Page 4 of 7
Posted: 2008-02-29 04:29
by Eddie Baker
carld2002 wrote:By your definition of high value targets or can you back it up?
If snipers were deployed to take out every guy with rocket launchers, there would be more US snipers in iraq than citizens.
There are not jobs a sniper would be deployed for, you guys keep going around in circles.
FM 3-21.11 THE SBCT INFANTRY RIFLE COMPANY, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 23 January 2003 wrote:
C-2. EMPLOYMENT DURING OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS
Offensive operations carry the fight to the enemy to destroy his capability and will to fight. By destroying enemy targets that threaten the success of the attack, the sniper team can play a major role in offensive operations.
a. Offensive Operations. During offensive operations, a sniper team may perform the following:
* Destroy enemy snipers.
* Overwatch movement of friendly forces and suppress enemy targets that threaten the moving forces.
* Place precision rifle fire on enemy crew-served weapons teams and into exposed bunker apertures.
* Place precision rifle fire on enemy leaders, armored-vehicle drivers or commanders, forward observers, and other designated personnel.
* Place precision rifle fire on small, isolated, or bypassed enemy forces.
* Place precision rifle fire on enemy forces fleeing or threatening a counterattack.
* Screen a flank.
* Secure key terrain by controlling access to it with precision rifle fires.
FM3-21.11 Table of Contents
Posted: 2008-02-29 05:15
by carld2002
And?
You still haven't adressed the limits of the engine itself towards snipers.
Posted: 2008-02-29 06:05
by nedlands1
carld2002 wrote:And?
You still haven't adressed the limits of the engine itself towards snipers.
Could you explain what you mean by this?
Posted: 2008-02-29 17:11
by KP
carld2002 wrote:By your definition of high value targets or can you back it up?
If snipers were deployed to take out every guy with rocket launchers, there would be more US snipers in iraq than citizens.
There are not jobs a sniper would be deployed for, you guys keep going around in circles.
And you seem to think that PR = RL. That is not so, unless you are screwed in the head.
In PR we have many things that are supposed to replace or simulate things in real life. Examples include rally points, respawning, medics, engineers with wrenches and so on. It is very much the same thing with snipers and their targets in PR. Taking out enemy commanders is not very effective in PR due to the aforementioned respawn. But in PR, there are other high-value targets. These include weapon-crews, engineers repairing tanks or bridges, crewmen, people building things and so on. Even though it may not be 100% realistic compared to a sniper's traditional role (which has changed somewhat in recent years due to the assymetrical warfare going on in places like Iraq - read Sniper One by Dan Mills for an example and a few hours of reading pleasure), it is clear that the PR sniper has a role, a very clear one, and that he is indeed useful and - if used correctly - can be a great asset to a team.
So the sniper may well be likened to a rally point, and I don't see you campaigning to remove those, even if they are very unrealistic, strictly speaking.
Posted: 2008-02-29 17:12
by Masaq
**** camoflage, the way ghillie suits (and all other equipment) vanish at distance, the way grass stops being drawn leaving you on a hilltop like a teetotaller at a wine tasting evening (or a nun in a stip-club) - uncomfortably alone and exposed
Posted: 2008-02-29 18:44
by carld2002
KP wrote:And you seem to think that PR = RL. That is not so, unless you are screwed in the head.
In PR we have many things that are supposed to replace or simulate things in real life. Examples include rally points, respawning, medics, engineers with wrenches and so on. It is very much the same thing with snipers and their targets in PR. Taking out enemy commanders is not very effective in PR due to the aforementioned respawn. But in PR, there are other high-value targets. These include weapon-crews, engineers repairing tanks or bridges, crewmen, people building things and so on. Even though it may not be 100% realistic compared to a sniper's traditional role (which has changed somewhat in recent years due to the assymetrical warfare going on in places like Iraq - read Sniper One by Dan Mills for an example and a few hours of reading pleasure), it is clear that the PR sniper has a role, a very clear one, and that he is indeed useful and - if used correctly - can be a great asset to a team.
