On 90% of maps, 90% of engagements occur at less than 150m for the simple reason the maps terrain hight, vegetation and building placement prevents even viewing the enemy at greater ranges.
Fools road is a clear example of where it is possible to view the enemy at ranges in excess of 200m often and as a result, the average range of engagements is can be and sometimes is much greater than average.
Therefore a greater number of maps, designed to provide players with greater distance views on average, this being highly realistic (there are many environments in the world where this is the case but i am not suggesting all are like, but they bloody well exist) but crucial it would increase the range of the average engagement, with possibility of some out to 400-500m and many many at 200 - 300m range.
However it is not just the map design that must allow for this but also the weapons systems. The main systems being the assault rifle and light machine gun and therefore it is imperative that these weapons can be accurately fired out to 500m and for this to be achieve, these guns must be equipped with scopes.
SUMMARY:
Increase range of firefights is a good thing - to make it so we must - design maps that allow for greater view distances - ensure basic infantry weapons are capable of being used effectively at these longer distances - scopes on a large number of these weapons is the ONLY way to achieve this.
THIS MEANS IN SYMMETRICAL WARFARE: Both sides will have access to a large number scoped guns therefore they can both employ identical tactics, namely engaging the enemy at significant range.
THIS MEANS FOR ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE: Only one side has access to a large number of scoped guns, while the other (insurgents and militia) generally will not therefore they must adjust their tactics accordingly. Namely getting much closer to the enemy before firing than would be done by the both teams in symmetrical warfare, therefore making the their enemies large numbers of scope weapons significantly less of an advantage. Personal i consider this thoroughly exciting, the idea of absolutely having of having to use markedly different tactics for different teams (failing to do so resulting is consistent and very regular death!)
Quoted for eloquence
To be honest this whole scope vs non scope argument has no merit - if you are an insurgent you set an ambush and engage with full auto at less than 50m. You don't get into a medium range, single shot exchange with a NATO soldier and hope to be victorious...
I'd like to see the conventional armies get scopes on nearly all weapons and all loadouts, and the insurgents to get the improved AK ironsight and mortars. Then, let the assymetrical warfare begin.
if theres one thing we are used to in this mod, its whining. everytime realism is added , vanilla noobs start whining. this mod makes you develop a thick skin pretty quick.
i hate the excuse people are using for "game play" balance, when in real life, the conventional forces would be far better equiped than insurgent forces (obvious).
but because this is a "game" and people want a "fun" experience, both sides have to be "equal".
If insurgents knew how to play, they would be alot more efficient at their job, and wouldnt venture 2 steps outside of the city.
I personally scopes should be given to everyone, or atleast the option to have a scoped and unscopped weapon (ala EoD's upgrades, but i think there's a problem since it still uses the upgrades system from vBF2).
Dont bring Armor into this either with the l33t sniper tank arguement, since with all of pr's "metaphors" being used right now in game, the lazer-ownage cannon is there to simulate the auto-targeting/range finding that a normal tank would have..
snipers can be devestating, and marksmen serve a different purpose, but, like everything else in PR, people dont use them for their intended purpose.
I find asymmetrical warfare more interesting in PR. I loved it back when the Cobra could only be engaged by RPGs and MANPADS in Al Basrah, and the A10 could roam without the fear of a fighter jet on its tail! It was great. I think that giving everyone scopes against nonconventional armies without scopes is a great idea. Sure there will be whining but people will accommodate. The thing is that the scopes right now are essentially automatic sniper rifles; the recoil has to be fixed to standard so it bounces as high as the iron sights.
I could argue about Basrah for days. Sure, the Insurgents do have an advantage in the city, but the design of the map prevents that, as GB can occupy one roof and can see 1/3 of the city due the placement of tall/low buildings and the fact that it's small. A C2 watching down the main road can see almost to the other end of the city. The Palace bridges can get destroyed etc.
So then if everyone yells 'more scopes' why do we still have ironsight kits? Looking at the number of people who endorse this, they could form an angry mob and storm [R-DEV]eggman's house.
Why did the PR team even model the ironsight versions, if they shouldn't even be used?
