Can we agree this game has WAY too many weapons?

[Doctor Go-Go]

The Original R6 got it right. Pistol carbine, technically 3 because of variants. A CAR15 and an M16 when really you ONLY ever needed the CAR. One shotgun and too many pistols, they only need one. :)

So Really the game ONLY requires. 5 guns. 1 Pistol, 1 Pistol Carbine, 1 Rifle Carbine, 1 Sniper Rifle and 1 Shotgun. That's it. A 9mm pistol is all anyone needs as a sidearm. If you can kill a thick skinned animal with it at point blank range then it's perfect against people. If extra raw power is the concern then yes, a 10mm ACP would be a fine choice, much more practical than carrying a desert eagle as a combat pistol. BUT being that it's for combat recovery and rapid fire are more important than raw power. If Penetration is the concern and you don't have access to AP 9x19 Ammunition shouldn't the FiveSeven be their choice of sidearm carry?

Don't give me body armor nonsense. You carry the pistol for backup, if body armor is a concern then you go in with high powered rifle cartridge chambered carbines or shotguns.

You'd think a Team like Rainbow would have access to 9x19 Armor piercing ammunition. BUT since the P90 is SO Dandy and the FiveSeven pistol uses the same cartridge don't you think their choice of pistol and pistol carbine or SMG would be the P90?

Pure Gimmick, you don't even need 10 guns, but there's over 40 guns in the game.

I could see giving each operator a kit with weapons more specific to their military, that would make sense, who notices, who pays attention? You usually edit their load outs anyway :)

[Put defuz on fuze *********_com]

Yes y maybe right

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Weird* You're* Breathe* Arctic:

It's really simple. Any real military force isn't going to have a big selection of guns per category. This is represented in the first two games (especially the first) which are very low budget games. But for a video game this inherently becomes repetitive, so more guns are needed along with good, detailed weapon mechanics (and these days customization) to ensure the guns aren't all the same. Even Ground Branch, a similar game except focused on a real military force, has a wider gun selection to avoid repetitive gameplay.

And for a Rainbow Six game there should be variety in the gun collection rather than just a bunch of AR-15s for example, both for gameplay purposes (primary reason) and to show that Rainbow isn't just a US force.

Well we both know that it does not matter what a real military force is going to have or not to have as this game is purely fictional.

The first two games also don't represent any real military force and have quite a large choice of weaponry as well, especially for that time.

Not sure what you mean by " And for a Rainbow Six game there should be variety in the gun collection rather than just a bunch of AR-15s for example, " As Raven shield only has one M4 and one M16 but a variety of weapons from various countries.

What I miss in Raven Shield is that more and different upgrades would be cool. Even R6 Siege is lacking upgrade options in my opinion. I hate Siege anyway and only play it from time to time as its still active and for the tactical gameplay I sometimes get out of it.

[Ray tracing is faster]

^ I was speaking for Rainbow Six games in general, so it is good that Raven Shield's arsenal is diverse rather than just AR-15s in an attempt to be "realistic."

As for upgrades yeah, that's the product of its time. Ground Branch and its weapon customization (especially the future content that isn't yet implemented) and future armor customization are the natural evolution in that regard.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Weird* You're* Breathe* Arctic:

It's really simple. Any real military force isn't going to have a big selection of guns per category. This is represented in the first two games (especially the first) which are very low budget games. But for a video game this inherently becomes repetitive, so more guns are needed along with good, detailed weapon mechanics (and these days customization) to ensure the guns aren't all the same. Even Ground Branch, a similar game except focused on a real military force, has a wider gun selection to avoid repetitive gameplay.

And for a Rainbow Six game there should be variety in the gun collection rather than just a bunch of AR-15s for example, both for gameplay purposes (primary reason) and to show that Rainbow isn't just a US force.

