My Rifle is for kiling

[HAAN4]

Okay, I've actually shot every single weapon system discussed in this thread so far.

The FAL and G3 both fire a 7.62x51 round, same as the M1A and M14. This round has lots of stopping power and reach out and drop enemy soldiers. The FAL and G3 are big rifles like the M14 and are harder to manipulate in combat than a M4. The FAL and G3 have a lot more recoil than a M4, fully automatic and even burst fire is almost impossible with these weapons in anything more than a suppression capacity. I think this is already well represented in the G3 in game.

Now the AK47 fires a 7.62x39 round, this also has a good deal of stopping power. However range is sacrificed compared to the M4s 5.56. And the state of maintenance that most AK47 are in is just enough to maintain function. A well cared for AK47 can be just as accurate as a M4 in a urban setting but most are not cared for well enough. Due to inability by their owners or that they don't care.

Lastly the M4 is compact and well suited for urban combat that is common anymore these days. The 5.56 round was never designed to drop its intended target, it was conceived as a wounding round. That would cause shock and bleeding but not kill. This meant the enemy would have to spare men to drag the wounded out of the fight, giving you the advantage. Silly logic in my mind but thats the logic none the less. A M4 fires such a small round and the recoil is so non-existent that I can fire more accurate shots in a time frame than I could with a FAL or G3.

This all has to come into play when deciding how much damage X weapon does. Recoil,Damage,Gameplay. Trying to keep it balanced and as close to real as possible.

Yes this is exaclty what i told right up there, of course not in those details.

[HAAN4]

*cough* Rate of fire? *cough*



Anyway, OT, as far as I'm aware most weapons in game are fairly representative of their RL counterparts, if realism is what your arguing.

And if not, well, gameplay wise I'd say they are probably about right as well

Agreed. the only way to balace the game whichout sacrificing the Realism of the weopows is by chaging the caracters by the way.

Like it is dided to Insurgent AK47, if you shoot a AK47 whicht a Rebel for exemple, you see that he's far more acuracy that a insurgent it self.

[HAAN4]

I think thats the problem, the 7.62 weapons are not too different from 5.56 except for bad recoil. They both kill on the 3rd hit from my experience, i think it would be more balanced to make up for the recoil by firstly, making 5.56 weapons SLIGHTLY more powerful, and 7.62 kill on the 2nd shot.

but i suggest more power to all weapons simply to mkae people more afraid to pop thier heads out. the thing i hate the most is when a SAW stays crouched behind cover, aims down his sights for a few seconds, and pops out and sprays you perfectly with 10 rounds, in my mind at least, i think more powerful weapons can help prevent this

that is what i thick 2 about 7.62 rifles. i guess we must use to balace a concept that all kwon and love.

5.56 is for better for full anto and close combat.
7.62 is better for long range semi auto combat.

I agreed whicht you of 7.62 rifles kill in 2 shoots, but in the frist one the man will be hurt so badly that if he do not use frist aid path he will die in let me thick 20 or 30 seconds.

And of course a Headshot whicht a 7.62 and you are A DEAD MEN, unless you hit in helmet of course. (those helmets must server for something at all).

the ideal is to put a critical chance to maximise the realism and balace of the 7.62 assault rifles and 5.56, since the mecanical energy go all around you boby, and maybe it can be deadly to.

Also puting vital points like Heart will be nice to, to inflict more damage has well.

about FAL has be dificult to manage i must sadly degree, since mostly brazilian soldiers say it give a very good feling when you shoot. If of course properly poited at the arms, i don't kwon if the size will make Close quarters suck, but for long range fight FAL is you Tool. for life imo.

[AquaticPenguin]

And of course a Headshot whicht a 7.62 and you are A DEAD MEN, unless you hit in helmet of course. (those helmets must server for something at all).

As far as I know Helmets don't do much to actually stop bullets - I guess they may deflect a bullet away but I believe they're more for protection against the environment and shrapnel.

the ideal is to put a critical chance to maximise the realism and balace of the 7.62 assault rifles and 5.56, since the mecanical energy go all around you boby, and maybe it can be deadly to.

Stopping power's quite a complex field and there's no real true answer, although I guess it could be generally assumed that a bigger bullet translates into a bigger hole. Equally saying that it should take one 7.62 to kill people, and two 5.56 doesn't really help much, given the range of sizes of bullets that this includes.

Also puting vital points like Heart will be nice to, to inflict more damage has well.

I think this would undermine gameplay quite badly, to be a worthwhile and realistic venture you would need to be able to do it in a lot of detail, since having a bullet penetrate an artery in the leg could be just as bad as a bullet nicking the heart. Equally this would just bring up cries of 'imbalanced' when someone complains after shooting a person in non-vital points of the body only to get killed in one hit when the opposition got a lucky hit to the heart.

Personally I'm quite happy with the stopping power in game as is, The bleed effects do a very good job making it incredibly difficult to fire back when you're hit. Not sure you can really predict, or model how bullets behave realistically but I think the systems quite good as it is.

