Jump to content

Accurate representations of real world military equipment


shabowie

Recommended Posts

Which, ironically enough is how it should be. An M16 on full auto fires between 700 and 900 rounds per minute. An M60 fires around 500.

Not really. And M16 doesn't even have full auto.

M16A3 fires 12 rounds per second.

M60E3 fires 10 per second.

But in a minute, M60E3 fires 50-200, while M16A3 fires 15-60.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M16A3 does have a full auto setting though the point is moot since it was introduced in the late 1980's and is only used by the navy.

The M16A2 does not have a full auto setting and was standard issue after the late 80's until the M16A4 began to be issued in the early 2000's

However in the late 1970's what you would likely be seeing is the M16A1 which did not even have burst fire. You got to choose between semi auto and full auto...

I hate to resort to gun porn on Youtube, but as you can see... This is not burst fire.

Edited by imperialus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M16A3 does have a full auto setting though the point is moot since it was introduced in the late 1980's and is only used by the navy.

Yes. M16A3!=M16; when discussing exact specs, it's important to talk about exact models.

The key point is, however, that the number of rounds that can be actually fired in a minute is very different from the cyclic rpm, and it's very different between AR, LMG (SAW) and MMG class weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. M16A3!=M16; when discussing exact specs, it's important to talk about exact models.

The key point is, however, that the number of rounds that can be actually fired in a minute is very different from the cyclic rpm, and it's very different between AR, LMG (SAW) and MMG class weapons.

Which is why, if you had read to the end of my post you would have noticed that I mentioned that the gun that almost certainly would have been used by the Xenonauts, as in standard issue US army ordnance from 1967-1980ish was the M16A1 which had two fire modes. Semi Auto and Full Auto.

I know that M16A1 does not equal M16 either, but if we want to get really pedantic the only branch of service that adopted the "M16" was the Airforce. And it was a fully automatic weapon too.

What I think has you confused is that from the early 80's onward the M16A2 was the most common M16 variant seen, and it was only capable of 3 round bursts or semi automatic shots. However that gun was not in production in 1979. They developed the M16A2 because experience in Vietnam showed that a fully automatic assault rifle was a fantastic way for an infantry grunt to burn through all of his ammunition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why, if you had read to the end of my post you would have noticed that I mentioned that the gun that almost certainly would have been used by the Xenonauts, as in standard issue US army ordnance from 1967-1980ish was the M16A1 which had two fire modes. Semi Auto and Full Auto.

The round per minute figures were for a fully automatic version, i.e. are applicable to A1 just as well. They don't change much between A2 and A3 though; actually A2 has a higher effective rate of fire than A1.

M60 has far higher effective and rapid rates of fire than either. They barely depend on the cyclic rate; what makes M60 faster is its use of long belts, so you don't need to change the magazine every 30 rounds, and a heavier barrel, so it can actually keep firing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone just pointed out in another thread the image used in the game more closely resembles the M240B than the M60.

That would probably mean adjusting the fire rates of the Xeno MG upwards again.

It sounds like one method of balancing these weapons (against real world variants) would be to up their fire rate significantly in game and also boost alien armour kinetic damage resistances in line.

Then you would be able to fire your huge amounts of rounds and still keep some challenge from the early game aliens.

For example firing 15 rounds each turn from your 30 round magazine (reload after two turns) compared to your MG also firing 15 rounds each turn with a 200 round capacity (reload part of the way through your fourteenth turn).

Assuming the reload AP cost was not vastly different that would provide a fairly decent rate of fire benefit to the MG.

The weight of the MG would need to be increased further in that scenario as reloading it would probably never be necessary in a standard mission.

That may also provide a big difference between ballistic weapons and higher tiers.

They could be slower firing but do significantly more damage rather than a simple damage per round increase.

What would the other balancing options be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Imperialus: US Air Force adopted same rifles the US Army was at "roughly" the same time. Army went to M16 (I'm talking the ORIGINAL models as originally issued 1969, none of the updates), Air Force stayed with the M14. When the Army went to M16A1 (which was created DURING Vietnam to fix a lot of the problems the M16 had in Vietnam), the Air Force went to the M16A1. When the M16A2 came out, the Air Force followed the bandwagon onto it. Everyone in the USAF trains on the M16A2 Assault Rifle. If you were to go Security Forces in the Air Force, then you'd train on the M4A1 Assault Carbine. M16A2 is only Semi-Auto or Three-Round Burst.

The designation 'A#' is indicative of an updated/altered pattern of the same weapon. M16 had a duck-bill flash suppressor, 'smooth' carry handle with hard to adjust rear iron sight, and was originally only designed to operate with a 20 round STAGNAG magazine, and didn't have a chromed barrel interor (the cause of most of the jams encountered during combat in Vietnam since the barrel interiors were corroding from the humidity). The M16A1 made the sights easier to adjust, the flash suppressor became the more traditional full covering, the barrel was chromed and had a better magazine well lock was implemented to hold 30 round STAGNAG clips.

