Project Reality Forums

Undeniably, the LAT and HAT weapons are extremely effective against infantry, perhaps too effective. LAT is often preferred over the kit's assault rifle simply because it can be fired with no aim time, miss, and still kill your opponent with the blast radius. The HAT is not much different; it requires more aim time but makes up for it with superior distance and accuracy. In both cases, the net result is the same: easy, instant death to infantry.

It has come to the point where some server admins, recognizing this, have instituted rules governing the use of LAT and/or HAT against infantry. I agree with the intent of the rules, but not the outcome, since it's nearly impossible to enforce and too easy to accuse.

This is an area of the game where I believe that gameplay may override realism. While it's fun and effective to HAT/LAT snipe, it's not fun to be sniped and creates a balance issue that is exploited.

Suggestion:
Reduce the LAT/HAT blast radius. Make the explosion damage and radius against infantry similar to that of the non-heat AT sabot fired from a tank; Vehicles are destroyed, but against infantry the effect is minimal/moderate at best.

I believe doing this will dramatically reduce LAT/HAT sniping against infantry because it will be more effective to use your rifle. This will improve gameplay balance and eliminate the need for servers do this through complicated rule systems. Win-win for all.

H-AT Yes!
L-AT No!

L-ATs are often used against enemy fortified positions. Not only Insurgents, but also conventional armies use them against bunkers/houses/etc. I do agree with H-AT since that's pure Anti Tank stuff.

Also: 1337 p0llz!! joooooo!

brummy.uk wrote:H-AT Yes!
L-AT No!

L-ATs are often used against enemy fortified positions. Not only Insurgents, but also conventional armies use them against bunkers/houses/etc. I do agree with H-AT since that's pure Anti Tank stuff.

Also: 1337 p0llz!! joooooo!

Agree in all 3 points

well it depends there are rockets for the hat and lat that are used to take out infantry and bunkers. now if you could pick what rocket you wanted then this would be ok, cus each would be good at one thing and not everything like right now.

brummy.uk wrote:H-AT Yes!
L-AT No!

****. I should have separated them in the poll. Any PR forum admin do this for me please?

TBH, as long as the HAT isn't being used against ONE lone soldier (save a sniper), I really don't mind HAT vs infantry. It's a weapon. What's the difference between the SRAW being used against infantry, and the SMAW (if it was going to be used in game).

I often find that insurgent RPG poppers (ie they pop round the corner take a shot and pop back) will take out lone grunts with their rockets, its annoying, though its mainly due to the fact they have no other weapon in their kit, even a postol might reduce this because currently their only choice is to use their grendade or get gunned down.

Id like to see the radius reduced on light and heavy AT.

i completely disagree with ya Wolfe, I think the radius is supposed to represent shrapnel and pressure. A fired HAT or LAT will kill you not necessarily by the explosion itself but by the pieces of shrapnel caused by the charge. So even if a HAT or LAT misses your position but hits a wall in your vicinity, then that should equal death.

unless your standing infront of, or right ontop of the blast the shrapnel would be mostly harmless, arnt these weapons designed to create holes in walls/armour... and then explode. Thats the key difference between HE rounds and AP, HE will blast on contact and throw rubble and shrapnel out in all angels. AP peirces through the wall/armour then after about a meter or something explode. I could be wrong, but that was my impression.

The brits on PR use FGM-172 SRAW as their H-AT weapon. This weapon seems to have two variants of warheads.

Quoted from wiki:
"The FGM-172A features a downward-firing top-attack warhead activated by a dual sensor fuse, and is intended for use as an anti-armor weapon.

The FGM-172B features a multi-purpose blast-fragmentation warhead, and is intended for use as an urban assault weapon."

So I guess the blast radius for H-AT depends on which one of these are used? The urban one or the AT one...

EDIT: Yeah and the LAW 80 the brits use as L-AT weapons fire rockets with HEAT warheads. I'm not entirely sure how they work tho so I cant say anything about their blast radius.

So... people think the explosion radius should be INCREASED? Is that opinion based on the giving or receiving end of the weapon?

basicaly , yes , they should be represented as ralistic as possible , and if a rpg land 5-10 meter from you , you are screwed .

increased it .

The LAT/HAT blast radius should realistically portray the weapons themselves. I think right now it's approximately correct.

Can someone fill me in on "AT Sniping"? From what I understand, and I may be wrong since I am assuming, is that it is only using the weapon from a stand off, long range distance. Am I wrong, or am I right? If I am right, whats wrong with using its range to kill enemy armored targets?

I feel like a "noob" having to ask, but I have just recently ventured back into regular PR gameplay.

No, it is fine as is!!! Leave the AT systems alone, they are actually very well balanced as of now.

yesterday on Ejod I took out 7 MEC APC's with HAT, 3 Vodnik's, 2 bunkers and 2 trucks.
I didnt used it on infantry even once. HAT have rifles now which I used to kill 5 MEC's i self defence. People really dont use HAT strictly on infantry now. From time to time some 'nilla neighbour but thats it.

@DYLAN: sniping its an abrevation (if Im using this word correct ) It means that you shoot just infantry with it, with no hard targets in the vicinity. HAT was used as an exploding sniper riffle. If you saw a dot on the horizon you were shooting at that dot, it didnt matter either you hit 3 meters from him or straight in the head, he was dead anyway, no chance what so ever.


As I was saying HAT sniping is not a problem, it simply not worth to waste such an asset on infantry. As for LAT... well... Im not usually do that but if I choose between my or my squads death and wasting a LAT on some infantry guys the choice becomes very simple. And I think that happens in the real life too.

So whats the discussion for? Oh... blast radius... well, make it realistic, it's simple, isnt it? I think its ok, but if compared to reality its to small or to big change it.

Ok someone explain the difference between getting killed by a tank and getting killed by HAT. Or a chopper. Or a plane.

[R-CON]CAS_117 wrote:Ok someone explain the difference between getting killed by a tank and getting killed by HAT. Or a chopper. Or a plane.

Well, the HAT's radius is smaller than the tank




Your squad in building + me with LAT/HAT = No more building.