Carry 1 AT round vs 3 SMAW rounds

[nyles 11]

I did a little comparison of the different AT weapons, because the strong difference between the different ammo sizes struck me as wrong - especially with the m136 and rpg18, taking that much space.

Type      |   Lock   |      Damage       | Radius | Slots
         | Air / IR | Direct / Indirect |        |
----------------------------------------------------------
M136      | 0   / 0  | 335    / 11       | 1.1m   | 6
RPG18     | 0   / 0  | 300    / 7.5      | 1m     | 6
RPG7      |          |                   |        |
> PG7V    | 0   / 0  | 200    / 20       | 2m     | 2
> PG7VL   | 0   / 0  | 320    / 10       | 1m     | 2
> PG7VR   | 0   / 0  | 510    / 20       | 2m     | 3
> OG7     | 0   / 0  |  75    / 20       | 12m    | 2
SMAW      |          |                   |        |
> HEAA    | 0   / 0  | 480    / 12       | 1.2m   | 2
> HEDP    | 0   / 0  | 150    / 40       | 12m    | 2
Metis     | 0   / 1  | 670    / 16       | 1.5m   | 6
Javelin   | 0   / 1  | 800    / 20       | 2m     | 6
Stinger   | 1   / 1  |  70    / 50       | 8m     | 6
Strela    | 1   / 1  |  66    / 50       | 8m     | 6
Igla      | 1   / 1  |  70    / 50       | 8m     | 6

To allow for some rough comparison here are a couple of armor values. Of course you should keep in mind that depending on where you hit a target (hull, turret, gun, tracks, engine, ...) damages might be scaled (down) accordingly, so don't take these values too strictly. As a rule of thumb most AT weapons can disable any vehicle with a single hit, if you hit the right spot, and effectively destroy it with the second.

Type           | Armor
----------------------
M1A2           | 900
M1A1           | 850
T90            | 800
T72            | 690
BMP3           | 300
BMP2           | 250
AAV            | 210
LAV25          | 150
BTR90          | 150
HMMWV (M240)   | 150
HMMWV (Avenger)| 150
BRDM2          | 120
Vodnik         |  85
A10            |  75
SU25           |  75
HMMWV          |  40
MH60S          |  35
MI17           |  25
UAZ            |  20
Golf           |  20

My suggestion would be to implement an one-shot solution for the

launchers (m136/rpg18) similar to how Operation Frenchpoint did it back in OFP days already by auto-dropping the launcher and replacing it with a defunct "used" version to prevent reusing it. This should be supported by an ammoless implementation that just requires the launcher.

Alternatively, decrease m136 and rpg18 ammo to 3 slots.

In addition, smaw ammo should be increased to 4 slots each, while rpg7 rounds should be increased to 3 slots each, exept for rpg7r with 4 slots.

Metis, Javelin and the AA launchers are fine with 6 slots per round.

This still isn't perfect, but at least there would be a meaningful difference between the 3 at launcher categories for each side; Heavy launchers take 6 slots, medium launchers 3-4 slots with additional tactical value (AP ammo), and light launchers with 3 slots. I am convinced that this would help overall game balance and prevent dominated choices, especially in multiplayer games.

Some examples:

* Javelin with 1 guided round and 6 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~800)

* SMAW with 2 rounds (any type) and 4 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~300-960)

* SMAW with 1 round (any type) and 8 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~150-480)

* M136 with 3 rounds and 3 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~1005)

* M136 with 2 rounds and 6 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~670)

* M136 with 1 round and 9 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~335)

* ...

My 2 cents.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Nyles

[galzohar 31]

The entire damage system is horrible. If you got hit and it didn't penetrate, then it has no real effect on the outcome of the next hit. If it penetrated, it could either destroy or do damage depends on what it hits inside, but again unless inside stuff (ammo, fuel etc) don't explode then the next hit will be just as likely to penetrate and do damage/destroy. Vehicles don't have "hit points". Neither do people for that matter.

