Home » FULL CONTROL GAMES » #JAFDEV » Community Wishlist for JA:F
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323930] Mon, 12 August 2013 20:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2020
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
DepressivesBrot
BLK? None, afaik it's pretty recent. Not set up to do serious research on the rest atm.

IIRC even 300 Whisper is from the 90s.
(Sorry, should have said this being rather a rhetorical question)

For JAF's setting, IMHO, silenced pistols/MPs/SMGs are spot on for stealth missions (perhaps very few soviet 9x39 if you're lucky and on good terms with the "red" side Smile )
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323931] Mon, 12 August 2013 20:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3339
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
GASK3T
SMGs are meant for close combat fighting, they should do higher damage and be more accurate in indoor missions.
Have to disagree specifically on that sentence. Giving illogical bonus to items just 'make them worthwhile' is bad. If in a game SMGs suck, then there can be three reasons:
  • SMGs also suck in RL, and are thus accurately represented. As SMGs existed back then an still do, this seems unlikely.
  • They aren't reproduced ingame correctly - speed too low, not enough impact etc.. Hard to say, as the game isn't out yet.
  • They are presented correctly, but their strength that set them apart from ARs aren't. For example, SMGs are much easier to use indoors due to being smaller and having less recoil (while I'm a noob, I don't think one would choose a bulky FN-FAL over an MP5 when sweeping rooms). In that case, it should be examined wether a mechanic that considers these strengths can be implemented with justifiable effort. So if, say, bulky weapons get larger AP-to-raise-gun costs, and perhaps even need extra AP when changing looking direction while aimed, then SMGs rate higher compared to ARs in SWAT-style missions, without having to add bizarre boni.
To be clear: my trouble with your statement is not your desire to make SMGs worthwhile, but your solution.



Hmm. Extra AP cost to change looking direction while aimed/in hands. Would that be a useful addition for 1.13?


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323934] Mon, 12 August 2013 22:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Slax

 
Messages:1435
Registered:July 2006
Location: People riding polar bears...
Flugente
Hmm. Extra AP cost to change looking direction while aimed/in hands. Would that be a useful addition for 1.13?

Actually sounds like something that would need to come with a bigger revamp package, like HAM or STOMP. Or that's what my instincts tell me.

Slightly off-topic SMG note:
I'm currently playing AFS with modified NCTH settings. This renders SMGs effective even up to long range with the right scope. It'd be nice to have bullet damage/penetration drop off whenever max effective range is reached. Implementing muzzle velocity and bullet speed (damage drop with range) would DEFINITELY be a plus for 1.13.

[Updated on: Mon, 12 August 2013 22:11] by Moderator


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323935] Mon, 12 August 2013 22:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2020
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Slax
It'd be nice to have bullet damage/penetration drop off whenever max effective range is reached. Implementing muzzle velocity and bullet speed (damage drop with range) would DEFINITELY be a plus for 1.13.

This should be in already; at least it used to be with OCTH that damage does decrease with range (even within effective range):
http://ja2v113.pbworks.com/w/page/4218319/%22How%20does%20it%20work%22%20Part%201%3A%20Bullet%20Impact

But as you said, rather OT here ... Wink
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323936] Mon, 12 August 2013 23:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3802
Registered:July 2009
Fully agree Flug, viability should come naturally, not arbitrarily.
Btw since everyone's veering OT anyway: There was once talk about modeling weapon handling in restricted spaces. Nothing came of it since it would require analyzing the arcane jsd of the surrounding tiles.


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323937] Mon, 12 August 2013 23:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3339
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Continuing the OT: Well, we also constantly check for surrounding tiles for mounting weapons, so that can be handled.


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323939] Tue, 13 August 2013 00:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Slax

 
Messages:1435
Registered:July 2006
Location: People riding polar bears...
@Sam
Don't know about OCTH but I'm pretty dang sure it isn't in NCTH at all.
How about adding a drop off gradient for damage whenever max range is exceeded? (Sounds easy enough to code in at least.)
Having GRAVITY_COEFFICIENT come into play more than it is by default just seems logical. If nothing else, that's just how I have my game set up.

[Updated on: Tue, 13 August 2013 00:15] by Moderator


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323940] Tue, 13 August 2013 00:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Flugente

 
Messages:3339
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany
Eh... bullet drop has always been in NCTH... one of the most annoying parts of it if one is new to it.


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #323997] Thu, 15 August 2013 10:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Harper

 
Messages:149
Registered:June 2003
Location: Germany
My 2 cents on guns:

- Finding better guns greatly contributed to the fun of JA 2. However, once all mercs were equipped with the best rifles, I often didn't feel the need to finish the game.
- It should be easy to decide whether or not gun A is better or worse than gun B. In JA and JA 2, that was the case. In JA 1.13, that no longer is the case. There are people who like such technicalities. I don't. I played JA back in the nineties, and today I do not feel exactly the urge to write a dissertation about the question why gun A may be better or worse than gun B. (That's an "age-thing", I guess.)
- I don't care too much about accuracy and realism. I never felt like, "oh WOW!, the way gun A is represented in the game is so accurate, and that makes me feeling sooo good!" - or vice versa. So as a reminder I'd like to quote my favorite statement of Ian Currie about this issue:

"To some fans, the JA series has become the tactical battle simulator and want realism only. Personally, I can't relate to that, even though I understand and appreciate it. I've barely even seen a gun in my lifetime, let alone handle one and am not interested in that. To me, JA is the characters, the role-playing and the intense battles. Great tactical battles don't necessarily have to come from first hand experience and familiarization with firearms. I would rather worry about what makes a great game than a great simulation. If that means having a weapon that does action x and has quality y, then so be it; I don't want to be restricted by reality - it's too limiting and can be detrimental to gameplay."

My point is that whatever attribute a weapon has, it should be clear how it contributes to gameplay. If a weapon has an attribute simply because it is realistic, this is pre definition an arbitrary design decision.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324040] Fri, 16 August 2013 22:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
DepressivesBrot
Your argumentation is spotty, I wish I didn't have to respond to it with a tiny touch screen.

