Jump to content

Vewt

Member
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vewt

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. "Wait patiently because we just have to get around to adding the counter to anti-armour weapons, which is armoured vehicles." I do like that that conversation has come full circle, and now rather than snipers being unrealistic, snipers are now apparently too realistic for the game.
  2. The in service Barrett is a 2.5 MOA rifle. It makes far more sense to incorporate the M2010, which is a .300 winmag, rather than a .50. Just give it the same damage as a 7.62. but with slightly better velocity and drop.
  3. (NB. And having maps like Kohat is desirable. Having maps with good tank country like Kohat does is a very good thing in the long run, it's just we're missing a piece of the puzzle that's important in making good tank country actually good for armoured vehicles.)
  4. And I'm fine with having that discussion. The core of what I'm saying os is that: 1. The undesirable behaviour that we fear a sniper class promoting occurs and will occur anyway. In the absence of a sniper class the effect of the behaviour is worse because assets with other purposes are used for it. 2. A sniper class fills an important part of the rock-paper-scissors game you describe, which is preventing heavy crew served weapons from being set up in areas where they are out of range of small arms and mortars, and can dominate most of the ground on a map. In the absence of this element of the rock paper scissors game, a single TOW on a map like Kohat can shut the entire game down. To use more commonly accepted game design terminology, it's extremely desirable that snipers be added as a strong specific answer to certain types of emplacement tactics relating to enemy heavy weapons that too strongly ask certain general questions and friendly mortars that at the moment can't ask specific questions they're supposed to be able to, but be unable ask general questions of the enemy team on their own. The cost of not doing so is people trying to use other tools to crudely mimic the behaviours of a sniper without being able to give those desirable specific answers.
  5. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's so inconsistently and arbitrarily applied. 81mm Mortars and heavy AArmd like TOW are typically battalion level assets in western militaries, as are snipers. AAA and scout vehicles are similarly not platoon or company (or even usually unit) level assets in pact derived militaries. It does not stand up to reasoned scrutiny that the playing level gives access to assets from weapons platoon and mortar platoon, but not from a sniper squad with exactly the same command release. It particularly makes little sense because one of the main doctrinal tasks of snipers is decrewing key crew served weapons. Snipers have a close conceptual relationship with mortars and heavy crew served weapons. Every type of weapon at the battalion level is in the game right now with the exception of snipers and AGL. The function of an AGL is largely replicated by a HMG, but the function of a sniper isn't picked up elsewhere.
  6. I would certainly say the statement "Snipers are not a unit level asset" is wrong, because a battalion is the unit level. The organisation above that is a formation and the organisation below that is a subunit. In western doctrine, snipers are almost universally a unit level asset, as you correctly point out. This is the same level at which mortars and heavy anti-armour weapons exist, and also the level at which heavy support weapons exist, which all have a close relationship conceptual relationship to snipers. I can go and get you a TOE if you want to me illustrate their command level similarities. Right now you have added every other organic unit level infantry weapon except for AGL and snipers. You have even added anti-aircraft artillery and scout vehicles that exist at the formation level, and plan to add helicopters that would as often as not be detached from a completely separate formation. Sure, say that you think they'd be bad for the game and discuss it. I'll think you're wrong and argue back. But. Don't throw your military service at me to try to wow me into shutting up based on, and I'll be generous here, a misunderstanding of terminology on your part. I'm still in and have my tenth green birthday in six months time, so it's unlikely to work.
  7. This is incorrect. Snipers are an organic infantry unit asset, normally held at the unit level. This is the same as mortars, heavy machineguns and ATGM. The only generic organic unit level infantry assets not in game right now are automatic grenade launchers and snipers. Some countries still maintain assault pioneers that are integral, but those are uncommon. These were the old breacher/specialist class in PR.
  8. I agree that a stronger marksman class would be OP without confounding factors, but I think a sniper class could be internally managed with arse slow rates of fire. Most of my markman kills come from two shots in quick succession, much like optics rifleman. A project I've wanted to get around to for a long time is making a ballistics minimod to add confounding factors for ranged marksmanship; wind, temperature, humidity, air pressure, coriolis, harmonics, seating etc. I'd love for a sniper in a future release to spawn with a couple of batches of ammunition from a table of hundreds, with some hidden rifle characteristics unique to each player and constant, and so have to do a lot of offline work to maintain real dope tables. That's huge work though, that frankly I'm not up to.
