Forum Rules 07/06/2016Introduction The Squad Team reserves the right to edit, update, add and remove rules at any time. Applicable rules extend to the PM system. Your PMs are private, but the Squad Team may be informed about unacceptable PM content by the receiving party. Section I: Posting Rules §1 Show Respect This community can only work if we all respect each other. To that end, it is imperative that any time you engage with another user, either directly or indirectly, you show them respect with the content of your post. In particular refrain from flaming, insulting, abusing, taunting, racism, and other similar types of actions towards other forum users. §2 Attitude & Behavior Poor attitude and behavior are the most common ways a negative / unsafe environment is created and perpetuated. As such that kind of behavior will not be allowed on these forums. Please be mindful of this rule when posting personal positions and opinions regarding topics which could be considered contentious in nature. As a rule of thumb, keep your posts civil in nature, and refrain from making posts that are likely to incite arguments and create a negative environment. As a privately hosted web forum we reserve the right to maintain an environment that we are happy the majority of our players are comfortable with. §3 Swearing While we will not strictly moderate every little swear that occurs, please try to avoid excessive bad language. The moderation reserves the right to remove rants and unsuitable content at any time. §4 Illegal Topics
Prohibited topics include, but are not limited to: Piracy, drugs (including cannabis), pornography, religion, racism, sexism, homo/trans -phobic content, videos and images showing violent death or serious injury, ‘spam threads’, hacking & griefing (endorsement thereof), religion, politics, etc. Prohibition may be suspended for some threads if they are found to be suitable by the Moderation (such as scientific debate).
If there is doubt, the Moderation Team can decide whether a topic is considered illegal. §5 Attitude towards Squad and the Development Team
As per §1 and §2, keep in mind to be respectful and reasonable, not only towards all users of the forum, but also towards the Squad Team and towards any ideas and content and the game itself. Criticism is welcome, but if it is not constructive and/or if it is offensive, the Moderation may need to step in. Please refrain from posting if you are upset, angry or drunk, or you may be punished for things you wouldn’t have otherwise written, which is not in anyone's interest. §6 Language & Legibility
Please post only in English. Non-English content (including non-legible content) may be removed. If you see someone posting in another language because s/he apparently does not speak English, please report their post - if you can, you may reply in their language to explain their question, but please do translate their and your message so it can be reviewed by the Moderation. ‘Hiding’ insults in non-English posts will be punished harshly. Posts written largely in ‘leetspeak’ or full of spelling / grammatical errors may be treated like non-English content. This rule does not extend to PMs. §7 Forum structure & Search
Please ensure when posting a new thread, that the thread is located inside the correct forum section. Check all forum section titles to judge where your thread should belong. Threads created in the wrong forum section will be moved or deleted.
Before posting a new thread, please make use of the forum search to find older threads about the same topic. In doubt, it is recommended to rather post in an existing thread, unless that thread is years out of date. However, do not bump old threads without adding a new question / answer / insight that wasn’t in that thread before - use common sense. §8 Thread Titles
Please name your thread appropriately; the subject title should sum up / explain the content in the thread. If you fail to name your thread properly (such as ‘Hey!’ or ‘Check this out!’ or ‘Help!’), we will either rename or lock the topic. Repeated offense may lead to infractions. The practice of using CAPITALS only in your thread title is not allowed and will be edited or the thread will simply be deleted. Strange or abnormal Unicode characters should be excluded from thread titles for the sake of being distracting and unnecessary.
§9 Thread Capitalization
Please ensure that your post is not in all CAPITALS, as this is not allowed. Any threads posted in all caps will subsequently be removed from the forum. Repeated offenses may lead to infractions against your account. This practice is not approved or accepted here.
§10 Images in posts
When posting images, mind the following restrictions:
.gifs will be allowed and may be removed by Staff if deemed necessary.
Maximum size for images is 1280x1024.
Do not include more than ~1 large image per paragraph of text, unless in image collection / announcement threads. Link to further images.
Consider posting thumbnails. You may post a few more images per post if they are reasonably small, the details are for the Moderation to judge. §11 The use of BBCode
It is allowed to use the BBCode in your posts. Over usage is not allowed. You may use the Bold in a reasonable manner but not for the whole text body. You may use the size feature but in a limited reasonable manner. You may not use any of the additional fonts at all. Color may be used to high light a point but again, not for the whole text body. Moderators will be watching for misuse and will edit when required without giving notice. Continued disregard for this rule will result in Moderator action in the form of warnings. §12 Complaints of Server/Admin Abuse Reports of server/admin abuse will not be posted publicly. All reports concerning this type of behavior should be place in the appropriate sub-forum. http://forums.joinsquad.com/forum/241-report-server-admin-abuse/ All posts made outside of this area will be be removed. Section II: Reporting & Moderation §1 Reporting Posts
There is a Post Report system in place. If you notice a post that violates forum rules, simply use the exclamation mark icon below the users avatar image to send a report to the Moderation. We will then review this post. Your report will not be made public and cannot be linked to your person by anyone outside of the Squad Team. You will not be punished for using the Report system even if the report was false, unless you repeatedly abuse the system to spam it.
