American Weapons - Better or Just Perceived To Be?

[Caelib]

Is it just me or do the American weapons seem better?  They feel "solid" when you shoot them and this is even more apparent in a10.  When I fire an AK, it just feels sloppy and this may have a lot to do with the iron sights being 3 feet away.

 

On the topic of optics, it is clear that Americans have a huge advantage as well.  Hopefully the other armies will be getting the same types of optics changes that the American optics have received in a10.

 

Thoughts?

Edited February 3 by Caelib

[Smee]

lol  had someone saying irons Ak are better than optics. Its a different way of playing with V10. It's going to hurt learning the new dynamics

 

[Caelib]

The sight picture on the AK peep sights are awful, at a minimum ... they should have the the U-notch (middle one):

 

 

This is how it looks in-game right now:

 

But this is how the sight-picture zoom-level SHOULD look:

 

Let's throw in the American M4 just as a comparison for BALANCE:

[Dopester]

I like the AK's ironsights at any range a lot more since there's way less crap obscuring the sight picture. I also like how it's way easier to control and keep on target in full auto or short bursts and never switch to semi.

 

The M4 is nice to spray from the hip in CQB but I tend to be terrible with its full auto at any range and the damage at least seems anemic in comparison.

Sure, the red dots are always nifty but I don't really miss them.

Edited February 3 by Dopester

[Nossa]

I think there is more to it than that. I don't think there is an argument for which is better. They are just different to each other in many ways. 

 

For example, the Russians have the 30mm BTR82A with the biggest most powerful gun in the game, basically uncontested. Yet all American vehicles deal equal damage essentially through the entire vehicle lineup since they all use the same gun. 

 

American smoke grenades deploy twice as fast but last half as long. Ruskies last 2x as long but take a while to deploy and for the smoke to disperse but makes quite a bit and lasts a while.

 

Hell, try loading up 2 full squads in a Stryker at one time, and fight when you get there. ONLY the shitbox can do this.

[tatzhit]

The AKMs are terribad on every level (much higher recoil, still 3 hits to kill, low ROF, crap sights). The 74s are okay, slightly worse than unscoped M4 (slightly less ROF and dmg, small sights). Red dot M4s are king.

 

With slower movement of V10, it's noticeable that Americans dominate every firefight, especially vs irregular factions

[Kerri]

5 hours ago, Nossa said:

For example, the Russians have the 30mm BTR82A with the biggest most powerful gun in the game, basically uncontested. Yet all American vehicles deal equal damage essentially through the entire vehicle lineup since they all use the same gun. 

 

 

I would take a Stryker over a 30mm BTR any day of the week, due to gun depression alone. Unless you have time to set up in a position ahead of time, in which case you'll win the engagement anyway, the stryker has the advantage of being able to engage more quickly in a wider array of terrains than a BTR does. Stykers also have the advantage of the CROWs system being a fair bit taller, meaning they can engage over the top of a wider array of cover than a BTR can.

 

In terms of small arms, Americans win on most, if not all, counts.

 

I never knew there was a difference in smoke grenades other than visuals, though, that's interesting.

[Peerun]

I like the AK irons better than the red dot, just as I like the M4 irons better than the red dot. It'd be nice to have some sight variation, if that's a thing in the military, when customization comes in.
Also, imho the rear sight for 300 meters and above for the M4 in V10 has a way too big of an opening/hole for how far away the camera is.

[venax]

should put kobras on all aks , and instead of btr 80 we should get btr 90 to balance things out . stryker is far superior to the btr 80 .

 

 

Edited February 5 by venax

[Bahrein]

6 hours ago, venax said:

should put kobras on all aks , and instead of btr 80 we should get btr 90 to balance things out . stryker is far superior to the btr 80 .

 

 

The Stryker is only superior in the way of his fire it dose not overheat the barrel that fast as BTR dose you can still kill it with a BTR if you see him first and try to make little pause with your fire.

