Close Combat Accuracy - Page 3

l|Bubba|l · 2009-10-19, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLean

Agreed, deviation should be that you have to wait a short time in CQB, but longer for the fine tuning far away. Sadly, IIRC, a parabolic time-accuracy trajectory as you have described for deviation is impossible in BF2 engine.

But couldn't we just decrease the maximum deviation?

Donatello · 2009-10-19, 12:49

im absolutely agreed with both pictures

Im afraid to look whining, but CQC in last versions is...... tiresome. Its no fun when your deviation 5 time wider than enemy bodies on range 15-20 m, and you have to count seconds.
And pleeez dont tell something like: "Go to CS Source and look for fun there"

anyway, thanks to DEVs for their work.

abbadon101 · 2009-10-19, 13:01

Would it work if you made deviation a bit slower but started it off smaller?

Making the deviation around 2/3 to 1/2 the size but making it take another second or 2 to get down to minimum.

Would this work? As it would enhance CQB but make longer engagements a slower process and mean suppression and flanking maneuvers would be more effective.

Just what I think of the whole thing

Titan · 2009-10-19, 14:39

Sorry i dont get it. What exactly is so horrible unrealistic in CQC? MAybe i just never encountert such situations.

and for:

Quote:

What really and truly needs to be done is to just take everything from CA's infantry mechanics.

There, problem solved.

i think you like CA?

... there are some good improvements thats right... but please dont take the "Soldiers on Ice" or "Rollersoldier" to Pr, or what ever it is in CA!

CanuckCommander · 2009-10-19, 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

Sorry i dont get it. What exactly is so horrible unrealistic in CQC? MAybe i just never encountert such situations.

and for:

i think you like CA?

... there are some good improvements thats right... but please dont take the "Soldiers on Ice" or "Rollersoldier" to Pr, or what ever it is in CA!

The iceskating is exclusively due to the acceleration added to soldiers. However the walking speed in ca is more ideal for combat than that in pr. Speed and acceleration in movement are different.

goguapsy · 2009-10-19, 17:29

I really think everything would be balanced if the DEVs simply MADE LMGs, HATs, AAs and other heavy weapons guys to run LESS!! So if you find a LMG on CQC it means you are late...

gazzthompson · 2009-10-19, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by goguapsy

So if you find a LMG on CQC it means you are late...

dont quite understand this?

Alex6714 · 2009-10-19, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan

i think you like CA?

... there are some good improvements thats right... but please dont take the "Soldiers on Ice" or "Rollersoldier" to Pr, or what ever it is in CA!

Yeah, thats been toned down or removed.

eruffini · 2009-10-22, 04:41

Quote:

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.

~~Arnoldio~~ · 2009-10-22, 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by goguapsy

I really think everything would be balanced if the DEVs simply MADE LMGs, HATs, AAs and other heavy weapons guys to run LESS!! So if you find a LMG on CQC it means you are late...

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzthompson

dont quite understand this?

late=passed away

2009-10-19, 12:49	#22
Donatello Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 138 Russian Federation	Re: Close Combat Accuracy im absolutely agreed with both pictures Im afraid to look whining, but CQC in last versions is...... tiresome. Its no fun when your deviation 5 time wider than enemy bodies on range 15-20 m, and you have to count seconds. And pleeez dont tell something like: "Go to CS Source and look for fun there" anyway, thanks to DEVs for their work.

	Last edited by Donatello; 2009-10-19 at 13:06..

2009-10-19, 13:01	#23
abbadon101 Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 87 United Kingdom Location: South Coast	Re: Close Combat Accuracy Would it work if you made deviation a bit slower but started it off smaller? Making the deviation around 2/3 to 1/2 the size but making it take another second or 2 to get down to minimum. Would this work? As it would enhance CQB but make longer engagements a slower process and mean suppression and flanking maneuvers would be more effective. Just what I think of the whole thing

2009-10-19, 17:29	#26
goguapsy Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,665 United States of America Location: Sao Paulo	Re: Close Combat Accuracy I really think everything would be balanced if the DEVs simply MADE LMGs, HATs, AAs and other heavy weapons guys to run LESS!! So if you find a LMG on CQC it means you are late...