No announcement yet.

PK-AS Scope for Russian Team

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PK-AS Scope for Russian Team

    Right now I think US are most overpowered by there versatility of a set of optics , the Retina Aimpoint RDS is the main equipped optic in-game on Infantry , apart from the ACOG , anyway this makes the other sides underpowered as having a sight means you have more vision , you are able to tunnel vision your opponent and that you are able to see further , the PK-AS is the red dot of Russian Ground Forces allowing it to play along with lore and to increase the magnitude of people switching or staying on the Russian team when against US Forces , how do you guys feel about this situation and do you think they should add it ? Comment your ideas and thoughts

  • #2
    This has been brought up in the past. The biggest thing is learning how to fight as your class/team. Militia and others without optics typically have IED, mines, additional rockets, smaller HAB cost/size... it's all about balance. Bring the US forces into an urban environment and they don't stand a chance with or without optics if you use your classes correctly.

    Simply, you can't fight like you would as a US Soldier if you are on the militia team. See the situation and adapt to overcome the obstacle.

    The other day I had a squad and we were pinned down unable to cross a 100m opening to get to the point.... since we had no optics and American's did I left my optic and automatic rifleman there to keep suppression and make the enemy focused on that spot. Then I had those two pop smoke and just open up... while they were distracting the point I successfully flanked and took out the enemy position with my squad... and they were all pubbies.... If there is anything this game has taught me... observe the situation and make a tactical decision.... not all WW2 Russian infantry rush every time.


    • #3
      I completely agree with Gaunt

      Plus, when you do wipe a squad with iron sights it is so satisfying... it makes me want to play just thinking about it.


      • #4
        Optics are generally only distributed to a couple members of a squad in the Russian military (Very much as it is in the game at the moment for infantry roles). Elite units of the Russian military are given optics, but that is certainly a special circumstance.

        This is as a result of a general combat attitude the Russians have which does not consider pinpoint accuracy to be of critical battlefield importance. They do not share our rather western attitude of refining the maximum possible accuracy of a given rifle's design. They instead rely on maximizing "combat accuracy", which means the ability to score hits on a man size target at accepted battlefield engagement distances quickly, with multiple shots, and against moving targets.

        Anyone who has had the pleasure to shoot or own a Soviet or Russian firearm will experience that, for the most part, the design philosophy is more in line with a prescribed "effective" speed and accuracy rather than the potential "ultimate" accuracy obtainable with the firearm.

        Now of course in game reality will differ between the Russian Military and Militia factions because the Russians use the AK74 while the Militia are given the AKM for their infantry. In a Russian V Militia match, You have the AK74 which in the real world (I have never compared in game performance although I trust it mirrors real life) has a longer effective range, is more accurate, allows for faster followup shots, and has better performance on full auto especially at longer ranges, going up against the older AKM. The Militia have a few other pieces of equipment though to balance this out I feel, so additional optics don't seem necessary. This would go for Russia vs Insurgents as well.

        Now Russia vs American modes are an interesting debate, although I think this goes back to my original point about the AK74s combat effectiveness and design philosophy. The way it is meant to be handled as a weapon is very different to the American design philosophy, so rather than try and equalize both teams with optics, I feel each team will do perfectly fine if they embrace the way their equipment was designed to be used, rather than how they feel it should be used.


        • #5
          I support widespread optics as the Russians as I view them as the modernized counterpart to the US in game. My argument won't be related to any real life combat doctrines, but solely relies on their current in game performance.

          There are almost no situations in game where having the RU iron sights is of any advantage over the US red dot. At virtually every range, in almost every scenario, I believe that the US red dot allows for better accuracy, better placed follow up shots, and better overall target acquisition.

          If you follow the overall K/D ratios on an US vs RU map, you will often find that even when the RU wins the round, the US tends to always lead in the kill category. The US on the whole is usually significantly more lethal in infantry combat which I believe is a direct result of superior optics. *(While Kills are not close to being the end all/be all statistic to measure performance, looking at the kill count at the end of the round can be very telling).

