Project Reality Forums

Zimmer wrote:YEs it is because The Genevea convention says that medics shouldnt be killed intentinoally therefor in most armies they are armed with side arms only.

In norway it got really hot for some officers when they ordered medics to mount the .50's on patrols in afghanistan.

Was referring to this post mate

Sars99 wrote:as i understand it though the M68 is not telescopic like the ACOG/SUSAT

could be horribly wrong but that think i've got that right

you just ninjad me

gazzthompson wrote:well pretty much every army uses scopes..

US Army and(i think) marines use aimpoints, albeit similar not the same as scopes. Personally I think this game should have more scopes (Eg. British Landys with scopes on the .50 and some LMGs to have scopes) but I think medic isnt a must.

I see M68 Aimpoint (non-magnifying red dot scope) more with the US Army. With the US Marines, I see a lot of TA31 ACOG scopes (which are the ones modeled in-game). However, both types of scopes are found with both branches, along with the Israeli Mars sight and EOTech HWS. There might be a couple more sights to be found, but those are the most common ones I have seen.

Zimmer wrote:If medics should mirror their rl life part most medics would have to cary a pistol so do not say that 1337 medics need da scopes.

Not sure about Army medics, but I know that US Navy Corpsman are kitted out for combat as any other rifleman, but with less ammo and pouches for first aid gear. I have also read of Corpsmen who are Marine Scout Snipers. Just as long as they do not wear the Caduceus or however it's spelled.

A quick google search:

http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/08/news/art5bx.jpg

http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/ ... /21_01.jpg

And my favorite:



Details: "US Navy Corpsman Second Class Gartman, a member of Headquarters Company, Battalion Landing Team 3/6, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) waits, with his Barrett M82A1 rifle, on the flightline at Kandahar International Airport, Kandahar, Afghanistan, prior to boarding a Marine Corps KC-130 on a mission in support of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. The KC-130 is part of Marine Aerial Refueling Squadron VMGR-352."

Do PR Medic's need scopes? Maybe, definitely not a priority. I play Medic the majority of the time and don't have any qualms.

I, personally am useless without a scope. That's the primary reason why I almost never play medic. I'd probably be medic the majority of the time with the simple addition of a scope.

Jeez, you guys never learn to shoot without scope if you never try. Practice makes perfect.
Medics are not the squad's killers. Still i often come out of medic-rounds with a positive KDR. Stick to the SL's back, and fire in the same direction he is. And if the pixel is big enough, aim for it. Stay out of sight if you cannot win.

I am not for this suggestion.

Oklahoman wrote:I'd probably be medic the majority of the time with the simple addition of a scope.

So would alot of people. Too many people.

Oklahoman wrote:I, personally am useless without a scope. That's the primary reason why I almost never play medic. I'd probably be medic the majority of the time with the simple addition of a scope.

This is exactly why giving the medics a magnified scope would create an issue. Right now, believe it or not there's a realistic ratio in regards to the number of rifleman and medics are on the battlefield (If we're looking at a 32 man unit, there really shouldn't be any more than a handful of medics).

Having 50% of medics in your squad or more isn't popular now because the squad's combat effectiveness goes down without the ranged capability. With the medic class equipped with a scope, that issue is defeated and the rifleman becomes more or less the underplayed class.

Give the medic a scope, players will gladly trade grenades and extra ammo for additional field dressings, debifs and a medic bag. Because all of that is going to increase your effectiveness and that of your squad's as you take one step closer to invincibility. Think about it, several players all in a tight, close-knit squad all the capability of reviving each other, plus ranged combat isn't an issue so one medic could easily pick off a foe at long range. Especially combining all of this with the new medic gameplay dynamics.

I mean if medics were given 4x scopes make them limited at least (To about 1-2 per squad).

I mean if medics were given 4x scopes make them limited at least (To about 1-2 per squad).

I think they should just be slowed down a bit. They're already carrying a lot of equipment (you need at least a small generator for a defibrillator, which has got to way a good bit), you'd think they'd be slower than the rest of the squad.

Slowing them down would not only be realistic, but also help in relation to teamwork. You don't want to leave your medic behind, and, with him/her slower, the squad would have to stick a bit closer together.

medic wouldn't be any slower than a SAW gunner/HAT/LAT/AA

This is the reason I support two seperate classes. Combat Medic, and Medic. Combat medic has say 8 field dressings, a healing bag, and a rifle with scope. Medic has the same layout but with defibs and rifle without scope. I think that could work. Limit it though, so only two combat medics, and 1 medic per squad.

HolmstN wrote:I think they should just be slowed down a bit.

Whatever happens with the scopes please don't do this idea, its hard enough playing medic as it is without the squad waiting for you to catch up. It’d also make running out to save people even harder than it already is. And please don't just tell me about the smoke=heal+revive tactic because it just doesn't work alot of the time because machine guns carry on shooting into smoke much of the time.

TheScot666 wrote:This is the reason I support two seperate classes. Combat Medic, and Medic. Combat medic has say 8 field dressings, a healing bag, and a rifle with scope. Medic has the same layout but with defibs and rifle without scope. I think that could work. Limit it though, so only two combat medics, and 1 medic per squad.

no point, a lot of ado about a serious balance issue

Meh potato potato (dont work on internet)

TheScot666 wrote:Meh potato potato (dont work on internet)

you crazy fool

How about two medic classes? One with only a sidearm, that shouldnt be killed and takes away 10 tickets off the enemy if he does get killed and 1 ticket off the own team if he kills an enemy. He should have alot of bandages and a lot of defi shots.

The second class would get a scope, but be less effective healing-wise and could be killed without penalty.

creepinshadow24/7 wrote:Medic is not a combat class, in WW2 most of them only had pistols (IIRC, dont pick on that!).


The medic is not there to fight, he's there to help the fighting.

No scope period

We're not anymore in WWII and modern medic does fight...

Totally agree on Medic having Scopes as every conventional army kit should! Except pilot and crewman.

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Betancourt rescuer wore Red Cross lulz

Just let the medic have the aimpoint and it's fine. No need for a 4x acog. We don't need multiple medics.

ostupidman wrote:Just let the medic have the aimpoint and it's fine. No need for a 4x acog. We don't need multiple medics.

The US Army medics are getting them correct? why not just give'em to all armies jeez,its not that much of a big deal is it?

Nor do British peeps use aimpoints afaik