Project Reality Forums

I think the claymore should explode on contact like the grenade trap, i bet you more people will use this class then.

I just can't find a situation that it works with exploding it on command.

I strongly disagree.

Claymores are a tool that is intended for one specific role: point defense. The simple fact is that most players do not have the interest or patience to defend an area, and normally the areas that are being defended are quite large, which makes claymore placement tricky. However, in certain situations they can be very effective.

Yeah i mean you have to watch your claymore now, and i doubt anybody does that when they can just guard it using their gun.

They are quite effective for defending tunnels and other structures though. Put them in a choke point and wait for a large group to attack, then blow it.

Also, some of the conventional forces ingame have signed the Ottawa Treaty, thus making it unlikely for them to have proximity detonated anti-personnel mines. Having very similar looking mines act differently between forces could be confusing for new players.

I still miss the old Trip Flares and thought that they were excellent tools in the right circumstance. I think if you could fit it into the weapon slots that a Trip Flare or three should be given to the Rifleman AP.

It is interesting to note that USA, China, Russia, Israel, and the rest of the middle eastern countries have not signed the Ottawa treaty. This makes proximity detonated-type claymores a possibility for future PR releases IF the devs deem it worthy of their time.

I just think that that this kit will see much more gametime then.

I mean, what's the last time you saw somebody use this kit?

Shadowmetroid wrote:It is interesting to note that USA, China, Russia, Israel, and the rest of the middle eastern countries have not signed the Ottawa treaty. This makes proximity detonated-type claymores a possibility for future PR releases IF the devs deem it worthy of their time.

Yeah, just like a treaty that the US and Russia signed said that we would seal off our in-flight refueling probes on our long range bombers. But that hasn't happened.

I love the AI kit. Those clymores are just so fun to set up on the side of a road on insurgency. Place them in a regularly driven past area and have a little patiance. Got like 15 kills on technicals this way. The driver usually lasts about 20 more seconds after the explosion before he bleeds out. But all his little friends in the back die right on cue. They have no idea what hits em. So fun.

Endymion wrote:I think the claymore should explode on contact like the grenade trap, i bet you more people will use this class then.

I just can't find a situation that it works with exploding it on command.

The M18A1 Claymore was designed as a command-detonated weapon, it is not a land mine. And although it can be configured for a variety of detonation methods, using the "clacker" is the preferred method and most common.

If you're unable to use the claymore effectively with command det, then you either need more practice or you need to find a different task to occupy your time.

TheAmazingYant wrote:I strongly disagree.

Claymores are a tool that is intended for one specific role: point defense. The simple fact is that most players do not have the interest or patience to defend an area, and normally the areas that are being defended are quite large, which makes claymore placement tricky. However, in certain situations they can be very effective.

Generally, if your AO is a larger area with minimal choke points or kill zones, the use of claymores is rather pointless. You might get lucky, but you're better off just using a high volume of direct fire such as a few LMG/HMG sectors.

If you absolutely feel it's necessary to employ claymores in an open area, you should try to look for AoA/AoD that the enemy forces are most likely to be using. You have a much higher chance of scoring some kills that way.

Endymion wrote:Yeah i mean you have to watch your claymore now, and i doubt anybody does that when they can just guard it using their gun.

Again, that's not the purpose of the claymore.

Zrix wrote: Also, some of the conventional forces ingame have signed the Ottawa Treaty, thus making it unlikely for them to have proximity detonated anti-personnel mines. Having very similar looking mines act differently between forces could be confusing for new players.

The Ottawa Treaty is only in regards to conventional and improvised anti-personnel mines. The Claymore is excluded from that treaty because it is not technically a mine. Also, booby-trap devices are not part of the treaty either because they are still not classified as a mine. So regardless of who is or isn't part of that treaty, the use of claymores (command-det or local-det) is perfectly legal.

ytman wrote:I still miss the old Trip Flares and thought that they were excellent tools in the right circumstance. I think if you could fit it into the weapon slots that a Trip Flare or three should be given to the Rifleman AP.

In my opinion, the old trip flares were being used incorrectly or at least they were being used as a crutch. Instead of players operating as a team and providing full perimeter security, they left large gaps of terrain uncovered and simply dropped a trip flare or mine instead.

I think people need to learn to play more realistically, and rely on proper sector coverage and situational awareness.

