My reasons why a Medic should not just have a sidearm(detailed reasoning) -1 reply

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 11 years ago

Hello, I'm Lange and i'm new here. I had came here and looked in the FH info thread and found out that the Medic WILL ONLY have a sidearm as their gun weapon. I understand the medic has been discussed to death, by searching the fourms about medics but I really wanted to offer my opinions and evidence from places I have researched. Now I want you all to know I have spent very many hours researching WW2 weapons, kits for soldiers on different games and how it should be to be more realistic. Why have I done this I ask? Because Battlefield 1942 was not realistic with the weapons at all except for the German and American fractions, because they had their own weapons. The other fractions had the same weapons with little differences and used weapons that weren't even of their fraction. While this may have worked for the arcade style feel of Battlefield 1942 it could have been much better with the weapons, with little effort. because of non realism with 1942's weapons (by this I mean armies not having right weapons to much shared weapons not enough variety as in real WW2) I have been looking to mod 1942 to suit my research and much refined ideas. However I cannot mod and know littl eabout it and as of now have very little paitience to do so. So now turning to forgotten hope for BF2, I am looking for the true 1942 experience that should be in a Battlefeild game. Not the experiences with other WW2 games. Looking into the available information for Forgotten Hope 2, it seems like that experience to me, all the great ideas with soldier kits and weapons etc. right now I have little to suggest for the kits and weapons. For now after explaining my background I will actually go into talking about the Medic. Here I will list my reasons for giving the Medic more than a sidearm and elaborate on them. My first reason is that would be highly unrealistic. There where few instances where a soldier carried JUST A SIDEARM on the Battlefield. They almost always had a main weapon of somekind. If the developers and fans are thinking the medic is overpowered, I have some ideas. Giving them a submachine gun with less clips (2 or 3) would be good to tone down the medic for 1 idea. Also a semi automatic rifle(depending on fraction) or a bolt action rilfe is a good idea as well as those weapons are not as effective as automatics. A cool idea but not directly related to balancing the Medic(I am not sure if the medic has balance issues with these ideas but my main assumption is that) is to give the medic a weapon that is less common to other classes. A american medic for example, could carry a grease gun(depending on map more mid war European Theater) or a springfield(early war maps) M1 Carbine(later Pacific maps) or possibly on some maps a thompson. Well all I hope I at least gave some good info and strong reasoning to consider. Also if I am wrong about why the Medic has only a sidearm please, tell me and I can explain more off of that. Also could a developer or someone who knows explain more about the medics situation with a sidearm. Lastly Great work on this mod team it looks great so far.




Coca-Cola

[130.Pz.]A.Aussen

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

2,816 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago
Lange92;3687259I understand the medic has been discussed to death, by searching the fourms about medics but I really wanted to offer my opinions and evidence from places I have researched.[/quote] You are an inspiration to newbies, noobs, nubs and newbs on every gaming forum. You have been reped accordingly. GOOD ON YOU!:nodding:[quote=Lange92;3687259]Why have I done this I ask? Because Battlefield 1942 was not realistic with the weapons at all except for the German and American fractions, because they had their own weapons. The other fractions had the same weapons with little differences and used weapons that weren't even of their fraction.

I think you mean faction which also isn't "entirely"/properly befitting maybe just say their side/team/nation/etc...




[FBT] TannerTemp

[130.Pz]S.Tiemann

50 XP

18th April 2007

0 Uploads

341 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

I entierly agree with you, having just a pistol is usless. You might as well have a long pointy stick.




No.8 wire man

Who the **** is Reven?

50 XP

30th May 2006

0 Uploads

374 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago
klowntt;3687430 You might as well have a long pointy stick.

How about the 'evil nail club' instead!!;)




Coca-Cola

[130.Pz.]A.Aussen

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

2,816 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

How about we evil nail club you to a wall:p...like Jesus:devil:Muahahahhaa!(I'm talking about the Mexican one...settle down...)




McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

3rd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

We actually dont even have medics atm. If we do include them as a kit though, they will likely just have a pistol. The reasoning behind this is that normally, medics didnt carry any weapons at all, under the geneva conention they were to be unarmed and not attacked. Since this is a game and people are going to shoot at them, we'll give them a pistol. Secondly, medics want to carry as much medical supplies as they possibly can, which you cant do with a heavy main weapon plus its ammo. The role of the medic is to tend to the injured, not fight. Pistols are for self defence (which they do quite well I might add).




