Project Reality Forums

I'm in between the two sides on this one. On one side I agree that the HAT kit is better without the immediate lock tone for the driver of armor but on the other side perhaps it's making it too difficult on armor vehicles on maps where there is extreme cover such as Fool's Road.

Is there a way to make it so there is no tone while the HAT soldier sets up the shot and zero's in and then the tone only starts after the missile has been fired? Obviously from shorter ranges the tone would be a millisecond before the missile hits and there is no way any armor is going to get away from that. However if they are at 200m and firing there is perhaps a couple of seconds to pop smoke and gun forward in hopes the missile misses.

Just a personal opinion.

Not quite sure how there would be a "tone" -- there isn't anything to "detect".

Disagree.

Improper use of a tank should not equate changes to the HAT. Remember that tanks are designed as LONG range weapons, used in conjunction with supporting infantry. Too many people use tanks as a heavily armored scout vehicles, rolling ahead of the battle lines looking for easy targets. This is not their role and when tanks are at their most vulnerable.

HATs are easily defeated at a distance, with supporting infantry constantly moving forward of the tank and clearing out areas the tank cannot see. Do this, and your tank (and supporting infantry squad) will be nearly invincible.

If the HAT needs any changes, it's not this, and not for that reason.

But don't modern tanks detect incoming projectiles? Or do they detect only the lasers pointed at them?

I don't know :/

!

Reactive armor pl0x!

Outlawz wrote:But don't modern tanks detect incoming projectiles? Or do they detect only the lasers pointed at them?

I am not sure but i belief thats only when tanks have a radar.

the radar is to detect incoming missils , the lazer can be detectec wihtout that , the t90 has a lot of sensors areoun the turret for that purporse

There is NO laser. It's precalculated. Doubt we can do that with the engine, though.

Wolfe wrote:Disagree.

Improper use of a tank should not equate changes to the HAT. Remember that tanks are designed as LONG range weapons, used in conjunction with supporting infantry. Too many people use tanks as a heavily armored scout vehicles, rolling ahead of the battle lines looking for easy targets. This is not their role and when tanks are at their most vulnerable.

HATs are easily defeated at a distance, with supporting infantry constantly moving forward of the tank and clearing out areas the tank cannot see. Do this, and your tank (and supporting infantry squad) will be nearly invincible.

If the HAT needs any changes, it's not this, and not for that reason.

100% agree with this.

Expendable Grunt wrote:There is NO laser. It's precalculated. Doubt we can do that with the engine, though.

dont need to. just add a target to the tank, make the launcher have a very small lock angle so that the person firing the rocket has to track the tank closely, give it a lock delay of 2-5 sec. then the missile would have a very small lock angle as well, so if the tank was to change direction too fast the missile would loose lock. this would function just like the way it would i real life. but there are a few issues, like only being able to make the rocket track heat or laser.

The thing is...There would be no lock tone period. There is nothing being locked onto, and there is no way for the tank to get a signal from it. This is a good step in realism.