visual verge
RE: British.
We dont use the M72 LAW at all. It was the M72A9 (HE Warhead) and was out like candy from old stock to be used as a wall buster in Afganistan/Iraq. Then we got the AT4 CS for that role.
Actual AT in the British military is:
Squad/Section LAT = NLAW
Squad/Section HAT= Javelin
OWI will never implement Javelin so the BAF will continue to be shit with all of its strengths removed but weaknesses included.
stuck meteor
Yeah, the LAWs were mainly used around 2000's to maybe early 2010's by the brits. The L2A1 ILAW (at4) was kind of same, the latest picture I could find was this (2007): https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/Home/Search?Query=45147590.jpg&Type=Filename
it just seems like mainly NLAWs are used, since i couldn't find pics or vids of british army using LAW or AT4 within the past decade.
Also it seems the brits used the L1A1 AND the M72A9 in afghan. You can tell the difference by the yellow band (yellow band = M72A9, No yellow band = L1A1 LAW) @visual verge
the last pic is for this source where it says L1A1: https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/Home/Search?Query=45150917.jpg&Type=Filename
visual verge
The picture on the right is from the British Army website. We literally do not use any AT systems other than the NLAW or Javelin.
visual verge
True, the L1A1 was brought out of storage from the 91 gulfwar
I doubt you will be able to find a picture of a L1A1 in use when multicam was issued though...
OWI need to have a serious think of how the want to have the BAF. Right now its just a mess.
I agree remove the M72 and the AT4.
You could have:
HAT Javelin
LAT NLAW
Alt LAT Matador AS
Or
HAT NLAW
LAT NLAW
Alt LAT Matador AS
The TOW emplacement is the most out of place bit of kit, we had literally thousands and thousands of Milans pre 06-07 so either use a Milan emplacement, have a Javelin emplacement or have none at all and extra NLAWs like you said.
pure wolf
You could have:
HAT Javelin
LAT NLAW
Alt LAT Matador AS
Or
HAT NLAW
LAT NLAW
Alt...
Lat as an nlaw? Please explain how that makes even the slightest amount of sense
visual verge
Lat as an nlaw? Please explain how that makes even the slightest amount of sense
Did you read any of the above?
Was literally about to type that out myself
pure wolf
Irl doesn't mean shit and that's a pretty bad way to make up for having bad armor
Don't know but having the lat be an nlaw would be pretty broken especially if they were to get a javelin as a hat
When did brits stop using the law or at4
visual verge
When did brits stop using the law or at4
We never used those things for Anti Tank, they were dished out in Afganistan to pop holes in walls, both of them were the Anti Structure munition.
visual verge
Don't know but having the lat be an nlaw would be pretty broken especially if th...
Just issue NLAWs then no Javelin
Because OWI wont implement that anyway
pure wolf
I wasn't critiquing what you said just the part about having a hat kit as javelin and lat as nlaw
visual verge
Exactly
The NLAW is already nerfed 😅
I honestly think @stuck meteor has it right just get rid of the LATs and have more NLAWs to compensate for the Warrior.
unborn cypress
Or you just buff the warrior so it's playable.
visual verge
Also get rid of the emplacement TOW or at least swap it to a Milan
visual verge
Or you just buff the warrior so it's playable.
Still doesnt solve the unrealistic M72/AT4 LAT
Turkey doesnt have a HAT so why should the BAF have a LAT
unborn cypress
Because the LAT is a more important kit than HAT.
unborn cypress
And it does LAT damage?
visual verge
Not the BAFs fault everyone else LAT is shit
Everyones IFVs are better than the warrior...
fading cypress
Honestly Britain getting a bunch of HATs would spice it up, but it would probably also result in enemy armour getting absolutely gangbanged by infantry AT.
visual verge
Asymetrical balance
unborn cypress
The asymetrical balance is the warrior playing completley differently from the others and brits having no close range optics.
unborn cypress
If you made the the warrior actually good but still unique the faction is more interesting.
visual verge
So why have them at all
fading cypress
Because they're a critical role in this game?
visual verge
Remove the TOW, bring on the extra NLAWs
unborn cypress
That's just a buff because the TOW is situational.
visual verge
Because they're a critical role in this game?
NLAW by definition is a LAT...
fading cypress
NLAW by definition is a LAT...
By definition but not role in this game.
visual verge
Next generation LIGHT ANTITANK Weapon
visual verge
By definition but not role in this game.
Tell that to Turkey
unborn cypress
You can re-jig the AT roles and have maybe 4-5 N-LAWs doing about 50-75% more damage than the LATs currently do as a fire support kit then 2-3 Javelins doing HAT damage as the specialist role.
unborn cypress
They've modelled it and are discussing adding it but for some reason they think it'd be unbalanced.
visual verge
I doubt it will happen
unborn cypress
In how you play AT atm it wouldn't even be that good.
Since it requires a lock on and there's plenty of areas in the game where it wouldn't connect. You could also just limit the range, etc.
fading cypress
Next generation LIGHT ANTITANK Weapon
Okay that's cool and all but the in-game role is irrelevant to the name.
