Its obsolete if you expect *everyone* to carry something that can engage at 1000 metres if every contact you have is at 400 metres or less (as post wwii combat analysis of 'war in europe' showed and 'at the time' experience in malaya, korea, vietnam and the like showed).

In those cases you want everyman to be able to put down a massive volume of fire to win the firefight, your offense at range is provided by your squad LMG (in the case of the M14 this was supposed to be one of the support versions that was heavier to absorb the recoil iirc). The 'squad lmg' was shelved as an idea when the m16 came out but soon brought back in with the m60 being attached directly to squads as the riflemen still couldnt equal it in a suppressive role and at range.

NATO doctrine from the 60s to the 90s (and i stopped learning about small unit tactics in 2001 when i left the army) was for a 'gun group' to supress the enemy while a 'rifle group' flanked , got in close and used automatic fire and hand grenades to take positions.

The point being that for a very long time, like until the recent engagements in iraq and afghanistan the priority for an infantry section was volume of fire and being able to carry a lot of lightweight ammunition, ideally the whole section/squad should use the same calibre. Thats why the m60 was replaced with the 5.56 m249 but while the M249 can totally brass up an area effectivley it suffers at range, being only marginally better than the rifles it shares its ammo with and thats because its heavier and has a bipod to stabilise it at the 800metre mark. In the UK our assault rifles (even with 4x scopes as standard) had an effective range of about 600 metres individually and 800 as an 8 man section but the increased range was largely due to the heavier bipod fitted 'light support weapon' version.

TL:DR?. In essence range is only relevant if you *expect* to fight at those ranges.. if you're fighting in a jungle with visibility of less than 30 feet then a 2k max range is as much use as a chocolate fireguard

In battlefront, i just think they nailed star wars combat. Blaster fire isnt that long ranged and has a reasonable 'travel time', support weapons are totally lethal but rubbish if you outflank them or get close to the turrets. As with others i found actually going for the objective is the key and ignoring your kill/death ratio.

I'd frequently control uploads or pods because everyone else was running around just looking for things to shoot and then surprised when they were doing badly as a team

But how can show epeen with low kdr?

Those rifles were too good though.

My K/D honestly averages 0.50 in most shooters. I'm not an incredible player, that is, unless you put me in a vehicle. Then I'm good. Very good. Too good.

I disagree that they were too good. The power is right. The only way to further balance them would be to add another three seconds to each use, making it fire at a max, six times a minute.

I'll be honest however. A match on Hoth of just those rifles would be fascinating.

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time

Exactly my point. Thank you for providing supporting detail.

The Cycler rifle may have been great at some time...but long since replaced with better laser guns...just like the M1. Yet in this game soldiers on both sides are carrying these rifles in abundance. That is just as silly as a group of marines in Afghanistan carrying M4's/M16's and have a M1 strapped to their back.

Which pretty much happened.

In afghanistan they were unable to engage insurgants with most small arms when they (the insurgants) were using old lee enfield .303s or SVDs firing *big* rounds that will travel over a mile and still kill you (in the case of the lee enfields)

So the squads started having one guy get an old M14 or M21 rifle that had been 'accurised' out of stores and that guy acts as a 'designated marksman' using an essentially obsolete rifle because the 'cutting edge' stuff struggles to reach out and touch people at the ranges you are being engaged by. (the M14 and M21 BTW are essentially modified M1 Garands at their core, the M14 being the 1950s fully automatic...blah blah blah

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time

Exactly my point. Thank you for providing supporting detail.

The Cycler rifle may have been great at some time...but long since replaced with better laser guns...just like the M1. Yet in this game soldiers on both sides are carrying these rifles in abundance. That is just as silly as a group of marines in Afghanistan carrying M4's/M16's and have a M1 strapped to their back.

Which pretty much happened.

In afghanistan they were unable to engage insurgants with most small arms when they (the insurgants) were using old lee enfield .303s or SVDs firing *big* rounds that will travel over a mile and still kill you (in the case of the lee enfields)

So the squads started having one guy get an old M14 or M21 rifle that had been 'accurised' out of stores and that guy acts as a 'designated marksman' using an essentially obsolete rifle because the 'cutting edge' stuff struggles to reach out and touch people at the ranges you are being engaged by. (the M14 and M21 BTW are essentially modified M1 Garands at their core, the M14 being the 1950s fully automatic successor to the M1 and the M21 being semi auto the sniper variant)

Same thing happened in chechnya with the russians. They were finding that the 5.45 AK74 wasnt dropping rebels who were hyped up and drunk or on drugs so they got old 7.62 AKMs out of the armoury as they tend to ruin someones day with one shot.