Because one rather exotic AR does a thing as well as pretty much any SMG doesn't mean the whole class is superior - it means you have found a good endgame item.


Let me clarify a bit


Opening statement was "IMHO Pistols, SMGs (PDWs) and shotguns should have their legitimate place in the game for CQC (and covert ops), even towards end game."

I took this statement to be more about CQC than covert ops because #1 covert ops was in parentheses making it seem an add-on thought #2 if covert ops were of equal importance I'd not expect to see a shotgun as added.

So, setting aside suppression for a minute:

Short Barreled Assault Rifles are in all ways better than Submachine Guns.

1. Both devices are equally sized
2. SB-AR fires a longer range cartridge (how does this relate to CQB? even when fighting room to room, the ability to engage someone shooting at you from the window across the street or something similar is great)
3. SB-AR fires a much more powerful cartridge
4. SB-AR fires a cartridge MUCH more capable of penetrating barriers and any armor worn
5. As a class, SB-ARs are close bolt devices, whereas SMGs are frequently open bolt devices, giving the SB-ARs an advantage in inherent accuracy
6. 120 rounds of AR ammo weighs less than 120 rounds of SMG ammo, so you either get to carry more shots for the same weight or the same number of shots and room for something else.


This
http://aftermathgunclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Colt-AR6951.jpg

has no advantage over this

http://sgcusa.com/images/large/Colt_AR15_6933_11inch_A3_LE_A.jpg


The only difference is one is chambered for 9mm making it by definition a submachinegun while the other is chambered for 5.56 making it by definition a short barreled assault rifle

Same goes for this pair

http://www.hkpro.com/image/HK53A3left.jpg
http://www.military-today.com/firearms/hk_mp5.jpg

The one chambered in 9mm is not 'better' because it is chambered in 9mm.

And no, it isn't just these two pairings. The same holds if I throw up a picture of an AKSU-74 vs a Thompson.

Now, on to suppression.

There are three sources of noise from a gun. #1 the sound of the action working (think of a shotgun being pumped) #2 the sound of the expanding gasses slamming into the normal atmosphere (the boom of the gunshot) and #3 the sonic boom as the projectile is streaking away at over the speed of sound.

For TOTAL suppression all three need to be eliminated.

I have discussed how #3 can be achieved by using a heavy projectile and a lighter than normal powder charge. This makes the round be in the same general ballpark of power as standard SMG rounds. This was to stress that one cannot simply reduce a rifle round's power by a little and expect it to be silent.

People have been doing #3 for more years than assault rifles have existed. Yes, the round I cited, the 300 blackout, is relatively recent. However it's just another incarnation of the 300 Whisper, which itself is just another incarnation of various 30-223 and 8mm-223 wildcats, which themselves are incarnations of similar wildcats using the older 222 cartridge.

The only military that officially adopted any intermediate cartridge renecked to accept a wider heavier bullet was the Soviet Union (and now it's former members) which was done in the mid to late 1980s.

How important is #3 is something that hasn't been discussed much. #3 is only really relevant if #1 and #2 are eliminated or at least very reduced.

(Note...#3 itself is also variable. Projectiles that are smaller make a smaller noise. The 5.56 NATO and similar rounds don't have near the supersonic sound that a 7.62 NATO or 7.62x39 round does.)

#1 - the elimination of the sound of the action is usually done by having some sort of selector that restricts the automatic action, turning it off. This turns the gun into a manual. The firing pin hits the cartridge, which fires and nothing else happens. The user must reach up, grab the bolt and rack it to get a fresh round in. The user chooses to do this (or not do it) based on where he is and where others that might hear are. I've only seen this feature on Assault Rifles built for sniping, never on SMGs or short barreled assault rifles. No matter what, both of these are going to go CLACK CLACK CLACK even when suppressed.

#2 - It is very hard to catch all the hot expanding gasses and let them out with ease. To do it perfectly requires a lot of space and baffles that tend to wear quickly. There is a wide variety of suppressors that vary greatly in terms of how much they actually reduce the sound, how small they really are, how many shots they can stand up to, etc etc. Going overboard to reduce the sound generated by #2 isn't helpful if the sound generated by #1 and #3 aren't equally kept in check.

In SMGs and SB-ARs, as mentioned sound #1 isn't kept in check. Sound #3 can be greatly reduced in true SMGs by the selection of subsonic loads, and for SB-ARs, because their rounds are so much smaller the issue is much reduced to begin with, so generally it's not addressed.

Because of this, and because they are going to be expected to fire hundreds if not thousands of rounds with no baffle change in the suppressor, SMGs and SB-ARs are generally not paired with big, fragile, expensive, highly effective suppressors. They are paired with medium effective suppressors. This means any sound difference caused by #3 is not terribly relevant.

Now, what defines an SMG as an SMG is that it fires a pistol cartridge.

The pistol cartridge does have an inherent advantage over intermediate rounds for suppression if sound #1 is eliminated and sound #2 is reduced to very minor levels.

However, no current SMG does that, so the advantage is not one it can actually capitalize on.


I stick with my original statements.

A. SB-ARs are across-the-board superior to SMGs.
B. Downloading ammo to keep the projectile subsonic only applies to some very specific circumstances, the first being pistol rounds which are subsonic and have no real change in effectiveness, and certain classes of modified intermediate cartridges which drop down to the same performance window as pistol cartridges...but can also give standard (and greatly superior to pistol) intermediate cartridge performance by switching mags for supersonic rounds.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324041] Fri, 16 August 2013 22:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
Flugente
GASK3T
SMGs are meant for close combat fighting, they should do higher damage and be more accurate in indoor missions.
Have to disagree specifically on that sentence. Giving illogical bonus to items just 'make them worthwhile' is bad. If in a game SMGs suck, then there can be three reasons:
  • SMGs also suck in RL, and are thus accurately represented. As SMGs existed back then an still do, this seems unlikely. [/quote]

    SMGs do suck in RL. This is why they were standard issue to many troops in WW 2 era, but now are generally issued to people unlikely to fire a gun in combat...people like tank crews. SMGs still exist today, true,....but so do muskets.