[frederf 0]

Speaking of M203, it does NOT go in the backpack, that would make M203 useless (both IRL and in game). M203 users generally use M203 vests that have big M203 pouches on the sides for easy access of ~20 M203 nades.

Certainly, you shouldn't need a backpack while in combat. The ruck is for carrying extra gear for resupply between engagements and for non-combat supplies.

M9 mags are also pretty pointless in backpack. At least one should have room in the vest (not sure how standard SF vests are designed for holding the mags). Maybe should be a tradeoff between frags and M9 mags, after all the pouch system is supposed to simulate how much room a vest generally has to place pouches on when it's made. Also M9 mags are quite a lot smaller than M16 mags.

If you carry a side arm (and that's a big if) the typical ready magazine pouch is 2-4 magazines in a pouch on the thigh holster. You would carry more than that, extra magazines would be in your ruck for self-resupply between engagements. Also loose M16 rounds are typically carried in the ruck to refill your magazines in between engagements.

However you must not think of the pouches as "the vest," the pouches are all pouches all over the body; thigh, butt, etc.

Overall the vest has too many pouches imo, should be less pouches but have m203 nades take a lot less "pouch space". That is, make each pouch actually 4 pouches but an M16 mag takes up 4 pouches. That way you can also work around with other small items like M9 mags (take 2 pouches for example). Those numbers can be tweaked to create something that works realistically well.

Increasing the number of pouches and "re-normalizing" the space they take can work. It's plenty realistic to carry 12 M203 rounds, 8 M16 magazines, 3 frag grenades, and all the other radio, first aid, utility, etc. If M203 were 1-pouch size, M16 magazines were 2-pouch size, and M67 frags were also 2-pouch size that would be 34-pouch size total. And that doesn't cover pistol mags, bandages (yay ACE2), binoculars, NVGs, etc.

If you assumed M16 mag was 1-pouch size then that number drops to 26, but then you get non-grenadiers carrying 26 M16 mags which is silly. The most mags I've ever heard on a vest at one time is 12.

I'm beginning to think that the best solution is more statistical than "slot-based." If you give each item a "bulk value" then the whole arrangement works more like a bulk-limited ammo box. Slot-based is more aesthetically appealing but the statistical method is far more functional.

I think standard gear like compass/gps/whatever, assuming it's as small as the game makes it seem, should just be a default. Binocs are generally hung around the neck, and NV in the backpack until night time when the binocs go in the back and the NV goes in the front (or attaches to helmet if appropriate).

I like the idea of having compass, radio, gps be item-based abilities such that they can be traded around in the mission and even limited to certain people. I know it can be done with scripts now but no one bothers.

NVGs shouldn't really take up inventory space when equipped (out of backpack), but perhaps be visible at the top of your vision when flipped up and make you slightly slower to aim around. A couple KG mounted to your helmet has got to be noticeable.

Just about any vest has a small back pouch (more than enough for NV and a bit of spare ammo etc), but you can't really place anything that actually has a size into it if you're going to carry a backpack over it. So having a "default backpack" is good. I dunno if giving the empty big backpack 0 bulk is good, though, even empty it's a pretty big and annoying thing to carry, and it does have some minimal weight.

No, I don't mean "a big, empty backpack." I mean when no backpack is worn then you have an invisible 0-mass 0-bulk-capacity "backpack slot holder" that can be used to carry things on your back that you would normally lash to the exterior to a backpack if you were carrying one but can still carry if you aren't.

Say you had to carry a 60mm mortar tube. If you had a backpack on you would lash it to the side (high-mass, 0-bulk). But if you didn't have a backpack you could still carry it since it has a carry strap. It would still go in your "backpack" just in the invisible "no backpack" placeholder backpack. You couldn't put a M249 magazine in the placeholder backpack since the M249 has a bulk value other than 0 and the placeholder backpack has 0 bulk-capacity.

One last very important thing - you should NOT be able to carry anything *OVER* the backpack. Something like a crew served weapon or RPG backpack or whatever should come instead of the backpack, not in addition, or else your soldier would probably fall backwards.

Nonsense, exterior loads should be possible. The total weight should be limiting enough to prevent overloading.