So the sniper may well be likened to a rally point, and I don't see you campaigning to remove those, even if they are very unrealistic, strictly speaking.
No, this is a reality mod. PR tries to be as realistic as possible even at the expense of fun.
I personally enjoy being a sniper but it does not fit the role and realism that pr strives to attain.
[R-CON]nedlands1 wrote:Could you explain what you mean by this?
Allready did. Twice.
Posted: 2008-03-01 10:01
by KP
carld2002 wrote:No, this is a reality mod. PR tries to be as realistic as possible even at the expense of fun.
I personally enjoy being a sniper but it does not fit the role and realism that pr strives to attain.
I did not see you countering any of my arguments. If we were to be completely realistic, some things like rallies should be removed.
Again, have a look at Sniper One. Good read, and it shows more of the way snipers are used today. The whole command structure thing is more of a leftover from the Cold War than anything, and not really suited to the type of conflicts we see now.
And, really the only difference between PR and the real world is that the targets are different. The job is the same and they're just as useful
if used correctly.
Posted: 2008-03-01 10:19
by USMC_Cook
There’s nothing unrealistic about having snipers in PR. There will always be a sniper platoon attached to an infantry battalion (at least in the Marine Corps), so if there are grunts running around there will also be snipers in the area. The point is that it would be unrealistic not to include snipers in PR.
Posted: 2008-03-01 10:51
by burghUK
nonono no
this mod is meangt to be based on realism
removing scopes on rifleman kits would be the most unrealistic thing ever done.
i have yet to see footage of a british soldier using a gun WITHOUT a scope. if anything i think all guns on brits and americans should have scopes on them as that is what its currently like in real life.
Posted: 2008-03-01 11:26
by KP
Thank you, Ryan. I didn't know that.
Posted: 2008-03-01 12:45
by horror
remove all scopes or give every class the choice to chose his kit with scopes or iron sights like it is with the rifleman kit.
Posted: 2008-03-01 13:30
by Pariel
The reason the other classes don't have scopes is because they have other extremely useful tools; engineer has C4 and mines, medic has the ability to keep soldiers alive and keep your team from losing tickets.
There wouldn't be a need for a rifleman class if all the classes got optics, people would just use the medic and engineer classes all the time. I realize that's somewhat of an exaggeration, but that's why the system is set up the way it is.
carld2002 wrote:No, this is a reality mod. PR tries to be as realistic as possible even at the expense of fun.
I personally enjoy being a sniper but it does not fit the role and realism that pr strives to attain.
So, you're saying we should remove snipers
because BF2 doesn't render at a distance? That appears to be what you're saying at this point, but please enlighten me if I'm wrong. Since your point about the use of snipers has already been shot down, please explain what your problem could possibly be with snipers in PR.
Posted: 2008-03-01 13:35
by BloodBane611
Why would you choose irons over an optic? They give you no appreciable advantage at close range, and guarantee that you will lose at long range.
The reason some classes do not have optics is to balance out the other equipment they have. Realistically, all classes should have optics.
Posted: 2008-03-02 00:57
by RCMoonPie
Most every modern day Army uses them regularly....
Why ditch them?
How do they make a class unbalanced?
Posted: 2008-03-02 01:10
by Sabre_tooth_tigger
I think PR has its focus on realistic tactics and every other factor is secondary to that. Probably every kit could have scopes (realistically) but I dont know if it'd play well or not, I think the devs and testers are best left to decide balance issues like that
Posted: 2008-03-02 01:58
by gclark03
We can't judge it without play-testing it. Why don't you testers try it (all classes w/ scopes) for 0.8?