          On close range maps this optic disadvantage can be nullified. However, the disparity in infantry firepower is significantly magnified in any engagement beyond 50 meters. Give me 2 evenly matched US/RU squads fighting at any sort of mid range to long range combat and I'm confident the US would dominate every single time.

          I'd like RU to be the technological match to the US when it comes to infantry combat. Insurgents and Militia are supposed to be the asymmetrical factions. They're the ones who should need to use different tactics because direct engagements are their weakness. But I believe that this should not apply to Russia.

          Distinguished Squad Leader


          • #6
            Personally I find RU Ironsights give me better close combat situational awareness and I am able to transition through multiple targets faster. Even the basic US red dot leads to a little bit of scope locking at times and there is some obscuring of view.

            That being said in most scenarios I will gladly trade the red dot for the Acog as I have adapted to use the Acog in pretty close quarters and simply shift my point of aim more often to account for the obscured view. I'm happy to do that in exchange for the enhanced precision the Acog offers and the ability to engage out to, well, as far as I can see.

            I agree with C0pernicus that at mid to long range the US usually dominates. However I don't think this is entirely down the scopes/inronsights in as much as it is to player skill/habits. Simply put if there is an easier option for the current problem at hand the majority of players will take that path, regardless of other potential downsides. It is quite possible to shoot extremely accurately at long range, if you are methodical, with the iron sights as the front post is really nice and slim. That being said you do run the risk of losing the front post visually when engaging at distance in low light situations. I will often drop my front sight a touch between shots so I can reacquire my target when I am plinking at pixels in the distance. That can lead to slower follow up shots as mentioned, unless you practice it.

            The actual short fall of the Russian weapons in a straight up comparison is the that the M4 has ridiculously easy to control recoil for it's RPM and very little lateral movement. The RPM combined with inherent better full auto accuracy means the ttk is much faster on average when using burst/auto. It puts more bullets in a tighter group, faster. That's what it boils down to.

            The AK jumps around a lot in comparison and has a much slower rate of fire.

            Please note I am talking in general terms, there are specific RU/Ins weapons that even looked at in simple terms actually perform very well and I am not suggesting any balancing is required. After all it's fun to play with different weapon platforms and actually requires some thought and skill to try and master them all.


            • #7
              I think that the LAT or Grenadier should get a Kobra sight on their AK. But only one of them, so as to show that the Russian infantry doctrine still supports volume of fire vs accuracy of fire. But as a specialist, I feel they would be a little more likely to carry an optic.
              |TG-73rd Member| Former TG Irregular ArmA Platoon Leader| Former TG ArmA Admin XO| TG Pathfinder - Spartan 1 |TGU ArmA Instructor |Former TG-18th Member| |Former TG-1st Member|

              "Its easy to argue about issues from afar. But until you have experienced the issue first hand, you have not seen all the facts."

              Carver you will be cut off for a long time before reinforcements can reach you "I am the reinforcements the main force is only coming to bring me body bags and to clean up the mess Im about to make" - General Carver


              • #8
                Interesting idea socomseal93

                One thing to bear in mind is the upcoming animation update. This should move the shooters position essentially forward on the gun, your virtual cheek weld will be further forward and you will have a better sight picture as a result when using iron sights. This may even things out in the irons vs optics side of things. It won't of course address recoil pattern/spread or rof but hey, they're different weapons.


                • #9

                  I find when playing US the recoil rate of fire plays a more important role than the optic. With the AK guns its aim center mass and go for two/three hits. With the US rifles it is aim small miss small with getting 3/4 rounds down range accurately over the AK


                  • #10
                    I'm 100% with Copernicus on this, especially when they add Brits in the future Russia will need to have comparable optics. I imagine there won't be heavy use of British vs. US maps just based in the nature of those two teams from a realistic/lore perspective. If they want a slightly less equipped version of US forces that's fine but they should perhaps push adding the Chinese in faster if they are going to leave Russians without wider optics usage.




                    TeamSpeak 3 Server


                    Twitter Feed