  9. I'm sorry you think that Psyrus. I personally lazed for you many times on many maps, and many times denied AA establishment and crewing, most particularly on Muttrah for your Huey runs. Most of the times I did this for you I wasn't even in your squad and wasn't in a dedicated CAS squad. There were problems with the implementation of snipers in PR. The aiming mechanics were deliberately designed to deny any engagement of moving targets, with the effect more pronounced the closer you got, that made the kit hard to do much at all with. Snipers definitely act as a flytrap for bad players, I won't deny that, but those bad players engage in those bad behaviours whether there's such a flytrap or not, but having the flytrap means they don't take another kit to do it.
  10. The LSW, GPMG and HMG should and will continue to be the best long range killing tools, as it should be. Accuracy by volume is acceptable. What those kits can't do is persistently deny key terrain at extreme distances, and they can't act as ISR or shaping tools, because they're very high signature weapons. More importantly, it's not their job, it's their job to provide intimate integral fire support to manouevre in the offense and to deny an avenue of approach in the defense. By contrast, designated marksman is a long range rifleman. General purpose but sacrificing some short range usefulness for some long range usefulness. Their job is literally to be a rifleman who can reach out a little further. These functions do not overlap with that of a sniper. Snipers are badly misunderstood because of popular culture. They are a shaping tool; less effective at killing than any other tool on thr battlefield outside of niche cases, but better at shaping than most. They shape enemy off key terrain, shape friendly forces around enemy strengths, and orient friendly commanders to the enemy plan.
  11. The entire southern ridgeline is being used for this purpose. That particular fob is amongst the closest I've seen to main. Marksmen with bipods aren't a solution to this problem. OPFOR marksmen are only running the equivalent of an ACOG in their PSO-1 sights. The play style desired here runs counter to ehat a marksman should be doing, playing as a member of a squad as opposed to shaping thr battlespace or supporting a squad indirectly. Finally attempting to bend the marksman class to this purpose means that if the kit ends uo too good for either function, you have to nerf both functions making one too weak. The marksman class is actually very fit for its purpose right now, and I'm not sure that risking that is desirable.
  12. The TOW on Kohat are being placed kilometers from main. There's an equivalent postion on Belaya, Gorodok, Yehorivka and Lorgar. If the class is misused, the player needs to be deslth with in the same way we deal with players misusing other team assets. Leave spotters out unless you're going to implement a new doping and ranging system, although I ackowledge that people like to RP with spotters.
  13. What counters the sniper? Sighting the TOW for a fire lane instead of on top of a hill for all the world to see. How could a squad deal with a sniper engaging from range overmatch? I don't fully understand the question. A presupposition of the discussion is that the sniper class would be less lethal than the marksman class, in that it would retain a common chambering, but would fire far more slowly and have less other equipment; it would be less lethal, less survivable, less flexible and have less utility. Being range overmatched by such a class would be little more than inconvenient unless they had an excellent position that could deny revives as well. For a clear picture of how the sniper concept we're talking about works, refer to PR, not ARMA. The sniper we're talking about is the opposite of a supersoldier, it's objectively the weakest class in the game, inferior to other classes for everything except for super niche application.
  14. Something I meant to raise in my OP is that it's a well know trend from PR days. When PR added deviation to small arms in 0.7, then boosted it in 0.8, players reacted by using HE weapons and vehicles for sniping. HAT sniping was an enormous problem for a long time for the simple reason that no ome could reasonably outshoot a HAT in a firefight over about 100m, even with its settle time. It wasn't until deployed modes were added for weapons that HAT sniping cooled off. In other words, we know with fair certainty that the player base has a desire to engage in long range combat, and if deprived of purpose built tools for it, they'll just turn another tool to it at a cost to the overall flow of the game.
