Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ General Gaming _ HOW DO SNIPER VS. DESIGNATED MARKSMAN!?
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Dec 11 2007, 06:13 AM
Ever since Bull locked one of my posts I have felt the need to redeem myself with firery game-related goodness. So here goes.
Recently, I found a little essay on the difference between a sniper and a designated marksman in a military context. It's an essay with general applicability but it's written with the intent to clarify within the context of Jagged Alliance 2.
So, here's the link...
http://ja2guides.wikidot.com/sniperg
| QUOTE |
Background The purpose of the sharpshooter The primary role of the sharpshooter is to provide the squad(s) with long range fire and to some extent long range visibility. They accomplish this by using special equipment, weapons and tactics. The sniper and the designated marksman accomplish this in different ways, so the tactics, equipment and weapons will differ. The sharpshooters The sniper The sniper is what most people will think of when they hear the word sharpshooter. The sniper have the longest range of all (except mortar) and the best accuracy attainable on the battlefield. He can hit with nearly every shot and most of the time he will aim for the head which usually results in instant elimination of the target. He will usually use a bolt-action rifle, the reason for this is that these rifle have unparalleled accuracy and damage, which is offset by the time it takes to manually reload each shot. This also includes the very heavy caliber rifles, which are best when used from a stationary position. The sniper will almost always work alone or with another sniper, he will never work in a squad but rather work with your squads. The upside of this is that he can provide fire from another angle than your assault squads and the sniper pair can be more independent. The downside is that they, if discovered by the enemy, could be in a exposed position far away from the main force. Pros of the sniper: *He can lay down very accurate fire over a very long range. *He can work independently of your main force, scouting ahead and provide your squads with information on enemy movements. *Since the sniper team is small it is also very mobile and stealthy. Cons of the sniper: *He will usually lack in short range firepower. *He may be far away from the main force and the firepower and supplies that means, for example qualified medical care. The designated marksman The designated marksman is, in contrast of the sniper, embedded in your assault squad, much like a machine gunner or a grenadier. He will move with the squad and provide them with fast and reliable long range fire that works in sync with the squads riflemen, grenadiers and machine gunners. He will be protected by the squads firepower and at the same time protect the squad from enemy sharpshooters and heavy weapon teams, unless they are way too far. He will usually use a semiautomatic rifle, sacrificing accuracy and power for speed. Pros of the designated marksman: *Enjoys the full support of a squad, with grenades, suppressive fire and medical care. *Moves with the squad thus his weaknesses is offset by the other squad members. Cons of the designated marksman: *Can become a bit “tied� to his squad, if separated he may be in deep trouble. *Being in the middle of the battlefield he won´t be able to get the overview the sniper has, and at the same time he may have to do his job while getting shot at from near and far, something the sniper usually won´t have to deal with. |
Posted by: Mercer Dec 12 2007, 08:28 PM
"He can hit with nearly every shot and most of the time he will aim for the head which usually results in instant elimination of the target," sounds a little fishy to me. I've never heard any serious mention in a military context of anything other than an aimed, center of mass shot.
In my unit, the Scout Snipers were attached to the battalion; it was 8 or 9 guys pulled from the line companies who did their own thing. When they trained with us on field ops, we never saw them. They would cycle into Scout Snipers and occasionally cycle out, based on the needs of the unit. (My first Gunny in the fleet had come out of the Scout Sniper platoon, and later took it back over when another Gunny came in to take over the company.) Designated Marksmen, on the other hand, were a default position in the fire team. It was basically the guy who wasn't the fire team leader, the SAW gunner or the grenadier. But even though every fire team had a designated marksman, there was no DM for the squad.
Ideally, you would gather together your squad and find out who was the best at what and assign them positions like that. The guys who could handle the SAW would be your SAW gunners, the guys who were good with the M203 would be your grenadiers, the guys who were the best shots would be your riflemen and the best shot in the squad would be your DM. But that takes logic and reason, and that's not what the military excels at. For instance, our roles in the squad (in the platoon and in the company) were determined before we left SOI and came to the unit, and they remained that way largely because changing it was a pain in the ass. In contrast, the guys who went Scout Sniper had to have the requisite rifle scores (whether they cheated or not, which was not wholly outside the realm of possibility), pass the PT indoc, be selected for it, and then be put on their training schedule. (And this isn't talking about Recon or Force Recon, or any sort of special forces level of training, but just the guys attached at the battalion level.)
That said, every unit in the world is different.
Posted by: Critias Dec 13 2007, 07:08 AM
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| "He can hit with nearly every shot and most of the time he will aim for the head which usually results in instant elimination of the target," sounds a little fishy to me. I've never heard any serious mention in a military context of anything other than an aimed, center of mass shot. |
The quoted article is mostly talking about a video game.