Posted: 2008-03-02 15:29
by horror
The reason some classes do not have optics is to balance out the other equipment they have. Realistically, all classes should have optics.
strange explanation, cause when i ask to remove the scopes and let only some request kits have it, i was told that its unrealistic,when i asked to increase the iron sights zoom to make it more balanced i was told its unrealistic.
but when i suggest to give all classes the scopes, wich is realistic , you tell us its for balancing reasons.
so i suggest again to increase the zoom factor of the iron sights for balancing purposes and not for realism, or to limit the scoped weapons for balancing reasons.
as long it is how it is the other classes will not be played from the most players
Posted: 2008-03-02 16:16
by Sabre_tooth_tigger
Zoom from iron sights would be strange because that is purely your own eye sight. Im aware the eye has muscles and ligaments to adjust focus but this must be a fairly small actual zoom level I think.
Anyone into cameras who might know this maybe?
Just my $2 worth. Alot of the above is only partly right. A 1.6 crop factor sensor does not give increased magnification. It does give a narrower Field OF View (FOE). In other words it's cropping a full frame 35mm sensor by a factor of 1.6, this makes the 1.6 crop factor DSLR (e.g Canon 20D) have a narrower field of view, this in turn means when using the same lens on both FFDSLR and a 1.6 crop factor DSLR the same area of view will not be seen through both viewfinders.
A FF sensor is 36mm X 24mm, a camera with a 1.6 crop factor has a sensor size of 22.5mm X 15mm. The smaller sensor size utilizes the centre of the lens by a factor of 1.6. So we end up with the Canon 70 - 200mm F2.8 having a Field of View equivelant to a 112mm to 320mm on a FF sensor. It's Field Of View NOT magnification.
Camera manufaturers quote things like 10X magnification 28mm to 280mm on the box, you think, great! "I'll be able to see a gnats nostril at 50 paces, but you end up being disappointed because the magnification is not as big as you thought. The reason is simple, our eyes don't have a focal length of 28mm. The human eye's focal length is closer to 50mm. 50mm used to be referred to as the "thes standard lens" because if you looked through a SLR viewfinder with a 50mm lens attached you would see the same view when you removed it from your eye (Field Of View thing again). However put a 28mm wide angle lens on the SLR and you can see twice as wide a view. Use 50mm as your benchmark. Put a 200mm lens on a camera and the magnification factor is 4. 200 divided by 50 equals 4 i.e the image appears 4 times larger in the viwfinder. Going back to our 10X zoom 28 - 280, reveals 280 divided by 50 equals a true magnification of 5.6 relevent to our eye. The true magnification is nearly half the advertised magnification...............10X zoom sounds better than 5.6. Guess which one the camera manufacturers use and why?
Sorry for ranting on a bit.....hope it helps someone
lens magnification equivilent - Page 2 - Overclockers UK Forums
Posted: 2008-03-02 17:21
by gclark03
horror wrote:strange explanation, cause when i ask to remove the scopes and let only some request kits have it, i was told that its unrealistic,when i asked to increase the iron sights zoom to make it more balanced i was told its unrealistic.
but when i suggest to give all classes the scopes, wich is realistic , you tell us its for balancing reasons.
so i suggest again to increase the zoom factor of the iron sights for balancing purposes and not for realism, or to limit the scoped weapons for balancing reasons.
as long it is how it is the other classes will not be played from the most players
It's been said in the past that this mod was not made to please the masses, but its creators. Therefore, I certainly don't agree with their explanation of balance vs. realism, but they, the DEVs, have every right to make such contradictions because it only
happens that so many people enjoy the mod.
That said, we need to try giving all classes scopes before we pass it off as being unbalanced - because, at least, it is certainly not unrealistic.
Posted: 2008-03-02 17:41
by Z-trooper
This is not the mighty USofA or Britan, but us danes use ELCAN on ALL weapons, including LMGs/HMGs. Even our national guard units have C7A1's with ELCANs.
3 of my friends that are going to or has been in Kosovo and Afghanistan were all truck/apc drivers, but they still have C8A2's with ELCANs.