LukeFF Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Other than factors like maximum range, does the game model any other differences inherent in the two weapons, such as time needed to aim the weapon at a target? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Not that I've noticed. At the scale of CM, it's not exactly something you'd notice, you know? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 As I recall M16s have a greater effective range than the M4 in game due to their longer barrel... Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Now I'm wondering if the differences between the ACOG and Aimpoint scopes are incorporated when the engine considers the effectiveness of the weapon in any way. Or are they only eye candy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I think the equipment modifier dictates how accurate the weapons are. If you choose poor equipment then change it to excellent in the force selection screen you get old weapons that work very well. The reverse is also possible. I think this may influence the type of scopes etc but maybe more for Syrian forces than US. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Other than factors like maximum range, does the game model any other differences inherent in the two weapons, such as time needed to aim the weapon at a target? "Differences inherent in the two weapons"? I doubt it. The Aimpoint CCO and the Trijicon ACOG are not (to the extent of my understanding) different enough to make a difference. Differences between the M4* and the M16 are, I would think, beyond the scope of this game. If the game were an FPS, then differences between the two would be more relevant. * Anyone have any idea why they changed the labelling from "M4A1" to simply "M4" when the Army currently uses mostly the M4A1 (rather than other variants)? After all, in game the M16 is labelled "M16A4" rather than just "M16". (Isn't it?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The Aimpoint CCO is a unity magnification (i.e. none) sight while the ACOG is a 4x sight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardstick Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 * Anyone have any idea why they changed the labelling from "M4A1" to simply "M4" when the Army currently uses mostly the M4A1 (rather than other variants)? After all, in game the M16 is labelled "M16A4" rather than just "M16". (Isn't it?) Because the M4 = Semi and 3 rnd burst while the M4A1 = Semi and Full Auto, I know this was not the most eloquent way of putting it, but my meds are wearing off The "big" Army uses the M4 while the Rangers and SF use the M4A1, well I guess it should say used because they will be going to the SCAR soon as far as I know... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevinger Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 * Anyone have any idea why they changed the labelling from "M4A1" to simply "M4" when the Army currently uses mostly the M4A1 (rather than other variants)? After all, in game the M16 is labelled "M16A4" rather than just "M16". (Isn't it?) Somebody pointed out the fact that the M4A1 is (or was) in use only in Special Forces units. The standard M4 is not capable of full automatic mode like the M4A1. You may have noticed that indeed the US troopers only use 3-round bursts since 1.10. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Because the M4 = Semi and 3 rnd burst while the M4A1 = Semi and Full Auto, I know this was not the most eloquent way of putting it, but my meds are wearing off The "big" Army uses the M4 while the Rangers and SF use the M4A1, well I guess it should say used because they will be going to the SCAR soon as far as I know... As in the FNH SCAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR)? Interesting. Also according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416), Delta Force replaced it's M4s with Heckler & Koch HK416s. Somebody pointed out the fact that the M4A1 is (or was) in use only in Special Forces units. The standard M4 is not capable of full automatic mode like the M4A1. You may have noticed that indeed the US troopers only use 3-round bursts since 1.10. Of late I've been peering rather closely at my M4- and M16-armed pixeltruppen, and it hasn't seemed to me that the three-round-burst fire of the M16 is actually modeled. As far as I've seen, my pixeltruppen fire either single shots (especially the squad/platoon designated marksmen) or bursts of between two to four or five shots. But it's perfectly plausible that I'm mistaken, so I'll put Normal Dude's Firing Range to more use and do some more particular observing. The Aimpoint CCO is a unity magnification (i.e. none) sight while the ACOG is a 4x sight. Thanks for the clarification, flamingknives. Since the Aimpoint CCO appears in CMSF as the M4's characteristic optic, I wonder what optic sight mounted on the "M4 (scope)" used by squad designated marksmen as well as marksmen in, for example, the Stryker MOUT platoon HQ. Perhaps squad/platoon DMs' carbines are fitted with ACOGs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardstick Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 From what I understand the 416 is not going to be adopted, some were fielded for trials (much like the XM8), but as far as I know the only SF types still using the 416 can be found here: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/the_unit/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 "Differences inherent in the two weapons"? I doubt it. The Aimpoint CCO and the Trijicon ACOG are not (to the extent of my understanding) different enough to make a difference. Differences between the M4* and the M16 are, I would think, beyond the scope of this game. If the game were an FPS, then differences between the two would be more relevant. You're probably right. The big thing I was wondering about was the time to acquire a target which, as you mention, probably would only be noticeable in FPS games like Armed Assault. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Speaking of FPSs, vis-a-vis differences twixt the M4 and M16, it seemed odd to me that in Call of Duty 4, when playing as USMC Sergeant Paul Jackson, you can (according to circumstances) arm yourself with two variants of M4A1 and two variants of M16A4. The M4A1 variant with an M203 has what looks like an EOTech optic (rounded-square sight window with ring-and-dot reticle), while the M4A1 sans M203 has what looks like an Aimpoint CCO (circular sight window with red dot). Curiously, both M16A4 variants, including the one with an attached M203, are fitted with only iron sights. The fact that Jackson is typically armed with an M4A1 seemed odd to me -- I understood the M16A2/A4 to be the standard USMC weapon -- but then I did some research and discovered that the M4A1 is included among the standard weapons for USMC Force Recon units (Jackson is part of USMC 1st Force Recon). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The two "red dot" sights in COD4 are cheap (like $50 cheap) knock-off types made by several companies, which I assume paid to have them included in the game so they can sell more to airsoft and paintball players. These product placements are an interesting trend in the mass market shooters of late. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So the sights in CoD4 are actually not supposed to be EOTechs or Aimpoints or whatever? Interesting. I'm surprised they didn't put optics on any of the M16s (since USMC M16s are, to my understanding, typically fitted with ACOGs), but if they did that, the M16 wouldn't look as much like an M16 as the typical gamer would expect it to, y'know? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The EOTech is an EOTech, and I think there is an ACOG in multiplayer. The other two are cheap commercial sights. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I remembering thinking when I first saw it that the sight fitted to "Soap" McTavish's M4A1, with it's flimsy-looking structure and oddly large sight window, was rather strange. I don't recall ever having seen a similar-looking or similarly built sight. Also, I don't recall ever having encountered a different variant of the M4 (whether in terms of accoutrements or intrinsic capabilities) when playing as the SAS operator. I can't comment on the multiplayer side of it, since I've only really done the campaign. Any comment on the sights of the G36 (or other guns) in CoD4? My research indicates that the reticle of the sight built into the G36's "handle" is rather more complex (with more varied functionality) than the simple red dot depicted in CoD4. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noltyboy Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I remembering thinking when I first saw it that the sight fitted to "Soap" McTavish's M4A1, with it's flimsy-looking structure and oddly large sight window, was rather strange. I don't recall ever having seen a similar-looking or similarly built sight. Also, I don't recall ever having encountered a different variant of the M4 (whether in terms of accoutrements or intrinsic capabilities) when playing as the SAS operator. I can't comment on the multiplayer side of it, since I've only really done the campaign. Any comment on the sights of the G36 (or other guns) in CoD4? My research indicates that the reticle of the sight built into the G36's "handle" is rather more complex (with more varied functionality) than the simple red dot depicted in CoD4. I think it could be due to difference's between military grade G36's used by the Bundeswehr and the Export version sold by H&K. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I remembering thinking when I first saw it that the sight fitted to "Soap" McTavish's M4A1, with it's flimsy-looking structure and oddly large sight window, was rather strange. I don't recall ever having seen a similar-looking or similarly built sight. Also, I don't recall ever having encountered a different variant of the M4 (whether in terms of accoutrements or intrinsic capabilities) when playing as the SAS operator. I can't comment on the multiplayer side of it, since I've only really done the campaign. Any comment on the sights of the G36 (or other guns) in CoD4? My research indicates that the reticle of the sight built into the G36's "handle" is rather more complex (with more varied functionality) than the simple red dot depicted in CoD4. G36C doesn't have integral optics, but has a mil-std rail instead. As far as the game goes, if you mean this: http://www.arcterex.net/misc/cod5_full.jpg You can get that POS for $35 at Walmart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guinnessman Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 G36C doesn't have integral optics, but has a mil-std rail instead. As far as the game goes, if you mean this: http://www.arcterex.net/misc/cod5_full.jpg You can get that POS for $35 at Walmart. Indeed, I have one for my various airsoft rifles and carbines....never did see the point in splashing out on an EOTech that would be more expensive than the weapon I was mounting it on.... Incidentally, here in the UK a lot of police forces (including my own force) are replacing their firearms team MP5's with G36C's equipped with the dual sight-carry handle normally seen on the full-length Bundeswehr G36. Does look a little odd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 In most cases the glass on top is more expensive than the rifles. The M16s tend to come in at less than $1000 while the ACOG is more than that. Not that it matters with Airsoft, ammo capacity, no restriction on rate of fire and short range means that sights are largely superfluous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guinnessman Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 In most cases the glass on top is more expensive than the rifles. The M16s tend to come in at less than $1000 while the ACOG is more than that. Not that it matters with Airsoft, ammo capacity, no restriction on rate of fire and short range means that sights are largely superfluous. Interesting....hadn't realised firearms were so cheap in the US. It might not matter to most airsoft players, however some of us prefer semi-auto only along with realistic capacity magazines. Going full-auto with magazine capacities of three hundred plus is for wimps I thought that in game terms, having (say) an Aimpoint mounted on an M4 would make that soldier have slightly increased accuracy at close range, whilst having an ACOG would increase long-range accuracy...doesn't seem much point in having them in game otherwise, except for eye candy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yardstick Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/05/army_scar_051109w/ I know this is a necro post, but I think it is relevent to what we had discussed in regards to the SCAR. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I'm not positive, I think all the fancy added optics on small arms are just 'rationalized' as generic increased hit probability. BFC's fooled me before though, there's often more going on 'under the hood' than we realize. Reading over this post I am looking forward to the Brit module. As much debate as the M4/M16 can generate, imagine the upcoming battles over the L85A2, L86A2, L17A2, L22A2, etc ,etc, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I was just checking out the Brit Scenario "It ain't half hot mum", and noticed that one of the weapon's showing for a Rifle Section was the L17A2. I searched through the Brit Manual but this weapon is not mentioned. Is it the same as the L85A2 with UGL? I guess that maybe the L17A2 is the UGL. What is the range of this weapon? Additionally what is the range of the L134A1 (GMG) mentioned in the manual? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.