Posted by: Mercer Dec 15 2007, 07:31 PM
Fair enough.
I've often wondered what a video game would play like if it incorporated a more realistic targeting system (as opposed to say, the bullet goes where the red dot is, regardless of range or wind). There are probably some out there, but I don't play as many video games as I'd like to.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Dec 16 2007, 07:21 AM
| QUOTE (Mercer) |
| Fair enough. I've often wondered what a video game would play like if it incorporated a more realistic targeting system (as opposed to say, the bullet goes where the red dot is, regardless of range or wind). There are probably some out there, but I don't play as many video games as I'd like to. |
My understanding is that most engines use a "cone". The point where the player had his cursor when he clicked is the center and the engine randomizes away from that point in a cone.
The next step in realism would be to get out of a cone-based paradigm and more into a vector-based one, I guess.
Posted by: Mercer Dec 17 2007, 05:20 AM
The final step in realism is barricading yourself in a clocktower with thousands of rounds of ammunition and several jugs of water, but I guess we don't have to take it that far.
Posted by: nezumi Dec 17 2007, 04:29 PM
A gun would probably help too, however.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 17 2007, 05:07 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| My understanding is that most engines use a "cone". The point where the player had his cursor when he clicked is the center and the engine randomizes away from that point in a cone. The next step in realism would be to get out of a cone-based paradigm and more into a vector-based one, I guess. |
That's, IIRC, pretty much how hit detection has been done for hitscan weapons since the beginning. For that matter, for pseudoprojectile (gravity-ignoring projectile) weapons, as well. Actually, it's harder to see, but that's pretty much the case for gravity-obeying projectiles—the initial velocity is randomized slightly in direction, and then the physics engine kicks in.
The next step in realism (which has already been taken) is eliminating hitscan and pseudoprojectile weapons in favour of projectiles. After that, the next place to go is not obvious to me. I'm not sure if the cone is weighted, that might also be a step.
~J
Posted by: Narse Dec 17 2007, 10:12 PM
I think the Ballistic Weapons Mod for UT2k4 might do what you are describing. Each weapon (for the most part) responds differently to the factors of "chaos" and "recoil." (chaos is aiming uncertainty generated by movement or other non-firing actions) Some weapons tend to pitch up, others tend to move in kind of a spiral, while others tend to trace out a figure eight. Of course this is only visible to the player based off of watching for the locations where rounds impact or from the movement of a laser sight generated beam. (i.e. the crosshair doesn't give anything away except generally how inaccurate ones weapon is currently.) No, I don't think that BW uses projectiles for its weapons, but they still did a good job of integrating semi-realistic recoil and aiming issues.
Posted by: Ed_209a Dec 31 2007, 09:51 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Recently, I found a little essay on the difference between a sniper and a designated marksman in a military context. |
If you are doing more crawling on your belly and talking on the radio than shooting, you are probably a sniper.
If all you got for your 10 consecutive 40 out of 40 weapon qualification tests is a heavier rifle with heavier ammo, you are probably a designated marksman.
Posted by: mfb Dec 31 2007, 10:24 PM
i got 40/40 and they gave me the goddamn SAW.
Posted by: nezumi Dec 31 2007, 10:30 PM
And how many bullets did they expect you to put on target with it ;P
Posted by: PBTHHHHT Jan 1 2008, 02:03 AM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i got 40/40 and they gave me the goddamn SAW. |
I sure hope you were the biggest guy in the squad... probably not if murphy's law is taken into account.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 1 2008, 02:19 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) | ||
My understanding is that most engines use a "cone". The point where the player had his cursor when he clicked is the center and the engine randomizes away from that point in a cone. The next step in realism would be to get out of a cone-based paradigm and more into a vector-based one, I guess. |
There are a few games which do not contain any hitscan weapons. Video game projectile weapons already create a real in-game object and send it along a vector at a specific velocity, damaging whatever they impact, rather than simply damaging what is in the crosshairs. The big issues are gravity and windage, which are rarely taken into account.
Posted by: Critias Jan 1 2008, 03:24 AM
| QUOTE (PBTHHHHT) | ||
I sure hope you were the biggest guy in the squad... probably not if murphy's law is taken into account. |
If he was the biggest guy in his squad, there were weird shrinking/stunting chemicals in their on-base water supply and someone in the DoD needs to look into clearing that up.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 4 2008, 06:42 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i got 40/40 and they gave me the goddamn SAW. |
Hey, man, according to America's Army the SAW is the premier CQ weapon. Just walk while firing when all the opponents are within 5 feet and they die.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)