[Question] M4 - M16A4 Differences.

[sakils2]

I think he asked whats the difference between the AK-74 and the AK-74M.

[DNAz5646]

bout the single shot or brust for main inf only in US army it was also true for the brits and that was one of the points people used to argue against the L 85

[AnimalMother.]

And in the reality the SCAR(i mean the newes verson, dont think you have seen it yet) is coming in about 1 year for the USMC and the British forces

that really needs some form of evidence to back it up because i seriously doubt that to be true


as for the question on the AK-74(M) the only differences IRL are the furniture and some minor production improvements, though wiki mentions something about muzzle device, though i'm not sure if that changes the characteristics of the rifle though

[sakils2]

The muzzle brakes makes the recoil "softer". Saw a vid a while back about these things and what they do to the AK family. Was pretty interesting.

[Spaz]

Isn't the ak74m the paratroop version? You can fold the stock in I think, or maybe that the ak74s?

But I'm not sure.

[AnimalMother.]

Isn't the ak74m the paratroop version? You can fold the stock in I think, or maybe that the ak74s?

But I'm not sure.

M is for modernized or something similar, it does feature a folding stock though

[sakils2]

Isn't the ak74m the paratroop version? You can fold the stock in I think, or maybe that the ak74s?

But I'm not sure.

AKS-74 is the paratrooper/airborne version.

[DankE_SPB]

Modern Firearms - Kalashnikov AK-74, AKS-74 and AK-74M assault rifles

there was a good vid from finnish guy about muzzle breaks, he tested 3 or 4 of them on AK-47, but it's unavailable now

[gazzthompson]

The gun i only find is the M16A4, i havnt seen the M4. But remember the M16A4 is burst and the M4 is auto. havnt found any of these in PR with auto......

the US army (on maps like qwai ect) use m4 in game.... the USMC use m16a4 . so the m4 IS in game. just not a full auto version as non the of units in game use full auto m4.

[Outlawz7]

IIRC from the US Army updates from last year M4 was supposed to be "nerfed" compared to the M16, but the Devs decided to give it the same properties as the M16.

[Qaiex]

Okay so back on topic, the M16A4 does 1-3 damage more and is .5 seconds slower to deploy.
Still, is this enough to separate the two? .5 Seconds isn't much.
I would say, make the M4 at least 1 second faster than the M16A4 and lower the deviation between shots on the M16A4 to make it feel it's a weapon with a longer barrel, and thus more accurate over longe distances.

[Ace42]

Okay so back on topic, the M16A4 does 1-3 damage more and is .5 seconds slower to deploy.
Still, is this enough to separate the two? .5 Seconds isn't much.
I would say, make the M4 at least 1 second faster than the M16A4 and lower the deviation between shots on the M16A4 to make it feel it's a weapon with a longer barrel, and thus more accurate over longe distances.

All the guns feel "kinda" similar, but that's realism - you point, click, stuff hurts.

However, to model better handling, the BF2 engine has both move-dev (WSAD) and aim-dev (pitch/yaw with the mouse). Mostly aim-dev is kept low, as it interferes with aiming (no surprises there). Given how high the deviation is set across the board ATM (move-dev, deviation recovery, max-dev, etc) it would be sensible to use aim-dev as a better guide to "handling" than the super-high move-dev we have at the moment.

.5 seconds faster draw time is fine - it's not like you yank M4s out of your pack and put them away often enough for it to be an issue. Where the longer barrel of the M-16 should be a factor would be increasing the damage-range bleed distance, so the M-16 projectiles start losing damage at a further distances than the M-4 ones; slightly increasing the base-dev of the M4 so that the M-16 is inherently more accurate.

That models the ballistic differences. Now, slightly increase the aim-dev on the M-16 (you have to be standing still for a few seconds before popping a shot, so that gives you plenty of time to sight-up and eliminate aim-dev as a factor anyway) to model it being more cumbersome to "bring to bear". That counteracts the superior base-dev of the M-16, but also makes the M4 easier to handle. Both guns would still "feel" similar, but also have the key differences that make them distinct.

Problem solved.

Also, fix the recoil so that a shot at centre-of-mass with a TRB at relatively close range will guarantee 2/3 hits. Setting very low BASE recoil on the gun, but high recoil increments should make this possible. IE a TRB will have low recoil, with each shot making the recoil more and more pronounced - so firing off TRBs in quick succession will rapidly make the weapon unfireable, but controlled fire (TRB - pause - TRB - pause) will keep all three shots on-target.

Contrast that with a beast of a gun like the G3, which should have low recoil increments mixed with a high base recoil, and you have a very different feel to the weapons.

[TheLean]

All the guns feel "kinda" similar, but that's realism - you point, click, stuff hurts.

However, to model better handling, the BF2 engine has both move-dev (WSAD) and aim-dev (pitch/yaw with the mouse). Mostly aim-dev is kept low, as it interferes with aiming (no surprises there). Given how high the deviation is set across the board ATM (move-dev, deviation recovery, max-dev, etc) it would be sensible to use aim-dev as a better guide to "handling" than the super-high move-dev we have at the moment.

