|
PR:BF2 General Discussion General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
2009-10-18, 02:20 | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21
|
Close Combat Accuracy
So one thing I've noticed is that I tend to die frequently to undeployed-MGs in close combat. I've determined that this has mostly to do with the fact the MGs spray so many bullets, that despite the inaccuracy of any single bullet, it still manages to often times be more effective than a regular rifleman with iron sights. The problem with rifleman is that there is too much deviation for the amount of rounds that are fired. Up close, that deviation can mean that most of bullet for auto or semi-auto hit in the arms or legs instead of the chest allowing the MG to win the battle while preparing the next burst. This problem is compounded further by floor diving tactics when the enemy is 5-10 feet away.
Now, I do understand in real life MGs are incredibly accurate due to rate of fire, which is fine. However, MGs in real life or no where near as mobile and easy to move as an M4 or AK. If this were the case you would expect them to be used as a close-quarters weapon of choice. Anyways, my opinion is that something needs to be done to make them a less effective weapon up close. I see that this game is trying to both be as realistic as possible while retaining strong gameplay. Mgs unfortunately seem to have all the strengths of a Marksman kit with very few (if any) disadvantages. The effectiveness of riflemen up close should be increased. |
Last edited by malv; 2009-10-18 at 02:48..
|
2009-10-18, 03:18 | #2 |
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,003
Location: phoenix AZ USA
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
sounds to me like another complaint about PRs deviation. the fact is the DEVs will never get it perfect because of the limitations of the BF2 engine.
|
2009-10-18, 04:51 | #3 |
Retired PR Developer
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,537
United States of America
Location: Kansas
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
A SAW fires the same bullet that the standard assault rifle does. So a burst from a SAW wouldn't be totally uncontrollable in close combat. So really the volume of fire should be the only variable in the equation, and a SAW wins that. All my opinion of course.
|
2009-10-18, 05:27 | #4 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,181
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
Quote:
PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing. | |
2009-10-18, 06:00 | #5 | |||
Retired PR Developer
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As Chuc said though, we will be improving on this as much as we can. | |||
"Clear the battlefield and let me see, All the profit from our victory." - Greg Lake
|
||||
2009-10-18, 09:45 | #6 | |
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 591
Vatican City State
Location: Tas
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
Quote:
just out of curiosity | |
2009-10-18, 14:58 | #7 | |
Retired PR Developer
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,537
United States of America
Location: Kansas
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
Quote:
I'm talking about squad automatic weapons. IE a weapon that fires a smaller caliber round and is lighter than a general purpose machine gun. The para varient of the M249 isn't that much more difficult to wield in a FISH situation than an M16 is, and with the close proximity you don't need to look down your sites you can pretty much point shoot. Now I do understand that a GPMG like a PKM or M240 would be absolutely horrible in close up situations. I have fired a M240 standing and unsupported, and that wasn't fun, so I can only imagine what a PKM would be like. | |
2009-10-22, 23:28 | #8 | |
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 158
Sweden
Location: Kalmar
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
Quote:
For starters no serious person uses a M240 unsupported without a weaponsling, all our M240 gunners had the weapon in a single weapon sling so it is never unsuported. And in room clearing the gunner could chose to either raise his weapon to the shoulder and fire, something that is perfectly viable infact the weapon get easier to handle when you are firing since the recoil will takeout the weight of the weapon so the weapon actually gets lighter and easier to control when you fire it and that they are trained with the weapon for a long time and can handle the weight, or have the weapon by the hip in the weaponsling and use both of his hands and arms to aim the weapon while assaulting, this was the usual mode for assaulting in forrest, the gunner can guide his weapon by the dust cloud that the bullets does in the ground. Also in room clearing something i think you guys have forgotten is the pure sound a M240 gives in small compartements, it is totally wicked and we always were forced to have double ear protection (http://www.ernstp.se/images/A110-010.jpg and http://www.hundforaren.se/Webshop/Im...reme_pro-x.jpg) when using the weapon in doors. I think in a real situation the sound alone would force certain enemies to surrender. | |
2009-10-23, 12:05 | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 46
Sweden
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
Quote:
Maybe you could cut the sprintbar for this medium machinegun-kit into half... or maybe the gun would require 2 people operating it, one man gunning and one man feeding the ammo... Just a thought. | |
2009-10-22, 04:41 | #10 | |
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 42
United States of America
Location: Fort Bliss, TX
|
Re: Close Combat Accuracy
Quote:
We were issued a few of these, and they are treated like a rifle in CQC. Plus they can lay down suppressive fire. Our automatic riflemen were trained to clear rooms with these weapons, so they are practical to use. | |
Tags |
accuracy, close, combat, deviation |
|
|