Accuracy of MEC Weapons vs. USMC Weapons

beta · Post by **beta** » 2005-12-26 20:05

First of all, let me just say this is an excellent mod, makes BF2 MUCH better.

Anyways, I am writing this in response to a gaming session I had last night, the preivious night I played as the US, it automatically put me on that side, so i saw now reason to change sides as the teams had an equal amount of players ... and after a while i started to realize that the MEC forces had been losing A LOT, they just couldn't seem to stop us. At first i thought it might just be a disorganized/noob team, so the next day I decided to play as the MEC, and i promptly figured out why the MEC lost so much, their guns can't seem to hit anything in any mode except single, which would be fine except that it takes 2,3, sometimes four bullets to down a guy.

IMO this has to be fixed, now I know that IRL the AK-101 has a lower accuracy as compared to the M-16, but for the sake of people actually WANTING to play as the MEC the accuracy has to be increased or just give them new weapons all together, because as it stands right now, I don't really want to have to play as the MEC in PRMM because everything about them seems to be so inferior (again, I know this is what it would be like IRL, but for the sake of getting more than 15 to play this mod ...) to the US. Give the MEC some sort of plus, be it there weapons do more damage or, they get more vehicles, or more infantry, as long as something is done to attempt to balance the game.

Post by **Rhino** » 2005-12-26 20:39

the thing is, this mod is about realism, and the AK-101 is not as accurate, But there are more ways than 1 to balance stuff out

Give something to the MEC that the US, cant get. Something that will give them a edge against the USMC, and something realistic at the time, which could be hard

In real life we know that there is no MEC, so we don't have to go directly by what the MEC have and don't have. But also "Arabs" as such dont have anything better than the US in real life, so this will be a hard 1 to blance. But im sure with the brains of these moddes they should figer somthing out but id do agree, the dose need to be more balnaced, no 1 wants to play on the **** side

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2005-12-26 21:42

I'd say the PLA are far worse than the MEC.

For example the new lmgs, the Type 95 is completely gimped compared to the SAW. The SAW is about 3 times more accurate and maintain accuracy *alot* better.

That the Type 95 would be better for CQB (since its basicly an assault rifle with a 100 round drum, right?) doesnt show at all, in fact its the complete opposite, its always inferior regardless of stance and movement.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2005-12-26 22:43

I've never really played as the PLA in PRMM, I guess its the server that I play on (Gloryhoundz) just doesn't put too many of those maps in rotation ... but there is the common theme that the US forces are superior in every way.

Since IRL the US forces usually are superior, something needs to be done to either the game modes, the weapon balancing, or maybe even making a new enemy to fight that will have equal (or at least close to equal) technology, or some other ingenious idea that I can't think of ...

The bottom line is something has to be done to attract more players to the mod and make it fun for both of the sides on the map.

waffenbaum · Post by **waffenbaum** » 2005-12-26 22:53

It was suggested to make the MEC's into soldiers of the United Arabic Emirates (UAE), whom could have (has?) a fairly large, competent, and well-equipped army. These guys basicly run everything oil related, and they would have no problems getting swiss made or other good weaponry from their countless suppliers. Then again, none of the two are realistic:

Make-believe fraction VS Real-life fraction is the choice as far as I see it, although the latter would probably steer clear of any US involved conflicts.

But the US is a real fraction, so why not have them fight something believeable? Even if said fraction would never war against the Americans (China, hint hint, wink wink?)

Post by **Rhino** » 2005-12-26 22:58

Ive got an idea, how about blancing it by player ratios, so it would be like 2 MEC to 1 US. Mabey not that bigger ratio of 2:1 but somthing like that so the MEC side has more players than the US, then they would have the better weapons but they would have to fight more and more off

waffenbaum · Post by **waffenbaum** » 2005-12-26 23:00

Wouldn't that sort of force players into playing something they would rather not? I mean, I don't mind playing either if it's for the sake of team equality, but I wouldn't like being raped into place with a 6:10 enemy radius.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2005-12-26 23:15

This might be something for the Suggestions forum rather than here but here it is anyways ...

I recently saw a short video clip of a US soldier getting hit from an AK round in his body armour, he prompty was knocked to the ground, BUT he got back up and immeadiately ran for cover behind a nearby HWMV. This got me thinking ... what is PRMM could try to simulate a more realistic approach to being shot? Since some of the "classes" in BF2 have body armour, how about a system that will simulate this "sudden impact" and knocks you into the prone position, maybe even in the prone position and you will be "stunned" for a certain amount of time so as to simulate taking a non-fatal body armour hit.

