BLK? None, afaik it's pretty recent. Not set up to do serious research on the rest atm.

SMGs are meant for close combat fighting, they should do higher damage and be more accurate in indoor missions.

• 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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

mildly ridiculous.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.