Even against walls they kinda suck, its so much easier to shoot through with even moderate caliber weaponry - this is why they are spending all this money developing airburst munitions for the SMAW at M136. The reason they aren't used against troops is because you are throwing away an asset that is more suited to engaging armor and you are using it in a role more suited to other weaponry. If you have entrenched troops you gain fire superiority or call in a JDAM, if you have a group in the open then you suppress and destroy with machinegun fire. Why would you use a rocket to kill in one shot when a bullet will do exactly the same more effectively.
In a game you can't rely on the real-life balancing aspects to prevent people from doing things. In the military you aren't going to run around like a jerkoff firing RPG rounds at troops and into buildings unless you are some muppet insurgent high on opiates because you are gonna get smacked around by your CO and its just not an effective use of resources. It's like with a FMG-148, I could fire it against infantry but that's $100,000 thrown on a guy that could be killed just as easily with a single rifle bullet at 1/100,000th of the cost.
Inevitably cost doesn't matter in a vidya game where I can get unlimited top-end missiles from an equipment terminal, nor does doing stuff sensibly as there is no cost to acting like a moron. Since we can't have single-shot kill rifles or a realistic wounding system then why should rockets kill in one shot? Since we don't have realism then we should go for balance, a rocket launcher does not have the role of killing infantry, if you give it a one shot kill then it will just be used against infantry rather than tanks - see BF:BC2's endless M3 MAAWS whoring or CoD's danger close whoring.
|