[Bahrein]

On February 4, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Kerri said:

 

I would take a Stryker over a 30mm BTR any day of the week, due to gun depression alone. Unless you have time to set up in a position ahead of time, in which case you'll win the engagement anyway, the stryker has the advantage of being able to engage more quickly in a wider array of terrains than a BTR does. Stykers also have the advantage of the CROWs system being a fair bit taller, meaning they can engage over the top of a wider array of cover than a BTR can.

 

In terms of small arms, Americans win on most, if not all, counts.

 

I never knew there was a difference in smoke grenades other than visuals, though, that's interesting.

Wait wait wait you do relize that BTR 82A and Stryker are almost the same.The only diference is that the BTR hase a more powerful gun Thay both have tires and the same amount.Your wider tarrain stuff dose not stand.And the crow taller system you are also refering too is also similar.

All in all BTR 82A is by it self a supirior wepon of the two simply becouse its 30mm auto-cannon that kicks ass.

 

 

Edited February 5 by Bahrein

[Kerri]

53 minutes ago, Bahrein said:

Wait wait wait you do relize that BTR 82A and Stryker are almost the same.The only diference is that the BTR hase a more powerful gun Thay both have tires and the same amount.Your wider tarrain stuff dose not stand.And the crow taller system you are also refering too is also similar.

All in all BTR 82A is by it self a supirior wepon of the two simply becouse its 30mm auto-cannon that kicks ass.

I've just booted up the game and double checked, there's still a noticeable difference between the 30mm BTR-82A and the Stryker, it seems to have a similar gun depression to the regular BTR (the 14.7mm one). The turret height difference isn't as extreme but the Strykers still sits further above the hull than the BTR-82A's.  The visibility itself out of the Stryker is improved, without the dirty, tinted lense of the russian vehicles. All together it adds up and the Stryker is normally the one to have first rounds on target.

 

I haven't used the stryker in-game since the new update with separate AP, HE and coaxial options so that might change things, but pre-V10 I'd still have taken a Stryker over both versions of the BTR. I also could have sworn the ticket difference between the two was larger (I thought the 82A was worth 32 tickets for some reason, as opposed to the Stryker's 24. There's only a 4 ticket difference unless that info is out of date. I wish the ticket values of items were more readily available in-game through the map legend, though), which pushes me back towards the 82A.

[tatzhit]

82A's main cannon only fires in 3 round bursts now for some reason. I'm not sure if that's a bug or intended

[Peerun]

10 hours ago, venax said:

btr 80 

 

[Bahrein]

2 hours ago, Kerri said:

I've just booted up the game and double checked, there's still a noticeable difference between the 30mm BTR-82A and the Stryker, it seems to have a similar gun depression to the regular BTR (the 14.7mm one). The turret height difference isn't as extreme but the Strykers still sits further above the hull than the BTR-82A's.  The visibility itself out of the Stryker is improved, without the dirty, tinted lense of the russian vehicles. All together it adds up and the Stryker is normally the one to have first rounds on target.

 

I haven't used the stryker in-game since the new update with separate AP, HE and coaxial options so that might change things, but pre-V10 I'd still have taken a Stryker over both versions of the BTR. I also could have sworn the ticket difference between the two was larger (I thought the 82A was worth 32 tickets for some reason, as opposed to the Stryker's 24. There's only a 4 ticket difference unless that info is out of date. I wish the ticket values of items were more readily available in-game through the map legend, though), which pushes me back towards the 82A.

We agree to disagree buddy i still think and always will think that BTR-82 is better then the Stryker and always will love to drive/gun it

[Nossa]

On 2/4/2018 at 1:08 AM, tatzhit said:

The AKMs are terribad on every level (much higher recoil, still 3 hits to kill, low ROF, crap sights). The 74s are okay, slightly worse than unscoped M4 (slightly less ROF and dmg, small sights). Red dot M4s are king.

 

With slower movement of V10, it's noticeable that Americans dominate every firefight, especially vs irregular factions

This is really only true at longer distances where the USA excels at. Get close enough and all those optics become a HUGE burden.

[tatzhit]

32 minutes ago, Nossa said:

This is really only true at longer distances where the USA excels at. Get close enough and all those optics become a HUGE burden.

