Fiddlestx

just for the record there is no AK-47 in the game. Only the AK-74 is included which fires the 5.45mm round and resembles the ballistic characteristics of a nato 5.56 much more closely that it would a 7.62. If the AK-47 were in the game and accurately modeled the east would be an even greater disadvantage then they are now. The 5.45 has a bit worse penetration then the 5.56 round because it is hollow inside causing it to tumble on impact, versus the steel core of a 5.65 nato. The AK-47 w/ it's 7.62 would penetrate hard targets much more effectively but the trade off is not being able to reliably hit anything past 200m.The 7.62x39mm round is awefully inaccurate past 200m due to lower velocities and tumbling.

__________________

PanzerHans

Short of touching in on assault rifles the biggest disadvantage to the east is the lack of a real light machinegun, like the 249-SAW. The SAW is a fantastic weapon and in trained hands it is accurate in singleshot mode even when standing.

__________________

JAMerica

I think the biggest problem in addressing the differences in equipment between the two factions has more to do with mission design & strategy than anything else.

For example:

Given the perceived shortcomings of OPFOR's weapons at range:

1) OPFOR should be put (or put themselves) into a position of defense or ambushing whenever possible.
2) OPFOR should be striving, as a matter of strategy, to keep engagement distances short by planning approaches that provide cover. Also maintaining good fire discipline at longer ranges becomes critical.

at the same time, the mission designer could limit (or eliminate) the availability of Aimpoint/ACOG/SAW's to the BLUEFOR. Alternatively, give some mechanized infantry support to OPFOR. Yet another alternative is to have a number imbalance (i.e. 2:1 OPFOR/BLUEFOR).

This whole issue of imbalance does become frustrating when you play the instant respawn/rush-to-the-objective/get-killed/respawn frag-fests...I guess in this case, you may want to have identical loadouts on each side....but at the same time, I contend these are very poorly designed missions for adversarial play in ArmA to begin with. I usually don't bother with them

In short: I think a little imagination in designing adversarial missions goes a long way and requires attention to balance. Proper mission design should fix a lot of these issues and make the game fun no matter what side you are on. Having different equipment on each side means the mission is different depending on which side you play. This in turn greatly increases the (re)playability of the mission ( and increases the fun-factor ).

__________________

--------------------------------------------
Jamerius (Feral Druid)

Evil Koala

Just my 2 cents..

I like the fact that the gameplay isnt perfectly balanced. It makes the style of play different between the two sides, having to use different tactics to adapt to different capabilities. If you level the playing field like most games do, you take away that element and the only difference between either side is the graphics.

This is the element that makes a simulation a simulation, and not a game.

__________________
TG Regular
TGU Staff
ShackTac FNG

tHa_KhAn

I think Koala and JAMerica hit the nail on the head. The idea is there is a need for different tactics. The East and West weapons/vehicles have strengths and weaknesses. An effective team will minimize their weaknesses while maximizing their strengths.

Online gaming has clouded the picture by making both sides only graphically different or directs opposites(ex:if one is good at long, the other is good at short). It's not that clear cut in ARMA and makes for a totally different experience. In arma you see a lot of accuracy and precision faced with fire power and numbers. This a much more dynamic difference than in usual online gaming.

__________________

jex

Yep good points from everyone. I think Jam makes an excellent point about mission design and balance. I agree with Panzer about the 249 as this is a weapon I use a quite a bit and is very accurate at long ranges 300-500m.

The 2:1 balance for EvW seems appropriate for Cold war era doesn't it? Wasn't it always considered that if east attacked in europe, that we would have smaller numbers but superior weaponry?

lol - I could have sworn the 47 was in there

__________________
Jex

Despenser's_Scourge

I agree Jex. Where the AK lacks in one area, it makes up for in another. And the AK-47 was never designed to be a pin-point accurate weapon. I think the modelling should be as accurate as possible. This will give forces using Eastern weaponry a disadvantage when acuurcay is required, but they will have much grater stopping power. What would really level the playing field is if weapon jams are introduced. If you're crawling across the beach with your M16 and your buddy is crawling towards you with an AK-47, I would be willing to bet my life savings I know who, when you both spring up to fire at eachother, will hear a muffled grinding noise and who will have their ears ringing and sholder aching.

mingmong

From my experience from Shacktac, using standardised kits (a fireteam consisting of a rifle with grenade launcher, two rifles and a LMG) for both sides, the discrepancies between the two sides' basic weaponry are so limited as to be effectively irrelevant in a stand up fight, let alone requiring the forming of tactics based around a comparison between the weapons. I really think you're reading too much into this.

jex

It's just a discussion, I'm not reading anything into this - that's why I posted the thread Interesting to hear shacktacs response as you guys play a lot of TvT don't you? What LMG's do you use?

