Changing the role of Anti-Tank
Posted: 2010-06-16 07:35
**Enemy Wall of Text, incoming!**
Currently I find that it is far too difficult for any armor to support the infantry, because of constant AT threats.
With 2 HATs, TOWs, enemy vehicles, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep your big metal buddy alive even though his job is to keep you alive.
My suggestion is to alter the role of the Heavy Anti-Tank kit to suit a more specialized purpose: working in small, dedicated teams, to focus on taking out high-priority armor threats such as tanks.
These changes would change how AT kits are used, making it less likely to see highly-specialized AT equipment in a regular infantry squad, and also seeing them used more sparingly and tactically to make sure the shot counts.
There are various methods, for each faction individually, to achieve this effect. For instance, take the US Army. If you were to remove 1 HAT kit, but perhaps replace it with a Javelin, it becomes a very, very useful and powerful kit, but becomes much more specialized (needing to be used from vantage points, from larger distances, etc) and much more valuable (only 1, you'd certainly not want to waste a shot with a tank rolling up on friendlies, or lose the kit to the enemy).
For factions like the Chinese or Russians, who do not have any AT weapons with guiding systems or something to compensate, they might keep 2 kits, or perhaps a better solution: 1 kit that reallocates in 5 minutes (half the time), so it's still limited to 1 on the battlefield at a time, but is much more available overall.
For factions such as the Taliban/Insurgents/Militia, because of their use of less sophisticated AT weapons, they can keep 2 kits or even increase if desired (not implying it should be, but that it is an option).
These changes will make it more beneficial for AT to be used in small dedicated groups whose purpose is to stealthily move to a point where they can set up the weapon, fire at the enemy armor from where they do not expect it, and pack up and leave quickly to avoid being caught. Rifleman Anti-Tank kits will become more commonplace in squads, where their lower power leaves for more fighting between teams and higher survivability rates for APCs and IFVs that play their cards right (There's a lot of LATs available, and they do sufficient damage to APC/IFV, but they're never used because of the abundance of HAT kits!).
And a little more related suggestioning:
1) Add range indicators, where proper, on the sights of unguided AT, so that it is easier for players to use unguided AT (For instance, the Russian RPG-26 has 3 levels on it's ironsight, but the top one is the only one that actually relates to anything; The PLA HAT's scope could have range markers on it as well); Using Mosquill's grenadier system, a tilting-sight such as the RPG-26's can be achieved, and perhaps something with the PLA HAT's scope can be achieved. Close range LAT weapons, such as the AT4, if they don't possess that ability, can retain the single sight style which gives each AT system a unique trait.
2) Giving the faction their most formidable AT weapon system for HAT |OR| Balancing the differences through availability and such. If PLA/RUS had a more powerful AT, then it would be implemented with the same ideas as the Javelin. The reason for this is to compensate for the lower numbers and to make their role as specialized as possible. More powerful AT weapons could be phased in as they are created (I know there is a Javelin model though it may not be up to par, etc).
3) Is it perhaps possible to make reloading HAT slower; it occurred to me that if it was possible, you could make it so that the HAT actually holds "5 rounds", but can only fire once all 5 are loaded, and firing expends all 5. Sort of like how the CSBs work by firing 2 regular crates for the one bridge section, though I don't know if that's a vehicle-only thing.
(And, in the case that team-specific kit allocations aren't possible, then all of the actual weapons could be the same [still SRAW, NLAW, etc] but still reduced to 1 kit at a time; the "better" weapons like the Javelin, for example, would help so that the 1 kit can still be powerful enough to do it's job alone, but also so that it becomes more of a hurt if it is lost.)
Currently I find that it is far too difficult for any armor to support the infantry, because of constant AT threats.
With 2 HATs, TOWs, enemy vehicles, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep your big metal buddy alive even though his job is to keep you alive.
My suggestion is to alter the role of the Heavy Anti-Tank kit to suit a more specialized purpose: working in small, dedicated teams, to focus on taking out high-priority armor threats such as tanks.
These changes would change how AT kits are used, making it less likely to see highly-specialized AT equipment in a regular infantry squad, and also seeing them used more sparingly and tactically to make sure the shot counts.
There are various methods, for each faction individually, to achieve this effect. For instance, take the US Army. If you were to remove 1 HAT kit, but perhaps replace it with a Javelin, it becomes a very, very useful and powerful kit, but becomes much more specialized (needing to be used from vantage points, from larger distances, etc) and much more valuable (only 1, you'd certainly not want to waste a shot with a tank rolling up on friendlies, or lose the kit to the enemy).
For factions like the Chinese or Russians, who do not have any AT weapons with guiding systems or something to compensate, they might keep 2 kits, or perhaps a better solution: 1 kit that reallocates in 5 minutes (half the time), so it's still limited to 1 on the battlefield at a time, but is much more available overall.
For factions such as the Taliban/Insurgents/Militia, because of their use of less sophisticated AT weapons, they can keep 2 kits or even increase if desired (not implying it should be, but that it is an option).
These changes will make it more beneficial for AT to be used in small dedicated groups whose purpose is to stealthily move to a point where they can set up the weapon, fire at the enemy armor from where they do not expect it, and pack up and leave quickly to avoid being caught. Rifleman Anti-Tank kits will become more commonplace in squads, where their lower power leaves for more fighting between teams and higher survivability rates for APCs and IFVs that play their cards right (There's a lot of LATs available, and they do sufficient damage to APC/IFV, but they're never used because of the abundance of HAT kits!).
And a little more related suggestioning:
1) Add range indicators, where proper, on the sights of unguided AT, so that it is easier for players to use unguided AT (For instance, the Russian RPG-26 has 3 levels on it's ironsight, but the top one is the only one that actually relates to anything; The PLA HAT's scope could have range markers on it as well); Using Mosquill's grenadier system, a tilting-sight such as the RPG-26's can be achieved, and perhaps something with the PLA HAT's scope can be achieved. Close range LAT weapons, such as the AT4, if they don't possess that ability, can retain the single sight style which gives each AT system a unique trait.
2) Giving the faction their most formidable AT weapon system for HAT |OR| Balancing the differences through availability and such. If PLA/RUS had a more powerful AT, then it would be implemented with the same ideas as the Javelin. The reason for this is to compensate for the lower numbers and to make their role as specialized as possible. More powerful AT weapons could be phased in as they are created (I know there is a Javelin model though it may not be up to par, etc).
3) Is it perhaps possible to make reloading HAT slower; it occurred to me that if it was possible, you could make it so that the HAT actually holds "5 rounds", but can only fire once all 5 are loaded, and firing expends all 5. Sort of like how the CSBs work by firing 2 regular crates for the one bridge section, though I don't know if that's a vehicle-only thing.
(And, in the case that team-specific kit allocations aren't possible, then all of the actual weapons could be the same [still SRAW, NLAW, etc] but still reduced to 1 kit at a time; the "better" weapons like the Javelin, for example, would help so that the 1 kit can still be powerful enough to do it's job alone, but also so that it becomes more of a hurt if it is lost.)