A tactical shooter doesn't need tons of weapons to have great gameplay and even replayability though. SWAT 3 and 4, as well as the original Ghost Recon and its expansions, all prove that; and all of these games (aside from SWAT 3) were contemporaneous with Ravenshield.

I already dealt with the idea of a "multi-national force" thing: the whole lore of Rainbow Six (the 1998 book) is that operators from different countries come together in one unit, and they train as one entity and fight as a cohesive unit.

If everyone brings their own kit, where it's so varied that, just on one fire team alone, one guy has a FAMAS, one has a MAC 10, and one has an AK74, for example, that makes them more like a group of mercenaries or mafiosi than a cohesive CT unit.

For that matter, even actual mercenaries or contractors don't have such wild variety for operations, because it's not as practical or logistically advantageous.

The country of origin for a small arm system doesn't really say much about the unit using it, in terms of the units national affiliations. As I alluded in the earlier post, both British and Australian SAS use M4s...that doesn't make them less British or less Aussie; France has adopted the H&K 416, the Colt platform with a license build from H&K to change the system...that doesn't suddenly make the French units "American" or "German"; US Navy SEAL teams favored the MP5 in the '80s and '90s...that didn't make them become "German"; etc.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Thanatos92:

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

Several things come to my mind:

1) Regards "lore": the Rainbow Six book, by Tom Clancy, has Rainbow using just one model of smg (H&K MP10, iirc), one precision rifle (Walther 2000), etc.

Idk when this idea got started that, 'in the lore, Rainbow is an international force, so every operator brings their own weapons.'

That is simply *not in the R6 novel at all*.

This makes sense, because Tom Clancy tried to bring some believability to his stories, incorporating actual military practice to lend realism, and no CT team has dozens of weapons employed, at least in the field.

In other words, even assuming a unit has both the discretion and means to procure various small arms, when they are on actual operations, standardization is sought after as much as possible, so that familiarity with the weapons across operators is high, ammunition can be shared, etc. As proof of this, look at CAG, ie. "Delta Force," which can procure basically any small arms they want.

It simply isn't a good idea (logistically or tactically) to have all sorts of weapons in a motley assortment for an operation, and thus, by extension, it doesn't make much sense to train that way either.

That said, the original R6 game is closest to the book/lore.

2) Many of the weapons in Ravenshield are "non starters" anyway.

In other words, irl the decision as to what small arms to use is dictated by much more than simply which cartridge they're chambered in, their dimensions, accuracy, or other "stats." Irl, many weapons are simply not good choices because they have functioning or reliability issues, only certain magazines are available, the unit's armorers aren't as familiar with them, etc.

Some small arms just aren't very good from a practical pov, because they're too "finicky" or have too many annoying quirks.

A prime example of this would be the SA80. That is why units such as the British SAS use rifles such as the M4 or G3: it doesn't matter to them that their state military uses the L85/SA80, because the L85 weapon system, by consensus, sucks ass, for lack of better terms. Basically no one, who actually has the choice to use the L85 or nor, opts to use it.

For practicality and logistics' sake, it makes more sense to use weapon systems that have the widest applicability in diverse situations, and can most easily be modified to a given mission.

That's largely why the MP5, AR15 and Kalashnikov systems have been so ubiquitous, because it's simply far easier, cheaper and practical to, say, modify the Colt system to take a piston operation (eg. H&K 416) than to adopt a whole new platform just for its piston operation, with totally different ergonomics, magazines, or even different chambering. As another example, it's far easier and practical to find rail systems or mountable accessories for an AK or Colt platform than, say, a Vektor 21. As still another example, it's much more practical to change the receiver and barrel on an existing platform in order to employ a different chambering (eg. AK 100 series, or things such as .458 SOCOM chambering for the M4) than it it is to procure, maintain and train/qualify with a whole new platform for a different chambering, eg. switching from an AK platform to AR15 to use 5.56...if your unit uses the AK platform already (eg. AKM), and there is a need or usefulness in utilizing 5.56 ammunition, then it would probably make more sense to just use something such as an AK101 than it would to adopt Colt ARs.

