IDF have too few scopes!

[AfterDune]

FYI, we're currently talking about the IDF and scopes in the team forums. From a gameplay perspective, we might add some back on non-Insurgency layers.

[Xander[nl]]

FYI, we're currently talking about the IDF and scopes in the team forums. From a gameplay perspective, we might add some back on non-Insurgency layers.

I like the idea, but the problem is that too few kits have scopes. For example just adding a scope to the machine gunner / AR kit would already improve things a lot. It's a cool idea to try and make a regular faction more CQC orientated, but at least one or two basic squad kits should have scopes.

Played a match in Beirut yesterday which serves as a nice example. The IDF team had better teamwork and pushed the Russians back to the hotels area next to the factory. There however, the IDF had no way of breaking through. All the Russians had to do (and did) was camp the streets and every IDF that tried to cross simply got mowed down from a distance, there was nothing the IDF squads could do to counter except an odd marksman taking some shots. If the IDF would have had scoped machinegunners it would already have been way more of an equal fight.

You don't really need scopes in order to win a battle; you can force the enemy into CQC fights. I like this approach for variaty's sake. However, from a gameplay perspective, I think it's necessary that there should be at least one general spawnable kit (preferably AR) with a scope so a squad that is forced to cross a street or an open field isn't completely defenseless.

[Death!]

P.S. don't give me tactics because they don't always do the cut and i am pretty sure they were tried dozens of times since v1.0. try to play a few rounds on beirut as IDF with tactics and check the results in each time: K/D yours/team ratios, who won, ticket count, and armor destruction and then you can lecture me about tactics.

EDIT: nothing personal

Saw IDF winning on Bijar multiple times, pretty much all the flags, except the city, will not deppend on infantry, but on assets. Last time I played there MEC got raped by Merkavas and Apaches and there were not even flags on the city that round. Assets came in, infantry caping the flag on cover, GG.

Maybe your SL just got bad tactics, who knows.

PS: I did not get offended or something, lol.

[Kerryburgerking]

FYI, we're currently talking about the IDF and scopes in the team forums. From a gameplay perspective, we might add some back on non-Insurgency layers.

Why not just remove the Scopes from MEC and Russia on Bijar and Beirut?

[Eddie Baker]

Why not just remove the Scopes from MEC and Russia on Bijar and Beirut?

Since they both have too many to be believed, I think this is the better solution.

[Death!]

Since they both have too many to be believed, I think this is the better solution.

Agreed. MEC and Russia should lose almost all their scopes.

[ComradeHX]

Agreed. MEC and Russia should lose almost all their scopes.

And everyone go blind like vanilla.
Oh wait even vanilla had zoom while aiming.

[emmanuel15]

Saw IDF winning on Bijar multiple times, pretty much all the flags, except the city, will not deppend on infantry, but on assets. Last time I played there MEC got raped by Merkavas and Apaches and there were not even flags on the city that round. Assets came in, infantry caping the flag on cover, GG.

Maybe your SL just got bad tactics, who knows.

PS: I did not get offended or something, lol.

as said it was assets problem but i assume we both already understand the others points

P.S just making sure.

Since they both have too many to be believed, I think this is the better solution.

I don't think that's a good idea because then they won't have the effectiveness they have against other conventional armies which is quite balanced right now ( had fair and descent battles) and haven't seen nobody complaining yet.

As i said assets balance my be a better solution. Of course scopes to some kits will balance it alot but as even death said from gameplay they were able to win because of the assets (if out of context my bad) and i am pretty sure everybody knows the m113 are useless unless against INS(not much of diffrence) i say you should even retire them but that may be unrealistic.

In the end it's up to you dev's and i know it will be balanced in not only one way.

Btw the large layout looks quite balanced (asset wise, haven't got to play it)

[Anderson29]

Since they both have too many to be believed, I think this is the better solution.

agreed!

[Human_001]

I recommend adding a Binocular back to IDF.

Wasn't the reason for removing Scope from IDF in the begining was to make IDF standout as CQC oriented faction? If you subtract Scope from Opposing force, the asset will be equal and standout effect will cease to exist, which was the first intention?

Secondly, The overwhelming advantage regarding having optic on rifle is only distinctive to FPS which have to be viewed on screen. In Another words, IRL, even if neither gets scopes, MEC style Battle Rifle will have advantage at long range on open area like desert against rifle firing Intermediate round in Distance, Energy, Accuracy etc. Anyway.

[Eddie Baker]

I recommend adding a Binocular back to IDF.

Wasn't the reason for removing Scope from IDF in the begining was to make IDF standout as CQC oriented faction? If you subtract Scope from Opposing force, the asset will be equal and standout effect will cease to exist, which was the first intention?