Do not ‘report’ posts by replying directly in public to them. In case of spambots, this prompts them to respond in turn, spamming the forum further. This also fuels flame wars and arguments. §2 Reporting Moderators
Moderators are subject to the same forum rules (and some additional rules / exceptions). If you think that a Moderator has treated you unfairly or is otherwise breaking forum rules, please PM the Lead Moderator or any Administrator. Do not accuse Moderators in public, the Squad Team will treat every complaint seriously and it is in our interest to discipline or remove Moderators who are known to break forum rules. §3 Respect Squad Team members and Moderators
Do not ignore or argue against Admin, Moderator or Dev instructions on the forum. If you have a complaint, as per §2, please inform the Team in private. You are expected to follow orders given by the Moderation, Administration and Development Team, and it is necessary for smooth running of the forum to respect their decisions. Being stubborn or ignoring warnings will lead to harsher punishments - however, we do not tolerate Moderator / Admin abuse of power / privileges, so do not hesitate to inform other Team members if you feel treated unfairly. §4 Bans and multiple accounts
If your account is temporarily or permanently banned, do NOT create another account. Bypassing a ban will result in further action, and a permanent ban of all of your accounts.
You are not allowed to have more than one account for any reason. If you share an internet connection with another user who has their own account, it might happen that this account is incorrectly identified as a secondary account - please get in touch with the Moderation or Administration to resolve such issues.
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'anti-tank'.
Found 9 results
Out of 3 hits in that round, only the first one, which wasn't caught on video, visibly did damage as the enemy chopper was almost hovering(actually having trouble landing). Bradley crew confirmed that they saw me hit the chopper as I went to rearm after the first video's shot; so it's not a clientside problem. (ping around 50ms) Something in game mechanics is preventing detonated HEAT round from damaging chopper. I'm assuming this is because there is some kind of collision-only hitbox for rotors. and that the rotor "hitbox" blocked the rest of chopper from getting hit by HEAT warhead, but it doesn't take weapon damage, only collision damage, so chopper flies away safely. Dear Squad devs, how am I supposed to make Halal terrorist chopper-kill montage if 2/3 shots turn out to do zero damage? These are American weapons; you got no excuse.
Hello guys, Please note that I'm not an native English speaker and my countryman aren't really known for their English's skills, so be nice with the numerous grammatical mistakes that you will see. In my multiple game, i have noticed that most of the armour are reckless and often act alone. I believe this is due to armour being too tough : crewman roughly know how many AT hit their vehicle can endure and since the numbers is quite high, they think they are invulnerable. Sadly they never think neither about the mobility kills, or the possibility of falling inside a well organized ambush. In result they get smoked every time they face an organized squad. You may think that the community will grow up and people will learn to stop this ... but let's face it, it's been a while since Devs had implemented the mobility kill and so far most people still act like this. What I'm gonna propose it's to increase the damage done by LAT, HAT and maybe ATGM to reduce the toughness of armour vs infantry AND in the meantime reduce the number of AT in the field. Reducing the number of Anti-tank : Currently, this is your basic squad structure (9 man) : - 1 SL, - 2 medics, - 2 LAT, - 1 more support kit (often scopped AR for regular or marskman for irregular), - 1 HAT/MG/Engineer, - 2 rifleman, Please note that : - your squad is full, - you don't have crewman (so no mech squad), - you don't take several specialised kits (because that's not very friendly toward the other squads), My proposal is to reduce the numbers of LAT available per squad to only 1. That way, we will see more support kit like grenadier or dare I say marskman. I don't think reducing the number of HAT it's necessary, at least right now. They are powerful, but can't be everywhere. Increasing the damage of anti-tank : To compensate this reduction of threat in the filed, I proposed to increased they damage. For example, see below the number of LAT needed to destroy several amour : - BTR 80/82 : upper front/side 3 (but 2 make him slowly burning), lower front/side 2, back/top 1, - striker : front 3, side 2, back/top 1, - MRAP : front 2, side 2 (but 1 make burn), top /back 1, - BRDM : upper front/side 2 (but 1 does more dmg than on a MRAP), lower front/side/top/back 1, - IFV : thickest armour part 4 (but3 make burn), middle armour thick part 3, thin armour part 2, - MBT : no change, I personally find adapted, people lost them mainly versus other MBT or well placed ATGM. For