3) SMGs and "pistols only".

The Tom Clancy book and original R6 game came out in 1998, when SMGs were still a widely fielded primary arm for CT units. Likewise, pistols were also still employed at the time by many teams during CT operations in CQB environment as a primary weapon. This influenced how Clancy wrote the book, and how Redstorm Entertainment structured the original games' weapon selection.

By the time Ravenshield started development, this had changed. Most all CT units had switched, or were in the process of switching, from SMGs to assault rifles or carbines chambered for rifle cartridges, while units that favored the pistol (eg. GIGN) were clearly moving away from the pistol.

This transition had to do with several things, the increasing availability and quality of body armor being among them.

Ravenshield started development during the transition period, however, so it contains many "anachronistic" platforms that were, funny enough, phased out of use by real-world CT units by the time the game was in circulation. Most of the SMGs in the game weren't really anywhere to be seen (amongst CT or SOF) irl by the time the game was circulating.

4) Gameplay.

To be honest, most of the weapons in Ravenshield don't make much sense from a gameplay perspective, even disregarding realism/real-world factors.

The LMGs are a big example: really, there is no need to have an LMG in any of the campaign missions, and even in mp, their utility is marginal, because of the small number of people in a match and the nature of the maps. Ditto for the automatic-rifles (eg. RPK).

Likewise, the relatively short distances of the maps mean that, really, only DMR-type rifles or even battle rifles (with optics) are needed for precision rifle support, not full blown "sniper" rifles.

The Barrett 50 cal is an anti-material rifle, and with no anti-material missions, nor the ability to penetrate cover within the game engine (practically speaking only man doors are defeated by fire in-game), its inclusion is pretty silly.

Similarly, the battle rifles basically go to waste for all practical purposes, unless used as I alluded to earlier (ie. as a DMR); but then we come full circle and can ask what the point of the precision rifles are at all, or why not (in light of the ballistic and cover physics modeling, or lack thereof) simply forego any DMR roles altogether, and just sneak up close with suppressors to take out all the AI baddies, with some better accuracy stats as a bonus (eg. give the sniper team suppressed G36s).

So in the end, imo anyway, whether you try to play realistically, or "just for fun," a huge chunk of the game's armory is superfluous.

Conclusions

I think the original R6 game from 1998 got it right, in terms of sticking true to the lore, realism, and gameplay.

Rogue Spear had some extra weapons, and that was fine, because some of the SP maps did warrant them, as well as the MP maps.

But Ravenshield went overboard with the weapons. There is simply no need for many of the weapons.

Some of the weapons are completely impractical in light of the better ones available to the player and/or the nature of the maps, and most of them don't do anything that another weapon can't do just as well, eg. the FAMAS: why take the FAMAS when you have either the M4, G36 or Steyer Aug?

As an aside, another game from the Tom Clancy IP that did a very good job in this area was the original Ghost Recon (OGR), and its two expansion packs. The maps and nature of the missions meant that there was a very practical use to every weapon in the game. The inclusion of classes or squad member roles also worked well with the weapons selection, something that was not in the R6 games (the true R6 games I mean, not speaking of the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ that is Vegas or Siege lol). The inclusion of some Combloc weapons (eg. Skorpion) or more variety (eg. MG3) made more sense in OGR, as opposed to later R6 games, because the variety was tied to one-off team members (the "specialists" that you unlocked) and/or intended for MP matches with house rules (eg. NATO vs. Russian Ultra Nationalists).

Speaking of MP, it was nice to get some more choices in MP adversarial back in the day, and I think that was a big reason for the devs adding more small arms variety in Rogue Spear, as well as the LMGs in the Urban Operations expansion. They responded to player feedback from the original R6, and it was appreciated. I think they struck an acceptable balance with Rogue Spear and its expansions.

