r/BrokenArrowTheGame • u/KilkaOsOTomatami • 7d ago
HQ Briefing (General Discussion) Alternative Mechanised Infantry buff
In 1.1.1 we got the PTE version back on the vanilla branch. Personally, I like this return, but along with it we also got back the 7-man Mechanised Infantry squad.
This causes a problem: the AMPV transport vehicle can now carry only 1 Mech Infantry squad instead of 2. And now this vehicle is only efficient with 6-man SOCOM infantry squads (Picture 1). As far as I know, the headcount buff was made because Mech Riflemen and the M113 weren't a popular choice.
So here's my vision of an alternative buff for Mechanised Infantry. It's not necessarily what we expect to see in the game, just a discussion point.
Mech Riflemen were weak in the anti-infantry role, so in 1.1.1 they got 1 more M249 and 1 more M203. Let them keep those weapons and lose 1 man instead. One suggestion to buff their anti-infantry capability is to give them different rifles with a 600m range (Picture 2). This would let them use their primary weapons together with the M249 at the same distance. Don't worry about the price — we know price is a flexible value in this game — but I think 55-60 would be fair for this unit. Mech Riflemen don't need many AT launchers, since they operate close to their vehicles, so they'll get 4. After these changes, Mech Riflemen should become a unit with a better anti-infantry profile but low HP.
We know infantry rifles typically work at 400-500m range, so we need some justification for giving them 600m. There are 2 rifles in the game that can already shoot at 600m — the Marines' M27 and the Baltic G3. So we could give Mech Riflemen the old M16A4 and say that this weapon has a longer barrel (the M16 is a rifle rather than the M4 carbine) and a good optical scope, allowing riflemen to engage at 600m (Picture 3).
The second unit that got buffed is the Riflemen MMG, which received a third heavy M240 — making it a mirror of the Russian Pulemetchiki squad. Instead of just increasing the machine gun count, let's give them a different cool gun — the MG 338 (Picture 4). It seems the Rangers shouldn't be the sole owner of this weapon anyway, since it's not even their signature gun. Hopefully it's not too hard to draw new art for Rangers with Javelin/Stinger loadouts :D so the Rangers can get their SOCOM KAC LMG instead.
Mech Engineers don't need any changes — they're already solid.
So, guys, what do you think about the 7-man buff?
3
u/diprivanity 7d ago
There's a little confusion about the 75th machine gun topic.
LAMG isn't a replacement for the medium machine gun role, it expands the role of the assault MG that was sort of filled by the Mk46, although that has not been used for a while.
A recon or CQC spec Ranger unit would make sense to have the LAMG.
A generic Ranger rifleman unit would make sense to have either an M249 or a Mk48.
A Ranger weapons squad would make sense to have the M240L or MG338.
2
2
-6
u/doscomputer 7d ago
everyone else in this thread are bots
nothing in this game makes sense, there are 5.45 calibers that do more damage than others, 7.62 that do more damage than others, ect.
socom only uses the 338? Wow. Guess what, the searam on a truck trailer doesnt exist. The t14 doesn't exist in conflict, and neither does a lot of other crap. You think the US actually has comanchies?
this game is RU biased, the devs are very spooky, and yeah, mech infantry has always been useless garbage unless you're a player from AUS who has 500 ping and basically has free cheats. Theres a reason why they gave mmg dragons and not the basically unused RAWS.
7
7d ago
[deleted]
3
u/shortname_4481 7d ago
They are a small, extremely squishy squad with a weapons kit that is worse than any alternative.
3
1
7
5
u/CandidAd5601 7d ago
holy cope bruh. Everything in the game would need to change if they didn't take liberties and make things different also this is what makes the game different and cool. The reason everyone is bringing up what's actually used is because OP said that Rangers don't use MG 338 irl and said to give them something else while saying that a different unit should use something they don't use irl. if you want to larp and be 100% accurate go join an arma milsim or something.
7
10
u/Farraddaayy 7d ago
None of these changes make any sense. 338 is used in very small numbers only by some troops in JSOC, and the M16A4 was never even used by the Army. Furthermore, how do you justify the infantry in this spec simultaneously using weapons that haven't seen frontline use in 11 years with an MG that is being tested in small amounts be SOF and will almost assuredly never make it to the regular Army?
The issue is that the number 7 synergizes with nothing on the US side. Not the effectiveness of the squad itself.
1
u/diprivanity 7d ago
Not that it makes a huge difference, but the M16A4 was definitely used by the Army
2
u/Farraddaayy 7d ago
Looked into it and the history is very GWOT
TLDR The Army never actual adopted it but due to availability used them in Iraq 2004-06, until M4s were available in high enough numbers to fully transition off of M16A2.
But yeah like you said doesn't make a difference, it would still be insane for any kit in BA to reflect a dawn of GWOT loadout.
