Jump to content
American MilSim
dirtpro

M27/IAR a Support Weapon?

Recommended Posts

I know what you mean about people crying about P* guns. If there allowed then so be it. I went to a field 2 Saturdays ago where full auto is allowed and people were still whining about P*. You accept the rules of a field when you take that field. I don't see the point in crying about it afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JP said not at this time. Doesn't mean it wont happen. Just not right now. Why is this such a big deal? If you let one guy run a no shit M27 IAR then the next guy is gonna just try to run his M4 on full auto then the next and next. So he said "as of now NO.", so chill and be patient and good things will happen.

 

JP said not at this time. Doesn't mean it wont happen. Just not right now. Why is this such a big deal? If you let one guy run a no shit M27 IAR then the next guy is gonna just try to run his M4 on full auto then the next and next. So he said "as of now NO.", so chill and be patient and good things will happen.

The big deal is that some of us work to prepare for these events and after spending 1600 dollars on a build to be told it cant be used as designed aint cool. But it is what it is. This is a forum to question and answer so thats what we are doing. You dont have to answer to something you dont like or catch an attitude. We were only sharing valid points.

      Also having a black armband with the letters S.G. on it would be a good idea to help distinguish support gunners from a far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no attitude intended. Sorry if it came of that way. I was just saying that I see what your saying and I be leave that it was happen at some point. Because it is a SW so it should be in the game. But AMS just probably needs to fine away to make it work so no one cries about it or Tries to up an M4 as an SW.

I understand the putting lots of money into something like that and not being able to us it. I'm in the same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no attitude intended. Sorry if it came of that way. I was just saying that I see what your saying and I be leave that it was happen at some point. Because it is a SW so it should be in the game. But AMS just probably needs to fine away to make it work so no one cries about it or Tries to up an M4 as an SW.

I understand the putting lots of money into something like that and not being able to us it. I'm in the same boat.

 

The rule set needs to be adjusted to show the changes, which will cause a lot less confusion in the future. With that said, as a community we should try to help AMS with making this situation work. Maybe not immediately, but in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no attitude intended. Sorry if it came of that way. I was just saying that I see what your saying and I be leave that it was happen at some point. Because it is a SW so it should be in the game. But AMS just probably needs to fine away to make it work so no one cries about it or Tries to up an M4 as an SW.

I understand the putting lots of money into something like that and not being able to us it. I'm in the same boat.

It is understood. I do understand what you are saying and we have already found another way to incorporate it. From the get go we started planning for something new. You know how some people can get on these subjects. No harm done. I hope that maybe some of our comments hold some good ideas for AMS to look at that would help them bring this gun into play as it was designed to be used. And for beating a dead horse, looks like some country boy is going to walking to the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, I can understand frustration with not being able to shoot full auto with yalls one thousand, six hundred dollar rifles.  But look, this is how AMS wants to do it for gameplay's sake, so why keep arguing?  It's not going to happen!  Let it go!  Try a game on semi auto... it's a lot of fun!

 

 

The arguments have stopped and now we are suggesting resolutions. The cost of the gun is actually irrelevant, but was merely pointed out by Trigger to enforce the fact that he purchased the Special Edition M27 IAR. The M27 IAR is not our only P*, but was purpose built to be a support class. Either way, we have worked through the issue of running it as support for BH3 and will be running it as a DMR. 

 

 

I understand the "This is not milsim" crowd 100% though.  I'm with you!  Let's look at how we can use a simple checklist to make games more milsim.  If you check no, then you need to think about how much effort you are putting into it:

 

Do you wear plates? 

-Are they representative of actual weights or are they plastic shells? 

-Do you wear them at proper heights or are you protecting your stomach and kidneys?

Do you stay in the proper uniform (armor on, headgear on) the entire game?  

Do you wear boots with zippers or otherwise (not authorized)?

Do you wear gloves?  Do they meet Army/whomever regulations?  Are they on the approved list?

Do you run low cap (30 round) magazines?

Is your M27 realistic weight, or are they polymer?  What about color scheme?

Do you know how the M27 is implemented in the Corps and changes in implementation in relation to the M249 SAW and M240?

Do you shoot on full auto?

 

 

We are talking about things that would be almost impossible to set as a 'rule' and be enforced here. This is also detracting from the current discussion in this thread. The M27 issue would clearly be a simpler issue to tackle in the future, than trying to lock down any of the above to make it more 'Milsim'. 

 

 

I think the M27 is pretty neat, too, but for gameplay's sake it just doesn't fit in.  Please understand that continually arguing you aren't helping your cause.  I have no problem with M27's being used on full auto if they are limited to thirty round magazines, but that's just me.  Maybe BH3 will see a need for rule changes and yall can breath easy, but until then it's pretty blatant that AMS has ruled in favor for M27's to not be used in that role and we should respect that.

