The role of Anti-Tank kits -1 reply

Please wait...

Trojanman190

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

27th July 2004

0 Uploads

346 Posts

0 Threads

#41 13 years ago

I find that when sniping with a rocket launcher is more accurate, efficient, and deadly than using a sniper rifle... something is seriously wrong with the game.




Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#42 13 years ago
Trojanman190I find that when sniping with a rocket launcher is more accurate, efficient, and deadly than using a sniper rifle... something is seriously wrong with the game.

It's because you have ( say it with me boys and girls) Blast Radius. And people don't understand how to use the Reticules that are in the game for the sniper rifles.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#43 13 years ago

Indeed. Oh, guess what? In Real life, a TOW is a GREAT sniper weapon! It can achieve long ranges, it has the aforementioned blast radius, and Kevlar does nothing to prtoect you from it. Of course, sniper rifles are better for shooting a fly off of someone's shoulder, but a TOW could effectively be used to hit a target at range.




zero_zero

I'm sonic the spacehog

50 XP

17th November 2003

0 Uploads

363 Posts

0 Threads

#44 13 years ago

the long reload times make it fair to use it as ap




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#45 13 years ago
Trojanman190I find that when sniping with a rocket launcher is more accurate, efficient, and deadly than using a sniper rifle... something is seriously wrong with the game.

/signed




Trojanman190

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

27th July 2004

0 Uploads

346 Posts

0 Threads

#46 13 years ago

Well it would be a great sniping weapon... if it generally didnt take two people to operate, expose you to enemy fire, and wasnt so freaking huge.

In real life a shot to the chest with a sniper rifle will kill you just the same as being hit by a missile will.... its just that the sniper rifle is easier to aim, fire, reload, carry, and does not force the sniper to be completely exposed to enemy fire. In a real battle it makes more sense to use a sniper rifle becuase you can rapidly hit mutiple targets at great range. 1 shot generally = 1 kill. The reasoin why this falls apart in BF2 is because for the sake of 'balance' a shot with the sniper rifle wont kill unless its a headshot. So now its not as effective as the one hit one kill AT weapon with a [thankyou for enlightening me Merrick] 'Blast Radius'.

I just dont think its right that a weapon designed for use on tanks is prefered over true anti personel weapons. We may all hate the m203 and call it a 'noob tube' and stuff... but its an anti personel weapon and its damn good at it in BF2. Realistically, I would prefer to take a whole squad of bad dudes out with an explosive m203 nade rather than expose myself in a prolonged gunfight. So even though the m203 is pretty cheesy at close range in BF2... at least its really freaking good at doing what it was designed for!

Beside the fact that the AT weapon is to good at killing people... its NOT to good at killing tanks. Thats pretty funky. If a group of enemy soldiers supported by a tank are advancing towards the first mec point in karkand, and I have a rocket launcher, I have two choice. I can try to shoot the tank... which will simply retreat back to safety to repair if it starts getting hit with AT weapons, which generally take 3 shots to take the tank out, or I can use my accurate, guided, rocket with a 'Blast Radius' to blast away infantry. The choice is between firing 3 rockets and getting no kills or firing 3 rockets, getting 3 kills, and getting 6 points. I would rather shoot the infantry!!!

THAT is where I think the problem lies. If a weapon is good at something... use it for that something. That in an of itself is realistic. Soldiers wouldnt use machine guns if they werent good for killing lots of people really fast! If a bow and arrow was more effective against infantry than an m16... you can bet soldier in iraq would be armed with those and not rifles! In BF2 the AT weapon is MORE effective at taking out infantry than it is for taking out tanks... so it only makes sense that people use it that way. As much as it sucks... I cant say anyone who does this in game is doing anything wrong.

My gripe is that is happens in the first place. It is only a game but its supposed to somewhat simulate modern warfare and in modern warfare people dont passup opportunities to nail tanks with AT weapons to shoot at infantry instead. In modern warfare not everyone is running around with a rocket launcher because they prefer it to a rifle when it comes to taking out infantry.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#47 13 years ago

Indeed. The real life version of the AT weapon that the Americans use can take out a T-72 in one hit. Not even a direct hit, it fires over the target, then blows up. If you limit the amount of AT rockets people can carry to 2 or 3, then people would not overuse them on infantry.