No. I’m not saying the AG4—a weapon based on a BATTLE rifle, not an ASSAULT rifle—should be more powerful than ALL other weapons using the same round. It should ONLY be more powerful than the AI76, which IS based on an ASSAULT rifle, not a battle rifle.
Again, have you actually paid attention to the details I’ve provided previously? They kind of matter. The belt-fed 7.62s, the two semi-auto 7.62s, and the Vintovka—a bolt-action 7.62—all have different damage output for a single shot, and I have said that SEVERAL of them should be buffed. Not just one. I even pitched some very low estimates that I feel would be going in the correct direction, for an even wider variety of weapons. As I’ve gone on, my information has even gotten more detailed, more accurate, despite the flawed nature of my tests—which I was the very first to point out, myself.
—This is important. You should read it, not skip over it just because it is a bit long.—
For those not in the know, let me again point out some real-world information.
A BATTLE rifle uses a full-power cartridge, such as 7.62x51mm NATO. That is, a BATTLE rifle uses rounds similar in power level to full-power infantry rifles of old, with power output similar to what some might call a sniper’s rifle or marksman’s rifle. A short list of weapons which use this cartridge would include the HK G3, the Swedish service version of the G3 which is known as the AK4 (AG4 in-game), the FN FAL, the M14 (and derivatives, including the M21 Marksman’s rifle—the S21 in-game), the FN MAG belt-fed machine gun (and extended family, including the US service M240 and Swedish service KSP-58—the KVM-59 in-game), and the M60 (the N60 in-game), among others.
Another example of a full-power rifle cartridge, of similar power level to the 7.62x51mm NATO load, is the cartridge known as 7.62x54mmR. The “R” there is not for “Russian”—though the round IS Russian—but is instead for “Rimmed.” The 7.62x54mmR cartridge was originally designed for bolt-action rifles, way back in or before 1891. It was for the use in the Mosin-Nagant M1891 (the Vintovka in-game) rifles then entering service, before WWI. That round continued to see use throughout WWI and WWII, being used in belt-fed MGs, pan-magazine-fed MGs like the DP28, and then the belt-fed PKM (the PM-71 in-game) more recently, automatic rifles like the AVT-40, and semi-automatic rifles like the SVT-40, and more recently the SVD marksman’s rifle (the Kotenok in-game), and the SVU and SVU-A rifles. The SVU is a bullpup conversion of the SVD, while the SVU-A is an SVU with the addition of full-auto capability.
An ASSAULT rifle, on the other hand, uses an INTERMEDIATE power round—a cartridge design of reduced power, with a shorter shell casing which holds less propellant, and generally also a lighter weight projectile. Lighter weight projectiles often result in higher velocity, but between lighter projectile and less propellant they also generate less recoil compared to full power rifle cartridges. Less recoil, better handling. The ammunition is also lighter, so more can be carried more conveniently or comfortably.
Examples of intermediate power cartridges include the 7.92x33mm “8mm Kurz” cartridge, the 7.62x39mm cartridge, 5.56x45mm NATO, and 5.45x39mm. 7.92x33mm was the cartridge designed and used at the end of WWII, by the Germans, for use in their new Sturmgewehr—arguably the first true, purpose-built, completely focused design that would fit and even gave rise to the term “assault rifle.” The 7.62x39mm cartridge, in turn, comes from Soviet Russia—the round developed for their first true assault rifle, the AK-47 (the AI76 in-game)…which has continued to serve in the newer AKM, and the even newer AK-103, and also was used by the semi-auto SKS carbine rifle and full-auto conversions of it, the RPK light machine gun, and a wide variety of other carbine rifles, assault rifles, and LMGs, all around the world. The 5.56x45mm is, of course, NATO’s answer to the intermediate power cartridge—used in assault rifles, carbine rifles, LMGs, SAWs, from the US M16 (N16 in game), the Belgian FNC and the Swedish service version known as the AK5 (AG5 in-game), the French FAMAS, the British SA80 family of weapons (L85, L86, etc), the Belgian FN MINIMI family of LMGs, SAWs, and their many descendants (including the US service M249, and the Swedish service KSP 90—the KVM-89 in-game), among others. The 5.45x39mm is Russian, again—an updated answer to NATO’s 5.56…the 7.62x39mm and the 5.45x39mm use the same cartridge case as a base, with the 5.45 necked down for a smaller, lighter projectile than the 7.62x39mm. The 7.62x39mm tends towards lower velocity, while the 5.45x39mm tends towards higher velocity—the 5.56x45mm also tends towards higher velocities.