    Quote:
  • They aren't reproduced ingame correctly - speed too low, not enough impact etc.. Hard to say, as the game isn't out yet.
  • They are presented correctly, but their strength that set them apart from ARs aren't. For example, SMGs are much easier to use indoors due to being smaller and having less recoil (while I'm a noob, I don't think one would choose a bulky FN-FAL over an MP5 when sweeping rooms). In that case, it should be examined wether a mechanic that considers these strengths can be implemented with justifiable effort. So if, say, bulky weapons get larger AP-to-raise-gun costs, and perhaps even need extra AP when changing looking direction while aimed, then SMGs rate higher compared to ARs in SWAT-style missions, without having to add bizarre boni.
To be clear: my trouble with your statement is not your desire to make SMGs worthwhile, but your solution.



Hmm. Extra AP cost to change looking direction while aimed/in hands. Would that be a useful addition for 1.13?


I have no problem with the majority of this. Here's my hangup. MP5 is better in close combat than the standard FN-FAL because it is SHORTER...which isn't what defines SMG vs Assault rifle.

That's like saying a male lion is more deadly than a housecat because the lion has a mane. No, a lion is more deadly than a housecat because it is 500 pounds and 6 feet long.

The simple solution here isn't to imbue SMGs with magical killing power, but to introduce short-barreled assault rifles in the later stages of the game to be the premier CQB weapons. Just like how the two 'rifles' (the Mini-14 and the SKS) were introduced in the early game and then abandoned for assault rifles in the late game.

There needs to be a steady progression of tools for each combat style, a good, better, and best as the game goes along. There is no reason that good, better, and best need to fall into the same weapons classification group. I'd rather see shotguns be the good CQB gun for early game, SMG be the good CQB gun for mid-game and Short Barreled Assault Rifles be the good CQB gun for late game than to try and have three separate tiers of SMGs, and try and say that CQB tool always equals SMG
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324042] Fri, 16 August 2013 22:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
Harper
My 2 cents on guns:

- Finding better guns greatly contributed to the fun of JA 2. However, once all mercs were equipped with the best rifles, I often didn't feel the need to finish the game.
- It should be easy to decide whether or not gun A is better or worse than gun B. In JA and JA 2, that was the case. In JA 1.13, that no longer is the case. There are people who like such technicalities. I don't. I played JA back in the nineties, and today I do not feel exactly the urge to write a dissertation about the question why gun A may be better or worse than gun B. (That's an "age-thing", I guess.)
- I don't care too much about accuracy and realism. I never felt like, "oh WOW!, the way gun A is represented in the game is so accurate, and that makes me feeling sooo good!" - or vice versa. So as a reminder I'd like to quote my favorite statement of Ian Currie about this issue:

"To some fans, the JA series has become the tactical battle simulator and want realism only. Personally, I can't relate to that, even though I understand and appreciate it. I've barely even seen a gun in my lifetime, let alone handle one and am not interested in that. To me, JA is the characters, the role-playing and the intense battles. Great tactical battles don't necessarily have to come from first hand experience and familiarization with firearms. I would rather worry about what makes a great game than a great simulation. If that means having a weapon that does action x and has quality y, then so be it; I don't want to be restricted by reality - it's too limiting and can be detrimental to gameplay."

My point is that whatever attribute a weapon has, it should be clear how it contributes to gameplay. If a weapon has an attribute simply because it is realistic, this is pre definition an arbitrary design decision.


I agree that it should be clear which gun is good, better, and best.

However with 10,000 types of guns, for the category of good, better, and best rather than arbitrarily declare 3 nearly identical guns as good, better, and best...look at reality and select ones that really are good, better, and best. If you aren't going to do that, then why bother with different types, just have ONE gun of every weapon class and differentiate it using a color scheme such as green-blue-purple.

As far as Ian's statement,I think he is wrong on his basic assumption. He states that he thinks some fans want realism only. I think the people who want realism want realism in addition to fun, crazy characters, good graphics, good soundtrack, and all the rest.

Ian's statement really reads to me as 'I don't know enough about real guns to incorporate that element in...and I couldn't be bothered* to either learn or seek out an expert to assist me'

To me, that's like a game designer saying 'yea, I'm tone deaf and never got into music, so I didn't bother putting in a soundtrack. Besides I think a compelling storyline and great graphics are more important than a soundtrack.'

*to be fair, it may have been a cost or time restraint as well.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324045] Sat, 17 August 2013 00:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3802
Registered:July 2009
SMGs suck ... quick, someone call all the gun makers and tell them they are wasting their time.

[Updated on: Sat, 17 August 2013 00:17] by Moderator



Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324047] Sat, 17 August 2013 01:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
GASK3T

 
Messages:154
Registered:March 2011
Location: USA
akodo, you wrote a 4 page college essay that i did not bother reading cause my attention span is to short. Its a game. Variety = good. If you dont like SMGs, im sure you can eventually mod it to the way you want in the future.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324050] Sat, 17 August 2013 02:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pheloncab

 
Messages:275
Registered:August 2004
Location: So. Cal. or texas
I'm wondering about a couple of his (akados) remarks.

you said that SMG rounds weigh more than AR rounds? i'm not saying it ain't true, but looking at the volume/mass of a SMG/pistol round say a 9mm vs a 5.56mm Nato AR round.. well the AR round is a little less large in the diameter but is FAR taller. and though the actual bullet is again less in diameter it is also longer or seems that way visually. do you have any good links on the weight of rounds?

in your #4 you state that an ar is better because it penetrates better.. does this not esp in CQB actually become a penalty. Shooting through multiple walls and hitting civvys or flamable objects or other members of your team etc.


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324072] Sat, 17 August 2013 14:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2020
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
pheloncab
you said that SMG rounds weigh more than AR rounds? i'm not saying it ain't true, but looking at the volume/mass of a SMG/pistol round say a 9mm vs a 5.56mm Nato AR round.. well the AR round is a little less large in the diameter but is FAR taller. and though the actual bullet is again less in diameter it is also longer or seems that way visually. do you have any good links on the weight of rounds?

