Project Reality Forums

Consider what kits have optics and what kits don't, and the reasons for them having/not having optics.

The supportive kits (medic, engineer, ammo RM, auto RM) all use ironsights, and every PR vet understands the balance needed between optics/irons.

AA is not a supportive kit. The ideal way to play AA is to grab a vehicle that will dump ammo, and book it to a high point that will be a traffic area for enemy aircraft (think the mountains of Jabal, the hills of Quinling)

To me, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have optics, considering that engaging troops will likely be at distances over 100 meters. They also have 6 extra magazines, which seems more than enough ammo to defend oneself. I wouldn't mind at all if they even dropped a few mags off the kit later in exchange for optics.

If people think that giving this kit optics would change the way its played, or add too many more scopes to the battle, I disagree. People will only play this kit for the purpose of taking down aircraft, and adding optics to the kit doesnt change that. It does however, equip the soldier to properly defend himself.

When the rifleman AT kit had optics added to it, everyone (including me) thought that it was a fantastic move by the DEVs. I think that adding optics to AA would be a very subtle, but very sensible move.


agree/disagree? Discuss.

fully agree!

much better use for what? If you want to protect your sq from an air attack, there was no better kit...You dont take the kit because you need a scope. You take this kit because you want the AA Rockets...

And dont forget, why the AT kit has a scope and the AA kit not?

Ghost1800 wrote:I don't see any real issues with it, the kit has a 5 minute respawn and there are much better kits to use if you want a scope.

I think he means he doesn't have issues with my idea which means he agrees with me.


What does everyone else think?

Like with the H-AT, the AA is a system vital and expensive enough for your CO to probably want you limiting your rifle fire to self-defence, I'm sure in the field the things aren't up at the very front of the lines. Could well be wrong, but it'd be a little silly to promote engagement of anything, other then what the big expensive weapon your carrying is meant to kill, if you ask me.

AnRK wrote:Like with the H-AT, the AA is a system vital and expensive enough for your CO to probably want you limiting your rifle fire to self-defence, I'm sure in the field the things aren't up at the very front of the lines. Could well be wrong, but it'd be a little silly to promote engagement of anything, other then what the big expensive weapon your carrying is meant to kill, if you ask me.

Why are you associating optics with a strictly offensive characteristic? You can't be issued optics to protect yourself from long range engagements? (Which you will likely only face if playing the kit correctly, high up, near air traffic)

Having shot down literally hundreds of choppers and around 10 jets, I can tell you from experience that the lack of optics gives this class a mistaken identity. It is a lone-wolf class, but without any defensive/offensive range.

HellDuke wrote:You gave no GOOD reason for them having optics, since the kit will not be used to engage enemy infantry on bigger distances than the iron sights are effective at.

Yes i did give a good reason, when I said "engaging troops will likely be at distances over 100 meters." Iron sights effectiveness vary with the terrain color and geometry, but they are really effective up to a maximum of 175 meters.

Keep in mind, my definition of effective doesn't mean "able to kill", it's "able to kill before being killed."

Shouldnt you have a squad or atleast a rifleman with ammo with you anyways...?

Waaah_Wah wrote:Shouldnt you have a squad or atleast a rifleman with ammo with you anyways...?

No, because this takes too many soldiers out of the main fight. I firmly believe that effective AA is a lone-wolf camping style. Using this tactic I devastate servers. Scores like 17 and 0 and 21 and 0 I get all the time on Zatar wetlands camping in the hills near the carrier with an ammo dump.

The times I die are when people catch on and start to move up. It's very hard to defend yourself with iron-sights, and I don't think that in real life people with that kind of role would be denied a medium range scope on their weapons.

I think not unless HAT also gets optics. Im not certain of the reasoning exactly but its not really a squad level weapon in the game like the LAT is.
Your primary focus for this kit should be making best use of the main weapon, you cant even tell if there is an enemy aircraft in the distance unless you are using the manpad zoomed

I think you're missing my point. What Ive been saying is that the AA kit needs optics because of the style it should be played in. An AT doesn't need optics because he'll usually be with a squad that is there to support him and give him ammo. AA is not played this way because of the way you have to hunt aircraft. If you've got AA and you're running around with your squad killing guys with your 6 mags of ammo (don't know why they have 6 and AT has 2...) then you're flat out playing the kit wrong.

The AA kit has very poor defense when he is posting up for aircraft, and gets picked off very easy. I'd roll with 2 mags HAPPILY if he just had a weapon that could engage at longer ranges.

random pants wrote:No, because this takes too many soldiers out of the main fight. I firmly believe that effective AA is a lone-wolf camping style. Using this tactic I devastate servers. Scores like 17 and 0 and 21 and 0 I get all the time on Zatar wetlands camping in the hills near the carrier with an ammo dump.

The times I die are when people catch on and start to move up. It's very hard to defend yourself with iron-sights, and I don't think that in real life people with that kind of role would be denied a medium range scope on their weapons.