Typing this so the silly forum software will let me post.

[Rommel 2]

Every game I've played, everyones lugging a SMAW, with 3 rockets. No one even touches the M136 if they don't have too. Its just ridiculous when theres a so much better alternative...

[frederf 0]

Since you're talking about the SMAW, I assume you're talking about ACE mod. I figure if SMAW rounds are very light and portable and pack a punch the only real way to deal with it is for mission makers not to have an endless supply. Heck if mission makers stop putting 10 guys against 40 tanks, maybe the AT soldier will be a support class instead of the raison d'etre.

Also OFP never had proper disposable AT-4s outside of some mods, but ArmA also has disposable AT-4s in mods.

---

So I've taken the inventory scheme back to the drawing board thanks to y'all comments and I've come up with this:

Features

1. Remote item space
   
2. Rank and vehicle info next to unit name
   
3. Total weight affects unit stamina
   
4. Primary Weapon
   
5. Loaded magazine inside weapon
   
6. Tool tip keeps UI uncluttered but allows identification of items.
   
7. Item stacks are icon-based and use minimal UI space. (Also shown: mouse current selection)
   
8. Equipped item contributes 0 bulk against capacity limit, normal bulk unequipped. NVGs appear on helmet when equipped.
   
9. Pouch capacity meter adjusts size and color to illustrate pouch capacity limits.
   
10. Next page button if inventory items cannot fit on one page
    
11. Sidearm
    
12. Unloaded magazine means weapon can be load or unloaded with simple drag and drop action.
    
13. Context menu gives advanced commands and removes cluttering "item info" UI element unless desired in pop up window.
    
14. Launcher weapon slot with magazine capacity. AT-4 magazine cannot be move or removed (locked).
    
15. Backpack grants extra capacity to backpack inventory space. Without backpack item backpack inventory capacity is zero or very small.
    
16. Backpack capacity meter
    
17. Next Page (see 10)
    
18. Minimal buttons for rearm, take, and close actions. Take is unnecessary due to drag drop ability and can be omitted.
    

Not Shown:

Shift+Drag prompts for quantity selection for "item stacks."

Magazine-Weapon transformation allows certain weapons to be stored in magazine space and vice versa. Simply dragging M9 from sidearm slot to backpack will transform M9-weapon to an item that can be stored along with other magazine items. The reverse is true for an AT-4 launch from backpack/pouches to Launcher weapon slot.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Funny. In many pictures I see people still carry the M136 instead of the SMAW. The mission you saw has a design flaw -- too free. The idea for me as mission designer is that I can restrict the SMAW to one guy who is trained for it. The M136 everybody can use, but is one shot and carries a cost (space). They might get it, but considering the cost, they might now have second thoughts about it. But the SMAW would be restricted access, as it should be.

When the M136 could carry as many shots as you wanted, everyone did, and it just became insane. Now with the M136, you don't get to do a testshot.

Main point: We've got what we've got, and single shot launchers doesn't seem feasable from within the engine directly. The current M136 solution, although it eats up some space, is the best approach to the problem of AT spamming.

I agree that the SMAW could probably take up 3 slots, or 4 if we had special rocket backpacks for the SMAW that the launcher carrier couldn't use. Funny how nobody commented on the missile packs though ;) I suggested these for gameplay only, like:

RocketPack = 3 rocket slots (except for M136 and RPG18).

MissilePack = 2 rocket slots.

None of these packs can be carried by the launcher carrier, but have to be carried by an assistant/ammo bearer. If the launcher carrier wants to carry ammunition for his launcher, the ammo cost should be high (4 slots for any multishot launcher ammunition, except M136/RPG18 which is a special case that the mission designer can use to his advantage).

Btw, 12 slots for rifle ammo if you want it, isn't that quite a lot?

Search up Operation Anaconda if you want a good read about weight :)

Typing this feels like a Deja Vu...

@Nyles: Thanks for the tables. Will be very useful. Working on a recognition and capability manual for my clan.

Oh, the PG7VR uses three slots. Nice attention to detail.