For major rounds at least it's in Wikipedia: 5,56 NATO ~11,2 g; 9x19mm ranges from 11g to 12,65 g.
(mainly due to heavier projectile)

Quote:
in your #4 you state that an ar is better because it penetrates better.. does this not esp in CQB actually become a penalty. Shooting through multiple walls and hitting civvys or flamable objects or other members of your team etc.

Yes and no, depending on ammo type. On using HP ammo (blue in JA2), the AR ammo would still better penetrate body armor and into flesh/bones than 9mm HP; but is still unlikely to penetrate several targets/walls.
But if it's about FMJ or AP ammo, yes, risk of collateral damage due to penetrating multiple targets/obstacles is a potential disadvantage of AR ammo.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324092] Sat, 17 August 2013 21:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
DepressivesBrot
SMGs suck ... quick, someone call all the gun makers and tell them they are wasting their time.


How many gun makers are still producing SMGs in any quantity? Very few.

There is still a market for SMGs but it really isn't military.

-In many countries the SMG is the traditional weapon of police.
-In some police forces they are purchased because of the logistical ease of only having to acquire one ammo type for both sidearm and longarm.
-There are some countries (and states in the USA) who wrote laws regarding private security (for banks, high end body guards, etc) who wrote laws pre or slightly post WW 2 who included provisions for carrying SMGs by those parties, laws that haven't been revisited since.

None of these is the type of benefit that changes my stance that SB-AR > SMG
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324093] Sat, 17 August 2013 21:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
pheloncab
I'm wondering about a couple of his (akados) remarks.

you said that SMG rounds weigh more than AR rounds? i'm not saying it ain't true, but looking at the volume/mass of a SMG/pistol round say a 9mm vs a 5.56mm Nato AR round.. well the AR round is a little less large in the diameter but is FAR taller. and though the actual bullet is again less in diameter it is also longer or seems that way visually. do you have any good links on the weight of rounds?

in your #4 you state that an ar is better because it penetrates better.. does this not esp in CQB actually become a penalty. Shooting through multiple walls and hitting civvys or flamable objects or other members of your team etc.




the 5.56 NATO round can have bullets as light as 30 grain and as heavy as 90 grains. M193 is a common military round and uses 55 grain projectile.

55 grain projectile + 90 grain brass case + 28 grains of gun powder = 173 grains total

9mm NATO rounds have bullets that generally run from 115 to 147 grains. 124 is a common 'best of both worlds' weight.

124 grain projectile + 60 grain brass case + 5 grains of gunpowder = 189 grains total

45 ACP rounds have bullets that generally run from 180-230 grains. 230 'US military ball' was the weight used in WW 2.

230 grain projectile + 90 grain brass case + 7 grains of gunpowder = 329 grains total.


Regarding penetration, overpenetration.

#1 flammable material does not ignite when shot unless a tracer round or incendiary round is used.

#2 when using conventional FMJ rounds both 9mm NATO and 5.56 NATO will penetrate more than 12 panels of sheet-rock, which equates to 6 internal walls (barring the round not hitting part of the frame or electrical system. Both are in extreme overpenetration category as far as walls, it doesn't really matter at this point if one can punch through 6 walls and one can do 9.

#3 when using HPs there is great variability, but when selecting rounds that have the least penetration of walls yet gives good terminal results 5.56 NATO actually penetrates LESS than the best 9mm NATO HP rounds...and yet still are better at defeating personal body armor.

Accidentally hitting non-combatants is not a function of CQB vs longer range, but a function of how many noncombatants are in close proximity to the enemy combatants. Aspects like increased accuracy and requiring fewer shots to put down the opposition makes it very difficult to judge which is actually better.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324095] Sat, 17 August 2013 21:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
GASK3T
akodo, you wrote a 4 page college essay that i did not bother reading cause my attention span is to short. Its a game. Variety = good. If you dont like SMGs, im sure you can eventually mod it to the way you want in the future.


Hey Gasket, just look at the pictures and the text explaining them. That should do ya fine.

Yes, variety is good. But variety can be done good and bad. You really want a JA:F that includes a slingshot, couple different types of water pistols, and a boomerang?

I am all for the inclusion of SMGs, I am against giving them some magical goodness to make them a wise choice for end-of-game combat.

You'll notice a comment above along the lines of 'what's better for CQB, a FN-FAL or an SMG' where I respond that a short barreled gun is better. A short barreled assault rifle is a great CQB tool. So by properly treating SMGS as what they are, you actually get a NEW category of guns...SB-ARs (or maybe consider them a sub-category) so being more realistic actually leads to MORE VARIETY.

If more variety is what you want, then you should be agreeing with me. Artificially giving SMGs false quality to make them better late game actually REDUCES variety.

Which is more variety?
1. Tec-9 early game, UZI mid-game, Shorty AR late game
2. green uzi early game, blue uzi mid-game, purple uzi late game.

[Updated on: Sat, 17 August 2013 22:04] by Moderator

Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324115] Sun, 18 August 2013 17:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2020
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Akodo Deathseeker
DepressivesBrot
SMGs suck ... quick, someone call all the gun makers and tell them they are wasting their time.


How many gun makers are still producing SMGs in any quantity? Very few.

You sure about this claim?
Just surfed to 3 gun maker's website and they all offered and advertised SMGs: Colt, H&K, Izhmash.
Random (but improbable) coincidence or an indication against your claim?
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324125] Sun, 18 August 2013 21:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
Find their sales figures by model breakdown.

As stated, there are still customers buying (like police) but not in the production quantity of assault rifles.

[Updated on: Sun, 18 August 2013 21:03] by Moderator

Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324126] Sun, 18 August 2013 21:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
For all the people unwilling to accept what I have laid out, ask yourself how much of your 'gun knowledge' comes from watching TVs and Movies?

I will tell you when I purchased my first handgun I asked the gunstore owner what I had to do at that point to get it 'registered'. Hey, all the TV shows always had the cops talking about 'he's got a gun in the same caliber registered in his name' etc etc.