Kradovech

[130.Pz]'s cannon fodder

50 XP

11th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,083 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
Lange92;3687259Hello, ---/--- If the developers and fans are thinking the medic is overpowered, I have some ideas. Giving them a submachine gun with less clips (2 or 3) would be good to tone down the medic for 1 idea. Also a semi automatic rifle(depending on fraction) or a bolt action rilfe is a good idea as well as those weapons are not as effective as automatics. ---/---

I say if the medic gets a submachine gun, it should have 1 clip only. That's enough for defending himself, give him more and he will be as effective in attacking a flag as the next guy.

I strongly disagree about giving the medic a rifle. He can then just sit by the ammo bag and be as good over long ranges as the rifleman class. I'll say it a again - a medic needs a gun just for defending himself, not attacking and capping flags IMO. Also remember that a pistol is way more effective in FH than in vanilla BF.

It has been said that its historically inaccurate to give the medic a gun, I don't know much about that, but I'm sure the guys who know better will soon reply.

Oh, and welcome to the forums. If only all newcomers would be as constructive as you...;)




Coca-Cola

[130.Pz.]A.Aussen

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

2,816 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
Kradovech;3687600It has been said that its historically inaccurate to give the medic a gun, I don't know much about that, but I'm sure the guys who know better will soon reply.[/quote] If I were a medic and i knew that I'd be on the front lines and against the SS or the Russians/Germans on the eastern front, I'd be quick to appropriate some sort of handgun or even a sub.
McGibs;3687594Since this is a game and people are going to shoot at them, we'll give them a pistol. Secondly, medics want to carry as much medical supplies as they possibly can, which you cant do with a heavy main weapon plus its ammo. The role of the medic is to tend to the injured, not fight. Pistols are for self defence (which they do quite well I might add).[/quote] You can't make it so that whomever shoots a medic, loses an exhorbitant amount of tickets? Not so much can you, since there's a similar system in PR for vehicle damage though it's only for your team and same with tking..., as would you do it? [quote=McGibs;3687594]...under the geneva conention...
More like the Geneva Connection! "Here we have our mother Theresa line; these pants in particular have over 1000pockets for all your humanitarian needs..." [quote=Kradovech;3687600]Oh, and welcome to the forums. If only all newcomers would be as constructive as you...;)

I know! Give the man some rep! Encourage this type of behaviour.




Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

Actually, througho reading of the convention states that medics may carry weapons if only used in the defense of themselves and/or their paitents. Medics on all sides of the war carried sidearms. Albeit it was usually a pistol, there are plentiful pics and accounts to show medics with rifles and submachineguns. The German's especially armed their medics on the Eastern Front, and when divisions were transfered from east to west, the medics continued to carry guns. I know one account where a german medic shot a russian who was about to kill him, then proceded to treat the russian.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago
McGibs;3687594We actually dont even have medics atm. If we do include them as a kit though, they will likely just have a pistol. The reasoning behind this is that normally, medics didnt carry any weapons at all, under the geneva conention they were to be unarmed and not attacked. Since this is a game and people are going to shoot at them, we'll give them a pistol. Secondly, medics want to carry as much medical supplies as they possibly can, which you cant do with a heavy main weapon plus its ammo. The role of the medic is to tend to the injured, not fight. Pistols are for self defence (which they do quite well I might add).

Actually, medics pretty much always carried a pistol. The Geneva Convention is meaningless in a war. There are numerous cases of wich either side actively tried to shoot medics whom attempted to help injured soldiers. Or to say it with the words of Admiral John Fisher: the essence of war is violence; moderation in war is imbecility! Especially on the Eastern Front the Geneva Convention was 100% meaningless. If the enemy would discover that you where a medic you would be receive a 'special treatment' if you know what i mean. Or to quote the veteran Lt. Wenzel Andreas Borgert: There was no such thing as Red Cross on the Russian front. A quote from veteran Albert Gentile, he served with 84th Infantry Division (trainsplitters). Link: Personal Accounts of WWII Medics

There were numerous times when tending to the wounded the Germans fired on me, and I fired back. My job was to deliver back to the batt. aid station all those who were wounded, and that's exactly what I did. I'm not ashamed to admit I violated the rules of war, and I would do it again if I was once again in that position.