Jump to content
Kendo

British Faction: Optics and Ironsights

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Sorry if this comes across as nit-picky or nerd-levels of attention to detail.  Its actually painfully obvious stuff for us, much like US equipment is for the yanks among us.

 

It is standard British Army doctrine to have optics on all service rifles.  It's not just a "preference" thing, or based on availability, or "role", but rather a core philosophy of the service.  It was one of the primary design principles around the L85 (and even before that, though optics technology was still maturing).  All rifles have an optic.

 

Will we see this in squad?  Obviously there are a plethora of valid points to make in terms of balance and so on, I understand this.  Problem is, an SA80 without optics is correlated very heavily with "cadets" etc in the army.   Even then most of them have access to the older SUSATs.  It may be rather immersion breaking to use the weapon system and iron sights (for at least those of us who know).  Furthermore, we all get issued a sidearm on deployment.  Same thing there.

 

They have talked about the L129A1 DMR, so the era we are looking at here really falls onto the Elcan Specter scope, or even the placeholder Acogs, not the SUSAT.  Yet the SUSAT has been mentioned in the dev logs along with usage of the L85 with iron sights.  Its all a bit higgledy piggledy you see.

 

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an important question. I would also like to ask the guys here with military experience: why would a soldier not want to use an optic, barring house to house fighting?

 

Because in PR every soldier had the option to use a scope, which isn't the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the new inventory system supposed to change everything. I want a scope on the G3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vegetal said:

That's an important question. I would also like to ask the guys here with military experience: why would a soldier not want to use an optic, barring house to house fighting?

 

Because in PR every soldier had the option to use a scope, which isn't the case here.

 

You'd use your EBS (Emergency Battle Sight) on top of your sight, either SUSAT or ACOG. (However the Infantry do have a ACOG style sight they use, combat support units tend to still use the SUSAT.) You'd never deploy into a combat environment without a sight though, OP is quite right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these questions have been asked constantly, and the answer is always the same:

SQUAD is built around the importance of different roles. The game is made so that every squad member has his own specialties, advantages and disadvantages. If everyone can have scopes, the entire game concept goes down the drain. Gameplay will always come before realism (quote used multiple times by the devs themselves)

 

We might see optics being revised throughout alpha, but I would not count on every squadmember being able to have a scope, just because you're playing the british faction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MVPiet13 said:

these questions have been asked constantly, and the answer is always the same:

SQUAD is built around the importance of different roles. The game is made so that every squad member has his own specialties, advantages and disadvantages. If everyone can have scopes, the entire game concept goes down the drain. Gameplay will always come before realism (quote used multiple times by the devs themselves)

 

We might see optics being revised throughout alpha, but I would not count on every squadmember being able to have a scope, just because you're playing the british faction

I dont see the problem with everybody having scopes (conventional forces). It worked well in PR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Frinz, its just one faction.  It may help make them different than the Americans.  Furthermore, consider the fact that factions like the Insurgents barely have any scopes at all.  Iirc, I think it is only 1 (the marksman)?  

 

Of course gameplay before realism -- I pointed this out myself in the op.  However these are not binary traits, being either fully realistic OR fully fun.  Factions are already asymmetrical, and it enhances gameplay, no doubts about it. So why not?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Frinz said:

I dont see the problem with everybody having scopes (conventional forces). It worked well in PR

Squad uses different shooting mechanics than PR does - with bullet deviation in PR it's much harder to hit several long-range shots in rapid succession, something that happens much more frequently in Squad by comparison. Giving everyone in Squad scopes would shift the balance significantly in favor of the conventional forces.

 

On the other hand, majority of scoped weapons in PR had a backup sight for use in close quarters combat, while there are no backups in Squad at the present, giving unconventional forces some advantage when fighting up close, however diminished by the fact that going into ADS mode is also quicker in Squad than it is in PR.

 

You really can't use the argument that "it worked in PR" in this particular case, nor the realism standpoint - as mentioned many times before, in Squad it's always gameplay>realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So here's where we get a little hypothetical.  As I understand it, the devs have already stated that they are tying to extend combat time -- reducing the "first shot accuracy" and so on.  The work they are doing to draw out firefights and make weapons not 100% accurate is already underway.  Combine this with the fact that we have already seen weapon zeroing (SO GOOD), then the "obvious benefit" to having a scope really becomes somewhat more debatable.  ADS being quicker in Squad has also been commented on (particularly in reference to the new animations and when going prone so that ADS takes longer).

 

Essentially, it is still very early days in terms of gameplay and balance mechanics and we will have a much better picture of things post v10.  That being said, theres no reason why these systems could not be designed with faction differences like this in mind.  You say that everyone having scopes would be OP?  Well it can easily be made to not be OP.  We'll have to see.

 

All that aside, lets assume they use the SUSAT.  That thing is big and right next to your face... probably takes up a large part of your FoV. Its also on an L85, which is the first Bullpup in the game -- if you are concerned about balance, just make reloads take 1.5x longer than the M4s and AKs.  Boom, there's your realism and balance right there, working hand in hand for decent gameplay all round.

 

Simply stating that "gameplay > realism" introduces a false dichotomy.  These things aren't always competing principles guys... and, where they are in tension with each other, I will obviously admit that gameplay triumphs, as I said in Op, so we really don't need to keep repeating it.

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

army-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq_WtVMNCiF6

who said the british army didn't use iron sights?