But they overdid it with Ravenshield.

Sorry mate, but this is way too much text and time for a forum discussion.

I only read in to it very quickly.
And I still think they did not overdo it on weapons as such amount of weapons is especially nowadays pretty average for many shooters.

Not only that but you are making up restrictions that also do not exist in the novels nor game lore at all.

They are a multinational team of CT operators that have a huge amount of money, support and eyes all around the world so they can access and use whatever they want.

What am I "making up" regards the novel? In the novel they use one SMG, one precision rifle, etc.

In the novel they also don't have tons of resources. There is even a scene in the book where a couple of the characters joke about the difficulty of obtaining the weapons they do have, let alone anything else. The original R6 game is true to the book.

This "lore," as you're alluding to it, is not found in the novel. What you're referring to is much later lore from the game series, long after Tom Clancy was even involved with the IP, or even when Redstorm Entertainment ceased to exist.

The "lore" that Rainbow is a multinational entity so there is a variety of weapons reflecting the operators' origins, is a later idea that comes from the post-Ravenshield period: this idea is *not* in the R6 novel, original R6 game or its expansion, Rogue Spear or its two expansions, nor in the standalone expansion CO: Essentials.

So that's six (6) R6 titles, plus the book, that go against this whole take on the lore. It's only from Ravenshield onward that things began shifting, then went totally off the rails with the crap that was Lockdown, Vegas 1 and 2, and now Siege.

[PhanTom(FETT)]

Your an idiot troll.... no, being module is the best experience of SOF. Go back in your cave, and choke your self... not with your hand.... with mine.

[bla]

Weird to see something like this turning into a debate.

One of the strong points of Raven Shield is its wide arsenal. It's not like it harms anyone to have more weapons. I love how varied they are. I'm tired of games with "tons of weapons" which are nothing but different versions of the AK and M4. It's cool to use an M12S instead of yet another MP5

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Ambrosito:

Weird to see something like this turning into a debate.

One of the strong points of Raven Shield is its wide arsenal. It's not like it harms anyone to have more weapons. I love how varied they are. I'm tired of games with "tons of weapons" which are nothing but different versions of the AK and M4. It's cool to use an M12S instead of yet another MP5

There is nothing "wrong" with the armory, per se: I think OP's gist is just that there really isn't a need for many of the weapons.

If the game engine modeled ballistics against cover, and also if the length and size of weapons was actually modeled, then that would put the arsenal into a different perspective.

For example, an FAL or G3 with a suppressor fitted would be a very long arm, and should be unwieldy indoors: in the game engine the physical space of such a rifle isn't modeled though, so aside from reticle "shrink rate," there isn't much to consider, and if anything, the reticle remains more "stable" in-game because of the extra mass, when the suppressor is fitted.

The ballistics are a factor too. Walls and such can't be penetrated by bullets in-game, so this makes a 7.62×51 NATO round perform essentially the same as a pistol round, for all intents and purposes, when shooting into cover, or within close engagement ranges (which is what is usually encountered anyway).

So it's also in light of things such as that where the very large armory seems a little weird.

If the game engine had some way of "manually" operating the weapons, that would change things quite a bit as well. For example, clearing stoppages or with reloading: many of the weapons in the armory wouldn't be very popular with players at all because of such things, relative to other weapons.

[okey]

Yeah it has too many weapons. I remember reading that it was done for roleplaying purposes, like if you wanted to outfit your guys to look like your country's special forces.

[Doctor Go-Go]

The design choices are just weird. Why the SPAS 12? To promote sales of it? If they want realism the Mossberg 500 and 590 or Ithaca 37 would be the better choice for a Pump shotgun. And since the SPAS 12 is an automatic shotgun first and foremost why is it not auto cycling with 00 buck and Foster slugs? The SPAS 12 works just like a Benelli M3. A little different, but same concept, but what's the point of having the SPAS 12 in the these games other than the designers thought it looked cool? The SPAS 12 is bulky so no one likes it in the real world.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by okey:

Yeah it has too many weapons. I remember reading that it was done for roleplaying purposes, like if you wanted to outfit your guys to look like your country's special forces.