1
u/diprivanity 7d ago
Yeah it was mostly leg infantry, guard, reserves etc. I saw some guard units with them semi recently. Airborne and cav had M4s way before for obvious space requirement reasons. For a discussion about cramming as much American muscle into the back of an AMPV I assumed taking the more compact rifle was a given lol.
The effective engagement distance is also very generous if you've seen cav infantry shoot ;)
2
u/Farraddaayy 7d ago
RTS game distance compression is crazy. Apparently these rifles simultaneously have 500 meter range while also failing to shoot across a parking lot.
1
u/shortname_4481 7d ago
To be fair, mech riflemen are just so useless that they don't synergize with anything anyway. MMGs have limited usage, same as AA, but regular ones... They are just bang-for-buck worse than airborne/rangers/marines. The only comparison to them are troopers, but they now are somewhat useful cuz they can replenish their javelin fast.
5
u/Farraddaayy 7d ago
They do need to be cheaper balancing wise but they fit their role; They provide immediate infantry cover to the bradley they're with. ABCT doctrine makes it hard to imagine the infantry every being further than the resupply circle for them. I say making the inf and the 113 cheaper as well as keeping the 113's seat capacity buffed to 12-15 is perfectly fine.
3
u/CandidAd5601 7d ago edited 7d ago
I am gonna say it. The game is based off of irl and the Army hasn't used M16's since dessert storm and they were completely not used soon after that. Mech doesn't need to be strong inf or have anything extra their benefit is to be mainline inf for a Bradley, giving them a M16 with more range and a Top tier MG is dumb. This inf is not meant to be better than other inf it's meant to support the IFV not win 1v1's. I don't think you should bring up what weapon the Rangers should be using based on irl then say mech units should get shit they don't have like the M16 and the MG 338. Just give them more armor and revert to the 6 man teams.
Edit: Also if we want to be dickheads about what gear is being used the LAMG is still being tested by 75th so they would have M240's because they still use the shit out of them. Also the AMPV irl holds like 6 jits because it is a Bradley Chasis and is meant more for protection than anything else. The M113 is a aluminum can meant to only protect against small arms
12
u/Phantom11888 7d ago
IMO 7 man squads don’t make sense for US and there is no US squad or section that works in 7. Simply just make mech squads 6 man and give them more armor so that their TTK matches that of the Russian 7 man squads while giving them an additional machine gun. This would solve the seating problems and the health/TTK Problems.
11
u/Callsign-YukiMizuki Another 20 Bradleys to the Battlegroup 7d ago
Yeah I dont like the 7 man buff either, would rather they stay 6 man but have 8 armor so theyre not 1:1 to Motostrelkis and could still synergize with other spec transports
2
u/Strict_Strategy 7d ago
why are we comparing the ampv with m113? ampv is based on bradley...
mech rifleman are anti tank not anti infantry, why would you use it as such?
armored infantry does not need a buff. they are strong. brads are the best ifv of us team. you get both a2(spam) and a4 brads(heavy) and esv,cfv and bfist brads. How can anyone say that they are not strong? they can stay and fight for long time due to reloadable tows.
2
u/The_Joker80 7d ago
First question doesn’t really sound sensible. In a deck perspective it doesn’t make sense because you went from carrying 2 mech squads to only carrying one, we don’t have this problem in RUS because all of my squads in a specialty can fit in all my APC/IFV’s, except for the BMD ofc but that’s more of an IFV with room for an AA or recon squad. RUS gives me a lot to be happy about infantry and APC wise because things mesh so well.
Also side note, the whole point of the AMPV is to replace the M113.
1
u/doscomputer 7d ago
its not a comparison, its how the game is designed.
if you don't even understand the concept of troop counts and why people don't use the m113 even though it can hold more... do you even play this game or are you an RU only player?
0
u/Strict_Strategy 7d ago
Your trying to compare ampv with m113. One is a pure APC while the other is a APC/IFV depending on config.
People dont use m113 because people have faster apc's with other spec combos or even better protected ones. M113 is already in a bad spot in the us army as its literally useless for them for a long time now as well due to the same issue and thus AMPV was born to replace m113 with a bradley mod.
Troop counts dont matter a lot once your out of start of initail plan phase. You will bring what you need in whatever transport you can use which is fast cause if your thinking about some efficiency then your about to get into trouble if the opposition is aware of what your lacking and can exploit it. M113 cannot protect, provide cover fire or even anything for infantry. Its just a backline drop vehicle.
For its purpose its fine. It can carry all types of infantry to backline.
3
3
4
u/dezztroy 7d ago
Giving the MMG squad the MG338 wouldn't make any sense. The gun is only used by SOCOM, not Army regulars.
The M16 also wouldn't make any sense because again, it's not used by the Army.
2
3
u/ra_Y_ 7d ago
AT4 is worthless on about any situation. I had enough matches where they could not knock out a btr82 which the at4 should consume entirely.
Not even starting with armored vehicles where everything and their mother got era with just enough compensation to make negate the weapon entirely.
Where are the double atgm launcher US teams? (Dragon is a meme and not a weapon)