Secondly, The overwhelming advantage regarding having optic on rifle is only distinctive to FPS which have to be viewed on screen. In Another words, IRL, even if neither gets scopes, MEC style Battle Rifle will have advantage at long range on open area like desert against rifle firing Intermediate round in Distance, Energy, Accuracy etc. Anyway.

And how would that help the situation?

No, the reason for removing it was because the IDF, outside of the various "Sayeret" units, does not issue magnified optics every troop.

They will still be able to see the same distance unless someone has a better screen, and the battle rifle will also have to change magazines more often and have less overall magazines.

[Kerryburgerking]

And how would that help the situation?

No, the reason for removing it was because the IDF, outside of the various "Sayeret" units, does not issue magnified optics every troop.

They will still be able to see the same distance unless someone has a better screen, and the battle rifle will also have to change magazines more often and have less overall magazines.

Then Russia should'nt have any scopes either.

[Eddie Baker]

Why not just remove the Scopes from MEC and Russia on Bijar and Beirut?

Since they both have too many to be believed, I think this is the better solution.

Then Russia should'nt have any scopes either.

Deja vu?

That's correct.

[Bringerof_D]

give IDF regular kits smaller binoculars? that could be a solution. the main problem right now isnt that you cant effectively engage targets at a distance. that doesn't really matter as you can do that with irons, red dot or scope.

the main issue is ones ability to survey an area before moving in or crossing an open field. IRL our vision is clear and not limited by how many pixels can fit into a space. In game i find that to be the biggest issue with the IDF is that they only have 1 or 2 sets of eyes per squad available to survey the land effectively. if we give them something to compensate for the lack of scope, that should help significantly.

as for why no one complains about AAS maps with russian vs militia. well lets face it, at least from my experience, i can engage a target with AK iron sights far better than i can with the scope in game at any distance be it short or long.

[moj]

Things which often happen when a team is routed.

The original impetus for removing IDF scopes was due to MA feedback on what their forces are currently issued; at the same time, a lot of IDF scenarios in PR deal with hypothetical conflicts with conventional armies, which does not reflect their current deployments and missions (which are primarily urban environments with a fair amount of armored support and CQB).

It will be discussed.

FYI, we're currently talking about the IDF and scopes in the team forums. From a gameplay perspective, we might add some back on non-Insurgency layers.

Good to hear As Ironclad hinted at, if the IDF were to face a conventional army, which employed scopes with most of its infantry, then I think it fair to say that they too would likely equip their own forces in a similar fashion. Anything else would be suicidal.

As things stand in reality, Syria, Lebanon and perhaps Egypt, are their only real conventional threats; none of whom field scopes to regular infantry (beyond specialist roles).

[Kerryburgerking]

Good to hear As Ironclad hinted at, if the IDF were to face a conventional army, which employed scopes with most of its infantry, then I think it fair to say that they too would likely equip their own forces in a similar fashion. Anything else would be suicidal.

As things stand in reality, Syria, Lebanon and perhaps Egypt, are their only real conventional threats; none of whom field scopes to regular infantry (beyond specialist roles).

As you stated, most armies(Not only the ones you mentioned) doesnt use scopes. TBH i think there is to many scopes in PR, atleast when it comes to factions such as Russia or MEC.

[moj]

As you stated, most armies(Not only the ones you mentioned) doesnt use scopes. TBH i think there is to many scopes in PR, atleast when it comes to factions such as Russia or MEC.

To be fair, I think with the MEC being a fictional faction there is no right or wrong in this case. Although, one could argue that, current Arab armies don't appear field scopes to regular infantry (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, who's Steyr AUG only has a 1.5x scope).

It's true about Russia (and China too) rarely using scopes though. However, if these two countries were to face the average Western army, they would undoubtedly be up against a side mostly equipped with scopes. Would they adapt to match the enemy in this sense? I guess nobody knows for sure, but I'd have thought it crazy not to.

It's certainly one (of quite a few) reasons, that make me think that both Russia and China have absolutely no intention, in real life, of going to war with the West, for the foreseeable future. Not that this should have any reflection on the game itself, of course

[emmanuel15]

I forgot about this thread... To be honest i won't mind not having scopes with RU and MEC unless they are fighting a scope equiped army which will bring us back to this discussion.

[lorainee]

The main fighting was across the bridge near the IDF main, and i have a feeling this is why the IDF lost, that combat is too long range for them to fight in.
I kind of like how they are mainly a CQB faction, but being good in CQB has more variables than just who has a red dot and who doesn't.
Foda

[Kerryburgerking]

The main fighting was across the bridge near the IDF main, and i have a feeling this is why the IDF lost, that combat is too long range for them to fight in.
I kind of like how they are mainly a CQB faction, but being good in CQB has more variables than just who has a red dot and who doesn't.
Foda

I've picked of several MEC soldiers on 600+m with the tavor, i mean their goddamn uniforms shines up like a basketball on an ice hockey pitch.