I was quite shocked to find out that requiring a handgun to be registered was only a reality in a few large cities.

So please take a minute to evaluate where your base knowledge on how effective weapons are is coming from.

(it may be a good idea to look up the actual definition of SMG and Assault rifle, and then look at ballistics charts of the 9mm Nato, 45 ACP, 7.62x39, and 5.56 NATO)

Then tell me, if the two rifles below were both select fire (both appear to be semiauto), why the 9mm version is 'better' than the 5.56 version for CQB?

SMG....chambered in 9mm, 16 inch barrel which people tell me must for some reason be better than what is below, because it is chambered for 9mm therefore an SMG...and SMGs rule for CQB


http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/15407-DEFAULT-l.jpg

SB-AR, chambered in 5.56, 5.5 inch barrel, making it not an SMG but an assault rifle with a short barrel. For some reason this is deemed NOT as good of a CQB weapon even though it is shorter, more handy to move around with in urban environments, and fires a more potent round.

http://nordicg3k.tripod.com/my_gun_pics/spikes_sbr2.jpg
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324130] Sun, 18 August 2013 21:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2020
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Akodo Deathseeker
Find their sales figures by model breakdown.

As stated, there are still customers buying (like police) but not in the production quantity of assault rifles.

But this ("There seems to be more demand for ARs than SMGs nowadays") is something different than "there are just a few making SMGs at all"). JFTR.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324143] Mon, 19 August 2013 03:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN

Sam_Hotte
Akodo Deathseeker
Find their sales figures by model breakdown.

As stated, there are still customers buying (like police) but not in the production quantity of assault rifles.

But this ("There seems to be more demand for ARs than SMGs nowadays") is something different than "there are just a few making SMGs at all"). JFTR.


Fair enough. A drastic drop in demand could still leave every manufacturer still listing an item or two in the SMG category in their offerings list even if few were actually produced.


It has been my unscientific review of production that SMG production has dropped considerably.

Getting actual global production numbers is likely going to be a challenge. Is there any other place where data can be derived from?

What if we looked at what weapons were commonly issued to 'tip of the spear' troops? This wouldn't be something like 'the Navy Seals purchased MP5s, in fact there is a NAVY designated trigger group for the gun' A better look at it would be 'what guns to Navy Seals (or Delta, or SAS, or whoever) carry with them.

With all the publicity around the Seals taking out Bin Laden, I'd bet there are some articles about what firearms they used. Can we assume that the Navy Seals would chose weapons from their available arsenal in a wise manner? (i.e. take what is best)?
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324144] Mon, 19 August 2013 03:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
But I've got to also add, for everyone who is disagreeing with me that SB-AR > SMG, there's been a striking lack of information to counter mine.

There is the round-about comment 'SMGs must be good because gun makers still make them' When I pointed out that few companies still make them someone cited 3 companies that still do. It seems to me the person making the argument that many factories making them means they must be good should have some proof of that assumption. After all, we have plenty of factories make muzzle loaders.

For the people who talk about decreased penetration of the SMG, where is the information to back this up? We ourselves can judge how relevant the findings are, but these people should at least be bringing SOMETHING.

I'm well read enough that if someone states 'wall penetration' I can immediately think 'Box-o-Truth' for a source. If people who disagree with me can't immediately think of at least one source (even one not done up to strict scientific standards) then that may shed some light on the subject as well.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324147] Mon, 19 August 2013 09:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2292
Registered:May 2009
Akodo Deathseeker

There is the round-about comment 'SMGs must be good because gun makers still make them' When I pointed out that few companies still make them someone cited 3 companies that still do.


I can only tell you that police forces mostly use SMGs instead of ARs, at least here in Europe. SMGs are small, light, easy to handle and pack enough firepower to handle the usual gangster, assassin, terrorist, whatever...
In the military we used SMGs too, because ARs were too bulky for tank crews. I'm not sure what they use today, my active days are over.

Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324150] Mon, 19 August 2013 11:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3802
Registered:July 2009
For all your big talk, your argumentation style is very dishonest at times. Why do you always cherrypick the biggest SMGs on the market (like the Colt one) and set them against the absolute low end of carbines?

Second, the whole manufacturer debate started from your comment that "SMGs suck because they aren't generally fielded" - without the slightest consideration what parameters a general issue firearm that a grunt carries at all times needs to have versus a specialized tool for close quarters. Only in your latest round of essays do you acknowledge that mil and police SF would be the applicable units to evaluate this.
PS:
I don't doubt that carbines are equal to slightly superior to SMGs in CQC on a case by case basis, but the absolute, unrestricted and universal superiority you proclaim for the whole class is mildly ridiculous.


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324153] Mon, 19 August 2013 13:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pheloncab

 
Messages:275
Registered:August 2004
Location: So. Cal. or texas
Ballistic Comparison Summary Results
# Name Muzzle Velocity Muzzle Energy Bullet Weight Data Points Case Capacity
(Avg. f.p.s.) (Avg. ft-lbs.) (Avg. gr.)

1. .300 AAC Blackout (7.62x35mm) 2026 1233 140 19 25.4
2. 7.62x25 Tokarev 1474 412 85 86 18.7
3. 7.62x39mm Improved 2400 1599 125 1 38.4
4. 9mm Luger (Parabellum) 1138 341 121 454 15.9
5. .40 S&W 1033 394 167 392 21.6
6. .45 Auto 937 366 187 606 28.7
7. .223 Remington (5.56mm NATO) 3118 1170 56 999 30.6
8. 5.45x39mm Russian M-74 2700 997 60 3 28.5

http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/bcompare.cgi

This much I can find for a comparison, however I didn't find any good information on Penetration vs actual targets and/or through obstructions such as walls, fridges, etc.





I did find this later http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm the pistol rounds were stopped about 7-9 boards in, the .223 kept going.
I realize SMG will actually penetrate more than the pistol rounds from a pistol, still I think it shows at the least there is a grey zone that depends a lot on the exact type of round, the actual firearm used etc. rather than a blanket 'truth'

[Updated on: Mon, 19 August 2013 14:05] by Moderator

Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324159] Mon, 19 August 2013 15:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2292
Registered:May 2009
@pheloncab

When you want to post a spreadsheet or something like that you should use the "code" tag to make it keep the formatting. It's much easier to read this way.