the HAT versus APC/IFV, the idea will be globally that : - one hit on the weakest part (top/back) should result on a kill, - one hit on not so much armoured part (typically side) should result on making the vehicle slowly burn, - 2 hit on the thickest amour should result on a kill (or slowly burn for the best armoured). But Why ? vehicle will last as long or even longer with that To increase the crewman's fear, it's just psychological. Right now people think "they need 3-4 LAT hits to kill me, if I take 2 hits, I will RTB and save the vehicle", but they never think about the mobility kill or simultaneous AT hit. Now they will know they are weaker, and hopefully will work more with the infantry and avoid getting shot in the back or side. That way if the vehicle stay with it's infantry i will feel way safer because his fellow teammates will protecting his flanks, the ways it's suppose to be. Note that in my proposition vehicle are still very tough in "the front part", to avoid them getting "snipped" by skilled AT. They will get hit, but always be able to RTB. What's about vehicle vs vehicle damage ? Nothing, personally i find them overall quite well balanced (except bugging chopper that don't register correctly the damage but that's another problems). That's why I'm proposing to increase AT damage and not reducing the armour or the health of the tank, to avoid messed up something that work. Bonus point : supply consumption I have read somewhere on this forum, that if we put that much FOB close to the flag, it's because we need ammo for the AT. Since I have read this, I have realize how much accurate this is. AT need to much ammo for destroying an enemy vehicle that know how to play (meaning : that don't show his back and have his side covering by his infantry). Your rifleman can't bring him enough, so you need an ammo crate and you need it close, because if it's too far the amour will have to time to flee. It's also mean that you always need a FOB to attack a flag, so if you flank to take the risk to get annihilated by an amour because you lack ammo to destroyed it. I have several example of getting blocked by lone-wolf armour despite scoring mobility kill on him, simply because we were too far from a supply point and have to make the way back to it. Overall, I believe it will help infantry squad to flank more and incite vehicle to cooperate more with their infantry. Note that I'm not saying that : - cooperation between infantry and vehicle (or mech squads) don't exist, but admit it's rare, particularly on public server. I want to incite them to do it more often, - vehicle are too strong : no, an well organized squad will roll over any lone-wolfing vehicle and will struggle versus a good mech squads like it's suppose to. Once again, I want to incite people in public server to play better and cooperating more, I'm Lazy, please summarize I'm proposing to increase LAT and HAT damage deal to amour, but only one LAT will be available per squad. That's way, I hope crewman will fear more LAT and HAT, stay safer and cooperate with their infantry more.
Vehicle balance is a bit of a sore subject at the moment but whatever your thoughts I think it is a perfect time to look at changing the current infantry anti-tank kits and how they're distributed. What I suggest is that LAT is moved from Fire Support to a single direct combat role and a single new Medium Anti-tank (MAT) role takes it's place in Fire Support. This suggestion also assumes that the Javelin is made ready to replace the current US/GB HAT kit with the AT-4 being reverted to pre-buff power and the TBG-7V Thermobaric RPG-7 rocket is ready. The faction Infantry Anti-Tank roles would be roughly as follows: US/UK Combat Roles -LAT(1 per squad): 1 LAW and 1 Frag Grenade. Fire Support Roles -MAT(1 per squad): 1 AT4 and 1 Frag Grenade. -HAT(1 per team): 1 Javelin. Russia Combat Roles -LAT(1 per squad): RPG-26 and 1 Frag grenade. Fire Support Roles -MAT(1 per squad): RPG-7 with optic, 1 HEAT rocket and 1 Thermobaric Rocket OR RPG-7 with optic, 2 HEAT rocket and 1 Frag Rocket. -HAT(2 per team, 1 per squad): 1 RPG-7 with optic, 1 Tandem HEAT rocket, 1 HEAT Rocket and 1 Frag Rocket. Militia Combat Roles -LAT(1 per squad): RPG-7, 1 HEAT rocket and 2 Frag Rockets. Fire Support Roles -MAT(1 per squad): RPG-7, 2 HEAT rocket, 1 Frag Rockets and 1 Thermobaric Rocket. -HAT(2 per team, 1 per squad): RPG-7, 1 Tandem HEAT Rocket, 1 Heat Rocket and 2 Frag Rockets. Insurgents Combat Roles -LAT same as Militia Fire Support Roles -MAT same as Militia -HAT(2 per team, 1 per squad): Same as Militia OR 1 RPG-29, 2 tandem HEAT Rockets. These loadouts aren't well developed but hopefully they convey the point. While this does appear to give US/GB less anti-armour power keep in mind that Russian/Soviet vehicles are mostly lighter than their NATO counterparts. I think these changes would make squad compisitions more interesting by freeing one of the fire support slots and would give infantry a little more capability to engage armour without shifting the balance in their favour too dramatically. Let me know what you think.
