LAV-AT Useless or is it just me?

[JuanValdez]

I'm totally frustrated trying to get something useful out of Marine LAV-AT units. Even when place in hidden ambush positions, they invariably get wasted by t-72s before they get off a shot.

Am I doing something wrong or is this a known issue with CMSF???

[gibsonm]

Well I‘m afraid that this is so situationally dependent, its hard to say based on your initial post.

Are they off to a flank?

Making use of their range advantage?

How “good” are the T-72s?

etc.

If you are going toe to toe with tanks, front on, at 500m then yes “user error”.

[JuanValdez]

I just finished a scenario wherein I started with 4 LAV-ATs. I had them all sitting in static positions watching lines of approach. Two of them were watching roads where approaching armor had to round a bend then come straight towards the ambush position. The other two were tucked in between buildings in position to take lateral shots as the tanks rolled by about 200m away. All four of them got destroyed without firing a shot. I replayed and watched while locked on to the unit and the enemy unit icon never even lit up before the LAV got blasted. I'm assuming that means that the LAV never even spotted the enemy before they getting hit. I had narrow target arcs set on all four of them.

In the same scenario I've also noticed the accuracy of the Javelins is really bad. Three separate javelin teams fired on enemy armor and missed the first shot every time. I though those things were supposed to be accurate.:confused:

[Perforator]

I'm totally frustrated trying to get something useful out of Marine LAV-AT units. Even when place in hidden ambush positions, they invariably get wasted by t-72s before they get off a shot.

Am I doing something wrong or is this a known issue with CMSF???

When playing RT I position LAV-AT units behind solid cover like a hill or a building or a wall and use my infantry to spot the enemy, then I combine a 'fast' and a 'reverse' waypoint with a 'target arc' so that the LAV-AT quickly pops out of cover, hits the enemy, then reverses back behind solid cover before the enemy has time to react.

[gibsonm]

The other two were tucked in between buildings in position to take lateral shots as the tanks rolled by about 200m away.

Way, way, WAY too close!

TOW is designed to fire out to 2,000m, not 200m.

The gunner would barely have it under control before it reached the tanks in your engagement.

The TOW (and ATGM in general) gets better the longer the range (the opposite of most guns). Its penetration capability doesn’t degrade with range either.

The downside of most missiles is that it has to be guided so once you fire, if the enemy sees and destroys you (their shell traveling towards you is flying much faster than your missile is towards them) then your missile is useless and will crash into the ground.

Javelin is one of the few “fire and forget” type missiles that doesn’t need the firer stationary and guiding the missile onto the target.

If you can site them at say 2,000 - 2,500m and fire at their flank (so you are unlikely to be observed) then that’s better.

[ZPB II]

LAV-ATs and ATGM Strykers are one of my favourite units in the game. I unbutton the commander and place them in hull down positions overlooking vast distances. I have a massive Kill/Death ratio with those babies.

Not to mention the "funny" fact that a TOW hit almost always scores a catastrofic kill. What's the warhead on those things, 6 kilos?

[Erwin]

Often it is impossible to find 2000+m distances in which to use these guys. So, please designers, bear that in mind if you want to include these units, otherwise they die very quickly.

[gibsonm]

Often it is impossible to find 2000+m distances in which to use these guys.

Sure but firing at tanks at 200m (even if they are moving and “flank on”) is just asking to die.

Obviously the longer the range the better, but anywhere in the 1,000 - 2,500 range bracket is workable.

Also you need to remember that the missile needs to be tracked onto the target, so if you are firing on vehicles moving from left to right say along a road you need to ensure your firer has LOS to say 300m of the road. a “keyhole” location that only sights a gap between buildings wont work unless the guy is nice enough to park there for you.

[Erwin]

Another thing I noticed... If you are lucky enuff to get a kill from a hull-down ATGM vehicle, don't do a 2nd pop-up at the same location to try and get a 2nd kill.

The AI seems quite good at getting the enemy to focus attention at that position and there's a higher chance they'll kill you if you repeat.

[JuanValdez]

Thanks for the replies here. I have to admit I totally overlooked the fly by wire aspect of the projectile. I guess it just didn't dawn on me that the game is that realistic. With the information presented here, it is now obvious to me why my ambushes were failing. Had a few encounters that were too close and the missile went awry. I wondered at the time but the fly by wire didn't occur to me. Then one other situation was as mentioned above, a broadside ambush on a tank traveling down and urban road. The LAV never even fired a missile, now obviously because there wasn't a clear enough field of fire ahead of the moving target.

