Militia needs scopes

[chris_stoiva_ganjais]

I dont disagree with Manligheten. There is NONE scopes at all in militia side, at least there could be some.

But i would rather put it the other way, why dont limit scopes on regular army sides.

Its not normal nor any way realistic to see a 6 man squad with 5 scopes. Normally there is 2, 3 or 4 scopes in a platoon (12 soldiers), officer, a couple of riflemens and the AR. All the rest stick to theire old conventional iron sight (or red dot).

The question is how many would complain about such a limitation.

In normal enviroment with threes and buildings most squads would be better off with iron scopes. The 4x seems to make coverfire less efficient, where people want to make every shot count when the real point about laying a wall of fire is to supress. Situational awareness is much better without 4x scope, it could be a nice adminissue to teach people the need for for instance good covering fire, a good flanking manouvre (anyone love to flank a building with scope?) and not to forget the most forgotten battletactic - the withdrawal. Again, 5 soldiers trying to headshot with theire fancy squads on withdrawal will not gain momentum, they will easily be outflanked and overrun due to theire fancy of a scope.

Just my thought after reading this thread.

[DieVoorJe91]

@chris_stoiva_ganjais: If I look to my own experience; In my platoon everyone used to have a 3x elcan sight. And since we have new primary weapons everyone including IFV personnel has a aimpoint with a 3x magnifier. And so its not that unrealistic that every one in a squad has a magnified optic. But it divers from army's.

[Gotrol]

Originally Posted by chris_stoiva_ganjais

Its not normal nor any way realistic to see a 6 man squad with 5 scopes. Normally there is 2, 3 or 4 scopes in a platoon (12 soldiers), officer, a couple of riflemens and the AR. All the rest stick to theire old conventional iron sight (or red dot).

The "all-optics" squad is extremely limited in their flexibility to change the battlefield.

There is always an option to take an iron-sight kit- and thats how it should be. Leave people the options, and the ability to do what they want. In the past squads I've been this week it was a 50/50 spread between irons and optics, and I think that's how it generally is.

Except maybe on Kashan.

[Walmarx]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

It's more like some players don't like to abandon their conventional tactics when playing AAS as an unconventional faction.

This^

I almost always opt for Iron sights/Aimpoints in my kit selection, although I recognize that I am in the minority in that regard. With a Scope, you are very effective at medium range, static combat. However this over-specializes your role, and as such you can easily be caught off-guard by a contact at close range, especially considering the rubber-banding that occurs when scoping in. When you decide on close-range optics, you can almost always engage on your terms; if the enemy is close, you can easily acquire and sight him. If he is too far, you can choose to flank and close the gap. I find personally that single headshots seem much easier with iron sights, but that is merely my opinion.

With regards to the Milita- they have some of the most reliable rifles in the mod. All the Kalashnikov variants are very effective in both semi and fully automatic fire. The SKS, which has been called 'poor' here, is absurdly capable at medium-long range; I could swear its settle time is at least 30 percent faster than its automatic successor.

[Dev1200]

Optics are shit anyway. AK47 is best gun in game, so win.

Also, do you think some derp militia would be able to afford optics on their guns, which cost a bit less then the weapon itself?

[jerkzilla]

Meh, I think the potential difference in skill can more than make up for the lack of scopes, except maybe on Ochamchira. Still I can't say I agree with the school of thought that you can just make one side inferior, say "deal with it" and call it balanced. I can't really cough up any statistics but it feels like every time the conventional faction has their shit together, the Militia will lose even though they may get as much teamwork going as the other guys.

It seems that when the players get better, the scale tips towards the British/Russians, otherwise the assets act like ticket sinks and scopes get used when they shouldn't be and things even out.

[ComradeHX]

Originally Posted by Dev1200

Also, do you think some derp militia would be able to afford optics on their guns, which cost a bit less then the weapon itself?

They can afford everything from AK74 to M60s.

Last time I checked, a REAL AK-74 is not exactly cheap.

[Apocalypse89]

I recall reading somewhere that Militia are supposed to be weapons smugglers? In which case it would make sense for them to possess at least a few scopes. Considering that they also wear uniforms, use old tanks, and operate primitive UAVs, I've always gotten the impression that they're meant to be a step above the rest of the unconventional forces, hardly a 'derp' faction.

That said, I just played a round as them on Fools Road where we came out victorious, so while they may be at a disadvantage it's not insurmountable.

[mangeface]

Originally Posted by [R-COM]MaSSive

Militia is a faction similar to talibans or insurgents. Its a paramilitary formation and I don't see those guys wearing AK's with scopes. Its not really possible to have not-so-well funded group with advanced weapons and assets. Even a tank is too much for militia. Even some armies today don't have scoped weapons for every soldier.
Gameplay wise it would be fine if maybe officers and maybe some of special kits would have it.

AK with scope? Rocks

That used to be the background on my computer. Damn, that thing is sexy. But, I'd rather have a Kobra. I'm trying to buy one for my AK-74M, also known as an Arsenal SGL31.

[Navo]

If they can get their hands on a 9P148 Konkurs I am pretty sure they can get their hands on some scopes. I think an AK74 with a scope would be fitting for the squadleader, replacing the AK74u.