yurch said:From what I understand of course, inf's map distances usually stay well within what is considered 'iron sight' range. If the iron/scope ordeal were to be accurately portrayed, scopes may take on a smaller advantage or simply a more preferential role, and this I don't really have a problem with, considering the distances covered.
I must say that I agree with this point. At the current state of Infiltration maps, I think iron-sight dominated gameplay would not be unrealistic. On the other hand, I find myself so unknowledgable about the mechanics of modern infantry combat that I cannot argue the issue from either angle. I get the feeling, however, that firefights last much longer in real life than they do in even RA. Why is this? If it is because of the disparity in accuracy between shooting in RL and in RA, I think that the matter is worth looking into, because in that case, something is not being modeled correctly. I have a vague feeling that RA's weapons are already too easy to use - they are fairly easy to aim, extremely accurate, and very deadly. Are one or more of these aspects modeled inaccurately? Does the difference lie in the mental state of individual soldiers or the amount of information they have? Or is the discrepancy really in the size or type of the maps we use?