Solution to the HAT-problem (guided AA-weapon)

[EmBra]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Eddie Baker

Yes, they already have to expose themselves to keep the sight on the target, but they also have a delay time to ready the weapon, during which they can also be spotted and dealt with. So, basically, it will be even less realistic and won't change anything.

You are wrong, it will solve the very problem this thread is highlighting.

Regarding the unrealistic thing you refer to.
During the ready time they do not have to expose themselves. As it is in PR today, they can lay flat on the ground behind a ridge while the weapon is being ready to fire. Then they just stand up quick, bring up the scope and fire and you got your kill in just a few seconds.
My idea is that the time you spend today to bring up your scope and guide the missile to the target will instead be spent on acquiring a lock on the target.
It will have to take a little longer to acquire the lock then to guide the missile like today, because once you got a lock you will have an almost 100% hit chance.

Of course my 10 second locking time would have to be tested and perhaps make it shorter or longer depending on what the results are but the general idea is neither nerfing or boosting the HAT weapons. Only making them Anti Tank weapons (as it should be) and not a manually guided AA weapons.
Unrealistic or not, it's a game and the way these weapons are being used today (in PR) is not very realistic.

My changes may not make the HAT weapons more realistic but atleast it won't make it more unrealistic either + it will force the HAT weapons to be used as it should be and that is to kill enemy ground vehicles.

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by sakils2

Well it would IRL, but it wouldn't bla bla bla on a guy who has a HAT.

Well there is difference between a game and real life, in game we dont have thermal sight, we dont have fully stabilized gun, we dont have computerised radar, fly by wire and all the thing. And BTW if you shoot an hellfire and there is something in its way, im quite sure the missile wont magicly pass trought.

[Alex6714]

Originally Posted by Hotrod525

Real Apache are not limited by BF2 engine, and no, real apache cannot attack hided behind a mountain, they can put the radar over the cover, scan, aquire target, pop up shoot, hide and boom.

Except they can attack on the move, their missile will hit the target, and they can do it from out of the targets range in most cases.

Wich is entirely possible whit ground laser designation.

Except in real life most of the time the aircraft will be designating for itself with a laser, not a slow sticky box.

[sakils2]

And BTW if you shoot an hellfire and there is something in its way, im quite sure the missile wont magicly pass trought.

WTF? Never happened to me.

Well there is difference between a game and real life, in game we dont have thermal sight,

I saw a PR vid where the helis had thermal sight (APC's were glowing ).

we dont have fully stabilized gun

Again, I saw a vid where cobra had stabilization. It's up to DEV's.

[cyberzomby]

Sorry about the ways of flying discussion and stuff was not my intention, I used it as an argument of why I dont think it should be changed just because some hovering pilots get shot down (not saying you hover btw)

Well if real-life TOW gunners get trained on firing at low flying helo's than it should be possible to take them out with them right? so why change it than.

[Alex6714]

Originally Posted by cyberzomby

Sorry about the ways of flying discussion and stuff was not my intention, I used it as an argument of why I dont think it should be changed just because some hovering pilots get shot down (not saying you hover btw)

Well if real-life TOW gunners get trained on firing at low flying helo's than it should be possible to take them out with them right? so why change it than.

I completely agree that you should be able to do it, in fact nothing is that wrong with taking helis or tanks etc out now with all sorts of stuff, but the problem with HATs atm (and many other things) is that they have the same engagement distance as everything, which is unrealistic and doesn´t allow for anything like realistic tactics.

[gclark03]

I still don't know how you DEVs allowed the laser concept to go through when you can't even get it to work as it should and it isn't even realistic. There are much better ideas that were canned because they were just inches away from perfection, but the SIMRAD is miles from perfection and it was released anyway.

Why?

Back on topic, if the silly idea of having infantry lase targets with sticky boxes is removed and all vehicles have laser signatures, there will be no need for attack helicopters to hover at such close range, and HAT will become less of a threat.

Also, give the HAT realistic range limits.

[McBumLuv]

How 'bout this? We just give all HAT (and LAT, while we're at it) realistic flight distances. That would take out quite a bit of it. I don't mind H-AT being able to target helicopters, though it is ridiculous from a mile away.

Then again, isn't the Eryx much slower IRL than ingame atm? And how about the SRAW?

EDIT: :P Clark beat me to the first one

[Sparatan117]

What if we did it like this? (watch from 2:15 to whenever you want)

YouTube Video

Wouldn't that be more realistic?

[StuTika]

I shot down the Chinese light attack heli (WZ-11?) on Qwai the other day using a TOW humvee.

Embra: whilst the range on the HATs at the moment is a tad unrealistic, I have no problem with HAT weapons being used against choppers. You think that if a guy with a HAT saw an enemy chopper hovering he wouldn't shoot it? AT weapons can be effectively used for a great many things other than destroying armoured vehicles. Clearing buildings etc.

With all that said, I do think the HAT range should be reduced.

Stu.