I know this because I qualified an Expert by the USAF on the M16A2 rifle during basic, and we got to watch Security Forces march from and to their barracks with M4A1s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone here knows what we are talking about. In-game LMG has a lower effective ROF (rounds/turn) than M16 assault rifles with their 3rd bursts.

Which, ironically enough is how it should be. An M16 on full auto fires between 700 and 900 rounds per minute. An M60 fires around 500.

M60 has far higher effective and rapid rates of fire than either. They barely depend on the cyclic rate; what makes M60 faster is its use of long belts, so you don't need to change the magazine every 30 rounds, and a heavier barrel, so it can actually keep firing.

So disregarding all that technobabble you both have been filling this thread with... Until you change the mag the M16 (which ever model we are talking about with autofire) has a higher effective rate of fire in both real life and in game? Have I understood the both of you right?

Is the AP requirement to change the mag too low? Is it too low for verisimilitude AND fun? or would it be less fun if it cost more AP to change the mag than it does to empty it?? (which I assume would be more in line with HWPs and TrashMans wishes regarding verisimilitude)

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So disregarding all that technobabble you both have been filling this thread with... Until you change the mag the M16 (which ever model we are talking about with autofire) has a higher effective rate of fire in both real life and in game? Have I understood the both of you right?

Not really; Fire needs to be controlled to be useful. A machine gun is controllable and accurate on full auto, a rifle less so. You need to pause to correct your aim every 3-4 rounds with a rifle and only every 7-10 with a MG.

Also, a rifle barrel will overheat before it comes close to pumping out what a machine gun can in a minute. They are rated for 200 rounds per minute. That is actually fired in a minute, with everything accounted for, not cyclic.

High cyclic rate does little to nothing to help the effective rate of fire. It's just a mechanical characteristic, and a lower one is more often desirable than a high one. For most MGs (and even more so for SMGs, BTW) a lower cyclic rate requires additional design effort and additional weight, it's done on purpose.

To put things in hard numbers, firing a 4-round burst from a 500 rpm cyclic weapon requires 0.5 seconds; from an 850 rpm weapon, 0.3 seconds. That's a difference of 0.2 seconds. Is there a need to say more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really; Fire needs to be controlled to be useful. A machine gun is controllable and accurate on full auto, a rifle less so. You need to pause to correct your aim every 3-4 rounds with a rifle and only every 7-10 with a MG.

Also, a rifle barrel will overheat before it comes close to pumping out what a machine gun can in a minute. They are rated for 200 rounds per minute. That is actually fired in a minute, with everything accounted for, not cyclic.

High cyclic rate does little to nothing to help the effective rate of fire. It's just a mechanical characteristic, and a lower one is more often desirable than a high one. For most MGs (and even more so for SMGs, BTW) a lower cyclic rate requires additional design effort and additional weight, it's done on purpose.

To put things in hard numbers, firing a 4-round burst from a 500 rpm cyclic weapon requires 0.5 seconds; from an 850 rpm weapon, 0.3 seconds. That's a difference of 0.2 seconds. Is there a need to say more?

You elaborate with this techno babble about accuracy and bursts. Is it relevant to the discussion at hand? and if so how?

Your initial complaint was that the in game LMG could fire less bullets per AP than the AR (and it stops there. accuracy and mag size isn't relevant as far as I can tell).

Imperialus responds by saying that is the way it should be because that is the way it is in reality. Which you want to adhere to if I understand your posts about "reality being perfect" (paraphrasing)

Then you (HWP) responds with all these posts about how that is essentially true but "then there's this irrelevant techno babble I want to insert into the discussion as well without explaining what I want to say by it" (paraphrasing).

To put things in hard numbers, firing a 4-round burst from a 500 rpm cyclic weapon requires 0.5 seconds; from an 850 rpm weapon, 0.3 seconds. That's a difference of 0.2 seconds. Is there a need to say more

It would help if you included your point/issue/complaint somewhere, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh, technobabble.

At the end of the day I'm trying to show the ridiculousness of the situation.

We're on page 7 of a thread discussing the accuracy of a weapon that is likely going to be used for a grand total of 30-60 minutes in a game that will last... well many times longer than that.

It reminds me of an argument that I heard between two 15mm Napoleonic players going at it hammer and tongs about the fact that one of the guys had painted silver epaulets on his Old Guard miniatures while the other guy was adamantly convinced that they should have been gold.

Personally, I think the weapons work just dandy as they are. Each one fills the role that it is supposed to fill in the context of the game which is good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reminds me of an argument that I heard between two 15mm Napoleonic players going at it hammer and tongs about the fact that one of the guys had painted silver epaulets on his Old Guard miniatures while the other guy was adamantly convinced that they should have been gold.

It's such a waste isn't it. Especially as they were red :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your initial complaint was that the in game LMG could fire less bullets per AP than the AR (and it stops there. accuracy and mag size isn't relevant as far as I can tell).

