Tips for firing the M136 AT-4 in ArmA

[raynor 0]

I've never seen a white name appear someones head with their name in combat. And with exception to some systems currently being tested no one on the ground fighting has the capability to have an automatically updated map with their and relevant friendly positions marked. Squad leaders do get GPS.

[4 IN 1 0]

well he is think about the "future" i think

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

Well, you have to remember that any game, even one that strives for realism as much as ArmA does, has to abstract reality. The white tags may seem kind of silly to you, but how else do you represent knowing who someone is just by looking at them? We don't have an endless supply of default faces, after all. And not everyone is going to create their own. I'm not planning on it, for example.

I'll concede that not everyone will necessarily have a map. However, how many grunts do you think are running around Iraq and Afghanistan right now with GPSes that their families bought them at Gander Mountain or Dick's Sporting Goods?

Think about this for a second: Even the developers of America's Army, the game designed to be a recruiting tool, recognizes that players need some additional feedback in-game. Have you seen the mini-map that was introduced in version 2.6 or 2.7? Great little tool that helps fill in the gaps while not getting too gamey.

[AdmiralKarlDonuts 0]

For what it's worth here's what the US Army has to say about using light antiarmor weapons effectively (FM 3-23.25):

Quote[/b] ]Single Firing. A single soldier with one light antiarmor weapon may engage an armored vehicle, but this is not the preferred method of engagement. Several light antiarmor weapons are required to kill an armored vehicle. A single firer firing one round must hit a vital part of the target to damage it at all.

Pair Firing: Two or more firers, equipped with two or more light antiarmor weapons prepared for firing, engage a single target. Before firing, the first firer informs the others of the estimated speed and distance to the target. If the impact of his round proves his estimate to be correct, the other firers engage the target until it is destroyed. If the impact of the round proves his estimate to be incorrect, the second firer informs the others of his own estimate, then he engages the target. This continues until the target is destroyed or all rounds are expended.

Volley Firing. Two or more firers can engage a single target when the range is known. These firers engage the target at one time on a prearranged signal such as a command, whistle, booby trap, mine, or TRP. For the best method of engagement, use the light antiarmor weapon, because it places the most possible rounds on one target at one time, increasing the possibility of a kill.

I left out the method that has one gunner firing multiple rounds because we all know it doesn't work in ArmA. You could probably pull pair firing off if the first shooter follows the instructions in the first post and immediately takes cover and runs, leaving the second guy to adjust and shoot.

If you've got more than one AT guy, volley fire seems like the safe bet.

[frederf 0]

I'm a big fan of setting up a "primary" and "backup" gunner when doing prepared engagements with AT. The first shooter fires and only if he misses or does no damage does the second shooter fire. This means minimal equipment is wasted (volley) but the security of having a greater chance of kill is there.

Quote[/b] ]Even the developers of America's Army, the game designed to be a recruiting tool, recognizes that players need some additional feedback in-game. Have you seen the mini-map that was introduced in version 2.6 or 2.7? Great little tool that helps fill in the gaps while not getting too gamey.

No players need additional feedback in-game. It's something they want and makes them not have to learn situational awareness. I think it's a crutch and prevents people from achieving the battlefield awareness that comes from being given a paper map, a compass, and a blindfold and kicked out of a truck in the middle of nowhere.

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

Sigh. OK. Been there, done that, got the T shirt, the T shirt fell apart and is now in my rag bag in the garage. It's just not fun for me to play that way any more. You play your way on servers that you enjoy, and I'll do the same. Fair enough?

[Second 0]

No players need additional feedback in-game. It's something they want and makes them not have to learn situational awareness. I think it's a crutch and prevents people from achieving the battlefield awareness that comes from being given a paper map, a compass, and a blindfold and kicked out of a truck in the middle of nowhere.

I think bit differently... In ArmA soldiers are clones with different weapons and skincolor, which doesn't apply to reality, lots of things that gives away our identity before our faces are visible.

In ArmA/OFP it's impossible to tell is this guy from my squad or from my platoon... If friendly tags would apply to distances about 100 or less meters it would be fine.

This viewpoint is from SP experience and i don't know does it improve situational awareness... But i don't like the situation when i don't know is guy next to me from my squad or from other? It cuts me loose from surrounding. In OFP this could be checked from target-menu. But in ArmA it doesn't exist anymore for grunts. Damn, that i miss it during missions

EDIT: Oops offtopic... And like it been said you play like you like, i've nothing against it

[frederf 0]

Tags are fine with me. I just don't like magic-mapness. It's a whole dimension of the game you throw away if you have you, your friends, and the enemy in perfect red and green arrows on your map.

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

We're drifting way off topic here, but OK, I'll buy that. I think you'd really like America's Army's new mini-map. You only see players on the map that are within visible range to you or your fire team. For example, an opposing player is spotted by a team mate and he calls out the location using the new "Enemy Spotted" key binding. The spot shows on your map, then slowly fades as it ages.

If you lose track of part of your team because they are on a different part of the map, their last known position freezes, then slowly fades. Likewise, you can lose track of your fire team if you're separated from them for too long, too. I think it takes longer, though.

The whole concept of an automagically updating map makes sense if you assume perfect C3. I'd say that while we are MUCH further along with providing that level of intel to all soldiers than we were during any previous conflict, I'd have to admit that we don't have the kind of fully automated reporting that we get in-game today. Still, I think ArmA's mapping is an OK compromise.