I have to agree with galzohar: No exterior loads on top of rucksack. Weight alone doesn't fix it nearly enough, as we've seen with ACE (depends on the mission though naturally). We don't have encumbrance. How many would like not being able to use sights while in prone with a well filled Molle pack? We don't have overload simulation. How many would like falling on their back easily when the sack is heavily loaded? Stamina alone doesn't counter overweight, sorry.

@Frederf: There is overfilling example right there for you...

Heck if mission makers stop putting 10 guys against 40 tanks, maybe the AT soldier will be a support class instead of the raison d'etre.

Well, naturally. The armor threat would have to be severely decreased. The resistance would have to be scaled to the force available to fight them. Many mainstream missions are insane in this respect.

I tried restricting access and armor threat in these missions. Believe me, in Arma1 it sure didn't make the M136 single shot. People was very cunning in getting around it... Now they won't...

Oh, and I think you should use the new gear dialog as a basis. Some new important items now as you might have noticed :)

Edited June 11, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[frederf 0]

I haven't noticed since I don't have ArmA2. Marketing is too busy talking about F-35s and MLRSs to bother to mention the gear screen improvements.

I don't really like restricting AT to a specific person. Everyone in a US Army squad knows how to fire an AT-4. The problem is that the AT-4s range is very short and you should only have 1-4 shots per squad. Real tanks will pick you off at 1500m instead of driving up close to say 'hi.' There's also no box with 100 AT-4s that weigh nothing nearby in reality. In my clan I would always say that AT-4 is for self-defense, not tank hunting. Don't use it unless you have to.

I really wish the weight, complexity, targeting, etc realism would hit the Javelin! It's a joke now with its instant-on, auto-lock, no minimum range, weighs nothing nonsense.

[Maddmatt 1]

Personally I'd rather see the M136 rockets take the same space as the SMAW. And I think taking 3 slots instead of two would be better.

Sure being able to reload the M136 is unrealistic, but so is only being able to carry one.

With the rockets taking 3 slots, the AT guys would generally only carry one or two.

There really is no gameplay reason to choose the M136 over the SMAW right now. SMAW does more damage, takes less space, and judging by the ballistics config values it is more effective at longer ranges. So the mission maker needs to limit the weaponry somehow.

In most missions it's all about how the mission editor distributes them.

In Warfare mode that can be done by making the SMAW more expensive than the M136. Other missions like Evo can find their own ways (I haven't played MP in A2 yet so don't know how they deal with it).

Although it really is rediculious to make such a fuss over the US weapons and completely ignore the Russian weapons. They need just as much attention.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Frederf: Improvements are generally the 'useful items' slots, like compass, watch, map, gps etc.

With three slots, you can drop the rifle and get 4 AT4s to take out a T90. 1st to aim by. 2nd to get their attention. 3rd to immobilize it, and 4th to destroy it or switch to a different target. Nuts.

Agreed also on the Javelin, way too easy. And thus I rarely have it in use.

I agree with your 'in my clan' statement, but try to tell this to the masses on public games. The gameplay there is horrid (Arma1). Also I wasn't even able to get my own clan to play this correctly.

@Maddmatt:

I looked at plenty of war footage, and I so far I didn't see one image of a soldier carrying two M136. I'm not saying they don't exist, only that it is so rare to find. How many would carry only one in Arma2 if they were allowed by the engine to carry more? We're already rolling around on the ground like nothing, even with rocket/missile launchers on our body.

Sure there is gameplay reasons. You can have an AT specialist have access to SMAW, while any (say 1-4) M136s being spread among the rest of the squad.

Don't the see US vs Russia thing:

M136 vs RPG18 - one shot 6 slot launchers for 'any guy'

SMAW vs RPG7 - multi shot launchers for 'AT specialists'

Javelin vs Metis - multi shot heavy launchers for 'heavy AT crews'

Stinger vs Strela&Igla - multi shot AA launcher for 'anti air crews'.