There's nothing wrong with command det claymoores, there's something wrong with the structure of gameplay in PR that means realistic assaults don't happen, so weapons that defeat realistic assaults, like M18's and Mon50's don't get used.

That is all.

the claymore kit would see more action if it wasn't stripped of grenades if it had a rope, then you'd see it being used alot more.


as an SL I have 4 slots to fill, myself being officer and there being a medic.

only 4 slots

I can choose out of rifle specialist, rifleman, marksman, AR, grenadier LAT and any other I've missed out

in my world, AR is needed 100% of the time, next up is either a rifle specialist or a rifleman, on a map like muttrah I'll bring a LAT, and if I have someone who is confident with the grenadier I'll bring that too, failing grenadier, it'll be another rifleman for ammo.

in that world there is no room for an AP kit, as by choosing it in my squad I sacrifice firepower, ammo or rope.

There is nothing to interest me in that kit as a SL, placing claymores just means that we'll be sacrificing precious ammo to replenish them if we move.

If claymores were pickupable...then maybe i'd be more inclined to take AP kits, but still for the reasons above...I prefer other kits.

Endymion wrote: I just can't find a situation that it works with exploding it on command.

Truism wrote:There's nothing wrong with command det claymoores, there's something wrong with the structure of gameplay in PR that means realistic assaults don't happen, so weapons that defeat realistic assaults, like M18's and Mon50's don't get used.

That is all.

Read about the real thing....

cough.. : FM 23-23 Table of Contents

specifically.. : FM 23-23 Chptr4 Tactical Employment

I think you'll both find that using proven methods works pretty well in-game. The problem is not command detonation or "structure of gameplay", it's player's lack of patience for ambushing and/or misunderstanding of defence.

Is the ingame range of a Claymore 50m(or perhaps more to compensate for the comparatively short measurements of the BF2 engine)?


...mongol...

That's correct, 50 ingame meters damage radius.

I really dig the kit and think it has a lot of uses but like Jaymz says player patience and improper defense strategies hamper its use 9 times out of 10. (besides even luck has a huge role in any Remote Detonated device) Also most squads attack, AP is purely defensive. Any possibility of giving the trip flare to the Conventional AP kit? It would assist in the whole defensive strategy.

Thanks for the link I'll test it out in game. Beware of any cornfields .

i have to agree with rudd on this one, might as well assign an engineer and use his C4 and mine for all defensive perimeters.

Both tripflares and frag grenades have been added to conventional AP Rifleman kits in the next patch.

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;1332466']Read about the real thing....

cough.. : FM 23-23 Table of Contents

specifically.. : FM 23-23 Chptr4 Tactical Employment

I think you'll both find that using proven methods works pretty well in-game. The problem is not command detonation or "structure of gameplay", it's player's lack of patience for ambushing and/or misunderstanding of defence.

Why would you ever place an M18 for an ambush in PR when it would never cover more than a few troops in its arc because of the way troops move. That's just plain naive. Plenty of people in PR have the patience to try and ambush, but universal communications and the tactical map mean that an ambush is unlucky to ever be particularly effective. (Why is this, troops don't need line of sight or sound in PR. They don't move in formations and so weapons like these that are effective at destroying formations of dismounted infantry aren't particularly effective).

And I'm trained with M18's. They just aren't nearly as effective in PR as they were in say, Vietnam.

The main propblem is that we use anti-infantry boobymines instead of vehiclemines like the Swedish vehiclemine 13 or vehiclemine 14. Frdm 13 Fordonsmina 13 frdm 13r This is effective vs lightvehicles/helicopters and infantry. YouTube - Fordonsmina | Anti vehchial mine

Fordonsmina 14 frdm 14 SoldF.com this is effective upto IFV.
"Praktiskt avst: Min 5 m, Max 50 m (med standardsikte), 150 m med hårkårssikte.
Genomslagsförmåga: ca 60 mm pansarplåt vid 90graders anslagsvinkel."
sort of translated to
"Practical distance: Minimum 5 m, Max 50m (with standard sights), 150m with crosshairsights
Penetrationcapabilites: around 60mm armourplate at 90degrees angle of impact"

Give the AI class some off-route mines please.
A link to that insurgents use em.
Resultat av Googles bildsökning efter http://frogstylebiscuit.com/images/content/06-jun/off_route_mine.jpg