Is the prevalence of optical enhancements on assault rifles realistic?

General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.
Apheirox
Posts: 290
Joined: 2005-11-13 07:21

Is the prevalence of optical enhancements on assault rifles realistic?

Post by Apheirox »

Do most modern day infantry forces have optical enhancements on their assault rifles?
Harrelson
Posts: 194
Joined: 2005-10-26 12:31

Post by Harrelson »

this prevalcence has ruined the game for me. you are at such a massive disadvantage if you choose a kit without a scope. esp for brit and mec weapons

everybody goes with the scoped rifle in order to shoot targets that are far away

if i had my way i would remove jets and the scoped rifles except for spec ops only.

Seriously what is the point of jets? a fine balance that exists between infantry and armor, jets arent needed.
jackal22
Posts: 849
Joined: 2006-11-18 20:18

Post by jackal22 »

i have to admit ive been feeling it too and that with just 0.5, 0.6 will be a lot more 'scoppy'

its a bit annoying how you will make a squad and 4/6 go rifle man for scope even though we need a medic or light at kits
Image
[SAF]stal20048
Posts: 443
Joined: 2006-07-29 18:29

Post by [SAF]stal20048 »

jets are needed for when someone needs specific targetting on a position were armour cannot reach.


however this relies on teamwork, the skill of the pilots, and more the pilots 'professionalism', as in he doesn't just comb the desert and rape targets, but does commanders and squads bidding.

this is why i believe we need some sort of designation system for squad to air communication, and i think the devs are working on something (correct me if im wrong).

Also, the new 0.6 jets take skill to fly, as there are so many threats such as accurate hand held AA, although i have to say the Bradley and co arent good at all (only good against helicopters).

also, planes are cool
Outlawz7
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 17261
Joined: 2007-02-17 14:59

Post by Outlawz7 »

Harrelson wrote:this prevalcence has ruined the game for me. you are at such a massive disadvantage if you choose a kit without a scope. esp for brit and mec weapons

everybody goes with the scoped rifle in order to shoot targets that are far away

if i had my way i would remove jets and the scoped rifles except for spec ops only.

Seriously what is the point of jets? a fine balance that exists between infantry and armor, jets arent needed.
Well, stop playing the damn SF kit and switch to Rifleman. Give this to SF, give that to SF :/

Could almost say the N word...
Image
bezoar
Posts: 31
Joined: 2006-09-17 22:05

Post by bezoar »

to answer your question, yes. most modern infantry use optics instead of iron sites, for the same reason you want to use them in game.
"your mom goes to college!"
Bob_Marley
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 7745
Joined: 2006-05-22 21:39

Post by Bob_Marley »

Well the US do get 4x zoom ironsights for their riflemen's M16s to make up for the lack of scope
The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.
Image
Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
gazzthompson
Posts: 8012
Joined: 2007-01-12 19:05

Post by gazzthompson »

insurgents get SVD aswell , and mosin , so dose milita


if anything we need more scoped , i hardly ever see a brit without a SUSAT or a US without a ACOG , of course some dont have em but on the hole they do , but for balance reason its ok as it is.
Brummy
Posts: 7479
Joined: 2007-06-03 18:54

Post by Brummy »

Heavy AT for the Win! I hate all other kits lol, I love Heavy AT :)
ArmedDrunk&Angry
Posts: 6945
Joined: 2006-07-14 07:10

Post by ArmedDrunk&Angry »

Well in close up fights, like Mestia I prefer Iron SIghts as the optics eat up your field of vision.
And as the windshield melts
My tears evaporate
Leaving only charcoal to defend.
Finally I understand the feelings of the few.
Jimmy_Smack
Posts: 356
Joined: 2007-02-07 16:11

Post by Jimmy_Smack »

Like above, I am perfectly fine with ironsights on Mestia. Especially the AK's because of the open top. I just drop it down a bit to look then bring it up to fire. I think the scopes are fine as they are right now.
2010 +3
Image
youm0nt
Posts: 4642
Joined: 2007-03-16 15:13

Post by youm0nt »

What is this?! First you guys wanted scoped rifles... Now you guys don't want them?! You guys are a pest to the devs, lol...
El_Vikingo
Posts: 4877
Joined: 2006-11-27 01:50

Post by El_Vikingo »

War is hell.
Image

If you are reading this dont stop, cause if you do, I'll kick you in the balls.
Hardtman
Posts: 535
Joined: 2007-05-04 18:11

Post by Hardtman »

I can only speak for the german Bundeswehr,but there the G36 is the standart issue-rifle,and it has a reflex-sight(red-dot) as well as a 3x(?) scope for effective engagement up to 800 meters.

So yes,some armies have scoped weapons as a standard.
Apheirox
Posts: 290
Joined: 2005-11-13 07:21

Post by Apheirox »

The M16 is only a placeholder while they work on new artworks. That is why it gets unrealistic 4x ironsight zoom.
Apheirox
Posts: 290
Joined: 2005-11-13 07:21

Post by Apheirox »

I presume that means you use it against infantry. You need to be destroying armour - not getting into firefights with infantry. If that is what you do you are failing your team.
Maverick--113
Posts: 125
Joined: 2007-02-09 02:02

Post by Maverick--113 »

Strategist wrote:The M16 is only a placeholder while they work on new artworks. That is why it gets unrealistic 4x ironsight zoom.
And that zoom has gotten me killed in cqb waaay to often.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Apheirox
Posts: 290
Joined: 2005-11-13 07:21

Post by Apheirox »

Do not use the scope in CQB. You would not in real life either, so why try in the game? All the rifles are extremely accurate while not scoped in in 0.6. You can easily take out targets on full auto at thirty metres even from the standing position.
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 General Discussion”