Acc. to Metis Wiki: "Two other crew members carry packs with two missiles each.". I wasn't aware of this. I added the 2 part missile pack for gameplay reasons, didn't know they was actually there :p

Oh, and edit: Especially on the way too fast paced public games: When anyone can be a tank killer, they don't have to stay within a squad. Having it a one shot system, even if with limitations, you stand a lot less chance in these armor crazed games. In Evo (i.e.), you can use the SMAW for one guy, M136 for the rest. When depleted, you basically have to wait around for some air or artillery support instead of just engaging like maniacs :p

Edited June 11, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[frederf 0]

@Frederf: Improvements are generally the 'useful items' slots, like compass, watch, map, gps etc.

I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Check at 1:13

Edit: Wow, better video than I expected. Not the one that I was looking for, but works nonetheless.

Edited June 11, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[frederf 0]

Hey that's a neat video. I see what you mean about GPS, watch, etc being inventory items. I assume if you drop them you lose the normal ability. I'm very intrigued about the radio being an inventory item. No radio, no radio-VON connection perhaps?

However despite the new visuals, it looks exactly the same as the ArmA1 interface. The slots are all still the same, just arranged in a different order. There seems to be 4 magazine spaces, 6 next to the primary weapon, 6 next to the launcher, 8 next to the sidearm, and 12 at the bottom.

I'm guessing the 6+6 next to the primary and launcher are the 12 old mag slots we're used to and same with the 8 sidearm slots. What's with those 5 buttons on top of the non-local item area (upper left)? Are those category sorters?

---------- Post added at 01:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 AM ----------

I see what you mean, gps, watch, radio, map, etc are in that new third item area. Sad to say that this new gear screen looks identical to the old ArmA1 one besides that gps/watch area. Sigh. I wonder if dropping your radio would limit you to proximity only text/VoN.

The voice acting and writing looks pretty good (looks like a community made translation though). That's a relief after the truely awful Queen's Gambit acting. I like the sgt bars in the UI even if I can't stand the whole floating UI I'm an idiot mode in the first place.

---

EDIT: That was a weird forum glitch. Oh well, enjoy 2 posts saying the same thing in different words :D

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. I also hope we can use commands like hasItem "radio" or something like that. I think we're going to see a lot of addon items like this that either adds functionality or at least dummy graphics that mission designers can use.

No ravio-VON would be awesome. Now we only need to catch those who try to cheat using teamspeak if such a trap was enabled :)

I think they are category sorters. Also note the filter at the bottom. I will let you know for sure in a few days ;)

[galzohar 31]

The radio/compass/etc items are the only thing you can actually put in there (at least according to what I've seen) and thus you have no reason not to take them. They're light, too, so might as well just make them equipped for everyone by default and forget about them.

What should stop people from carrying 2 M136s SHOULD be weight. It's friggin heavy. Nobody should want to run around fighting against other infantry with 2 of those on his back if he doesn't have to. And generally even 1 is an overkill, because infantry (other than AT specialists using stuff like javelins, metis, TOW etc) don't generally go against tanks. Like already said, tanks can take you out from VERY far - IRL >4KM with HE rounds, and well over 1KM with 7.62. At least M1A1s/2s have a 10X view mode for the gunner, and have laser sight and wind sensors that feeds into a firing computer that accounts for ballistics. That alone is almost enough of a reason not to carry too many AT4s. Add weight costs and people actually stop carrying them - at least not more than one.

Strapping things outside your rucksack should work as long as it's done within reason. Weight will be probably more than enough to make the kind of loadout that would make you fall backwards, that is, you'll have such a major stamina hit that you won't want to run around with way before you'll reach the point your rucksack is so heavy that you're falling backwards. See Infiltration mod for UT - even though the weight system was overall flawed, it was good enough to allow loadout freedom yet limited them (in fact limited them too much in some aspects), all just by hurting your movement ability. Using a system similar to Infiltration and tweaking the numbers in a more realistic manner will do cover 90% of what's needed to have realistic loadout limitations.

