Future of the Assault class and Support Class?

[GeZe]

I stand correceted, I meant just the normal RPK, not the 74. I think we should make assualt and support gun equal damage. And make the stamina half of that of the assualt class. This would create the a physcological barrier to using the support class, making runnin and gunnin players to move away from the class as they can't, well, run. It would confine support to defensive, and cover fire positions.

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by GeZe

I stand correceted, I meant just the normal RPK, not the 74. I think we should make assualt and support gun equal damage. And make the stamina half of that of the assualt class. This would create the a physcological barrier to using the support class, making runnin and gunnin players to move away from the class as they can't, well, run. It would confine support to defensive, and cover fire positions.

The whole point of the SAW concept is that the support weapon can keep up with the rest of the riflemen. They are designed to be used as assault weapons, counter ambush weapons and suppressive fire weapons. To restirct them to defencive use would be utterly unrealistic. Whilst I dont want to see servers full of people doing rambo impersonations I do believe that the support weapon needs to be viable from the hip. Then again, I'm just a text book rambo, so i'll leave it to the people with real military experience to decide.

[[R-DEV]Eddie Baker]

Originally Posted by Infantryman

I'd like to see the assault class become "Rifleman" class. By this, I mean give him an M16A2, some grenades, a knife, and maybe a medkit that never refills nor is dropped, which only heals 25%, to simulate the USMC's first aid kits they carry. If someone is a squadleader, let them upgrade their M16 to have the M203, as I believe its the FIRETEAM leader who has that (not that we have FT's in the mod/game). I could be wrong on that though.

I like this idea mostly because its more realistic, the standard US infantry dosn't have all that much on him in the way of firepower.

We have said before that the Assault class will eventually be split into Rifleman and Grenadier. The fire-team leader in USMC squads does carry the M203; in US Army fire-teams the grenadier is just a designated soldier; it may be the fireteam leader or it may not be. A few riflemen in each squad (even the ones with the M203) may carry a single-shot, disposable LAW or "bunker-buster" weapon, too. US Army Mech and Stryker infantry squads also have a designated Javelin gunner, so the firepower available to the US infantry squad these days is quite significant.

Originally Posted by Jellybelly

Ive seen Marines using SAWs, with ACOGs, while being stood up-right and totaly unsupported.

What you are likely seeing is the M145 Machiengun Optic (MGO), not the ACOG 4x telescopic sight.

Originally Posted by Bob_Marley

No, the RPK-74 uses the 5.45x39 soviet (which is why it's an RPK-74, not just an RPK). If the MEC are to keep their Russian small arms and are to unify their calibre for assault rifles/carbines/SAWs then they should have the AK-74M.

The minimi mk.2 (M249 SAW) has a 200 round belt box, the QBZ-95 SAW thingy has a 150 round drum and the RPK has a 130 round drum. That means they can spray alot more lead around beofore they have to reload. And a number of other reasons.

The 5.45mm cartridge never caught on much in the Middle East, since most produced their own 7.62 x 39mm weapons and ammunition by the time it came out.

Also, the RPK-74 and QBZ 95 light support weapon in game both have 75 round magazines. Where are you getting those numbers?

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Eddie Baker

The 5.45mm cartridge never caught on much in the Middle East, since most produced their own 7.62 x 39mm weapons and ammunition by the time it came out.

Yeah, I know, but the MEC LMG is an RPK-74 and thier carbine is the AKS-74U. If those are going to be repleced with thier 7.62x39 equivilents then I'd say go for the AK-103, but, at the moment, I believe that they should standardise on the 5.45. Then again, the whole question of Russian weapons for the MEC has been thrown into doubt (Hasnt it?)

Also, the RPK-74 and QBZ 95 light support weapon in game both have 75 round magazines. Where are you getting those numbers?

I do apologise, must have either been confusing it with vanilla or just imagineing things...

[[R-DEV]Eddie Baker]

Originally Posted by Bob_Marley

I do apologise, must have either been confusing it with vanilla or just imagineing things...

Well, it is hard to tell when there's no counter for rounds in the magazine. Thought you may have been counting shots.

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Eddie Baker

Well, it is hard to tell when there's no counter for rounds in the magazine. Thought you may have been counting shots.

I'm not that clever. I use a more simple forumula:

Bang! = good.

Click = bad.

[twisted]

slowing down the support guy is a great idea and close to the experience in reality. see this quote from a report on the m249 and its alternatives from the Marine Corps Gazette.

"The problem with the M249 SAW was the lack of mobility when manned by an individual while attempting to move at the pace of a rifle team."


http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2004/04eby1.html

[RikiRude]

Originally Posted by Bob_Marley

I'm not that clever. I use a more simple forumula:

Bang! = good.

Click = bad.

This just made me burst out laughing!

[Dandy]

Originally Posted by Infantryman

As for the support, I'd simply like to see the MG be able to deply its bipod on a flat surface--would really really help. Give it an acc bonus for doing so, and make standing/zoomed acc worse than it currently is.

NOOOO, Not light support, like SAW its a M16 whit larger mag and a little bit heavier, Dont take me wrong, But in sweden its the standar LMG, And all soldiers equipted whit this mg, learns how to fire, handle it standing straight up.

If you want to make a MG whit deployed bipods, shose another MG!!