Granted we're not talking about a guy running around with an m4 or an AK74 with an obsolete rifle on his back in 'addition' but in recent conflicts we've seen squads with one or more guys carrying a 60 year old 'cold war relic' rifle around until someone could invent a decent DMR rifle to be carried.

Long range effectiveness is never obsolete, as the theater of War is ever changing-

No doubt. But it evovles along the way. Ever hear of .50 caliber Barrett rifle or a .338 Lupua caliber?

I'm a nearly 23 year old man who grew up playing games. It would be impossible for me not to.

And just as well to know that the .50BMG M82 Anti-Material Rifle doesn't have anywhere the same role as rifles that use .338 Lapua. Just as well, that the .50 lives up to the "Anti Material" name, by being able to punch through walls and vehicles with ease.

Technicals hate it.

Does everything have to be super realistic?

How about both? Give the game some configurable rules and options maybe even two different senerios (arcade or simulator).

You can keep the fast pace jump around mobility respawn ever 2 minute games for one crowd and let others experience something that is close to what they expect. When I looked at the terrain and then watched the movie again...the north ridge seems all wrong in the game.

I guess some of you never played SWG, ballistic "slug-throwers" like Nym's Carbine were very commonly used. You didn't hear people complaining about it then. Slug throwers in general are used in the lore quite often due to shielding being practically useless against them. The reason laser rifles/arms are used more than their ballistic counterpart is because of the impracticality of using ammo or charges. So yeah, seeing cycler rifles is pretty much A-OK. Again, why are we so worried about the cost even if it ends up being 110+ for the game? Are we not currently playing a game that has cost us 700+ for all the models and we spend less time playing it than we would like? Where as a video game is more accessible?

I guess some of you never played SWG, ballistic "slug-throwers" like Nym's Carbine were very commonly used. You didn't hear people complaining about it then. Slug throwers in general are used in the lore quite often due to shielding being practically useless against them. The reason laser rifles/arms are used more than their ballistic counterpart is because of the impracticality of using ammo or charges. So yeah, seeing cycler rifles is pretty much A-OK. Again, why are we so worried about the cost even if it ends up being 110+ for the game? Are we not currently playing a game that has cost us 700+ for all the models and we spend less time playing it than we would like? Where as a video game is more accessible?

I did! I loved that game, and yeah, Slug Throwers were everywhere.

And you make excellent points.

...God I miss SWG...

Does everything have to be super realistic?

How about both? Give the game some configurable rules and options maybe even two different senerios (arcade or simulator).

You can keep the fast pace jump around mobility respawn ever 2 minute games for one crowd and let others experience something that is close to what they expect. When I looked at the terrain and then watched the movie again...the north ridge seems all wrong in the game.

You are asking to balance two games then... for the price of one.

....

AND ARE YOU BEING THAT SERIOUS ABOUT PLACEMENT OF A RIDGE!? Are you going to measure every freaking tree on Endor then? Holy crap man.

Some people will find every reason they can to hate something.

And while I can't friggin' stand that little muppet, what he said about about Hate was right.

The M1 garand was a game changer during WWII. Far greater killing power over the modern M-16. Wonder why all the soldiers dont cary one on their back to complement their arsenal?

For a start:

its heavy

the ammuniton is heavy (compared to the m16s 5.56)

and lastly until recently in afghanistan nobody was shooting at each other at the 'mile away' distances the old bolt action and battle rifles of the 40s and 50s could engage at and they were massively overkill.

when the m16 came out, despite it being utter garbage for years, it was very light, you could carry far more ammo, it didnt warp if it got wet, it didnt rot and most importantly it was incredibly cheap to make.. so no one really minded that its effective range was around the 600 metre mark as engagement ranges had dropped off in modern warfare at the time

Exactly my point. Thank you for providing supporting detail.

The Cycler rifle may have been great at some time...but long since replaced with better laser guns...just like the M1. Yet in this game soldiers on both sides are carrying these rifles in abundance. That is just as silly as a group of marines in Afghanistan carrying M4's/M16's and have a M1 strapped to their back.