Overall, a free loadout system purely based on weight shouldn't be too bad. The only thing wrong with it, though, is ease of access. You simply can't have everything easily accessible, and that's what a slot system should really be addressing. I should be able to carry practically whatever I want (with the weight system making sure I don't overload), but using items that aren't right in front of me in my vest should take a proportionate amount of time. This will also prevent people wasting ammo "because we have 20 more mags in the rucksack", as those mags would take too long to access, on top of the weight limitation they add.

[Second 0]

When talking about weight we also should take body armor into account. Body armor is escpaciely neat is fact that it increases water consumption lots. I believe US troops regullary carry 7 liters of water per day when out in field. That and vest with plate inserts and hmm... about 15 kilograms of additional weight right from start, not to speak about all other things he carries.

Some irregular soldier's whole combat gear probably would weight about same as body armor alone. If he has shovel then more :cool:

Edited June 11, 2009 by Second

[galzohar 31]

7 liters? Maybe, but most definitely not during the actual fight.

A damage model (and how body armor should work) is a a totally different topic.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@galzohar: The best (if not only) tactics on engaging a tank with light ATs is not being detected while you approach him. If you are detected when you're close, get him into a position when he can't use his guns against you (use slopy terrain to your advantage), and simply trick him.

However, waiting for bigger stuff is probably your best chance of surviving it. However, especially on public games, patience is not a common commodity.

If weight alone was enough, I would agree. But it isn't. ACE moddeled the M136 wrongly, by having the tube also have weight instead of having the full weight on each 'rocket' (might be better now in latest version). Most still carry 3 rockets, often even with a fully loaded rucksack to spare. Weight alone just doesn't work.

And look at me as a machinegunner. ACE increased the size of the ammo to 3, so now you can carry only 3 magazines (300 rounds) pluss a few grenades, or 4 magazines maximum. However, with a rucksack you can carry a shitload of rounds. You won't be very mobile naturally, but I still find it a bit too easy. No problems crawling and rolling around. Aiming with ease. Weight alone just doesn't work.

Body armor, uniform, pouches, and water is part of the standard equipment. The weights we are discussing are those in addition to these. Maybe ACE should inform the total weight of the soldier?

Yes, I'm hoping ACE will include some additional 'item equipment' (like radio, compass etc), that can have weight and adds some extra functionality either by ACE itself or scripted by the mission designer. Wire cutters, intel documents, and shovel comes to mind.

[Second 0]

7 liters? Maybe, but most definitely not during the actual fight.

By research i read about it was that at least 5 liters were carried in combat gear, 3 in camelbak and 2 in canteens. Sure depends of situation how much of that water is left in combat or in mission overall. I think 3 liters would be fine average. If they require 7 liters of water daily (there has been instances when that amount haven't lasted even half of day, if conditions gets hot enough) then going below 3 liters even for few hours might be bad mistake, if those few hours are exhausting combat.

Rest of water, aprox 2 liters, are in "little" "assaultpack". Regular rifleman carries about 30 kilograms of combat gear. Additionally to this there comes backpack in two versions; heavy (weight is ~50 kilograms) and extra heavy (~60-70 kilograms).

[galzohar 31]

Where I served standard was 1.5 liters, plus 11.5 liters spare for the platoon. But in an actual war it probably REALLY depends on what you're doing. If you have resupply available (or even better, if you're using vehicles of any kind), then you really don't need to carry any extra ON you. If you're some SF (or even infantry in special cases) doing a long operation with no support then obviously you're going to need a lot more. I'm just not so sure it should be "the norm". 30kg of combat gear is standard for LMG gunners, not riflemen... That is without supplies for long stays nor body armor, though. Still, 30kg are a noticeable hindrance to your maneuvering ability if you're actually carrying it in a firefight.

As for fighting tanks, of course you have to catch them by surprise at close range (and much preferably from behind!). Unfortunately it's not so much the case in the game, with tanks being rather gimped in their offensive ability and have a stupid HP system on top of it instead of a more realistic damage model.

