Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 40mmrain

  • Rank
    Platoon Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,250 profile views
  1. 3 Man TOW

    It would be nice if all of the deployable weapons were un-tied to FOBs to be honest. If there were an inventory system for players and vehicles, we could just load the weapon into vehicles that had the appropriate capacity to hold them and take them anywhere. There's no reason why an SPG, or mortar tubes need to have a radio. Especially light CSWs like the .50 or light mortars could even been disassembled and transported on foot, with parts spread between multiple riflemen. Imagine if you just rapidly deploy a .50 cal without the need for three guys to huddle together to place a radio thats not with 400m of another one, have a big loud truck dump supplies, then have SL and SL only place it. Imagine if you could then move/rotate/cant the thing as the situation calls for it too.
  2. Well I noticed that A LOT of the layers in 11.1 were updated, and many of the conventional vs. irregular were tweaked/or removed, and the miltia leader got a scope thanks devs
  3. https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/7xeh9g/squad_game_mechanics_post/ 5.56 does 62 damage. It's a two hit kill in the chest up to about 375m .50 cal does 152 damage, it always kills to the chest
  4. "Believability" of maps, realism

    Kamdesh's roads might be bizarre, but I will protest against forcing choke points or "interesting terrain" into maps. Kamdesh's lack of strategically valuable features is actually what can make it unique, compared to other battlegrounds. There are no obvious strongholds to place FOBs, there are no chokepoints that limit the mobility and ability to out-flank the enemy. There are also no dominant hill positions to lord over the entire map, but the map is also not flat, meaning that combat is limited to shorter ranges. This in itself makes Kamdesh unique. Fighting on (the good layers of) Kamdesh is an exercise of speed and medium range combat. A lot of Squad's maps are more along the lines of fortress FOBs on strategically valuable points that are either large defensible structures or dominant hills (FOB Popanov, Stepne, Storage Site, Crucible Alpha come to mind.) Kamdesh can play with more subtlety than this if you could let it. The territory control game mode will make it good.
  5. For the last time. Those things are either not exclusive to ins and are done better by conventionals, are completely non viable, or are not nearly enough to make up for huge disadvatanges.
  6. The whole point of my essay was that there is no other way to play the game than to go head to head because that is how the maps and game mode are designed. Your suggestions for how the unconventionals should play does not reflect the reality of the game. I dont care about "sneaky rpg teams" as us infantry on kamdesh or whatever. They have no effect on me spanking the enemy in infantry engagements on the points or between them. As far as setting up ambushes outaide of main to get an upperhand. Ill ask, what stops the us from doing this? No.. what stop then from doing it better? Techis die to a very short burst of .50 cal. Nevermind how powerful amd accurate the TOW is as an ambush tool. Nothing stops them. The us beat the ins at their own game too. They should not be on symmetrical map layouts.
  7. When Squad's first public alpha became playable the US army and Insurgent faction were essentially equal in capability. Both sides had non-magnified rifles, and vehicles were not part of the game. Because of this it was appropriate for symmetrical gamemode/map layouts to exist. Slowly, this has changed; each patch has widened the gap between the conventionals and the irregulars. First riflemen gained magnified optics, then strong armoured vehicles with remote turrets were introduced, and now both the AR and MG kits for the both the russians and US army have magnification, and of course the UK army is not short of superior weapons, having a very high distribution of optics, foregrips, and bipods. Despite this, many of the older layers remain almost completely unchanged, and even new maps that come out involve symmetrical layers of conventional vs. irregulars. In games where each side has equal skill, these games are just not fun. The irregular force is destined to be outkilled, and if they win, it's only because they simply start with more tickets, or the conventionals had a few bad players who misused vehicles grossly and sucked up a bunch of tickets. I am not the only one to notice this. Every patch, and regularly between patches, many forum users point out this disparity in balance. However, unlike them, I know that simply giving out a bunch of optics to the irregulars or taking them away form the conventionals is just a bland solution, that homogenizes the game. The way to have balanced matches between a force that is much better equipped than another force is to give the worse equipped force a terrain advantage. By simply forcing the better equipped to attack positions that are inherently easy to defend and strategically useful, you achieve balance. The invasion and insurgency game modes are basically designed for this. The developers can easily control the balance of the game with these game modes by putting the flags and caches in easy to defend locations while giving the defending team enough time to set up to defend them. Insurgency needs to be fixed and made actually good, like its Project Reality counterpart. Invasion's rules need to be finalized. Because of all of the advantages that regulars have, it's time for the days of the symmetrical layers on maps like Kokan, Kamdesh, Gorodok, Logar, Mestia, etc. to go, and be replaced with layers that properly balance the difference of equipment in the forces with terrain advantages.
  8. hmm thats interesting because I have read first hand accounts of 7.62x54 failing to penetrate during a close range engagement, and the soldier reported that he felt absolutely nothing, with only mild bruising after the fact.
  9. Glad you ignored my entire argument that transportation in squad is rarely important or ideal because of habs.
  10. Rounds that dont penetrate armour do almost nothing. The amount of force the bullet projects is the same as the felt recoil when firing. Basic newtonian physics, equal, opposite forces, etc. The plate spreads the force out to a surface area probably a similar size to the butt of the rifle so the stress is the same. There should be almost no "camera jerk" Anyways, im 100% for body armour being in Squad. Body armour was actually in project reality, factions thst had armour had 20% more hp. It was primitive but it was there. The developers just need to pay special attention to balancing it is all.
  11. Im sick to death of this opinion. APCs in real life, and in literally every video game ever from the most rigorous simulation to the most unrealistic are used as fire support and interdiction as well as transporting infantry. And here's the thing - transporting infantry in Squad is not often necessary or even intelligent; because almost all of infantry maneuver in the game is done via HAB building. The reason why APCs have a bunch of room for dudes in real life is because the infantry have to actually get to the battle. THere is no such requirement in Squad when you can construct spawn points at the foot of the objective. Once actually in combat the infantry dismount, and fight alongside the armour in a mutually supportive manner. This is not unlike how in Squad, infantry squads will spawn in HABs near an objective and the APCs will sit behind these infantry while they advance. Like, look at these vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_Reconnaissance_Vehicle They're just IFVs/APCs with better recon equipment and no ability to transport infantry because hey, commanders realized that the vehicles are completely effective in the role of interdiction/recon. There is nothing stupid about not using an APC for transport in Squad.
  12. the MG role without a scope is pretty useless compared to AR/Riflemen/Marksmen until suppression, body armour, and surface penetration are fully realized in the game. The extra damage it deals isn't nearly enough to make up for the lack of optic. The British probably just shouldnt have one until then if it isnt going to have a scope. All it does is suck up slots for better kits in your Squad.
  13. BTR82A vs Bradley/Warrior