 

Nah, the V10 optics are even better at short-range. In V9, M4 red dot was about equal to AK sights at under 10m. Now, US red dot is far better.

Plus, don't forget that M4 has 33% more ROF and 33% less recoil than AKM (while still taking 2 shots to kill), so it essentially has double the firepower of an AKM at short range. And  that advantage increases at longer distances due to lower recoil, better sights, better ballistics, and damage dropoff (AKM 2-shots people out to 207m, M4 2-shots out to 367m!).
I personally view this weapon superiority as a stand-in for US force advantages in training and body armor, and I guess the way Insurgents are supposed to counter it is mining all the roads

Edited February 5 by tatzhit

[Sgt. Veld]

US teams are stomping every insurgent team they face right now, i know they are going for realism, but this is too much.

[Cavazos]

I like AK iron sights. M4 with the red dot CCO let's you see your aim ON the target more easily, but the AK gives you a nice open view on your screen. And as a bonus, in v10 the AK front iron sight isuch easier to see now.

Edited February 7 by Cavazos

[TheGenera1]

The biggest imbalance I found with sights is that 1) non-state armies do not have optics on their SL role and ALSO no optics on their LMG support class. That thing is like a lazer beam with an acog zoom.

 

I know non state forces have the HAT and mines, but they really only help take out vehicles. The biggest imbalances, in my opinion, come in infantry battles. 

 

Just my thoughts, be interested to see what people say I'm not suggesting we change it without discussion.

[Nossa]

On 2/7/2018 at 4:52 AM, TheGenera1 said:

The biggest imbalance I found with sights is that 1) non-state armies do not have optics on their SL role and ALSO no optics on their LMG support class. That thing is like a lazer beam with an acog zoom.

 

I know non state forces have the HAT and mines, but they really only help take out vehicles. The biggest imbalances, in my opinion, come in infantry battles. 

 

Just my thoughts, be interested to see what people say I'm not suggesting we change it without discussion.

People think its unfair that Unconventional forces (Insurgents) don't have scopes on their weapons. What they don't understand is that Insurgent weapons will be most effective at close range. Never engage RU/USA at long distances. Flank, change angle of attack, ANYTHING to avoid fighting at long range.

[Gnalvl]

On 2/5/2018 at 5:38 PM, tatzhit said:

Plus, don't forget that M4 has 33% more ROF and 33% less recoil than AKM (while still taking 2 shots to kill), so it essentially has double the firepower of an AKM at short range. And  that advantage increases at longer distances due to lower recoil, better sights, better ballistics, and damage dropoff (AKM 2-shots people out to 207m, M4 2-shots out to 367m!).

Realistically-speaking this shouldn't be the case. 5.56x45 is reliant on fragmentation to compensate for its small size, which only works out to 50 meters using M855 from an M4. Beyond that distance, M4 rounds will generally just make straight .22 cal holes which comprise half the tissue damage of any 7.62 round.

 

So in game terms, any shot beyond 50 meters that's a 2-hit-kill with the AKM should be a 4-hit with the M4.

 

Shot location is also a hugely important factor, since M855 fragmentation only works upon deep penetration of larger body parts. Thus in limb hits, any 5.56 FMJ wound will be half as damaging as an AKM wound even at close range.

 

IMO it'd really help for shot location to have an even bigger impact on damage. Imagine damage having maximum effect at the exact center of the torso and weakening with distance out towards the sides and stomach. With a system like this, a very weak bullet might have a chance to 1-shot-kill, but only within a coin-sized radius at the center of the chest. A stronger bullet might have a 1-shot area the size of a minidisc, while a stronger one has a 1-shot area the size of a full CD, and so forth.

 

In this manner, you can have a range of minimum to maximum torso hits needed to kill without actually relying on RNG. Anyone could one-shot with any bullet if aiming right, but in practical reality the average bullet will be a 2-shot and weaker bullets will take more hits.

[tatzhit]

^Good points, I'm not big on tissue effects of 5.56, thanks for clarifying that