By the way, the 9x39mm cartridge is also Russian of course, and also uses the same cartridge as a base as the 5.45x39mm and 7.62x39mm, just necked up to 9mm instead of being necked down—the 9x39mm is intended from the start to be an even lower target velocity cartridge than the 7.62x39mm, for quieter action in demanding covert usage, and uses a heavier projectile than the 7.62x39mm. That is, the 9x39mm was intended to be subsonic, not supersonic—to be especially quiet when used with an appropriate suppressor, or an integrally suppressed weapon. While the 9x39mm is similar to intermediate power cartridges used in assault rifles, the 9x39mm and the weapons that use it—like the AS-VAL (the AT-WAD in-game), VSS Vintorez, and others—are generally considered to be more “specialist’s weapons” rather than standard issue/general purpose assault rifles. A comparable cartridge, though newer, would be .300 Blackout—a cartridge design using the 5.56x45mm or .223 Remington case as a base, but necked up to 7.62mm, with a considerably heavier projectile than the original 5.56mm. Like 9x39mm, .300 Blackout was designed to be used in specialist close-range combat weapons, like the Honey Badger, with good terminal effects but low sound signature.
—“But this is about a game…”—
Yes, I know, GZ is a game. A game where the devs intentionally grounded it somewhat in reality, just with the addition of some higher tech level. Suspension of disbelief, turn on—Robots!—suspension of disbelief, turn off. It is a combination of “Red Dawn” and “Terminator.” It is a very fun idea, a great setting, nothing else like it really. The devs picked a place, they picked a time period, they picked some weapons.
They picked Sweden. Swedish group, Swedish people, Sweden. It makes sense. No problem, there. The picked 1989~1990. They picked out some Swedish service weapons, some service weapons from elsewhere with some lore that those folks were coming into Sweden or dropping supplies into Sweden, and they picked some civilian weapons. No problem there, either. A hiccup or two with visual models or timeline correctness, but some things can be let slide.
They picked the AK5, the Swedish service version of Belgium’s FN FNC, a 5.56x45mm NATO assault rifle. They changed up the design a bit, I guess to get around licensing issues, or for some other reason, and named their AK5 representative the AG5. They gave it stats that would be similar to the gun in reality. Magazine capacity, upgrades, etc. Maybe not all spot-on—but it is a game. It doesn’t have to be perfect, they only have to get the gun to “feel” right…they just have to get the “character” of the gun right. Not especially high damage, high rate of fire, good magazine capacity, controllable. Checks all the boxes.
The devs picked the AK-47/AKM (both 7.62x39mm, one just slightly newer than the other), or maybe intended to pick the AK-74 (5.45x39mm) but got the stats a little wrong so it ends up resembling the previously mentioned two, rather than the third… No matter. It’s an AK. Could be they based it on some other rifle similar to the AK, from so many other countries or companies, like a Valmet or a Chinese Type 56, or who-the-hell-cares,-they’re-all-just-AKs. They play with the visual model some, change the name, and we get the AI76. It still looks like an AK. It walks like an AK, it talks like an AK, it’s an AK. It’s your basic, tried-and-true, you-get-exactly-what-you-expected definitive assault rifle. It’s powerful up close, good magazine capacity, works and handles as anyone who has ever played any FPS game ever should reasonably expect. They got the character down pretty well. It actually SHOULD be able to take the 1-4x scope, maybe even the 4-8x and others, but an RDS does suit it better…because it is an AK. Feels about right, maybe a little strong…
The devs also picked the AK4, the Swedish service version of Germany’s HK G3. A battle rifle. Not an assault rifle. Now, they have another 7.62mm weapon planned, so, they’re faced with a choice! Two different ammo types, complicating logistics? Or, gameplay concession—simplify logistics, let them use the same ammo! Well, it IS a game, so they make the gameplay concession. They simplify logistics. That is fine. No problem. They change up the visual model some, maybe, change the name, and we get the AG4.
But then they ruin the character of the gun by mixing up stats, because of their gameplay concession. The AG4 gets stuck with the reduced magazine capacity of 20 rounds, common to many battle rifles…FAL, M14, G3, Japanese Howa Type 64, all have 20 round magazine capacities. The BAR used during WWI and WWII also had a 20 round magazine, but used the older .30-06 (7.62x63mm) cartridge, which the M14 and the 7.62x51mm cartridge were both designed to replace.
But the poor AG4 gets screwed on damage. Instead of getting more power to go with that lower magazine capacity, a fair trade-off, the poor AG4 gets stuck with the exact same damage output of the AI76, a weapon based on a lower power weapon than the AG4’s real-life relative. The AG4 gets it’s legs cut out from under it.
They don’t nail the character of the weapon. They ruin it, instead.
Someone who has played other games that have the G3, they get in GZ and see the AG4, they see the G3, they expect the G3’s power over the AK. They expect worse recoil, a wild bucking beast in full-auto, but they know—they expect—to be able to set it to semi-auto, not have to worry about the full-auto recoil, and to be able to use the AG4 at longer ranges, and save the AI76, the AK with every expectation of good close-range combat effectiveness, for close range… They put a scope on the AG4, like they would on a G3, set to semi-auto, sight in on a Runner’s fuel tank…and are disappointed when the tank doesn’t blow. Just because you can put a scope on the AG4, does not excuse the weakness of it.
—“Set aside those expectations and…”—
No.
