Militia needs scopes

[badmojo420]

All US humvees should be equipped with additional armor and a CROWS system. But, in reality there is a thing called a budget, and even a militia has to worry about how much they spend on weapon scopes. It's not like there are no kits with scopes, they're just limited.

[CommunistComma]

IMO there should be an option for them to have scopes, perhaps on a less powerful gun. Like everybody says the AK's really powerful, so perhaps it shouldnt have a scope. But say a different gun, one that does less damage or has a smaller mag or something, like...the FAL.
Just so people who despise iron sights (me) wont throw their mouse at their monitor in frustration.

For the realism aspect, I dont think anybody here is an expert on irregular military forces in Eastern Europe, and what they have access to or not.
Plus BF2 is a very limited game, and a game at that, so sacrifice some things in the name of balance.

[USMC scout sniper]

The way I think is, and militia or insurgent group can have any weapon they can get their hands on. M16s, M4s, AT4s, AKs with scopes, wire guided rockets, or whatever they can get heir hands on. It's not like conventional a military's weapons where they have to test it and such. With an insurgent or militia group, it's like hey...this gun fire projectiles and kills people why not use that? See what I'm trying to say? The militia should be allowed to scoped AKs

[badmojo420]

I'm not arguing that they can't get their hands on scopes for their AK's, I'm arguing that creating a game where EVERYONE on the militia side has the option of a scoped AK, it takes away from the immersion.

Think about an action movie where a group of bikers have an endless supply of Javalin missile systems, wouldn't that seem a bit fake to the viewer? One or two... maybe, but not and endless supply.

[manligheten]

I'm not arguing that they can't get their hands on scopes for their AK's, I'm arguing that creating a game where EVERYONE on the militia side has the option of a scoped AK, it takes away from the immersion.

Think about an action movie where a group of bikers have an endless supply of Javalin missile systems, wouldn't that seem a bit fake to the viewer? One or two... maybe, but not and endless supply.

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Imagine a action movie where a group of bicycle bikers are to race against a motor cycle gang or what ever. There are no excitement when you know you'll lose either. Giving militia some scopes are in no way OP (for everyone as in all riflemen that wants to).

[ShockUnitBlack]

As far as I'm concerned, the real question is do we view the Militia as an insurgent faction or a conventional faction?

[dtacs]

They're a hybrid, hence their representation in both game modes.

My prediction is that re-introducing scopes will make no difference to gameplay. All Militia maps currently have mid to short range engagements anyway. This is an issue that really comes down to personal preference, and a trivial one at that.

[BulletPr0of]

I think an AK74 with a scope would be fitting for the squadleader, replacing the AK74u.

No, in my opinion squad leader kits are issued with a long range, and close quarter variant. which is still represented in the militia kit layout, the FAL being longer range the AK74u being the short range, if either was to become a slot for optics the FAL would be the one to change, or at least it should be.

As already stated previously this is entirely based on personal preference and if you replace one AK whether it be the 47, or the 74, I'm pretty sure the people who favor the one to be replaced by optics will be on here the following day complaining how their 'personal preference' has been taken away.

[Souls Of Mischief]

Just add the FN FAL to the riflement kits. You won't need a scope lol

[badmojo420]

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Imagine a action movie where a group of bicycle bikers are to race against a motor cycle gang or what ever. There are no excitement when you know you'll lose either. Giving militia some scopes are in no way OP (for everyone as in all riflemen that wants to).

So... what if the race was held on a windy mountain road and the cyclists decided to turn off the road and cut through the forest? It's not about what you have to work with, it's about what you decide to do with what you're given. Militia are more than capable of winning matches in PR. Standard forces of course have an equipment advantage, but in warfare that doesn't always mean an easy win. Just look at Afghanistan if you want a real world example of this.

[Arnoldio]

Grenadier used to have a scope on taliban, dunno about militia...

IS are better anyway, i dont know why are you whining people.