IRL you dont have lone soldiers sitting on hills with AA weapons. Get a rifleman to go with you if you want a scope. And dont tell me that your one of these nice fellas that take a vodnik, drive where they wanna go, drop the ammo crate and dump the car. Coz thats really, really annoying

I think you are defeating yourself with your own argument for random. You talk about sitting up on with an ammo resupply and picking off choppers and planes. That right there shows that your don't understand the concept of the AA soldier. His job is to provide close AA support for his squad, not sit on a hill somewhere. While you may get more kills sitting on a hill that is not how the kit is meant to be utilized. Also I believe the reasoning behind the mag count of 6 for the AA gunner and only 2 for the HAT is to represent the difference in weight between anti-air and anti-tank missles. Aircraft simply cannot be as heavily armored as tanks and APC therefore the warhead needed to take them down is not at large or as heavy.

Close squad support for AA???? Are you kidding me? When's the last time you ever heard your SL say 30 seconds before the game starts "Ok, we're gonna need someone to grab AA for close squad support...."

And that's not the only way everyone plays the kit(on a hill), it's just a good way to play it. It's about putting yourself in the best position to destroy as much aircraft as possible.



Anyways, I'd like a DEV to come in here and say "it's a possibility", or "ain't gonna happen."

The last time oh I don't know....maybe last NIGHT. On Qwai, where the squad lead wanted CLOSE AA SUPPORT against little birds. That's the job of an infantry AA soldier. He's not a mobile armored AA platform mean to deal solely with aircraft. The AA infantryman is a dual purpose soldier, both with his anti-air capabilities and ability to aid in fire support with his standard infantry rifle. You may kill more choppers while your out camping somewhere waiting for them to fly over but what you are not doing is moving with your team providing them air cover, fire support, and more bodies to take objectives. Just as a HAT soldier should not be off by himself trying to kill armor, neither should an AA soldier. Remember also that this is a game which strives to promote realistic use of equipment and tactics. That does not include lone AA soldiers.

I've never had to carry a MANPADs (plus extra rockets+body armor+rifle+rifle ammoo) before, but

if anything, i would imagine that the AA soldier carried a carbine (i.e. single/3-burst M4) with or without optics and only 4-5 mags for the rifle

Its irrelevant to talk about game balance if we're accepting the convention of a lone wolf class, of whatever brand. Even snipers aren't lone wolfers, supposedly.

Really I think that any class ought to have the opportunity to have an optic. I mean don't some soldiers attach their own anyway? And the only real argument against letting some of the support classes have optics is the idea of organically restricting the ability of the soldier to engage long range targets thus making him more focused on his assigned primary purpose (read something similar in intent written talking about how they gave SLs submachine guns in WW2 so that they wouldn't be able to effectively get caught up in the longer range suppression firing and thus focus on directing the rest of the squad). And really if there is enough of a need for limiting fire through that kind of idea then let the SLs themselves in game who ask for the kits say "I want you to take the ironsights cause I don't want you firing at anybody other than those fucking jets".

Sights or no sights ought to be a mostly personal choice or one subjective based on the situation (maybe you want your SAW to have an optic cause on this map you are gonna have only long range firefights or you're defending a plateau and want to suppress from a longer distance). As long as there's a balance to make ironsights and optics competitive in different situations with each choice given an appropriate drawback then its all good, I figure.

Ugh, now you're talking about the broader spectrum of optics/no optics. I skewed a little when I talked about lone-wolfing, which is not it's only roll, just one I do often with great success.

All I'm trying to say in this thread is that I think the AA kit is the odd-man-out in the distribution of optic and iron-sighted rifles.

random pants wrote:Ugh, now you're talking about the broader spectrum of optics/no optics. I skewed a little when I talked about lone-wolfing, which is not it's only roll, just one I do often with great success.

All I'm trying to say in this thread is that I think the AA kit is the odd-man-out in the distribution of optic and iron-sighted rifles.

IMHO if lone Wolfing is an issue lets do it this way:

AA with assault rifle/optics, less ammo for the weapon. IE if it's an isnurgent 4 mags standard? slash it down to two mags, that way he has less room to blaze and will need to stay with the squad for more ammo for his rifle.

Got a USMC AA kit? 8 mags standard? Slash it down to 4 mags, RA (Royal Army for you non British military folks) AA kit? 8 mags standard? Agian slash it by half the less ammo you have the closer you are to your squad mates, and the more attached you need to be to get to the front line.

IMHO AA troops need to stick with the squad and protect them with their AA weapons from low flying jets, and choppers just like in real life. If you watch videos of the Soviet Afgahnistan conflict more often then not the Aribs shooting the stingers, and the Russians shooting the SA-7s are not only at a high point for clear shots, but also in the thick of the fighting with the troops, and keeping the choppers off their back.