Ballistic Comparison Summary Results
 #  		Name 	 		Muzzle  	Muzzle	Bullet		Data	Case
					Velocity	Energy  Weight		Points	Capacity
 1.	.300 AAC Blackout (7.62x35mm) 	2026	 	1233 	140 		19 	25.4
 2.	7.62x25 Tokarev  	        1474   		412 	85 		86 	18.7
 3.	7.62x39mm Improved     		2400 		1599	125 		1 	38.4
 4.	9mm Luger (Parabellum)  	1138 		341 	121 		454 	15.9
 5.	.40 S&W                		1033 		394 	167 		392	21.6
 6.	.45 Auto                	937 		366 	187 		606 	28.7
 7.	.223 Remington (5.56mm NATO)  	3118 		1170 	56 		999 	30.6
 8.	5.45x39mm Russian M-74  	2700 		997 	60 		3 	28.5


See? Smile

Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324178] Tue, 20 August 2013 05:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pheloncab

 
Messages:275
Registered:August 2004
Location: So. Cal. or texas
Thanks..
i'll file that for next time.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324184] Tue, 20 August 2013 09:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
DepressivesBrot
For all your big talk, your argumentation style is very dishonest at times. Why do you always cherrypick the biggest SMGs on the market (like the Colt one) and set them against the absolute low end of carbines?


You continue to miss the point.

Let me ask you this...what is the definition of SMG. What defines and SMG is what cartridge it fires, not how big it is.

So, if an SMG is better because it is an SMG, then it is better no matter how big it is.

My argument is that an SB-AR is EQUAL in size (often smaller) to and SMG and fires a superior cartridge and is therefore across the board superior.

YOu claim I am cherry-picking because I choose 'the absolute low end of carbines'

B.S.

Go back and count how many times I state SHORT BARREL or SB.

I am NOT saying that an assault rifle with a 24 inch barrel is superior in close combat. (It may or may not be) I am saying, given TWO guns of EQUAL SIZE, both select fire, the one firing the more potent yet controllable cartridge is superior.

I went to great lengths for the FIRST pair of pictures to get pairs that were reasonably close to each-other in size. I specifically made sure that if one of the pair had a collapsable stock, then so too did the other, and if one was depicted with stock collapsed, so to the other.

Regardless, a long SMG is still an SMG, and if you claim that an SMG is 'best' for CQB because it is an SMG, then that claim should hold up no matter the features in whatever non-SMG is suggested as a 'challenger' for the CQB crown.

If you argue that the comparison isn't fair because the SB-AR has a shorter barrel, then you are AT LEAST admitting that short barrel important. Well, barrel length has ZERO to do with an SMG being an SMG. Exactly how short a barrel must be before something that is an assault rifle is considered a short-barrel assault rifle is up for debate.


Quote:

Second, the whole manufacturer debate started from your comment that "SMGs suck because they aren't generally fielded"


Absolute falsehood.

this whole manufacturer debate started from YOUR comment that

"SMGs suck ... quick, someone call all the gun makers and tell them they are wasting their time."

Note that this is the comment I quoted in message #324092

Second "SMGs suck because they aren't generally fielded" is a statement I never made. I did point to how the militaries of the world were not deploying SMGs in the same manner they did in WW 2, but that BECAUSE OF them not being good, it doesn't CAUSE them to not be good.

If anyone is playing fast and loose with the truth, it is you.


Quote:

- without the slightest consideration what parameters a general issue firearm that a grunt carries at all times needs to have versus a specialized tool for close quarters. Only in your latest round of essays do you acknowledge that mil and police SF would be the applicable units to evaluate this.
I do NOT acknowledge that mil and police SF would be the applicable units to evaluate this. They frequently don't have a choice. I think that looking at what the best CBQ trained military units use is a good way of determining what they think is best. The military often makes decisions on what guy to by on criteria OTHER THAN what is best. Price plays a point. Often militaries become a self-feeding entity, and must turn to outside groups for advancement. Often outside groups are much more informed. What special forces troops use in CQB will be enlightening, but it will not be an end-all. The military selects a weapon because it recognizes it's capabilities. A weapon does not BECOME capable because it is selected by the military.

PS:

Quote:

I don't doubt that carbines are equal to slightly superior to SMGs in CQC on a case by case basis, but the absolute, unrestricted and universal superiority you proclaim for the whole class is mildly ridiculous.


Okay, I never stated that CARBINES are equal to or slightly superior to SMGs in CQB. I have stated that SHORT BARRELED ASSAULT RIFLES are better than SMGs in CQB.

The Mosin

[Updated on: Tue, 20 August 2013 09:32] by Moderator

Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324185] Tue, 20 August 2013 09:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
DepressivesBrot
mildly ridiculous.


Is that similar to slightly heinous? Don't the choice of adverb undermine the definition of the adjective?
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324187] Tue, 20 August 2013 11:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2292
Registered:May 2009
Akodo Deathseeker

My argument is that an SB-AR is EQUAL in size (often smaller) to and SMG and fires a superior cartridge and is therefore across the board superior.

I am NOT saying that an assault rifle with a 24 inch barrel is superior in close combat. (It may or may not be) I am saying, given TWO guns of EQUAL SIZE, both select fire, the one firing the more potent yet controllable cartridge is superior.


That is basically nonsense. It's more than just the caliber and barrel length that define a gun. Just because a gun uses a bigger caliber doesn't make it "superior". So please stop that "all SMGs suck" prayer mill. Thank you.

The Germans invented the AR not because they thought "Hey let's make an SMG that hits harder.". They could have created an MP-40 with a bigger round for that purpose.
They invented it to have a weapon with rifle range that was accurate at long range and could also be used more effectively in close quarters because of its auto-fire capability. It was very hard to control on auto-fire btw. because of its big round.