Also, I've played PR since late 0.4/early 0.5 and next month it's going to be one year from when I downloaded 0.5, so I hardly consider myself 'vanilla noob' who came to PR yesterday.
Ever watch Jarhead?
Well if you haven't here's the scene.
Two USMC snipers are sitting in a house watching two iraqi officers arguing in an airfield tower. The observer gives the sniper confirmation to fire, but before they can, a big bird colonel comes in and stops them and tells them he has a better way. he lases the target and an F16(15? WHich one is the one with one engine, I think its 16) drops a small JDAM on tower blowing it to heck and back.
Moral of the story? YOu don't always have the luxury of having larger equipment like tanks or bombs to kill an enemy, and in the small places like basrah, with civilians all over, you don't have the luxury of blowing every building to pieces.
Only problem I see with the DMR and the SR is that they are zeroed to the same distance, DMR should be closer because they are attached to squads in the city mostly for support, so they don't need the range. SR is the real distance rifle, going out to 1000m at times to pick off individuals unexpectedly.
And to those who are asking, this is a reply for more scopes.
DeltaFart wrote:Ever watch Jarhead?
Well if you haven't here's the scene.
Two USMC snipers are sitting in a house watching two iraqi officers arguing in an airfield tower. The observer gives the sniper confirmation to fire, but before they can, a big bird colonel comes in and stops them and tells them he has a better way. he lases the target and an F16(15? WHich one is the one with one engine, I think its 16) drops a small JDAM on tower blowing it to heck and back.
Moral of the story? YOu don't always have the luxury of having larger equipment like tanks or bombs to kill an enemy, and in the small places like basrah, with civilians all over, you don't have the luxury of blowing every building to pieces.
Only problem I see with the DMR and the SR is that they are zeroed to the same distance, DMR should be closer because they are attached to squads in the city mostly for support, so they don't need the range. SR is the real distance rifle, going out to 1000m at times to pick off individuals unexpectedly.
And to those who are asking, this is a reply for more scopes.
F16 is the one with the single (don't know what you would call it but it's the rudder thing).
Yea I agree with the sr needing to be zeroed to a larger distance and yes I do agree with adding scopes.
But seriously, how well do the militia do against the British alot of the time? On fools road it could be argued they have the upper hand by 1 ill armoured tank but that's it, and they do very well for themselves. Same with Mestia, although it's a literal uphill battle for the Brits I wouldn't say it's that unbalanced due to the many ways you can go about attacking flags on these kinds of forested maps.
Does anyone have a good reason that snipers should even be in pr?
The primary jobs of the sniper are recon and the killing of important targets.
Recon: Though recon is possible and can be quite effective in PR, the camoflague system of bf2 is terrible especially if played on low graphics settings. This makes it extremely easy to be spotted.
Important people: This one is simple, there are none. There are few targets at all that would make effective shots to a sniper. Not to mention, anyone important will be back in a minute to kill the sniper.
carld2002 wrote:Does anyone have a good reason that snipers should even be in pr?
The primary jobs of the sniper are recon and the killing of important targets.
Recon: Though recon is possible and can be quite effective in PR, the camoflague system of bf2 is terrible especially if played on low graphics settings. This makes it extremely easy to be spotted.
Important people: This one is simple, there are none. There are few targets at all that would make effective shots to a sniper. Not to mention, anyone important will be back in a minute to kill the sniper.
If they bring extraction back into pr then you will have important people to kill.
Tef wrote:If they bring extraction back into pr then you will have important people to kill.
Very true, but until then, snipers are fairly unrealistic.
I never actually had the chance to try extraction. I always wanted to do it and it was one of the reasons why I first tried pr but I could never find a decent server for it.
carld2002 wrote:Does anyone have a good reason that snipers should even be in pr?
The primary jobs of the sniper are recon and the killing of important targets.
Recon: Though recon is possible and can be quite effective in PR, the camoflague system of bf2 is terrible especially if played on low graphics settings. This makes it extremely easy to be spotted.
Important people: This one is simple, there are none. There are few targets at all that would make effective shots to a sniper. Not to mention, anyone important will be back in a minute to kill the sniper.
