Project Reality Forums

Waaah_Wah wrote:Its a supportive class, it can still fight (supressive fire) but there are other kits that should do the killing

And that is exactly what their rifle is for (engy and medic) once a squad is engaging someone, go ahead and lay some fire.

Aren't we talking about two different roles here? Firstly a rifleman who is trained in first aid to a higher level than the average soldier or happens to be carrying the majority of the first aid gear and secondly a dedicated combat medic who would wear the arm band and wouldn't actively engage the enemy unless threatened?

In this case it is easy to rationalise the loadout of both classes. The trained/equipped rifleman wouldn't be carrying spare ammo, he would have spare dressings instead. In every other aspect he would be the same as a scoped rifleman. The combat medic would be a requestable kit which would be the same the current medic class. He would gain a pair of defibrillators and a proper first aid kit at the expense of fragmentation grenades and a fancy rifle.

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

At the risk of being executed if caught with one.

Ok so name the last country that the US has fought that followed the Geneva conventions. Everybody is a combatant, especially if you're armed.

Problems:

1. people hate being medic.
2. people want scopes.
3. people don't want everybody to be a medic with a scope.
4. real medics can use scopes.

Solution:

1. Give medics a scope.
2. Give medics a scope.
3. Limit it.
4. Give medics a scope.

[R-CON]CAS_117 wrote: Solution:

1. Give medics a scope.
2. Give medics a scope.
3. Limit it.
4. Give medics a scope.

Ok CAS, you made ur point lol. If it did go this way, it would be nice if u could still select it on the spawn screen, like the officer kit.

Why only five? As a SL I nearly always prefer my squad to have two medics, that way if I've got a squad good enough to handle being split into two sections, each has a doc.

1. Officer
2. Medic
3. Auto Rifleman
4. Rifleman
5. Medic
6. Light AT / Heavy AT / Anti-Air / Grenadier

My medics gain a small advantage in CQB by not having the scope hindering their view, the squad gain a huge advantage by having sixteen field dressings available - which means you die less anyway, and you double your chances of getting revived if you do die.

I'd generally say that having two medics along for any infantry-based map is a must. Less important on a combined arms map, but when you're going head to head with other infantry, two medics are a must.

i would still think, that if the medic would get limited and scoped, an unscoped without shockpaddies would help, because otherwise you would agian have to less of them

[R-CON]nedlands1 wrote:Aren't we talking about two different roles here? Firstly a rifleman who is trained in first aid to a higher level than the average soldier or happens to be carrying the majority of the first aid gear and secondly a dedicated combat medic who would wear the arm band and wouldn't actively engage the enemy unless threatened?

In this case it is easy to rationalise the loadout of both classes. The trained/equipped rifleman wouldn't be carrying spare ammo, he would have spare dressings instead. In every other aspect he would be the same as a scoped rifleman. The combat medic would be a requestable kit which would be the same the current medic class. He would gain a pair of defibrillators and a proper first aid kit at the expense of fragmentation grenades and a fancy rifle.

Thats changing the whole system around my friend, because this would not be fair to engineer class, and yes the rifleman class because he too has an ability. I see what you are saying from a realistic point of view, but I am talking about the game, and the game has to have a system to make it fair. The kits are perfect as of now, Maybe some tweaks and what not but medic class should not become a requestable class. Just think about it, getting a medic kit from your rally? How stupid does that sound, this whole idea can only make sense if you made the medic like the spec ops and sniper, only requestable at the base. For the sake of the game, lets keep support classes how they are now, I like this game to still have some "arcade" rules.

HughJass wrote:I think thats the point of the medic; in many class based games the medic is often a class that can't defend it self very well, but can heal it self on the upside. Forcing the medic to stay behind and try not to get shot up. The medic class is already established in PR, and should not be changed. It is very well balanced right now.

PR isn't a game like TF2. The corpsman/medics in PR was supposed to be modeled after their real life versions to a degree, not like other games such as TF2 where the medic's only duty is to get an ubercharge.

Bump.

Any chance me might get some DEV input on this?

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but someone got a locked thread on this and I just thought I should point something out.

the kits who have the standard issue rifle offer the choice between an scoped and unscoped rifle ? I assume the reason the medic is unscoped is to prevent a squad from going into battle with like 5 medics, however the squads load out on all sorts of kits anyway and in squads with a lot of close quarter (like bi ming) where you dont really need a scope I seldome see squads with more than one medic as well.

it was the M4 with M68 Aimpoint. This is the final weapon rounding out our newly added M4 family. It will be standard issue to several classes, including the combat medic, engineer and some rifleman,

It seems the medic class for the U.S. Army will be getting a scope for the next version of PR.

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

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.

Nope it's not im pretty sure.

Yay all players can attack like riflemen, and now all of them can heal themselves..
Boring.

The thing people are forgetting here, is in the British army, every man is equipped with a SUSAT, i dunno about the others, personally I'm happy with just irons.

TheScot666 wrote:Nope it's not im pretty sure.

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.

Found something on wikipedia not the best source but its reliable.
For many years, most medics have carried at least a side arm like the handgun and knife (and now, frequently a rifle, carbine or submachine gun), to be used as a defensive weapon. Medical personnel may be armed, but may only use their weapons to protect themselves or the wounded and sick in their care. If they use their arms offensively (i.e. attacking or assaulting), or carry arms that qualify as offensive (such as a sniper rifle, machine gun or grenade launcher), they then sacrifice their protection under the Geneva Conventions. Generally, a medic holding his/her weapon is considered to be an armed, military threat. According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime.

TheScot666 wrote:The thing people are forgetting here, is in the British army, every man is equipped with a SUSAT, i dunno about the others, personally I'm happy with just irons.

well pretty much every army uses scopes..