Yeah I remember something similar from back at release. It does seem that MP, and clan play in particular, were the main things in mind when shipping the game with such a varied armory.

Speaking strictly from a tactical pov (especially in SP campaigns or in MP co-op), there is simply no need for most of the weapons, not to mention things like HB pucks or remote charges.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

Bro, just no.

9mm won’t go through good armour, even AP and +9+

One sniper rifle?

Good luck having military-grade sniper in an urban setting. The bullet will go through the tango, you, and the grandma on the opposite side of town.

Small-calibre 5.56 NATO is a nightmare in a non-urban setting, it flies fast, yes, but if you’re doing anything over 300-400 meters you need a heavier bullet. The reason it worked in Nam is cause VC didn’t wear armour and engagements were short range cause of the jungle.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

Originally posted by bla:

Weird to see something like this turning into a debate.

One of the strong points of Raven Shield is its wide arsenal. It's not like it harms anyone to have more weapons. I love how varied they are. I'm tired of games with "tons of weapons" which are nothing but different versions of the AK and M4. It's cool to use an M12S instead of yet another MP5

This.

Also “weird” weapons like SPAS are there because they were made for and used by elite CT and security agencies. They are too complex for any other market.

Also, the guy talking about weapons like Barrett being superfluous doesn’t play R6 enough to know that that thing is used to break down doors and/or shoot the people behind them.

Walls of cringe, this thread.

[Doctor Go-Go]

Originally posted by razoleg (The Cunning Fox):

Bro, just no.

9mm won’t go through good armour, even AP and +9+

One sniper rifle?

Good luck having military-grade sniper in an urban setting. The bullet will go through the tango, you, and the grandma on the opposite side of town.

Small-calibre 5.56 NATO is a nightmare in a non-urban setting, it flies fast, yes, but if you’re doing anything over 300-400 meters you need a heavier bullet. The reason it worked in Nam is cause VC didn’t wear armour and engagements were short range cause of the jungle.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Umm ... it's more about ballistics, the muzze energy, the speed at which a bullet travels. Yes a heavier bullet is less likely to deflect but that really depends on how fast or slow it's traveling.

They weren't just shooting through brush, they were shooting through around ... TREES, Bamboo and vines and thick as our arms. SOLID, no rebound no give.

So it depends on the body armor and the bullet. I'm not going to explain the science of ballistics, casting bullets, density and what the bullets are made of. Lead is and copper are the softer materials so there's a hint for you. The less people understand the better.

People believe that in the U.S they NEED a high powered rifle to hunt when a .44 Magnum fired from a carbine will kill just about anything that resides here. People have been doing it with .44-40 and musket rifles long ago when the U.S STILL had larger and heavier game. A .357 Magnum, 10mm Auto, or .38 Super is enough. You could get away with using a good .410 gauge shotgun as long as you're using the proper ammunition. Proper ammunition is important. BUT if you feel more comfortable using a 12 gauge that's fine too.

Point is ... a .44 Magnum carbine is plenty therefore a .45/70 or 454 casull is drifting into the realm overkill, but you get people that insist they need extremely high powered rifles to hunt in the U.S

I've seen what different bullets can do to Kevlar panels. How many deranged people are intelligent enough to make makeshift body armor that COULD stop more than conventional commercial grade?

How many people know enough about the density and weight of materials to construct proper ballistic shielding? Answer, VERY few. How many people know what the body armor they have will stop and won't? How many just assume it will stop everything?