Edited by GeorgeMc14
lel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the approach used so far is a great method.

include realistic loadouts then adjust.

 

easy adjustments for scoped vs ironsights could be any combination of:

slower ADS 

more penalty for firing while moving, simply move the sights around

more suppression effect again just jiggle sights a little

slightly slower run speed or acceleration/deceleration

Audio could be balanced as well, a local insurgent is likely to be able to move more quietly than an invader

 

Squad has far better cover and concealment than PR, it is possible to force short range engagements already.

Clever map design can give advantages to either side in varied spaces. This is already clearly present in the maps we have available.

 

I would be happy to test ironsights against a full squad with optics in varied terrain and urban areas, i think the balance will be closer than expected, particularly where objectives required moving through terrain which provided advantages to both sides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no problem adding and option to equip an optic for any kit in a conventional army fighting against a conventional army because thats exactly what would happen IRL. But when it comes to INS or Militia it gets tricky, go with realism balance may be hurt, go with balance and the game might feel less authentic and less realistic. I say keep the current system when facing irregular troops, just add a third scoped rifleman kit to the conventional armies and only have one scoped rifleman for both INS and Militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a bit early to tell, but I think a delicate "Rock, Paper, Scissors" kind of metagame could be fairly interesting between the factions.  I say, let each faction have its own interesting quirks and specialties.  Consider the British GPMG, for example.  Its simply worse than the M240B (aside from being lighter to carry).  

 

Maybe the British lack the kind of suppressive fire the likes of the Russians (with the 100rnd box of the PKP) will have, but make up for it with highly accurate individual riflemen?  Or maybe their lighter vehicles (the open top RWIMK/Jackal) is their downside?  Makes for more interesting play that way I think.  Who knows.  Attempting to perfectly balance factions is a useless endeavour anyway.

 

Imagine fighting the Brits and knowing that, at range, they are very dangerous but can be charged down and defeated more easily.  Meh... could be cool.

 

Also, lets not forget that there are some tradeoffs with having all members of a section with the same optic, too.  They will suffer in close quarters, as well as being less dynamic than other factions with certain individuals specialised for different situations -- think Ins with the SMG, AK, G3 (although the G3 is a bit crappy rn).

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My assumption with the new animation system is that we will have back up sights where they are appropriate, and I plan on throwing a tantrum if we don't. I support a realistic loadout for all forces with balance adjustments made elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kendo said:

Consider the British GPMG, for example.  Its simply worse than the M240B (aside from being lighter to carry).  

How did you come to that conclusion? Both the L7 and the M240 are FN MAG's. They're literally identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came to that conclusion because they are both FN MAGs :) .  M240 has a picatinny rail, belt box and heatshroud among some other minor differences.  I suppose "better" is a loaded term, but the main benefit I'm assuming the M240 has (in game) is the larger belt capacity (/length?) and/or quicker reloads because of the attachable box.  Thus: better, ceteris paribus.  Meh... maybe the L7 loadout has more rounds in total to make up for it... I dunno.

 

6 hours ago, LugNut said:

My assumption with the new animation system is that we will have back up sights where they are appropriate, and I plan on throwing a tantrum if we don't. I support a realistic loadout for all forces with balance adjustments made elsewhere. 

 

Yeah I realised that myself Lug, just after posting this.  I never thought they would bother with it but looking at the new RPG26 zeroing I changed my expectations...  I'm sure there are plenty of other ways of keeping realism and gameplay skipping merrily along together, hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2017 at 7:01 PM, Vegetal said:

That's an important question. I would also like to ask the guys here with military experience: why would a soldier not want to use an optic, barring house to house fighting?

 

Because in PR every soldier had the option to use a scope, which isn't the case here.

At least for the US Army when I deployed everybody had an Acog that wanted an Acog. If you didn't have an Acog, there was a damn good reason and someone probably punched you in the face til you put one on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin Sage said:

At least for the US Army when I deployed everybody had an Acog that wanted an Acog. If you didn't have an Acog, there was a damn good reason and someone probably punched you in the face til you put one on.

 

That idea is just incredible to me.  The fact that someone is even able to decide not have a scope is like someone deciding not to wear boots.  I guess each military does it differently... Brits don't get the choice.  Even medics have optics irl.  Even the Vehicle crew L22 has an optic haha :) 

 

O3-600x330.jpg

 

Even house to house fighting -- you use your standard rifle setup, scope included.  EBS on top give you functional ironsights for that.

 

Here's some unrelated British Military porn -- The Urgent Operational Requirement acquisitioned acogs we used for a while when the SUSATs ran out of shelflife.  

 

_51027353_16x-2011-tfh-010-047.jpg

Edited by Kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kendo said:

 

That idea is just incredible to me.  The fact that someone is even able to decide not have a scope is like someone deciding not to wear boots.  I guess each military does it differently... Brits don't get the choice.  Even medics have optics irl.  Even the Vehicle crew L22 has an optic haha :) 

 

O3-600x330.jpg

 

Even house to house fighting -- you use your standard rifle setup, scope included.  EBS on top give you functional ironsights for that.

 

Here's some unrelated British Military porn -- The Urgent Operational Requirement acquisitioned acogs we used for a while when the SUSATs ran out of shelflife.  

 

_51027353_16x-2011-tfh-010-047.jpg

Sometimes it comes down to the individual unit's supply as well. Some company commanders are not the best and there isn't always an ACOG for everyone in the unit. At one point we had a shitty supply and only NCO's were given optics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×