Close Combat Accuracy

[malv]

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.

[charliegrs]

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.

[Thermis]

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.

[Truism]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Thermis

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.

No, the other variables in the equation are the length of the gun, the weight of the gun (if you've ever tried to actually hold a machine gun at the shoulder, steady, and sighted and walking, you'd know it's next to impossible) and perhaps most importantly the ergonomics of the gun (the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC). This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

[Jaymz]

Originally Posted by Truism

(the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC).

M249 PARA

The M249 PARA is designed specifically for airborne, armored infantry and close quarters combat (CQC) operations with a shorter barrel and collapsible buttstock to reduce the weapon’s overall length by more than 10" from the M249 SAW standard model.

Note that in PR, we don't have the standard model.

Originally Posted by Truism

This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

The primary reason is length, which we can't model in BF2 because there is no collision detection between hand held weapons and the environment.

As Chuc said though, we will be improving on this as much as we can.

[master of the templars]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

The primary reason is length, which we can't model in BF2 because there is no collision detection between hand held weapons and the environment.

I heard, correct me if i'm wrong, that you can actually add collision meshes to weapons but it is just basically useless because you then cant do much in buildings because you cant lower/raise your weapon?

just out of curiosity

[Thermis]

Originally Posted by Truism

No, the other variables in the equation are the length of the gun, the weight of the gun (if you've ever tried to actually hold a machine gun at the shoulder, steady, and sighted and walking, you'd know it's next to impossible) and perhaps most importantly the ergonomics of the gun (the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC). This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

I have fired most of the weapons systems in PR with a few exceptions.
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.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Thermis

I have fired most of the weapons systems in PR with a few exceptions.
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.

A M240 is not horrible in close combat, not by a long shot. I did my national military service in a swedish mechanised company as a infantry soldier with a grenaderifle, but we had two M240 gunners in each squad (no loaders) and we used those weapons in close quaters and they work. It might not be "fun" but soldiering often isn't fun.

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.

[job86]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Thermis

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.

Are there any plans to add the M240 to PR? It would be cool to have a rare kit (like HAT) that contains a medium sized machinegun. Not sure if it has any role to fill that the M249 doesn't allready do... I would consider it as a portable machinegunsnest for squads that are defending some flag.
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.

[eruffini]

Originally Posted by Truism

No, the other variables in the equation are the length of the gun, the weight of the gun (if you've ever tried to actually hold a machine gun at the shoulder, steady, and sighted and walking, you'd know it's next to impossible) and perhaps most importantly the ergonomics of the gun (the M249 is a terrible weapon for instinctive fire compared to an assault rifle designed to be fired accurately without sighting in for CQC). This is why carbines are prefered to full length assault rifles or lo and behold battle rifles for CQC.

PR doesn't model any of this well, and it's very disappointing.

While carbines may be preferred in Close Quarters, the newest M249's are built to add suppressive / automatic rifle fire to supplement the squad. They are smaller, more compact, and lighter than you would think. The barrels were shortened (though come with a longer barrel in case), have a buttsock like the M4's, and have a pistol grip in front for stability.

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.