Assault/Battle Rifles

[troopie]

Wiem1938 said:
I do apologise. I've just checked on the SA-80... I am awfully sorry to be annoying. Half my complaint is now invalidated! So glad you guys had thought about this.
The only other point I can stick to has to be that the G3 should not be rated as an assault rifle (HEK3) on grounds of 7.62mm ammunition. Possibly the bolt-action rifles remain on HEK1, SLRs on HEK3 (vast difference in firepower) and the small-calibre assault rifles at HEK4.
On the SUSAT/SUIT, yes that was what I referring to possibly the British Army began to introduce the SUIT around 1982?
Everytime I look, these designers seem to be one step ahead... and we're not paying them???
(a rather embarassed)
Richard

It was, see my earlier post on HEKs for the R-1, a design decision. Possibly it's due to the superior ergonomics of the G-3. The G-3 and the FN-FAL and its copies (L1A1, R-1) fire the same 7.62mm NATO ammunition. And it is possible to control an R-1 on full automatic, but not for the full twenty round clip.


troopie

[harlikwin]

I think the main point is that under combat conditions most of these rifles perform very similarly, hence the similar HEK, ACC values. Frankly I Think they should be about the same for each rifle in a given caliber, and still very similar. The 7.62 round hits harder, but you can fire more rounds of 5.56 sort of argument.
I think that perhaps units equipped with optical sights might get some sort of accuracy bonus. BUT the problem is that the sights unitl very recently have not been issued en-masse. Each nation has some sort of optics that have been used on these rifles to include the russians. The problem in terms of this game is that its really a minutia and would be hard to implement (a new unit only with optical sights?)

[Mobhack]

If I was to make a new game engine from scratch, I would use the approach used in tabletop wargaming rules, (WRG, TTG's Challenger etc) where you have only "rifle", "SMG", "Assault Rifle", "SLR" etc. since in real-world terms there are really no quantifiable differences, at the batallion level other than between classes of small arms. (Different if you were programming a section-based 3-D indivudual man RTS but this game is not such). There would be no "pistol" of course, as that weapon is totally irrelevant at battlefield level.

In reality, the names given to rifles etc in SP series games are just "chrome". An AsR is an AsR. An SLR is an SLR.

But yep - any new game engine would use the generic "AsR" etc convention of tabletop 1/300 games, (with no individual naming) as that would
a) Drastically simplify OOB design and
b) stop pointless angels-dancing-on-pinheads type discussions about Assault rifle X vs Assault rifle Y, when they are the same thing in the game - an AsR.

Cheers
Andy

[Listy]

When playing around with an OOB once (UN I think) I tried that same approach.

Worked just fine. Generic named weapons which you could call whatever you wanted (IIRC I included an Advanced AsR, for the 5.56 jobbies with scopes on).

The reason? It came from the Idea was that most engaugements are limited to the range you can aim at an enemy. It's not until the scope became common on battle rifles that really changed the range of engaments very much.

The real question is why not do it for the next version of SP:MBT?

[harlikwin]

I would frankly love to see some sort of standardization of stuff for this game, esp the OOBs.

YOu guys should remake this with a new engine from the ground up

[RecruitMonty]

---"I would frankly love to see some sort of standardization of stuff for this game, esp the OOBs.

YOu guys should remake this with a new engine from the ground up"---

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Very funny! What a way to take the mick out of the "angels-dancing-on-pinheads" types from arguing about frankly nothing. If I were Don, and I mean no disrespect, then I would just say "do what you like with your oobs but don't post them and don't post about your problems here!"

If I don't like something ion the game, a rare thing indeed, (I mean that) then I just edit it myself (as realistically as I can) and keep stumm about, I don't come and ***** at the developers about it and expect them to do it for me.