__________________
Jex

mingmong

I was referring more to "1) OPFOR should be put (or put themselves) into a position of defense or ambushing whenever possible.
2) OPFOR should be striving, as a matter of strategy, to keep engagement distances short by planning approaches that provide cover. Also maintaining good fire discipline at longer ranges becomes critical.

at the same time, the mission designer could limit (or eliminate) the availability of Aimpoint/ACOG/SAW's to the BLUEFOR. Alternatively, give some mechanized infantry support to OPFOR. Yet another alternative is to have a number imbalance (i.e. 2:1 OPFOR/BLUEFOR)." than any comments of yours.

We use the SAW and PKM. The only tangible issue with weaponry is the fact that the SAW is able to be fired relatively accurately while standing - however, this only presents issues when the OPFOR AR is not aware of this fact. In everything except MOUT, engagements invariably are commenced by going prone, either before you fire or in response to it. And in CQB and MOUT, the increased recoil can be figured for - when you're talking about metres between you and your target, the recoil is a non-issue provided you are aware of it and therefore aim below your target to start off with.

tHa_KhAn

Different mission designs will affect how the weapons relate to an advantage or disadvantage. Like mingmong said, the PKM is the only weapon that has an actual disadvantage that isn't present in the opposite side. However, this only affects CQB. I think the weapons balance themselves perfectly, skill of the user easily overcomes any real differences.

Not all missions are straight up head to head engagements. I think the tendency to always play as US forces skews the familiarity with the weapons in favor of US weapons. Everyone has enough experience to compensate for any peculiarities with the US weapons. The same is not said about the Eastern weapons. While in essence they work the same, there are some differences, especially iron sights, that take some time to become familiar. I enjoy iron sights, so I enjoy the more open AK sights. It really comes down to experience with any weapons. More people have more experience with the US weapons.

__________________

JAMerica

Well, that was an example of how a "perceived" imbalance could be countered and I was thinking more in terms of mission balance in general.

As you pointed out, the ShackTac squad organization & loadout is a good example of misson design being tailored to provide a proper balance. Unfortunately, a great deal of the missions out there just don't do this (and even worse, make sure everything is available to placate people who just want to play with their favorite toys).

So I think if you are doing adversarial missions with OPFOR with their trusty iron sights, and BLUEFOR with ACOG's some sort of shift in strategy would probably be required.

__________________

--------------------------------------------
Jamerius (Feral Druid)

mingmong

Well, I don't really think ACOGS and the like fall into this discussion, really. Any more so than talking about how a 30vs30 adversarial is unbalanced by OPFOR all having SVDs. ACOGs do unbalance the game, definitely - but so do sniper rifles, or any scoped weapons for that matter. I don't really think it's fair to look at east vs west weapons in that sense, because it's up to the mission designer to not, say, give OPFOR sniper rifles or BLUFOR ACOG. I don't really see what it has to do with balance, really, when it's the mission maker who creates the imbalance in the first place.

JAMerica

Well that was my original point.....but looking back it was a little off-topic with the OP. I wasn't really thinking about a 1-1 comparison between East-West weapons. In my original post I said "perceived" differences between East-West, because, as discussed, I think unbalanced mission design gives a perception of differences between weapons.

I was going to add, I agree that the basic weapons are pretty evenly matched, i.e. m16 vs. AK-74. It has far more to do with the operator than the equipment

BTW, can anyone tell what the differences are between M16 & M4 in RL and also in ArmA?

__________________

--------------------------------------------
Jamerius (Feral Druid)

J.Agnew7

M4 is shorter and smaller and has a foldable stock afaik. mainly used in CQB type situations. And the M4 is much more "moddable" afaik. M4 also has a full auto mode(some models.. maybe th M4A1). The M16 is much longer, and doesnt have a foldable stock afiak. I'm not 100% on these but i think thats what the diff is. And something about the barrel, even tho M4 is shorter it's dot something to make the dispersion smaller and the velocity the same. I dont know all the details.