    It does already. It didn't before and that was a bug.
  14. VERY Concernd about the TOW missle

    no it definitely should from a REALISM perspective. Do you want me to prove it? https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.ca/2017/01/leopard-2-in-syria-part-2.html Look what happens to a modern MBT when it gets hit with one ATGM. It gets knocked out, consistently. IFVs are, obviously, much more poorly armoured compared to an MBT. The Leo 2A4 may not be today's hottest tank, but the Bradley and Warrior aint exactly young either. This is not up for debate. Should armoured vehicles in Squad have armour upgrade packages, and if applicable, APS? Sure. I would love for that to be part of the game. But should vehicles that all essentially lightly armoured by able to survive a blow from the most powerful anti-tank tool that infantry have, on a direct hit? Hell no. And as for a GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE you should care how long I have played the predecessor to Squad, because the two games are extremely similar, and so experience in that game translates to knowledge in Squad. Project Reality has had deployable ATGMs for years that have always 1-hit-killed every vehicle in the game, no exceptions. These deployable ATGMs have better optics than what is currently in Squad, and are able to shoot as far as the game can render. Yet, they're absolutely not overpowered. They come with serious drawbacks, theyre completely static and require the user to expose their weak little fleshy body. If they want to have very good sightlines, that means everyone can see them too! There's also a hard-limit to how many you can have on the map, and they take a lot of time and effort to actually deploy. Yes they're good, but they're also very counterable.
  15. VERY Concernd about the TOW missle

    I think you overestimate how large of an area you need to have to have a battle that you could "implement tactics that make sense from real life" The eastern front of WW2 was about 1500km wide and had over 10 million troops on it in 1943. The USSR had produced over 50,000 tanks by 1943. The density of tanks per linear kilometer was probably close to something like 40 tanks/kilometer. Troop number is over 7000/kilometer. Squad maps are at their longest, 4km wide, and will have maybe 100 players in the map, with 8 tanks at most. That's 25 troops/km, and 2 tanks/km. Squad maps do not need to be bigger for "real tactics to apply" my friend. Plenty of conflicts have had much more dense, and less dense distributions of assets. The TOW missile being a 1 hit kill and having a long range. Don't send your most expensive assets first into battle. Scout ahead, the enemy has to labour extensively to make ATGM emplacements and theyre extremely easy to knock out. If they're overpowered, the developers can just limit the number of them allowed in the map at once/make them more expensive.