This will make firefights seem more realistic IMO, because even though you have this protective body armour that will stop the bullet, it should not be able to stop the bullet's effect of imparted a LOT of force onto it's target. This would also, IMO, alleviate some of the problems in weapon balancing, becuase again drawing from my experience yesterday, I would often sight an enemy, get the first shot, see the blood/greyish-body-armour-filling-stuff fly off the guy, but then they promptly turn and fire one burst and kill me. In reality the person who gets the first hit in a firefight should have a descisve (sp?) advantage over the one that has been ambushed.

Now I have a slight understanding of how complicated and time-consuming trying to add this feature could be, but IMHO it would be worth it.

JoW · Post by **JoW** » 2005-12-26 23:19

Reality is simple

MEC start of with 2:1 more than americans, they start and US get a 1 minute cooldown so MEC can set up. When round start US has shitload of planes avalible, fly in and bomb the city to hell. They do 3 - 4 bombing runs to ensure safety, then the US go in and cap a few of the survivors and win.
Also when a man is dead, he is dead until round is over like CS
Force everyone who wants to play US to MEC, and let everyone who doesnt give a shit play as US.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2005-12-26 23:24

Rhino wrote:Ive got an idea, how about blancing it by player ratios, so it would be like 2 MEC to 1 US. Mabey not that bigger ratio of 2:1 but somthing like that so the MEC side has more players than the US, then they would have the better weapons but they would have to fight more and more off

Not a very good idea as the US side would be disliked due to being outnumbered and the MEC side would be disliked due to the fact they are much more likely to die.

I think people are missing something though. Training! Who where knowns what kind of training the MEC has? No one!

What if the entire MEC army is a freakin elite guard, the eqvivalent of US Navy Seals or Delta Force?!?! One MEC soldier with an AK101 could probably own a US Marine with an M16 at any range.

The only viable solution is to assume eqvivalent training regardless of weapon statistics. Ie a MEC with an AK101 can handle it just as good as a US with an M16.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2005-12-26 23:33

The only viable solution is to assume eqvivalent training. Thus, fairly eqvivalent accuracy despite the weapon itself being technically more accurate.

So you are saying that the M16A2 and the AK 101 should be fairly equivalently accurate?

If so, I would tend to agree, I looked for a good 30 minutes but I couldn't find any specs on the AK 101 relating to accuracy at range. But since the AK 101 uses the 5.56, has a max. effective range of 450m (fairly close to the 500m of an M16A2) , and knowing that the AK series is going to be slightly less accurate at ranges greater than 100m than the M16A2 (because of quality or R&D and manufacturing and such), I still think they should be a bit less of a gap in accuracy between the M16A2 and the AK 101, especially at the BF2 engagement ranges which are typically under 100m.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2005-12-27 00:07

The easiest answer to this is to say 'yes'.

In one way, you have a point. Most of the NATO weapons used are either 9mm or 5.56mm rounds. ie) M16 A2.

Te likes of the AKs are all 7.62mm. So, although these Kalashnakovs are inherently more inaccurate, I would MUCH rather be hit by a 5.56 than a 7.62.

I know this from seeing a British soldier's body after he was hit by an IRA sniper in Armagh. Believe me, it's a f**kin' mess.

JG14_Jagr · Post by **JG14_Jagr** » 2005-12-27 00:54

Accuracy is a relative term. Very few weapons available today are any more or less accurate than any other weapons inside 100 meters. At 300-400M you see the difference.. You are going to have a challenge hitting a target 400M away with the AK 47 and its sites.. inside 200M its as effective as anything else.

Recoil is a different story though..depending on the design of the weapon and the bolt/gas system recoil can be much higher or lower frrom weapon to weapon.

Most small arms fired unsupported can get very good accuracy at the ranges most fights occur in BF2.. on full auto you will expand the group pretty quickly though.. The game amplifies that effect quite a bit.. especially with the bipod supported weapons.. At CQB ranges the SAW is vicious even unsupported on a sling or from the hip.. in the game its recoil effect is wildly over rated.. All the belt feds suffer badly from prone supported compared to real life..