  15. This is a contentious topic, and I'm well aware that it's a poster child of threads not to post for many reasons in the sticky, but I'm going to do this thread properly for once. Snipers got hate in PR and Marksmen get hate in Squad. I consider myself to be a very, very good marksman in Squad and always enjoyed the cathartic playstyle of sniping in PR, although the implementation wasn’t great. Hear me out on why snipers have an important place in Squad. Right now, Squad basically operates at two levels of scale. Combined arms maps are effectively operating at the company level with some battalion enablers, infantry maps are operating at the platoon level with company enablers. Motorised maps are somewhere in between to some extent or another based on the map in question, seeming to emulate something like an encounter recon battle with some weird task organisation going. Snipers squarely fit into the region above the infantry map layer along with things like mortars and TOWs, although they have something to add at thr infantry layer too. In motorised and combined arms maps, snipers are the counter to emplacements. Take Kohat Toi, effectively Squad’s Kashan Desert – the poster child for a combined arms map. Right now, the game is dominated by Russian ABF and TOW positions established on the southern ridgelines. From there, they can effectively shut British vehicles out of about 2/3 of the map and 3/4 of the objectives. The game’s two existing counters to emplacements – mortars and infantry attack – are not viable. Mortars and small arms lack the effective range to persistently deal with this threat – mortars must be established in contested areas to have the range to effect the probable emplacement positions, requiring that a logi truck go far further forward than is feasible once ATGM and ABF are established and a direct infantry attack requires that a whole squad cross a very large distance, concealed and dismounted, removing them from the fight for so long that the round will be decided before they can affect the emplacements. Even if infantry do succeed in a timely fashion, re-establishing such a set of emplacements is trivially easy compared to attacking it due to the terrain and distances involved. Snipers bridge this gap not because they are highly lethal, but because they can deny a piece of key terrain to dismounted infantry for long periods of time while remaining impervious to emplacements as long as they are well concealed. The effect is similar on AT mines, which presently have no feasible counter - persistent observation on key routes is the only real way to keep an area safe for movement, but there is no role designed to do that, and it's a role well suited to a sniper, to prevent the emplacement of such explosives or queue vehicles and infantry onto their location to avoid or remove them. These problems will only be compounded as more large insurgent and combined arms assets and maps are added. Similarly, snipers enhance the current metagame around mortars and small arms ranging. Right now, mortars are contingent on some unrealistic spotting and ranging methods using in game map markers and smart phones. Mortars are almost entirely used for the soviet method of attempting destruction by fire, because the tools for spotting and adjusting them are limited to the ineffective methods discussed. What is missing is a class designed for a playstyle that rewards patient and persistent concealed observation with good ranging tools – what is missing is snipers. Finally, adding an actual sniper class would alleviate the misuse of the marksman class and other standoff weapons as snipers. Right now many players ad hoc long range tools - .50s, explosives and the marksman class to adopt a sniperesque playstyle, but the less desirable portion of the playstyle – the long range killing, but without the desirable portions of the play style (the key point denial, the persistent observation, the communication). Right now people are using optics machineguns and AFVs primarily for surrogate sniping, and only very rarely for any kind of suppression or manoeuvre. Adding a sniper class would help to disincentive the misuse of these kits and assets by providing an outlet for them in a manner that can be more easily controlled by design. So what does a well implemented sniper class look like, or perhaps more importantly, how does it differ from a marksman? Firstly, the primary weapon must be less potent. Give the weapon the same damage characteristics as the 7.62x54r and 7.62x51 marksman weapons we already have, but bolt action. Secondly, the class must have less utility and more heavily punish being contacted. It should have no frag or smoke grenades and only a single bandage – being detected or misusing the class should carry intolerably high costs. Thirdly, it should have better optics and rangefinding options than marksmen. This would vary by faction, however snipers are typically using optics with 12-14 maximum power at a minimum and more and more commonly 20-25 power in the contemporary operating environment, combined with stadiametric and more mundane mil-dot etchings. Laser rangefinding tools are also common, and might make a good addition, but also might run too far against the grain. Fourthly, give them a bipod. Bipods are not only typical on such weapons, but they have a positive gameplay effect of causing players to more thoughtfully select firing positions than they otherwise would. Fifthly, maybe give them better camouflage, but at the expense of inferior wounding characteristics (no plates) – torn on this one. The effect of these changes would be that the game would have a class designed for persistent and patient long range observation and surgical fire support. It would be strictly inferior in every way than a marksman, except for spotting and shooting at things at very long ranges (>600m). It would draw players away from misuse of other assets like the marksman kit for sniping. The class would be primarily used by vehicle and mortar squads due to the natural synergies with their requirements, and would almost certainly be kicked by any other squad due to its inherent uselessness for routine squad activities.
×