Which pretty much happened.

In afghanistan they were unable to engage insurgants with most small arms when they (the insurgants) were using old lee enfield .303s or SVDs firing *big* rounds that will travel over a mile and still kill you (in the case of the lee enfields)

So the squads started having one guy get an old M14 or M21 rifle that had been 'accurised' out of stores and that guy acts as a 'designated marksman' using an essentially obsolete rifle because the 'cutting edge' stuff struggles to reach out and touch people at the ranges you are being engaged by. (the M14 and M21 BTW are essentially modified M1 Garands at their core, the M14 being the 1950s fully automatic...blah blah blah

I said M1 not M14. Two completely different rifles. Very well aware of the use of .308 (7.62) caliber that has continued to be in use to this day.

Not really that different at all. The m14 is a garand with a different feed system and different (but still relatively large 'battle rifle' calibre in the 30-06/7.62/7.92 realm) calibre. Its a direct development of the m1

Lot of parts commonality too. Its not *completely* different or you would not be able to service one with the other for a lot of parts.

I love the M14 also, use designated marksman weapons (as opposed to sniper rifles) at every opportunity in most games.

I miss SWG. I always carried a nyms around and switched to it any time my enemy was in "light/scout armour".

I play games. I have fun. I die a lot in these games. A lot. I don't care.

Well, unless someone is running a hack. I do care about those, mostly because I hate getting shot *through* a giant rock, or when they're running an invis wall hack and spray fire me as they're coming around the corner. That's not fun.

You want to know thw best thing about Battlefront?

About a year or two ago there was this game in development called Star Wars: Attack Squadrons. It was a dogfighting game with an arcade feel. Not as technical as X-Wing, but still looked and sounded great. It was easy to figure out also. I was in the beta from round 1 and I fell in love with the game. I'm not always "good" at all video games, but this game I was instantly great at. I was always in the top 3 of scoring every round, usually #1. Sadly, the game was shut down after just a few months of testing.

Well, I BELIEVE that it was shut down because the flight was TOO SIMILAR to Battlefront's flight. It's not identical, but it is very similar and Disney probably doesn't want 2 games that feel the same. So now we have a more polished version of the space flight sim on the way - PLUS other vehicles as well, such as snowspeeders, AT-STs, AT-ATs, speeder bikes, maybe even cloud cars at some point. AND there's a really high end FPS built in there as well! It's like 3 games in one!

AND there's even a smartphone app launching next month that will let you play mini-games and earn money for the game!

Basically I'm looking at this game as a Arcade style starfighter game, with all the extra stuff as bonus! It woudl be hard for any video game to impress me more atthis point in time because the thesem, the sound, the graphics, and the total immersion are just awesome and I'm in love! So excited for the ship-only mode!

Hey crab, you on xbox or ps?

You want to know thw best thing about Battlefront?

About a year or two ago there was this game in development called Star Wars: Attack Squadrons. It was a dogfighting game with an arcade feel. Not as technical as X-Wing, but still looked and sounded great. It was easy to figure out also. I was in the beta from round 1 and I fell in love with the game. I'm not always "good" at all video games, but this game I was instantly great at. I was always in the top 3 of scoring every round, usually #1. Sadly, the game was shut down after just a few months of testing.

Well, I BELIEVE that it was shut down because the flight was TOO SIMILAR to Battlefront's flight. It's not identical, but it is very similar and Disney probably doesn't want 2 games that feel the same. So now we have a more polished version of the space flight sim on the way - PLUS other vehicles as well, such as snowspeeders, AT-STs, AT-ATs, speeder bikes, maybe even cloud cars at some point. AND there's a really high end FPS built in there as well! It's like 3 games in one!

AND there's even a smartphone app launching next month that will let you play mini-games and earn money for the game!

Basically I'm looking at this game as a Arcade style starfighter game, with all the extra stuff as bonus! It woudl be hard for any video game to impress me more atthis point in time because the thesem, the sound, the graphics, and the total immersion are just awesome and I'm in love! So excited for the ship-only mode!

But there is no space in battlefront. Actually the flight characteristics were one of my least favorite aspects of the game. The fighters felt clunky and cumbersome to control. If Attack Squadrons had a similar flight dynamic, I can see why they shut it down.

