Project Reality Forums

Since the AA gun was replaced by an anti-aircraft missile system (which I suggested, though I take no credit), I can foresee some kind of void in the anti-personnel power of a bunker/FB. I know that mortars may be added whenever they're complete, but can anyone think of a more appropriate, balanced anti-personnel weapon to be deployed alongside or instead of the AA missiles?

What I'm thinking of is a split commo-rose command; the text would read "Build AA/APERS", left click building AA missiles and right click building an MG/Mortar/whatever we come up with.

Another alternative is placing machine guns on sandbags, though IIRC there were issues with this that prevented it from happening.

The discussion, therefore, is turned to you: what would be most balanced and easiest to implement anti-personnel asset to add to bunkers/FBs?

I agree, you should be able to deploy mounted MG's and TOW missles...only makes sense to me.

Maybe 2 Mounted MGs come ON THE BUNKER (in the windows)

and if you want a TOW, request a H-AT kit from the bunker... so that's not needed. The AAA was very, very, very effective in infantry suppression. Get one guy on the gun, one guy spotting, and you can take out things from however far away!

Aside:

Actually... if you make a mortar and put it on the bunker, maybe make it deployable and only usable within a certain radius by an SL/Engineer

You get in, and something akin to the Commander screen comes up, and you place artillery, but only within 150 or so meters... is that realistic?

(Maybe only bunkers, too...)

Allied intent had deployable mortat from eng, and assualt class when you put it down you could enter it like a vehicle and then you would get a sight like the grenadiers.

Oldirti wrote:I agree, you should be able to deploy mounted MG's and TOW missles...only makes sense to me.

Agree with the MG but for the TOW, Id say only to bukers, Firebases are supposed to be hidden bases with low defence. SO MG to both and TOW to bunkers

Maybe 2 Mounted MGs come ON THE BUNKER (in the windows)

Not going to happen, has been discussed to death. When the bunker dies the weapons remain.

and if you want a TOW, request a H-AT kit from the bunker... so that's not needed.

I don't think it's a question of necessity, but sometimes it would be very nice to have another non-mobile HAT for defense because the HAT kits are taken. I don't think deployable HAT is a very good idea, but it could come in very handy at many times.

I know that mortars may be added whenever they're complete, but can anyone think of a more appropriate, balanced anti-personnel weapon to be deployed alongside or instead of the AA missiles?

An infantry squad? The AA was changed to missiles because AAA was used mainly against ground units, which was super lame and generally unrealistic.

I don't think bunkers/FBs need any kind of anti-personnel weapons, they're spawning troops and supplying weapons. They're not really designed as strong points, they're quickly erected supply points.

Completely agree with adding anti personnel weapon to bunker/firebase. They are often under attack by infantry and deserve some sort of defensive weapons to make it harder to attack.

A deployable MG with sandbags is the perfect choice. It would have to be modeled and skinned of course (assuming the standard sandbag+mg emplacement causes problems). No reason why it can't act just like the AA with a different model/skin/animation.

If regular mounted MG's are any indication, players will feel that it serves the "entertainment" position, and is there to fill their ears with MG fire, and leave it useless when it's out of ammo.

the only truly satisfactory route (aside from TOWs which I'm suprised were not included given that AA was) is to create a placeable 12.7mm cannon or 40mm grenade machine gun as a static multi-purpose weapon.
in the past Devs justifiably cracked down on requests for the above - they served no purpose in the game at the time, however, the game has changed alot since then to a point where such weapons are not just wanted, they are imho necessary ...

We need some serious firepower to stop that bomb-rigged Yugo from driving into your bunker, which is why I always liked some APERS weaponry, like the old AA, on a bunker. Even some .50 cal machine guns would be fine, as long as there's some kind of infantry/vehicle buster around when the jeeps are doing their jobs.

Quick and easy solution:
Take a humvee/tecnican/vodnik/buggy and park it near firebase/bunker.
Use the .50cal on top and off you go.

Fredi321 wrote:Quick and easy solution:
Take a humvee/tecnican/vodnik/buggy and park it near firebase/bunker.
Use the .50cal on top and off you go.

This. Those light jeeps are now actually useful. God help the op for when the uparmored humvee arrives.

I believe on air maps should be deployable stingers, and maps with no air will be deployable TOW. Such as on fools road will have both teams deployable TOW, but on quinling be both teams deployable stinger.

Maybe sometype of vehical that is only a mg mount that can be spawned as an asset with the gunner part of the vehical. Basicallly, take the gunner area of a humvee and place it on a little pod or something that can be spawned and not moved.

Expendable Grunt wrote:This. Those light jeeps are now actually useful. God help the op for when the uparmored humvee arrives.

We'll see about that when we get a proper Vodnik!

The AA was changed to missiles because AAA was used mainly against ground units, which was super lame and generally unrealistic.

Well, not really. Chechnya, Angola, Serbia, Vietnam, Korea, Panama...

AAA has been and is used extensively in the ground attack role.

The unrealistic thing is the British having AAA at all (as they simply don't IRL), the Americans using something that was retired shortly after the Gulf War and the Chinese making use of a weapons system that would, at best, be in second line service with the PLA today, let alone in the near future.

Though it isn't very fun to be on the recieving end of.

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley wrote:We'll see about that when we get a proper Vodnik!

That's not a light jeep. It's a winmobile.

$kelet0r wrote:the only truly satisfactory route (aside from TOWs which I'm suprised were not included given that AA was) is to create a placeable 12.7mm cannon or 40mm grenade machine gun as a static multi-purpose weapon.
in the past Devs justifiably cracked down on requests for the above - they served no purpose in the game at the time, however, the game has changed alot since then to a point where such weapons are not just wanted, they are imho necessary ...

x2

Redo sandbags make them have a proper hight and possibly a gun port for lying down and shooting through.
(2) Give each bunker fire base a number of Claymores maybe like 2 that can be deployed withing 50 meters.
(3) FIX HAT and TOW so it must Lock onto a Vehicular heat source of some sort a tow or hat would never be used to take down a bunker or fire base much less infantry.
(4) I don't Know about Real world bunker engineering nowadays But I would suspect that dirt bags shovels and even cement are pretty cheap and would be built to withstand all APC fire also the door would not be just a hole anyone can fire into.For game play sake honestly only jdam or c4 should hurt them at all!

the issue here, is...
Is haveing a AAA at a bunker realistic.
Answer: NO

Haveing a giant 2 tonne vulcancannon setup in an instant by a guy who didnt know what the retire button on the commander com menue does is not realistic.

The only suitable option is a new type of sandbag that is deployable by a squad leader with an MG on the top. I have read the post, and i know there are "issues" with it. But surely it can be done.

i dont know, im just a noob. -_-