HAT are important. And they wont be back soon. Especialy not to kill the sniper. Commanders are important. Squadleaders building something are important. That enemy spec ops attacking a squad is... oh, no, sry, not him. But there are important threats.
Spec_Operator wrote:HAT are important. And they wont be back soon. Especialy not to kill the sniper. Commanders are important. Squadleaders building something are important. That enemy spec ops attacking a squad is... oh, no, sry, not him. But there are important threats.
LOLOLOLOL I love how everybody hates on the spec-ops but then again I really don't use it either.
carld2002 wrote:Very true, but until then, snipers are fairly unrealistic.
I never actually had the chance to try extraction. I always wanted to do it and it was one of the reasons why I first tried pr but I could never find a decent server for it.
Yeah they never where any servers running extraction.
Spec_Operator wrote:HAT are important. And they wont be back soon. Especialy not to kill the sniper. Commanders are important. Squadleaders building something are important. That enemy spec ops attacking a squad is... oh, no, sry, not him. But there are important threats.
HAT aren't a sniper target.
Commanders can't be shown and will come back anyways.
Squadleaders building aren't sniper targets either
Besides the commander, there is almost nothing important if anything at all. And the commander can't be designated.
To keep in the mod's ever expanding spirit of realism before fun, snipers should be removed.
HAT are very important, heck LAT is important, because if you remove teh danger of infantry carried anti armor weapons, you can have a significant edge over your adversary. THe CO is easy, and pretty important, because he's usually driving the truck from his CP at main, and he's always having ot spawn there. So if you get rid of the CO, he can't know the situation at the front line, and might mess up.
Squadleaders are important because even though yes the squad can function without him for the most part until he come sback, he might not have made an RP, so hes back at MB, having to walk sometimes all the way from say the fields between pig farm and govt offices of qwinriver, across the river to outside the estate, while this is done his squad might be destroyed so he can't set an RP on other side of river until squad gets back, and he might get shot again in that time.
See where I'm going with that SL thing?
ANd the CO is easy to distinquish, he has an officer kit, look it up in the manual. so at MB he could be only officer there.
Tef wrote:I really don't care if all con. army classes are given scopes, it's just I am sure a good amount of people are going to whine.
good, when the whiners find that whining wont do anything, they either adapt or leave, simple as that.
as for scopes, MORE MORE MORE specifically concerning the brits, when a SUSAT is standard issue it doesnt feel right looking through ironsights on an SA80
why do certain kits have iron sights? well i think it has something to do with the kits that are assigned iron sights. its basically to encourgage people to do what the kit is intended for. for example, the engineer, he shouldnt be trying to kill as many people as possible, he should be setting mines/c4, repairing vehicles etc, the medic, same thing, he should be healing and reviving fallen comrades, not going in all out assaults. since the majority of people that plays PR dont have actual military training and discipline, the devs need a way to discourage certain classes from being rambos, hence they are given iron sight weapons. the iron sight weapons are really more for self defense then assaults.
Commanders can't be shown and will come back anyways.
Squadleaders building aren't sniper targets either
Besides the commander, there is almost nothing important if anything at all. And the commander can't be designated.
To keep in the mod's ever expanding spirit of realism before fun, snipers should be removed.
So why aren't all these sniper targets?
Snipers are useful, if used correctly. As an example, me and another guy formed a sniper/spotter squad on Kufrah and we went out into the desert and spotted out targets for the commander, who then relayed the info back to the other squads. "Enemy anti-air on the rooftop in the middle of so-and-so, the building with the pipes. Surrounded by a full enemy squad, and possibly their commander. Suggest you get a tank to blow it to hell." Upon which it was blown to hell by a tank.
And in what way have they ruined realism? They are actually used in war, you know, and have proved themselves worthy of the praise they get.
More guns and bullets make bad guys go away faster, which in turn makes everyone in the area safer. -Paul Howe
The fact is, a sniper can ruin a HAT's day and save a tank's life. If thats in real life: I dont know. At least it works in PR. Sure, there are no 20-service-year-players that cant be replace, but instead there are other important things.
(About the Special Forces: I dont hate them, i was only kidding. Some people know how to use them to do a lot of damage. But then again, enigneers often do that too.)