When you play a game, and stumble across two guns, you look at them and think for a moment. Say you see a small semi-automatic pistol, like the Moller PP (Walther PPK), and a big revolver, like the .44 Magnus (Ruger Redhawk? Blackhawk? I forget which—I don’t own one!)… Immediately, there should be some expectations. The little one is going to be quick to use, easy to handle, reload speed is going to be nice, but power won’t be especially high. The big revolver, on the other hand…! Power! Accuracy, if you take time to aim and fire slowly! But recoil! And reload might be a pain!
But what if the big revolver turned out to have much lower power than expected? You see a .44 magnum, but it feels more like a .22 short.
FYI, just in case, a .22 Short is a ridiculously low power round. It’s good for squirrels, rabbits, other small animals, not really great for bigger stuff. Not what you’d expect out of a revolver in a video game.
That’s what some folks feel, about the AG4. Do you see what I mean, at least a little better now? Does that make more sense, or any at all?
Again, I’m not saying the AG4 should be the most powerful. Neither should the S21 or the Kotenok, or the N60 or the KVM-59. The Vintovka, being a bolt-action with only a 5 round base capacity, should obviously be the most powerful of the 7.62s—and it is, perhaps excessively so.
The most important part of what I am saying, is that the AI76 should indeed be the weakest out of the 7.62s, that the AG4 should be stronger than the AI76, and then that the S21 should be more powerful than the AG4, then the Kotenok slightly more powerful than the S21, then the Vintovka at the high end.
As for the N60 and KVM-59, they can be adjusted a bit differently—they can be down with the AG4, or even between the AI76 and the AG4, since the N60 and the KVM-59 are indeed belt-fed MGs, which should be balanced a bit differently than magazine-fed weapons. Recoil control and accuracy should be major balance points, variables to play with, when it comes to belt-fed weapons. They can’t, or shouldn’t just be balanced with low power because they have high capacities, but should be adjusted in other ways. Like you’ve said, more to consider—other variables.
The AI76 should remain the close range king, with quickness and easiness of use, and still respectable power. But the AG4 should gain some damage output over it, period. That is my absolute position.
—“Details matter…”—
I am very well aware that details matter. That is why I specified, time and time again, that my experiments were done for the express purpose of trying to determine BASE DAMAGE. Raw damage, for one shot, hitting the same spot, on the same target. To determine raw, BASE DAMAGE you test things in the exact same way, and remove variables. Same target, same range, same number of shots on target—one. No experimental effects that muddy the results. Same attachments, or no attachments at all, or verify that the attachments do not influence raw, base damage output.
An experiment to determine raw, base damage…is not the same as actual combat usage. Sure. Yes. Different things. In combat, you’re not trying to do science. You’re not trying to determine how much damage was done by a single shot. In combat, you’re trying to make use of what you’ve learned from having done the science previously. The science tells you how much damage your gun does, under what conditions, against what target, or which part of what target. You can use that science to estimate how many rounds you need to put where, to disable or destroy a component, or the whole machine—to estimate whether you can defeat a target with one magazine, or if you’ll need two, or more. You can use that science to estimate just how many rounds of ammo you might need to carry, to deal with the number and type of machines you expect to face. You use the science to help you in combat. You can do all of that with experience, too, but the science can help a lot even then.
In regards to both details and science, as I’ve pointed out numerous times…the 7.62s in-game only share ammo for logistical purposes. Period. Several of the weapons do, again, have different damage values. Have you not seen the parts where I’ve covered that? And, again, my absolute position…is that the AG4 and the AI76 should not have that same damage output, for several reasons. Already been said.
On the XB1, you can’t take a shot at 1000 yards and hit a target reliably, because you can’t even see the target. The target isn’t displayed. It isn’t displayed at 1000 meters, either. Or even 500 meters. Or 300 meters. Targets render in, become visible, on the base model XB1…at a shockingly short distance of 250m or less. They render out, or become invisible, beyond that range—or at a slightly shorter range, even. So, I wouldn’t suggest trying that experiment. It would have unusable results. Luckily, if you’re on a different sort of machine, you’ll have a different render range. XB1S, XB1X, Series S, Series X, have gradually better render distances. PS4, PS5, similarly different. PC, render distance will also be different based on specs. So, you’re mileage may vary—but probably not all the way out to 1000 meters, or 1000 yards.
I don’t expect or want you to jump on board “the one weapon should be designed to be the only weapon to use in all real game scenarios and do with all the other weapons”…band wagon. So, no apology needed, there.
That isn’t my band wagon. I never said the AG4 should replace everything else. I’ve been saying quite the opposite the entire time, actually, thanks for not noticing.
Again. The AI76 should be the close range king, just as it is. But the AG4 should be better at longer range, by virtue of having the one-shot power necessary to truly take advantage of the fact that the AG4 can accept a scope. It should border on the power of the S21/Kotenok, as they are currently.
I like the color purple, I don’t like gold color much, and I like a little bit of a challenge useing them, not that big of a difference anyway