If weight didn't work in ACE, then ACE did it wrong, or mission builders made too much "infantry VS tank" fighting in their missions, or both. No way people will choose 3 AT4s if the implementation is realistic, after all IRL there's a reason you don't carry 3, and that reason is mostly weight (and lack of need for rocket spamming, since infantry generally don't go out intentionally to fight tanks with AT4s). Other factors are secondary. If the guy with the 3 AT4s doesn't GREALY lag behind the guy with 1 AT4 when they're running, something is being done very wrong.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Both addon and mission was at fault. When I play AT specialist using CG MAAWS or SMAW, the weight was more realistic. However, I was still able to carry the launcher, 2-3 (or 4?) rockets, and a rucksack. I was pretty slow due to weight obviously, but for the sake of realism I just shouldn't have been able to do it. It would have been much better for myself if someone else carried the ammo. But nobody wanted to help me (teamplay) since I could carry all by myself.

Restrictions like these add to the gameplay and teamplay, even if there was a theoretical chance that I was able to lift it. When people are forced, they don't have a choice. When people have full freedom, it tends to ruin everything... Just look at how successful BF2 Reality Mod is. There people are basically forced into teamplay, even if it might always be the most flexible and realistic ways. And it works.

[galzohar 31]

If with so much heavy gear you were fast enough for your teammates to not want to help you (because you weren't slowing them down badly enough to warrant helping), then you were too fast, and the system should've made you even slower.

Think about it, physically there's an upper bound on your speed equal to <speed with no gear> X (<gear weight> + <body weight>) / <body weight>. In reality you probably move even slower, but moving any faster than this should be 100% impossible.

Making it [(<gear weight> + <body weight>) / <body weight>]^A with tweaking a to some value bigger than 1 until a relatively realistic result is attained (the bigger A is, the more significant your gear's weight will be in game). Of course there are other ways to do it (like putting a multiplier on gear weight, or making the multiplier e ^ {A X [(the above formula) - 1]}, though I have a feeling they would make a less realistic model. At the simple multiplier will probably not be realistic enough, but even that worked rather well when I tried using it in a mutator for Infiltration for UT99, making various loadouts about as slow as they should be IRL, and too heavy loadouts be so slow you can barely move.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

What teamplay? They were off like scavengers each with their own M136 and three or four 'rounds' each, with a tonne of rifle ammo in their backpacks. That's the typical gameplay you see on many public servers running the mainstream missions.

[galzohar 31]

Then again, the weight system was not factored in properly and needed to be re-adjusted.

[Second 0]

Where I served standard was 1.5 liters, plus 11.5 liters spare for the platoon. But in an actual war it probably REALLY depends on what you're doing. If you have resupply available (or even better, if you're using vehicles of any kind), then you really don't need to carry any extra ON you. If you're some SF (or even infantry in special cases) doing a long operation with no support then obviously you're going to need a lot more. I'm just not so sure it should be "the norm". 30kg of combat gear is standard for LMG gunners, not riflemen... That is without supplies for long stays nor body armor, though. Still, 30kg are a noticeable hindrance to your maneuvering ability if you're actually carrying it in a firefight.

It was bare minimum with US troops to carry 30 kilograms worth of equipment which was considered vital for their success in combat, in Afganistan. There is quite complete research made conserning it. In Iraq where they can rely on vehicles it is few kilograms less. Probably meaning that they have few liters of water less carried in combat gear. Problem probably is level IV bodyarmor, heavy and doesn't breath -> sweating -> increased need for water. Dunno how fragment vests works... They probably causes same thing, just in smaller scale.

Yup. It has caused quite deal of discussion. Yet, quite many nation's troops in for example Afganistan carry same loads if they are equipped with high level of protection (level IV).

I personally carried bit over 10 kilograms + AT-launchers (or parts of ATGM) and had just 0.6 liters of water in where i served. Amount of water was way too small. Naturally we had 20-40 liters of water in platoon's reserves. But not all the time we were able to take that along us. If that happened incidents of dehydration became quite high. Later on i heard that 1 liter canteens became standard issued items for each soldier :D

[frederf 0]

How many soldiers still carry canteens? I thought camelbacks were the far better solution in terms of carry and slosh.