.5 seconds faster draw time is fine - it's not like you yank M4s out of your pack and put them away often enough for it to be an issue. Where the longer barrel of the M-16 should be a factor would be increasing the damage-range bleed distance, so the M-16 projectiles start losing damage at a further distances than the M-4 ones; slightly increasing the base-dev of the M4 so that the M-16 is inherently more accurate.

That models the ballistic differences. Now, slightly increase the aim-dev on the M-16 (you have to be standing still for a few seconds before popping a shot, so that gives you plenty of time to sight-up and eliminate aim-dev as a factor anyway) to model it being more cumbersome to "bring to bear". That counteracts the superior base-dev of the M-16, but also makes the M4 easier to handle. Both guns would still "feel" similar, but also have the key differences that make them distinct.

Problem solved.

Also, fix the recoil so that a shot at centre-of-mass with a TRB at relatively close range will guarantee 2/3 hits. Setting very low BASE recoil on the gun, but high recoil increments should make this possible. IE a TRB will have low recoil, with each shot making the recoil more and more pronounced - so firing off TRBs in quick succession will rapidly make the weapon unfireable, but controlled fire (TRB - pause - TRB - pause) will keep all three shots on-target.

Contrast that with a beast of a gun like the G3, which should have low recoil increments mixed with a high base recoil, and you have a very different feel to the weapons.

Since the movedev, aimdev and bullet drop is the same for all carbines (atleast for the regular forces IIRC) I dont think we should change it just to make the m16 more different to the m4. It would create new balance problems and we would have to change the MEC and Chinese rifles. There is also an good idea to keep all the carbines at the same deviation. Confusion would ensue if we have different deviation and ballistics every round when you change team and get another rifle. IRL soldiers dont change between ak47 and m16 every 40 minutes (except captain america).

[Ace42]

IRL soldiers dont change between ak47 and m16 every 40 minutes (except captain america).

IRL "soldiers" don't change faction every forty minutes either. The whole point of having these weapon in is realism. In real life they handle differently. The identical values, while "balanced", are unrealistic to a degree. Sacrificing realism for the sake of convenient simplicity strikes me as a poor compromise. More importantly, it also strikes me as removing an important aspect of sophistication and gameplay from the mod.

[sakils2]

Modern Firearms - Kalashnikov AK-74, AKS-74 and AK-74M assault rifles

there was a good vid from finnish guy about muzzle breaks, he tested 3 or 4 of them on AK-47, but it's unavailable now

Yep, I remember it.

[Qaiex]

Indeed balance isn't the cornerstone of the game. It's all about creating a situation where your assets are used more effeciently than your enemy's, and turning their advantages into disadvantages.
They might have better helicopter support, so you fight from underneath the trees where the helicopter is useless.
They might have better armour, so you set up a choke point with mines, so they can't get through.


The game is more fun like this anyway.
And thats why we need the rifles of the game to behave differently, to give them the strong points and weaknesses they have in reality.

[Arnoldio]

Yeah, they need to change a bit...just a bit slower ADS time fot m16 and less recoil an less deviation.

[$kelet0r]

IRL "soldiers" don't change faction every forty minutes either. The whole point of having these weapon in is realism. In real life they handle differently. The identical values, while "balanced", are unrealistic to a degree. Sacrificing realism for the sake of convenient simplicity strikes me as a poor compromise. More importantly, it also strikes me as removing an important aspect of sophistication and gameplay from the mod.

That's a stupid argument. All the 5.56mm weapons for example have to ingame handle identically for the simple reason that they are just skins and textures. In an ideal game world there would be only two teams blue and red with unique weapons and characteristics. If modding for BF2 were like counterstrike as a quick and dirty example, everyone could mod the weapons, soldiers' appearance and even vehicle to satisfy their nationalism because the ingame items would all have the same charateristics and behaviour but could look like an M16 or a Famas depending on player preference. Unfortunately we can't do that in BF2 - if we could there would never be another suggestion made on the forums for the M110 to be in the game. What people want is team red and blue but also yellow, turqouise, white, pink, burgyundy, violet, chocolate.....because the Americans would never play a game where they are not in it, and the Europeans all want their own armies involved no matter how tiny they are - the compromise exists. It sucks but people don't know what they want only what they don't have.

[Ace42]

That's a stupid argument. All the 5.56mm weapons for example have to ingame handle identically for the simple reason that they are just skins and textures.

Sorry, you're saying that the data-tables which hold the numbers which govern how the weapons are handled have been selected solely on the basis that the guns are skinned wire frame models?

And you're saying MY argument is stupid?!?

I think the weapon values should be modified to more realistically model their characteristics relative to the other weapons in the game; something which can be done relatively easily. It isn't brain-breakingly hard to adjust these statistics so that the guns remain balanced, but handle distinctively. The changes I proposed were such that the balance of the weapons I specifically mentioned wouldn't change significantly. If you think that's stupid, you can keep it to yourself.

It sucks but people don't know what they want only what they don't have.

I know what I want, and it didn't involve asking for new factions or weaponry. What it DID involve was asking for the numerical values currently used to control how the weapons handle deviation, recoil, etc to be altered to more realistically reflect the weapons IRL handling and distinctiveness.

[Peeta]

Only difference that I have ever noticed is that one is a Marine rifle and one is an Army rifle. But if I understand correctly, that will be changing in .86? Anyway the deviation on both of these weapons is horrid IMO. Thats my 2 cents that you didn't ask for.