Battlefront 1st atmo was kinda broken, didn't feel too right, and I felt was OP. Especially on spire and naboo plains.

Battlefront 2's space combat was pretty bad. and Autoturrets were stupid.

Battlefront 1st atmo was kinda broken, didn't feel too right, and I felt was OP. Especially on spire and naboo plains.

Battlefront 2's space combat was pretty bad. and Autoturrets were stupid.

I didn't bother with 2 as 1 was so bad. It was very bad when I was used to playing Battlefront. Now it's Battlefront Star Wars and I'm happy.

Hey crab, you on xbox or ps?

Xbox One - I'm Crabbok on there. I use the same name for all of my internet activity. Facebook, Youtube, Xbox, Twitter, pretty much everywhere.

But there is no space in battlefront.

Not in the Beta, but the full game is going to have a ship-only mode, so I'm sure at some point we'll have a space map. Might be a DLC, or a new spinoff mode with a Star Destroyer and Mon Cal, and each side is trying to blow up the other, so you can chose to dogfight or go for objectives. Man this game is going to be epic.

About a year or two ago there was this game in development called Star Wars: Attack Squadrons. It was a dogfighting game with an arcade feel. Not as technical as X-Wing, but still looked and sounded great. It was easy to figure out also. I was in the beta from round 1 and I fell in love with the game. I'm not always "good" at all video games, but this game I was instantly great at. I was always in the top 3 of scoring every round, usually #1. Sadly, the game was shut down after just a few months of testing.

It was less then a year ago, it was utterly broken, the aiming had super auto aim (friends and I actually tried not to hit people and still did, basically if someone was behind you and you had no teammates, you died), power creep on rank ups, confusing rank ups, terrible loot system, and had latency issues through out. That is why it got shut down. Battlefront and it share only one thing in common, their name sake.

I am excited for the ship only map, just a heads up though, unless you are locking on for missiles or going at an opponent straight on, don't keep a lock, you will never hit them.

Thanks for the tip. The super auto aim was your targetting computer! That's why they were so surprised when Luke turned his off! ha ha!

Not really that different at all. The m14 is a garand with a different feed system and different (but still relatively large 'battle rifle' calibre in the 30-06/7.62/7.92 realm) calibre. Its a direct development of the m1

Lot of parts commonality too. Its not *completely* different or you would not be able to service one with the other for a lot of parts.

Then I guess the fact my GMC 2500HD has the same Duramax 6.6L diesel engine as the military Humvee...they must be the same truck.

Sorry, different guns. Otherwise, if they were so similar that they are the same, please find some proof that within the past 15 years a US serviceman in combat was shooting an old Garand. By your logic, there should be plenty of photos of guys holding M1's right next to guys holding M14's. Afterall, in your eyes they are the same gun with a different feed system.

But there is no space in battlefront.

Not in the Beta, but the full game is going to have a ship-only mode, so I'm sure at some point we'll have a space map. Might be a DLC, or a new spinoff mode with a Star Destroyer and Mon Cal, and each side is trying to blow up the other, so you can chose to dogfight or go for objectives. Man this game is going to be epic.

They actually said there is no space. Now that doesn't mean that there will be in a future DLC, but no indication that there will ever be.

About a year or two ago there was this game in development called Star Wars: Attack Squadrons. It was a dogfighting game with an arcade feel. Not as technical as X-Wing, but still looked and sounded great. It was easy to figure out also. I was in the beta from round 1 and I fell in love with the game. I'm not always "good" at all video games, but this game I was instantly great at. I was always in the top 3 of scoring every round, usually #1. Sadly, the game was shut down after just a few months of testing.

It was less then a year ago, it was utterly broken, the aiming had super auto aim (friends and I actually tried not to hit people and still did, basically if someone was behind you and you had no teammates, you died), power creep on rank ups, confusing rank ups, terrible loot system, and had latency issues through out. That is why it got shut down. Battlefront and it share only one thing in common, their name sake.

I am excited for the ship only map, just a heads up though, unless you are locking on for missiles or going at an opponent straight on, don't keep a lock, you will never hit them.

Huh, I don't remember the auto-aim being that powerful at all. I do however, remember that game being very fun and the first dedicated Star Wars flying game we'd gotten in over ten years, so I was pretty ticked when it was shut down.