The reason why short barreled ARs were created is just to make them more versatile (providing sales more arguments) while keeping other options intact. You don't need to buy another gun anymore just to make it fit your role and existing equipment. You can have troops with the same basic weapon but different barrel lengths. No need to get used to a different weapon anymore.


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324189] Tue, 20 August 2013 13:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
derek

 
Messages:150
Registered:April 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_quarters_combat


http://www.defensereview.com/submachine-guns-smgs-outpaced-by-today%E2%80%99s-modern-short-barreled-rifles-sbrssub-carbines-or-still-a-viable-tool-for-close-quarters-battleclose-quarters-combat-cqbcqc/


All done... now shut up and make/write/say something that will actually help JAF.
Thank U.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324190] Tue, 20 August 2013 14:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3802
Registered:July 2009
Takes a special kind of person to pick the most narrow definition of carbine just to get me. M4 carbine rings a bell? Individual carbine competition? But no, you had to pretend I was talking about vintage bolt actions. GJ stooping so low, don't hurt your back getting up again.

I'll get around to the rest eventually but probably not before the weekend. Meanwhile you can revise your list for timeframe though since we are still in a JAF thread.


Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324201] Tue, 20 August 2013 22:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Harper

 
Messages:149
Registered:June 2003
Location: Germany
Akodo Deathseeker
Harper
My 2 cents on guns:

- Finding better guns greatly contributed to the fun of JA 2. However, once all mercs were equipped with the best rifles, I often didn't feel the need to finish the game.
- It should be easy to decide whether or not gun A is better or worse than gun B. In JA and JA 2, that was the case. In JA 1.13, that no longer is the case. There are people who like such technicalities. I don't. I played JA back in the nineties, and today I do not feel exactly the urge to write a dissertation about the question why gun A may be better or worse than gun B. (That's an "age-thing", I guess.)
- I don't care too much about accuracy and realism. I never felt like, "oh WOW!, the way gun A is represented in the game is so accurate, and that makes me feeling sooo good!" - or vice versa. So as a reminder I'd like to quote my favorite statement of Ian Currie about this issue:

"To some fans, the JA series has become the tactical battle simulator and want realism only. Personally, I can't relate to that, even though I understand and appreciate it. I've barely even seen a gun in my lifetime, let alone handle one and am not interested in that. To me, JA is the characters, the role-playing and the intense battles. Great tactical battles don't necessarily have to come from first hand experience and familiarization with firearms. I would rather worry about what makes a great game than a great simulation. If that means having a weapon that does action x and has quality y, then so be it; I don't want to be restricted by reality - it's too limiting and can be detrimental to gameplay."

My point is that whatever attribute a weapon has, it should be clear how it contributes to gameplay. If a weapon has an attribute simply because it is realistic, this is pre definition an arbitrary design decision.


I agree that it should be clear which gun is good, better, and best.

However with 10,000 types of guns, for the category of good, better, and best rather than arbitrarily declare 3 nearly identical guns as good, better, and best...look at reality and select ones that really are good, better, and best. If you aren't going to do that, then why bother with different types, just have ONE gun of every weapon class and differentiate it using a color scheme such as green-blue-purple.

As far as Ian's statement,I think he is wrong on his basic assumption. He states that he thinks some fans want realism only. I think the people who want realism want realism in addition to fun, crazy characters, good graphics, good soundtrack, and all the rest.

Ian's statement really reads to me as 'I don't know enough about real guns to incorporate that element in...and I couldn't be bothered* to either learn or seek out an expert to assist me'

To me, that's like a game designer saying 'yea, I'm tone deaf and never got into music, so I didn't bother putting in a soundtrack. Besides I think a compelling storyline and great graphics are more important than a soundtrack.'

*to be fair, it may have been a cost or time restraint as well.


I think in JA, realism is sacrificed quite often in order to improve gameplay. Let's take, for example, the ratio of available AP per turn and the costs of actions: it allows the player to perform quite a lot of actions before the enemy can act (and vice versa). In reality, such actions take place at the same time. If TBC were meant to be realistic, the number of actions per turn had to be way lower. But I think the game wouldn't feel as good as it does if this were the case, and apparently the devs felt the same way.

If I remember correctly, the range of guns in JA2 was significantly decreased in order to make close combat a viable option on the open battle field - which is quite unrealistic, but it clearly was fun, at least to me.

Consequently, I think Ian's remark aims on people who demand realism for sake of realism only, without being aware of the impact on gameplay, depriving the game of options that'd be otherwise viable.

And now my 2 ct. to the SMGs:

I think the question is if the player has pistols and SMGs and no rifles of any kind, is he better off with the SMGs or not, and I'd say yes, he is. So however SMGs might relate to assault rifles is a bit arbitrary to me if the player has no rifles at hand.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324207] Wed, 21 August 2013 00:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
DerekBP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_quarters_combat


http://www.defensereview.com/submachine-guns-smgs-outpaced-by-today%E2%80%99s-modern-short-barreled-rifles-sbrssub-carbines-or-still-a-viable-tool-for-close-quarters-battleclose-quarters-combat-cqbcqc/


All done... now shut up and make/write/say something that will actually help JAF.
Thank U.


Okay, here you are at least bringing some information to the field. I just believe this author is wrong (especially about the KRISS, but that's for another time)

I note the following on the quick read-through

He notes he believes the lack of power of the SMG can be balanced by going full-auto " I feel you can make up for its pistol caliber stopping power by dumping large amounts of rounds into the target area, driving the target down." I believe something that delivers a more decisive blow with a single round is superior, ESPECIALLY when 30 rounds of each is about the same weight, expending 3-5 rounds per target adds up to a lot of ammo needing to be carried.

Note that he opens up the article stating ""Are submachine guns still a viable tool for CQB?" The basic implication in that statement is many people are claiming the SMG is NOT a viable tool. You can count me in that crowd.

