Regarding the second point, are you telling the assault soldiers to use low-magnification scopes for aimed semi-automatic fire at machine gunners behind cover? Or at mid-to-long range snipers? And then you say this is for helping people aim? Current battlefield environments have already proven you wrong. Without suppression penalties, no one uses low-magnification scopes to deal with snipers or entrenched machine gunners. Instead, they all use weapons like the TR7 SCW-10 for close-quarters combat. This makes the short Time-to-Kill (TTK) of this generation even shorter.
What I'm saying is that returning fire against somebody in a superior position is a pretty good way to lower your life expectancy. Why do you believe you should always be able to fire back at a mounted/entrenched machine gunner or a sniper in an overwatch position?
Assault players are specialized at aggressively pushing forward and contesting objectives. They aren't meant to compete at longer ranges. If a machine gunner or sniper is shooting at you, do the sensible thing and immediately break line of sight. Flank them and then engage them where you have the advantage.
Short-range weapons have no need for low magnification scopes, because of damage drop off. Assault rifles don't do enough damage at the ranges where those scopes would matter. Instead, you could choose to use a DMR, which is much better suited for those engagement distances.
What you’ve described is exactly the core logic behind an assault trooper’s advancement — suppression + gradual approach is the correct tactic, and without a suppression mechanism, this tactic simply cannot be implemented.
The purpose of suppression penalties is not to force assault troopers into long-range engagements with the enemy, but to provide them with a tactical tool for "gradual advancement." Without this tool, the assault trooper’s core role as a "breaker" is meaningless.