Most engagements will be close and short range because closer is always better, because a bullet loses flight because it loses energy therefore closer is always better? That and you don't want to give your opposition room to breath nor time to think and figure out your positions. It's all about ambush therefore they're likely to be hit mines then hand grenades then mortars first. Bullets come after that. You're luring them into a kill zone before they realize it. You squeeze them, you don't let them see it coming, you don't warn them.

Just hope it never dawned on them create a diversion or mislead you, You think the snipers and riflemen off in the distance are the concern bit what about the enemy soldiers that are MUCH closer and concealed? Setting of mines and tossing hand grenades while all of this is going on? HOPE the opposition is well organized and clever.

The best body armor is EXPENSIVE, bulky and heavy which adds more weight to your loadout. So how many terrorists and rebels would have professionally made heavy grade armor?

A shotgun is always the better weapon to have up close anyway, it's gruesome but it makes aiming for a limb or the head instinctive, just point and shoot, no need to aim with precision. ALSO that close if you do shoot for mass the hit would stun or knock them back or down which could be both a good as well as bad thing. You may not have time to check and very they're dead nor shoot them again to make sure. Just hope one of your trailers has the time to do it. WHICH is why I say it's gruesome, because you're better off to shred or a blow a limb off if because that's a guaranteed kill. They'll be in shock before they hit the ground. They'll be incapacitated if not unconscious or dead.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by razoleg (The Cunning Fox):

Bro, just no.

9mm won’t go through good armour, even AP and +9+

Point taken...but that point just supports the idea that most of the arsenal is superfluous.

As I said in one of my posts, the increasing efficacy and availability of armor was a large reason for SMGs falling out of favour with SOF and CT units: the game has a plethora of SMGs and MPs, as if it's set in a 1990s or '80s context, when the reality was that everyone was switching to assault rifles and/or carbine versions of battle rifles, so everything from the M4, to SOCOM variant of the M14, to the development of the SCAR.

Weapons such as the M12 and Uzi have essentially no place in a game modeling CT operations in a CQB environment, set in 2005 and later.

For that matter though, if something such as the Uzi or MAC 11 is in, it only begs the question as to why other SMGs are not in, for example, the M3 "Greasegun".

In other words, even if the game was set in an '80s through c. 2001 context, much of the arsenal (pertaining to SMGs) is still weird, because of the absence of weapons such as the M3: the M3 was still issued in many militaries as a PDW into the '90s (e.g. many U.S. AFV crews), and elite CT units were still using it as well (e.g. Delta); it was much more widely adopted and utilized around the world (in a military or special police/tactical team context) than something such as the MAC 11 or M12.

Originally posted by razoleg (The Cunning Fox):

One sniper rifle?

Good luck having military-grade sniper in an urban setting. The bullet will go through the tango, you, and the grandma on the opposite side of town.

Well that goes totally against the idea you have later about why the Barrett makes sense.

Originally posted by razoleg (The Cunning Fox):

Small-calibre 5.56 NATO is a nightmare in a non-urban setting, it flies fast, yes, but if you’re doing anything over 300-400 meters you need a heavier bullet. The reason it worked in Nam is cause VC didn’t wear armour and engagements were short range cause of the jungle.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

This would all be part of whole other debate. The game is set in CQB, HR context, so getting into a larger debate about rifle chamberings in general warfare contexts is not even relevant.

Regardless, this, like your first point, actually only underscores the idea that you're arguing against, i.e. that the arsenal has a ton of superfluous weapons.

In other words, it doesn't make much sense to have a ton of 5.56 NATO arms in the game, everything from the FAMAS, to L85, to the...lol...Chinese Type 97 for God's sake.

Around the time the game is seemingly set, units such as Brit SAS used CAR15s and later M4, in 5.56, and if they were operating in more open environments (such as Iraq in 1990-91, or Sudan), they'd employ G3 or FAL.

The point is the same though: realistically elite units need one or two proven assault rifle platforms, and, if the situation merits it, one or two proven battle rifle platforms, not like twelve different 5.56 assault rifles and five different .308 battle rifles.