I will also point out that he states "Because the assault rifle/carbine/SBR (Short Barreled Rifle)/sub-carbine has become the weapon of choice now for CQB,". This seems to point out that many people disagree with his analysis which is why they've go to the SBR

Regarding penetration. First, as seen in the box-o-truth, 5.56 penetrates a heck of a lot more pine boards, but BOTH 9mm and 5.56 penetrated right through all the sheetrock (which was being used to simulate inside walls)

I look at it like this. You got a 10 ton bulldozer and a 20 ton bulldozer. The bridge in front of you can handle 5 tons. The advantage that one is lighter doesn't help because even if lighter, it is still too heavy.

If one penetrates just 9 internal walls and one penetrates 12 internal walls, both are hell on non-combatants in the next room over.


Finally, even if I disagree, thank you for bringing actual facts and information to the discussion.

[Updated on: Wed, 21 August 2013 00:51] by Moderator

Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324209] Wed, 21 August 2013 01:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Akodo Deathseeker

 
Messages:104
Registered:March 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
DepressivesBrot
Takes a special kind of person to pick the most narrow definition of carbine just to get me. M4 carbine rings a bell? Individual carbine competition? But no, you had to pretend I was talking about vintage bolt actions. GJ stooping so low, don't hurt your back getting up again.

I'll get around to the rest eventually but probably not before the weekend. Meanwhile you can revise your list for timeframe though since we are still in a JAF thread.


I like how you are attempting to twist my words again, so I'll lay it out

"Compared to assault rifles, pistols and SMGs just suck." - this wasn't regarding JUST CQB but combat in general. And I stick with it. Assault rifles outclass SMGs and pistols.

next

"Same thing, the invention of the assault rifle made the SMG obsolite...especially now with short barreled assault rifles."

The underlining wasn't in the original. I am doing it to show that I've been talking about SB-ARs as a group for quite some time, not somehow switching to one specific short barreled example quite late in the discussion.

next

"Short Barreled Assault Rifles are in all ways better than Submachine Guns."

Clearly, I have again and again stated I am referring to SB-ARs, this isn't something new.

Finally I never claimed YOU were talking about vintage bolt actions. I was saying that I was not the one using the generic term 'carbine' I was consistently sticking with SB-ARs which are a subset of carbines. For the record, SMGs are carbines too.

As for the M-4 carbine, that straddles the line between what is a standard assault rifle and what is a short-barreled assault rifle. For the record, regardless of what category it is in, I'd rank it above every SMG on the list.

As far as what SB-ARs would be available during JA:F, I'll look that up later for you, but off the top of my head I'd say AKS-74U, Various short barreled AR-15s, and the HK 53
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324219] Wed, 21 August 2013 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
derek

 
Messages:150
Registered:April 2010
Harper

I think in JA, realism is sacrificed quite often in order to improve gameplay. Let's take, for example, the ratio of available AP per turn and the costs of actions: it allows the player to perform quite a lot of actions before the enemy can act (and vice versa). In reality, such actions take place at the same time. If TBC were meant to be realistic, the number of actions per turn had to be way lower. But I think the game wouldn't feel as good as it does if this were the case, and apparently the devs felt the same way.

If I remember correctly, the range of guns in JA2 was significantly decreased in order to make close combat a viable option on the open battle field - which is quite unrealistic, but it clearly was fun, at least to me.

Consequently, I think Ian's remark aims on people who demand realism for sake of realism only, without being aware of the impact on gameplay, depriving the game of options that'd be otherwise viable.

And now my 2 ct. to the SMGs:

I think the question is if the player has pistols and SMGs and no rifles of any kind, is he better off with the SMGs or not, and I'd say yes, he is. So however SMGs might relate to assault rifles is a bit arbitrary to me if the player has no rifles at hand.



Second that...
Most of us want realism but we need to think about gameplay - this is, after all, pc game (4 complete realism play OF or ARMA).

p.s Although I would lower AP just to make players decisions harder (and gameplay), and to reject the ability of 1 merc killing 3 (or more) enemies in one turn.
Re: Community Wishlist for JA:F[message #324220] Wed, 21 August 2013 09:29 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
derek

 
Messages:150
Registered:April 2010
@ ALL and AKODO

All depends on what U want?!

I'm not the most viable person to talk about weapon use and combat tactics, but... As U can find all over the net - SMGs are mostly used in CQB (not urban warfare), and especially where there's a great risk of injuring civilians.

It's not all abut P O W E R!
If U want a 1 shot kill - use AR or SNIPER... if not - use SMG or SBR.
But bare in mind - AR and SBR are harder to use... mostly U need to fire from shoulder. SMG is much easier to handle and shot, has lower recoil power and its easier to use full auto. Of course, U need more shots towards armored enemy but still - it's light, easy to use, lower recoil and better burst accuracy.


So... my conclusion is - SMGs are still needed in RL and JAF (this is thread about JAF).
But, the problem is (when talking about JAF, or JA2) gameplay - as U progress it's harder to find enemies with SMGs (thous bullets for them on combated sector), all have good body armor and weapon range is quite screwed afterwards (all weapons found then have much greater range, and it's very hard to come close to the enemy and have "real" CQB). That's why I think that urban sectors should be filled with urban characteristic (many houses with floors, parked vehicles, trees, benches...), so that U have hard time finding clean line of sight for your AR/SNIPER/BATTLE RIFLE... AND TO LOWER APs - WHY? It's harder for U to take a short burst fire with AR on running target, thus U have hard time hitting and killing enemies, and U'll be forced to take accurate single shots with heavier and bigger guns (which are harder to use anyway); or use SMG that is easier to use, short burst cost less APs and because of that U can take two short burst with good accuracy towards target in hope U'll hit it and incapacitate it (or maybe kill it) by hitting the target to the legs or maybe make him loose his breath caused by multiple bullets taken at very short instance and at concentrated body part/point, or cause suppression shock on enemy 'cause many bullets were fired.
And I would "make more interrupts" - so that U should be really careful with your actions, and with lower APs U'll have hard time having enough APs to fire burst with "larger/heavier" weapons when U got your interrupt and U are forced to shot back if U want your merc alive.
Previous Topic: JAF Character System
Next Topic: JAF Weapon Rebalance - THE MASTER PLAN
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Jun 24 12:23:59 EEST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02555 seconds