[maniac1031]

While we are at it why don't we give them wire guided hats because the brits have them so its unfair, why stop there the brits get challengers and warriors on fools road and the militia gets what one spandrel and depending on the layout one t62 which cant stand up to a challenger why not give them a t90 to make it "fair".
The scopes are not an advantage on that map if anything they are a disadvantage because 90% of engagements on maps like Dragon Fly and Fools road take place within 100 meters. Lets look at fools road almost the entire map is a dense Forrest the only place where scopes would come in handy is by the river when that's a flag and the estate hardly enough to justify scopes. Now lets look at dragon fly half the map is a dense city in which every building is enter-able which makes scopes a disadvantage also lets not forget the other half is a dense forest as well. Asymmetric warfare doesn't need to be "fair" your playing pr deal with the fact that you have a disadvantage and work with it to make it positive. At least not having scopes can be a good thing on the majority of the maps. Where as the U.S. Army gets stuck with that pos m4 to fight with which sometimes cant kill insurgents with a 3 round burst to the chest.

[maniac1031]

IMO there should be an option for them to have scopes, perhaps on a less powerful gun. Like everybody says the AK's really powerful, so perhaps it shouldnt have a scope. But say a different gun, one that does less damage or has a smaller mag or something, like...the FAL.
Just so people who despise iron sights (me) wont throw their mouse at their monitor in frustration.

Just so you know the Fn Fal fires a 7.62X 51 Nato round also known as the 308. Winchester. So that's an even more powerful round.

[Iceclops]

I actually prefer the iron sight rifles on most militia maps. I will often choose iron sights even while playing BLUFOR on these maps. With all the buildings and dense forests, it is relatively easy to maneuver a single squad in silence close enough for an attack. The only time not having a scope becomes a disadvantage is when your entire team sticks together perched on a ridgeline or at the edge of the forest with the opposing team doing the same thing on an opposite ridgeline on either sides of a flag, but that is poor tactics. As militia you need to be silent and way more mobile. I don't know if this is accurate or not but it also seems like the deviation settles faster on guns without scopes but with a decrease in overall final accuracy, which makes them more deadly at short and medium range if you can aim well because you can get a suitable deviation faster.

[ComradeHX]

It totally makes sense for Militia to have scope because some of those optics like those made by Romanians are not expensive at all.

There will be no whining about "ironsight is better in CQB" after backup ironsight is functional(for AK, just look through ironsight as normal).

[KillJoy[Fr]]

Grenadier used to have a scope on taliban, dunno about militia...

IS are better anyway, i dont know why are you whining people.

Because you don't know how to use your iron sight i guess ?

You don't need to shoot the first enemy in your sight whatever the range ....

[Souls Of Mischief]

;1757020']Because you don't know how to use your iron sight i guess ?

You don't need to shoot the first enemy in your sight whatever the range ....

He said iron sights are better anyway...

[ComradeHX]

;1757020']
You don't need to shoot the first enemy in your sight whatever the range ....

It would be nice to shoot accurately when you realize they also spotted you and have scopes turned at your head.

Not every engagement will be an ambush.

Not every ambush will encounter enemy. (in fact, chance of ambush actually meeting enemies IRL is pretty low)

Not every encounter will be successful. (IRL, statistics for chance of a "successful" ambush is not that low but that is out of the low number of ambushes that do happen).

Assume equal opportunities on both sides; both squads coming up over the hilltop to find the enemy squad on the opposite side of 150m valley. There is no time to run down and up the hill to shoot in ironsight range(in PR this is ironsight range because not everyone can play at super high definition).

[Stealthgato]

Nobody cares what you prefer to use. If it's realistic to have a couple more weapons with scope (like I said some pages ago, instead of having every rifleman with it, make it for example rifleman AP, specialist and officer) make it happen and let people chose what they want.

[Navo]

Assume equal opportunities on both sides; both squads coming up over the hilltop to find the enemy squad on the opposite side of 150m valley. There is no time to run down and up the hill to shoot in ironsight range(in PR this is ironsight range because not everyone can play at super high definition).

You could also, like, not engage in a firefight with them.