40mm HEDP isn't DP in this game.
visual verge
Since it requires a lock on and there's plenty of areas in the game where it wou...
Knowing OWI it wouls only be available in direct fire lol
unborn cypress
The only reason they'd add it is if it could top attack.
If it was only direct fire it'd already be in the game.
To?
visual verge
BAF
fading cypress
And I'm saying replacing the LATs with like 5 HATs would result in armour getting properly gangbanged.
valid cedar
They've modelled it and are discussing adding it but for some reason they think ...
It is a fire and forget top-attack missile that is man-portable with a thermal imager.
unborn cypress
Without a warrior buff that'd still suck for the regular units.
unborn cypress
It is a fire and forget top-attack missile that is man-portable with a thermal i...
So?
valid cedar
So?
Those things all have serious balance ramifications, especially since several conventional factions don't have access to equivalent (or near equivalent) systems.
visual verge
Those things all have serious balance ramifications, especially since several co...
Wait
You mean like the BAF dont get a ATGM car
Or ATGM ifv
No way
unborn cypress
Those things all have serious balance ramifications, especially since several co...
There's no thermals in this game and with how fast paced the combat is having to sit and lock a missile is enough of a balancing factor. Plus you can also balance it by reducing the range, etc, etc. AND other factions don't need a javelin equivalent.
fading cypress
Its asymetrical balance
Seems like a bad idea to me but okay whatever I'm not willing to spend any more time here. Please do not ping me in response to this message.
valid cedar
You mean like the BAF dont get a ATGM car
Javelin isn't only used by the BAF.
visual verge
Javelin isn't only used by the BAF.
Ofc what does that have to do with anything i said though?
valid cedar
Ofc what does that have to do with anything i said though?
Because what you said implied that balance isn't a concern because BAF lack other systems, despite the constant complaints about the BAF as a faction (suggesting that it does matter when factions lack equivalent systems), or that the Javelin would be a needed correction (which doesn't apply to the other factions that use it, the USMC and USA).
unborn cypress
Asymmetric equipment is good as long as the equipment is good and the factions end with a roughly equivalent power level.
The warrior is not good.
Turks losing their HAT and having meh armour is made up by... getting an MGL. Not worth it.
Militia is a good asymmetric faction. They lack optics and have weaker vehicles but they usually get more vehicles, get cheaper and unique buildables, get loads of close range infantry AT and have really good close range guns.
visual verge
Because what you said implied that balance isn't a concern because BAF lack othe...
Think you have the wrong end of the stick.
What im getting at is prior to 2006 BAF had a full range of ATGM vehicles and Emplacements ALL of them were scrapped when the Javelin was brought into service and the NLAW handed around at squad level.
So ingame the BAF have no IFV with atgm, no atgm car and the ifvs gun is shit. The infantry are running around with M72s and AT4s the BAF never used too.
So unless we introduce the Javelin and have it fireable from land rovers/emplacements whatever they will always be unbalanced against another side as they are lacking a key piece of AT kit.
The infantry are issued NLAW at section level 2 per squad, im not suggesting every squad get one but this needs to be increased to balance the lack of a decent IFV.
This creates asymetrical balance.
valid cedar
I think it'd be fine to give the BAF Milans or w/e.
The BAF used M72s and AT4s in the time frame Squad loosely follows.
But I think the Javelin would likely be an overcorrection to very specific issues with their IFVs, and require changes to to AT infantry versus vehicle balance in general if it was made available.
visual verge
I think it'd be fine to give the BAF Milans or w/e.
The BAF used M72s and AT4s i...
The AT4 and M72 they used were the Anti Structure ones as stated before meaning the HE version not suitable for the AT role. We had the ILAW/LAW80 for AT role in that timeline. Until everything was replaced for NLAW/JAV/Matador AS
unborn cypress
The lower pen won't matter except vs the front of the T-62 and the sides of tanks.
Cus tank sides have loads of armour for some reason.
vernal minnow
The problem with realistic balancing is that weight and damage isn't considered. LAW is the weakest and lightest launcher.
LAW weight around 3kg and AT4 7kg. You should get 2 LAW for each AT4.
The same problem exists for MAAWS vs RPG-7 Tandem. Why do 84mm MAAWS get the low caliber velocity but have the same damage as 105mm RPG-7 Tandem.
dreamy ridge
For the majority of situations, a competent warrior UA crew can and should be able to beat pretty much any other IFV in a head to head fight
If not, it's just a skill issue (I really hate the phrase but it's true)
Bro what are you even on
4-5 NLAW for combined arms british would make them by far the best anti-tank faction in the game lol
And not in a fun way
You'd need to nerf the NLAW and make it slightly stronger than a LAT (probably around the same damage as a tank shot?)
But 6-7 for air assault is mental
Don't forget that BAF has arguably the strongest or second strongest MBT in the game in terms of anti-armor