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2005-12-27 01:29

the firing mechanism in an AK is exactly the same as a GMPG. You try getting a decent grouping from the hip with a GMPG at 100m

The 249 would be hitting the target 75% of the time on short burst from prone though

{GD}Snake13 · Post by **{GD}Snake13** » 2005-12-27 03:53

The AK shouldn't be very innaccurate, especially at the distances fought in BF2

Private_ryan · Post by **Private_ryan** » 2005-12-27 05:56

I used to own 2 5.56 ak47s, I also got to play with an m16 ASC (same bullet) both were almost exactly the same under 800m, the ak47 7.62 was also just as deadly under 600m apart from little more recoil.
I can say with certainty though, you just wouldn't miss with any of the above under 400m no matter what your stance.

my 2c

Figisaacnewton · Post by **Figisaacnewton** » 2005-12-27 06:53

I'm not 100% sure if or how this will be tweaked, but i would guess that in PR, more direct control of players through class limits and maybe even mandated player ratios, along with new maps that cater to more realistic weapons will fix these problems.

In the short term... I don't think there is too much of a problem... as single shot is how you are going to be fighting 90% of the time in PRMM (with the exception of support guns) and non single shot fighting usually occurs in very close quarters, with whoever starts shooting first usually winning.

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2005-12-27 07:50

Figisaacnewton:

I dont think youve played PRM much as the MEC.... before you post again, please go play 2 hours as the MEC, and then 5 minutes as the USA.

Youve done that? Ok good.

Did you notice how many more kills you get as USA? Did you notice that you have to hide from the USA guns even at 100m range, because you know your gun will not hit the target?

This is a major issue, the AK101 needs to be improved. Yes, recoil is much worse on any Kalishinikov, and yes, at ranges greater than 400m you will find accuracy with the open sites to be much worse.

But right now its just ridiculous, even at 50m the rounds will vary widely... whereas the M16 is right on the money.

This needs to be changed immediatley, or no ones gonna bother playing as MEC.

Ive already brought this up before, Im hoping it will be addressed with the next patch.

And if you dont think this is a big issue, then next time you play force yourself to play MEC. You will find out what I mean.

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-12-27 09:04

Rhino wrote: In real life we know that there is no MEC, so we don't have to go directly by what the MEC have and don't have. But also "Arabs" as such dont have anything better than the US in real life, so this will be a hard 1 to blance.

That's far from the truth. It might not be better than their US counterparts but some of the stuff is pretty damn close. Regardless even export hardware is still deadly. On that note, I'd be willing to be the Russians don't mind selling equipment with the same capabilities they would want if they could afford to maintain and acquire large quantities of them. It's also known the Chinese don't mind stealing and cloning or licensing copies of weapons so they can sell to others too. With the nations loaded down with obsolete hardware, you can't forget about the others that have and are still willing to spend cash on quality weapon systems.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2005-12-27 09:54

beta wrote:So you are saying that the M16A2 and the AK 101 should be fairly equivalently accurate?

If so, I would tend to agree, I looked for a good 30 minutes but I couldn't find any specs on the AK 101 relating to accuracy at range. But since the AK 101 uses the 5.56, has a max. effective range of 450m (fairly close to the 500m of an M16A2) , and knowing that the AK series is going to be slightly less accurate at ranges greater than 100m than the M16A2 (because of quality or R&D and manufacturing and such), I still think they should be a bit less of a gap in accuracy between the M16A2 and the AK 101, especially at the BF2 engagement ranges which are typically under 100m.

In a word, yes. I'm not really talking ranges though, simply training with the weapon at hand.

For example, put me behind an M16. Then put a US Delta Force officer behind an AK101 that he's been training with for say 3 years.

Who is the most accurate in combat? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I would probably shoot myself in the foot instead of hitting close to him, or I would get knocked out from the recoil in the first shot. It doesnt matter that the M16 is technically the winner, I wouldnt hit better just because I carry it.

So basicly, what I'm saying is that the MEC training should wiegh up any minimum accuracy differences: They are trained with the AK101 just like the US Marines are trained to the M16. We arent talking some bunched together terrorist army with taped together AKs that dont even know how to fire them effectivly.

Accuracy of MEC Weapons vs. USMC Weapons

Accuracy of MEC Weapons vs. USMC Weapons

Accuracy Thread