[Hotrod525]

5.56mm will pass right trought you're buddy, 7.62mm will punch in you're buddy, if NATO is using 5.56mm its because its more accurate and it can easily pierce a kevlar helmet. ( keep in mind 5.56 was designed during Cold War. )

And most of people who got a tour in IRAK and Afghanistan will said that 5.56 is not the best bullet to counter insurgency cause it fly so fast and pass trought the body so easily that insurgent just turn around and keep on shooting. Of course they suffer internal injuries but they can keep on fighting. Thats why U.S. was trying to introduce 6.8mm, dont know where the process is yet.

And like i said before, 5.56 was designed to injure a "conventional army soldier" not kill insugent. If you kill a soldier in a conventional war, then he's dead, its over, if you wound it, you have to evacuate him, treat him, etc...

Take out a guy will just mean 1 less, wound it would mean 3 less. The guyz who hit, and the 2 that carry him.


EDIT : oups, i dont read the entire thread somone already post what i'm saying XD

[HAAN4]

5.56mm will pass right trought you're buddy, 7.62mm will punch in you're buddy, if NATO is using 5.56mm its because its more accurate and it can easily pierce a kevlar helmet. ( keep in mind 5.56 was designed during Cold War. )

And most of people who got a tour in IRAK and Afghanistan will said that 5.56 is not the best bullet to counter insurgency cause it fly so fast and pass trought the body so easily that insurgent just turn around and keep on shooting. Of course they suffer internal injuries but they can keep on fighting. Thats why U.S. was trying to introduce 6.8mm, dont know where the process is yet.

And like i said before, 5.56 was designed to injure a "conventional army soldier" not kill insugent. If you kill a soldier in a conventional war, then he's dead, its over, if you wound it, you have to evacuate him, treat him, etc...

Take out a guy will just mean 1 less, wound it would mean 3 less. The guyz who hit, and the 2 that carry him.


EDIT : oups, i dont read the entire thread somone already post what i'm saying XD

They keep figthing because they got the balls to do so. Everone that is going to say that insurgents don't have the best moral to go for war is going to make a sadly mistake. so talking about this make i have another ideia, make insurgents ALOT LESS efected to bleed or Stun, they may be not the best trained troops, but the faith, they suffer in lifetime make they alot psicologic prepared to war that the OTAN boot camps at all. (not talking this may get they even to madness is they culture respect it).

but yeah talking what the topic is for, it's comon kwon that a 5.56 will not kill you in one shoot. and a 7.62 maybe do the job. and what you say just comprove what i am saying.

whatever if you might be abble to get some valuable hot info about both 7.62 and 5.56 it will help alot. please do it.

don't worry what you say is just okay whicht the conversation.

[Hotrod525]

Honestly i think 7.62 best roll is for sniper rifle, and GPMG. Heavier caliber mean heavier gun, and since a C8 its already 7lbs loaded, i could easily imagine a G3 around what 12lbs ? loaded, yeah its only 5lbs, but 5lbs of heavy metal going backward mean way much more recoil.

Anyway we are not here to discuss about wich caliber is the best for war, its just my opinion.

and HAAN4 there is not "hot info" on any caliber, you can find every thing on internet, its not a secret

[USMCMIDN]

The system is fine the way it is now. Fact body armor that Rus, US, UK, IDF etc... wear will stop 7.62X54R etc... The system now is good.

[Celestial1]

Is it correct to believe that the 5.56 NATO rounds should not drop a target, considering that they are intended to wound/maime, rather than to kill?

I think that this is perhaps downplayed if don't you consider the fact that to wound/maime someone would mean to incapacitate them; to "critically wound" them. So, while yes the 7.62s in their respective sizes should deal appropriately higher damage, shouldn't they perhaps all be brought up a step so that 5.56 can be more suitable for close quarters?




3 round burst makes me cry. Usually doesn't drop them.

[Dev1200]

First off, I applaud you for your improvment with english

in the first post you say that Assualt rifles need more power to compete with a machine gun, for gameplay reasons, but in your second post you just want 7.62 rifles boosted for realism reasons? Those two seem conflicting

p.s. About the SAWs, they only advantage they have is less recoil, otherwise they do the same damage and worse deviation settle times.

SAW, When deployed, has minute deviation+/shot when firing full auto.

I don't see how your able to fire a SAW with 0 deviation, but it seems only assault rifles have massed amounts of deviation.


I say either reduce assault rifle deviation, or get a different equation for deviation. A simple "wait 5 seconds" with a gradual increase if your moving isn't enough.

Or, make automatic rifleman have increased deviation per shot, like assault rifles. This way they can't lay down automatic sniper fire ^^

[BlackwaterSaxon]

Honestly i think 7.62 best roll is for sniper rifle, and GPMG. Heavier caliber mean heavier gun, and since a C8 its already 7lbs loaded, i could easily imagine a G3 around what 12lbs ? loaded, yeah its only 5lbs, but 5lbs of heavy metal going backward mean way much more recoil.

Anyway we are not here to discuss about wich caliber is the best for war, its just my opinion.

and HAAN4 there is not "hot info" on any caliber, you can find every thing on internet, its not a secret

7.62mm is a horrible round for sniper weapon systems, why do you think every western army has been phasing it out for the past 15 years?

The ARs at the moment are a bit overpowered, the lack of deviation and the ability to put down accurate single rounds from a distance make them in most cases better for precision shooting than a marksman, something seriously wrong with that.