Just saw the latest news from the devs on what they are doing with the inclusion of tanks into the game, and I gotta say I am completely taken back by how detailed the tanks look!!! Now that we know more about the tank development, what can we expect on counters to tanks in the game? It seems that the tanks are going to mainly be on the insurgent, militia, Russian, and British forces. I'm sure they won't leave the American forces naked on the battlefield without a tank so I assume they will add one for them as well. What kind of heavy anti-tank weapons do you think we will see coming in addition to the new tanks? My guess would be a Javelin for the American forces and maybe even a TOW system for FOBS, The MBT LAW for the British forces along with the TOW system as the US and Brits sometimes share weaponry, and of course the RPG-7 Tandem for insurgent and militia forces, and an RPG-30 for the Russian forces that's their modern Tandem round. Those are only ideas I have on which ones I would like to see on the battlefield, let's hear what you guys think should be implemented in the future!
Aniallator posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsCurrently Squad has three kit groups; Command and Support, Riflemen, and Fire Support. With the kits in-game right now, this system is fine. However, eventually we'll start seeing kits like heavy anti-tank, engineer, anti-air, machine gunner, possibly even sniper. These kits are very specialized, very powerful, and should be extremely limited... so how to implement that? Simple. Put these kits in a fourth kit group, "Specialized". A squad would be limited to only one Specialized kit, and for someone to use it, the SL would literally have to approve it for them: if no one else is using a Specialized kit in the squad and a player opens the spawn screen and clicks a Specialized kit, they would not receive it, as first a popup would appear for the SL, saying "Allow PlayerXYZ to use the [whatever Specialized kit the player clicked] kit?" The SL could then click yes or no. If yes, the player is able to select the kit the SL approved for him (and not any other Specialized kits). If no, the player keeps his current kit. With this system... Kits like HAT, AA, MG, etc are limited to one such kit per squad. Players literally cannot use such a kit without the SL's approval. Solves the "Sniper Problem".
Pootin posted a topic in General DiscussionFirst off, I'd like to borrow an idea that Morbo had suggested in another thread, and that is to introduce a medium anitank (MAT) kit. This is all along the lines of making tanks deadly and antitank weapons adequately deadlier while promoting teamwork in taking them out. I'd like to see LAT: dumb-fire - short/medium range - single stage warhead - scoped/unscoped - limited to the maximum number of 6-man squads per team.MAT: dumb-fire - medium range - tandem warhead - scoped - 1 per team.HAT: SACLOS/fire-and-forget (balanced by a long lock-on time) - long range - tandem warhead - thermal sights - 1 per team.Almost all armies deploy those 3 classes of AT weaponry at company or battalion levels, which the game would represent, seeing as each side usually has around 500 tickets. The limitation on the numbers and availability might be unrealistic but must be there for gameplay balance. Now as for vehicles, I know it's too early to talk about tanks and IFVs but here's what I think anyway. Transport/Utility trucks: vulnerable to small arms fire - dies to 1 LATHumvees et al: invulnerable to small arms fire - set on fire by 1 LATAPCs: vulnerable to 12.7mm rounds except on the frontal arc - disabled by 1 LAT - dies to 1 MATIFVs: invulnerable to bullets - tracks vulnerable to LAT - dies to 2 LAT - disabled by 1 MAT - dies to HAT - could have slat armor which would completely disable a single stage LAT warhead/causes MAT to behave as a LAT/causes HAT to behave like MATTanks: optic equipment on top of the turret vulnerable to 12.7 fire - tracks not vulnerable to LAT - has ERA which could detonate by LAT causing no damage but exposing its underlying base armor/penetrated by MAT causing a non-catastrophic hit/penetrated by HAT disabling the tank/if MAT hits a non-protected segment it behaves like HAT/if hat hits a non-protected segment it kills the tank immediately. (all this would add an element of teamwork between AT soldiers)As for the distribution/number of panels of ERA and cages and their behavior when struck, I think that requires some discussion of its own. Comment away.