In this context... I'm really impressed that the game designers have coded the AI that realistically. So as previously pointed out, chalk this one up to user error. As one of my co-workers puts it, the problem occurs between the keyboard and the back of the chair.

[ZPB II]

Heh, that is indeed one of the spices of CMSF. Make no mistake, like every other game it has bugs, but very often people confuse realism or an abstraction aiming at realism with bugs.

I have to link a thread where I happened to make a similar assumption, only to eat a slice of humble pie.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93387

Erwin, I've played quite a few scenarios where they have enough range, but sometimes the challenge is the fact that you have the wrong kit for the wrong terrain and it's up to you to make right decisions.

[snake_eye]

You have around 6 LAV's-AT being deployed, on a 2400 X 2544 meters map, in the scenario "A Counter Attack at El Derjine". You can have them cooked right away, if they are shooting straight at the T-72 from a short distance and even from a long one, usually from 1000 meters to 2000 meters, if not well sighted.

If, you want them to survive more than one shot (that shot, might not even go for the tank , but dive sometimes into the ground (if the LAV –AT is on an inclined ground), you have to open up your LAV-AT( the commander and or gunner acquires the tanks quicker), position it on the flank of the tanks' LOS, hull down preferably and it must fire from a long distance (more than 900 meters). It should fire once and reverse, just when the missile hits its target (otherwise, you are stopping the missile guidance) If you don't have a way to hide, with a ground feature right away, your LAV-AT, you are doomed in return to get shot and destroyed by the first tank's round, while reversing. Smoke canisters, even if they are used do not hide immediately your track. Within 2 seconds you are killed.

If, you have managed to hide safely your LAV-AT, you can take another shot, but as already said, surely not from the same location.

As for myself, I have made quite a number of kills, firing from the flanks from well hidden location and from long distance. Doing so, I only lost a third of them at the most, while not doing so, I lost all of them in a finger clap.

But in other scenarios with not a sufficient distance to the targets (don’t get closer than 1000 meters), they are sitting ducks and you better let them alone in a safe ground. They won't have the time to sight and fire from a short distance.

[Erwin]

The sad thing is that since they should only have their launchers exposed, they should be hard to kill - esp at over 1000m. There are features in CMSF that people go to the wall for that I don't see as a big deal, but this item is important imo. There often does not appear to be consistency in what are judged to be essential features and which are not.

[dan/california]

It has been mentioned a number of times that they aren't all that hot in real life either. And I think the game actually makes them a little easier to use than they really are.

[Jonny(FGM)]

We need these : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV102_Striker

[gibsonm]

The sad thing is that since they should only have their launchers exposed, they should be hard to kill - esp at over 1000m. There are features in CMSF that people go to the wall for that I don't see as a big deal, but this item is important imo. There often does not appear to be consistency in what are judged to be essential features and which are not.

That’s actually a result of the level of granularity in “action spots”.

Currently they require a vehicle to basically move from one to the next with no half measures. So in one action spot you might be totally concealed “turret down” (neither side can see anything) and the next fully exposed or “track up” where the complete vehicle is on display to the opposition.

A good “hull down” position is often a question of centimetres and in RL the crew commander can make these adjustments. In CM:SF you need a long gentle slope with lots of action spots so you can pick the one that works for you.

[Erwin]

Even with a slope, it is much harder than in CM1 to know when you are hull-down or "hull-up." And we've discussed the problem that units with extendable arms etc are not modeled correctly since all vehicles are treated the same re LOS. It's unfortunate.

[abneo3sierra]

Even with a slope, it is much harder than in CM1 to know when you are hull-down or "hull-up." And we've discussed the problem that units with extendable arms etc are not modeled correctly since all vehicles are treated the same re LOS. It's unfortunate.

Well, I think in CM1, "hull down" was too basic though. In reality, you can be "hull down" to one opponent, but not to another, in CM1 it seems that hull down is hull down, regardless of where the opponent is.

Ron

[Erwin]

"...in CM1 it seems that hull down is hull down, regardless of where the opponent is."

That is definitely untrue. In CM1 I have learned to always check LOS from a "hull-down" unit in all critical directions as it is quite easy to be not hull-down in an unexpected direction.