter than the flare in the back of our missile and the guidance system would get confused and 'bye bye' £20,000 of missile wiggling out of control over the hill.

You served, D?

...mongol...