 

 

Again, we are at the suggestions stage of this post. It seems that you didn't read all the way through. The arguments in this thread were actually quite valid, especially considering that the rule set does not reflect the M27 change set by JP back in December. We understand that these guys have made the decision on the M27 based on various reasons, and it is our job as a community of players invested in AMS to come up with suggestions and opinions on rule changes. The biggest complaint I see about the M27 being a support weapon is identification. That needs to be rectified in some way or another, whether it is an armband or what.

 

With all of that said, SEISOPS are big supporters of AMS and this in no way is going to affect our attendance or future support. We are not the only team with an M27 IAR that would like to run it as a support class, even though we seem to be the squeaky wheel. The first step needs to be the editing of the rule set to reflect the rule, then working on a solution. Obviously, more and more people are purchasing M27's now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say use a specific colored zip tie on the support weapons and that should not be too hard to do. There can not be that many people running support weapon, I would even be willing to buy the zip ties myself and I do not even own an M27. That is a cheap easy fix for the situation.

 

M27 information from Wikipedia which includes some useful ideas for how it could be used in game. For instance, only Marine units can use them (or the equivalent for CoST) and there could be a cap on the number allowed on the field at any given time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave I'm not to sure you understand what the M27 is. Why is was made and what its used for. Your whole post did nothing to help anything. This is a topic now of suggestions on how they could run there M27 in the future if AMS reads and see some good ideas put out, and we do all the leg work then maybe there could be a rule change. If not then it is what it is. But to come on here and try and bash people for talking about it just seems dumb to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to agree with AMS on this on while the M27 is a "support weapon" I don't think it fills the role of a traditional s.a.w. if allowed I think it would need to be limited to mid caps since even the marines are not using "box magazine"(by that I'm including cmags etc.). This would cause additional confusion to the mix maybe an armband would help but, it is still going to hinder admin staff who have to run over and check for your armband instead of focusing on more important activities during the event. I would love to think theres a simple solution to this problem but I sure their isn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M27 is suppose to add confusion to the apposing forces. Like your moving with your squad you have the M27. Scouts see you guys calls it up and sends another squad to take you out. But they didn't know you had a support weapon and you lay down effective fires and able to out maneuver them. It was made so someone can have a support weapon and not get targeted by enemy snipers or guys that in ambush positions. Yes there should be a limit to only mid caps( as the military doesn't allow drum mags and then maybe a zip tie ( or something else) you get when you chrono and AMS sees that it is a M27 and not an M4 your trying to cheat the system with. And maybe even limit to just the Marine forces ( or CoST equivalent).

I see the M27 adding another Dimension to the SW role and could be fun. But ( and there is always a big but) people will get pissy that they get shot up with an auto "m4" or will try and pass an m4 off as an m27.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If mid caps are the suggested restriction then make sure the ammo count is that of a standard support gunner. The added weight of the extra mags will better simulate the real world carry load. Make it a minimum of 16 mags so that the player has to deal with the bulk and find a solution to where/how to carry that many mags at one time. If we are going to continue with the M27 looks too much like an M4. then I think the RPK looks too much like an AK47 and it should not be usable either. How about the L86 which is pretty much an L85 with a longer heavy barrel, should they be allowed as SSW? When we start nitpicking over the whether the weapon platform looks too much like the lighter duty weapon it was developed from we are straying too far from the "Milsim" and getting into game lawyer-ing like you would find in a Saturday night D&D game. In the real world the military learns to adapt and evolve.  The same happens in the Milsim community with things like ammo limits, magazine restrictions, new medic rules, and the new ban on auto fire. Hopefully in future the admin and event staff will find a way to adapt to the newer equipment available to the player base like they have in some cases with the Thunder Bs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the fact an rpk is twice as long as a standard ak. Let's expand! Your suburban doesn't look like an apc. So let's ban PoV's. Your potatoe launcher doesn't look like a rocket launcher! Gone. Gezus guys,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well why not?

I think that it would be grey if AMS would reconsider some of there weapon classes. Like this one and the SASS being a DMR instead of a full on sniper like its suppose to be.

Will it happen probably not but doesn't mean we can't talk about it. And if people dot like it then you don't have to read it. Go on somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there an argument going on here about something that is not even being considered right now?

 

As of now the M27 is not allowed as a support weapon solely based on the fact that it can't be identified as one. If nobody discusses a way to change the rule then it will never be overturned. It is much easier to bury your head in the sand then work on a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the fact an rpk is twice as long as a standard ak. Let's expand! Your suburban doesn't look like an apc. So let's ban PoV's. Your potatoe launcher doesn't look like a rocket launcher! Gone. Gezus guys,

 

This thread is a tad bit over your head. You may want to find another thread to post in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...