Project Reality Forums

now there seems to be a lot of controversy over this, and i realize that there are a few in the commnuity that habitualy use it on infantry. however, there are some situations where it has been used in self deffence.

would giving the kit a better secondary weapon be the answer? a SMG or some very light auto or semi auto weapon other than the 9mm give some the opertunity to waste that rocket on a dude in body armor? even the anti-air kit carries an assult rifle, that can be no less cumbersome than the AT. plus the fact that it is a request kit would makes it already "policed".

Im all for making H-AT have a rifle, more in fitting with RL

Maybe not a rifle; that'd make the LAT useless. Maybe an ironsight carbine or SMG.

SMG FTW

LAT isn't useless as is quickly deployed. I was Brit anti-tank in the 90's and we had rifles with SUSAT's along with our two-man Milan systems. The whole idea of carrying a pistol was nonsensical (we used to split it down to carry on our backs when on foot, tripod, firing computer, 2x missiles) We'd look like a bunch of dwalves crossing the terrain from a distance though, totally bent forwards struggling along with the weight on our backs.

However, in the case of balancing in PR, some concenssions have to be made unfortunately. Based on the hard coded game system, the maps push systems, etc, you will always see little things like this.

Does anyone else find the H-AT completly useless? It just drops horrifically and doesn't seem to track at all, if people are using it to snipe when I can't hit a tank that's 50 metres away I'm sure something is wrong here. I do know about the being still thing, I can see the bracket aimers.

yep H-at are useless as soon as the tanks get a lock they have enough time to go away or shoot you. H-at needs to be improved alot because ATM infantry are totally useless against armor.

as far as i know there is nothing wrong with H-AT. if a tank is at a longer distance don't aim straight on it just above it and drag it to the tank. because when you fire the H-AT it wont track at ones it will drop a little then comes back up and tracks where you aim. its simple

Actually, I've found at short distance, aiming downwards (ie. Qwai River I was on the east bank, just south of south bridge firing into the water where an APC was. My missiles would appear to go into the apc but would explode i8n the water behind the apc. The apc crew were dead, but the apc wouldn't blow.

At long distance, I've found that the HAT would go to the target, then half the time mysteriously drop just in front of the tank and explode on the ground, really anooying me.

At long distance, I've found that the HAT would go to the target, then half the time mysteriously drop just in front of the tank and explode on the ground, really anooying me.

It is FUBAR'd, the firing arc is like Light AT, then if it hasn't dropped into the ground, it all of a sudden obeys your command and becomes guide-able

[R-PUB]MrD wrote: At long distance, I've found that the HAT would go to the target, then half the time mysteriously drop just in front of the tank and explode on the ground, really anooying me.

its teH SHtora in action !

well, HAT sniping was very anoying in previos versions , sicne the HAT was ready in a matter of seconds . in 0.7 , however , its very hard to kill a moving target , making the hatsniping less common , just more like real life .

In my limited testing, it seems to me that the HAT is not accurate when the yellow crosshair bitty things get together. Instead it is accurate a couple seconds AFTER they get together (which is not very intuitive).

Yea the HAT kit definetly needs something other than a pistol...pistol is virtually useless, I put 4 shots into a guy, he turned around and killed me. Not to mention the weapon deviation affects the pistol and half of your bullets dont hit your target 5m away..

I'm all for a rifle or smg for the HAT, now since its very difficult to use, there could indeed be a better option for self defense. But i'm afraid this could be a re-suggestion, and afaik the dev's always said no to a rifle or even smg for HAT.

maybe give the H-AT kit the shotgun?

What's wrong with a pistol?


I think we should get rid of the H-AT and have a H-at Pistol instead...

FIRE WINSTON!!!

Serious note, bigger calibre (me like the pistol the barrat used to get ) and less deviation, after all handguns are lighter and far easier to aim accurately while moving

Yeah, the handgun aim is atrocious. I literally was unable to hit a guy 5 meters away. Sights up while moving too. Needless to say, I wasn't happy. Make the pistol effective, make the HAT reasonably effective, and call it a day.

im for the SMG tbh, mybe give them Mp-7s and skorpians

i know Mp-7s are used as PDW for crews but what is stopping it from being used by AT soldiers? cost?

Im for giving them inronsight carbines with only 3 mags(+1 already seated mag) so they arent used as assualt kits. Maybe less for balance reasons but with the new HAT devation it has pretty much eliminated what made them abusive in the first place. I was also wondering if you can lower the amount of sprint according to the kit you have. So if you have the heavier kits you have decreased sprint because right now an auto rifleman can run just as fast as a spec ops guy.

In .6 Light AT and Heavy AT had a very ???? relationship. It was always a trade off, You wanted to take out armor and still be able to assault enemy's well? You got a Light AT kit. You wanted to be a Tank Killer? You got Heavy AT kit. Now it's almost the same except the Light AT had less clips then they do now and no scope. But Heavy AT is nearly the same as in .6, Pistol and a more deviating Rocket. I think it needs to be evened out dont you think?

If Light AT has a scoped assault rifle now with 1+8 clips, Then why cant Heavy AT get an unscoped rifle with 1+4 clips? It would keep the heavy AT guys alive longer and give them more defensive capabilities then with just a pistol(Also AA has an Assault rifle, Why shouldn't Heavy AT?)