Not really. My complaint is that in the game, over a turn (or any number of turns), the LMG will deliver fewer rounds than a rifle. More importantly, it will not deliver enough rounds to even be seriously called a MG.

Imperialus responds by saying that is the way it should be because that is the way it is in reality.

It is not that way in reality. Cyclic rate doesn't matter, it doesn't determine the effective rate of fire. If your goal is to empty the magazine, you have enough time in a turn to do it, be it with 500rpm or with 900rpm.

You are not emptying the magazine. In fact, in-game, the rifle fires perfectly metered short bursts.

If your goal is to send rounds at least reasonably directed towards the target, a machine gun will send more due to its stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heavier

Lack of snap shots: medium length burst, all out (TU based), or nothing

More accurate in auto, but not as accurate as single fire

Rifles generally sufficient in damage until you encounter tougher species

Clearly damage per round shouldn't even be close; MG should beat AR and marksman rifle on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heavier

Lack of snap shots: medium length burst, all out (TU based), or nothing

More accurate in auto, but not as accurate as single fire

Rifles generally sufficient in damage until you encounter tougher species

Clearly damage per round shouldn't even be close; MG should beat AR and marksman rifle on this.

How does this solution fix the issue you have a problem with? 0.o

I'd like to see you or someone work out numbers for how that would work. (or mod it or whatever) I'm worried that it would make a too great difference and mean you'd have to rebalance the whole game to accommodate the extra bullets flying around. :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That runs the risk of being the only weapon you would need to take.

The heavy plasma from x-com springs to mind.

Better damage, most rounds fired, and good accuracy in exchange for requiring a higher strength to use.

The weight might be an issue at the start, until your troops strength builds up or you hire enough high strength troops to ignore that problem.

It would have to be a significant weight weapon, that would also effect how many rounds you could fire with it though if most troops had greatly reduced AP from carrying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That runs the risk of being the only weapon you would need to take.

The heavy plasma from x-com springs to mind.

Better damage, most rounds fired, and good accuracy in exchange for requiring a higher strength to use.

The weight might be an issue at the start, until your troops strength builds up or you hire enough high strength troops to ignore that problem.

It would have to be a significant weight weapon, that would also effect how many rounds you could fire with it though if most troops had greatly reduced AP from carrying it.

I've modded the M60 up to 7 rounds per burst and increased the damage and accuracy to what I would think is comparable to the real life difference between and the M16 and M60. Basically, you use the sniper rifle damage an penetration for each M60 round, increase the accuracy of the M60 burst to about 50%, and give it about 50% more range than the M16. What happens is the M60 pretty much dominates the battlefield. All aliens are slaughtered if the M60 gunner sees them and is setup. That's pretty much the way it works in real life against soldiers too. Except in real life soldiers are trained on how to take out machineguns with suppressive fire and a manuever element the uses cover and bounding movement to close and destroy it. The AI in Xenonauts doesn't have a clue on how to do this and probably never will. So, either the aliens need to be real tough or the M60 needs to stay "unrealistic". One suggestion I would make that is fairly realistic is to not let the M60 or the rocket launcher fire on the same turn they move. You really have to setup either to use them effectively. Then, the advantages would be greatly reduced when assaulting the inside of ships and buildings. The other suggestion would be to just eliminate the M60 and model the M249 SAW instead. This is basically a fully automatic very light machinegun that was made to operated by one man. It fires the same round as the M16. You could still model 7 - 9 bursts, but it wouldn't be as devastating. Unfortunately, you have to fudge a bit as it wasn't deployed until 1984. This weapon makes a lot more sense for a small special ops squad to be carrying too vs. the M60 which is really a two man weapon and not nearly as portable. Edited by StellarRat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game doesn't specify that the weapon is an M60 (image is an M240, role is a SAW etc) so it could be modelled in game as anything you want.

The FN Minimi/M249 is about right for the role and the Minimi was designed in the 70's so early versions could easily have made it into the hands of the Xenonauts three years before its stated release date of 1982.

On the balancing side have you tried increasing the penalty of the isHeavy flag?

That will still allow you to fire on the turn you move, it would just mean your accuracy was practically non-existent so you would only consider it in an emergency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens is the M60 pretty much dominates the battlefield.

The problem is hit probability. I take it the problem hasn't been fixed, right? Since the game counts anything passing through a tile as a hit, a weapon with enough burst size to fill out its cone starts approaching near-infinite accuracy.

Until this problem is fixed, discussion of the game's balance or realism is largely academic; you could as well discuss them in regards to backgammon, because its hit/miss system is about equally realistic.

That runs the risk of being the only weapon you would need to take.

The heavy plasma from x-com springs to mind.

There is one important difference: MG is a first tier weapon. The next tier MG? There shouldn't be one. Or it can behave in whatever way is needed for balance. Although I'd prefer for the MG to keep competing with lasers, not with plasma however.

It still beats than the current system:

* Mission 1: Equip everyone realistically. Try using the MG. Curse "why am I even bothering with this piece of crap?"

* Mission 2: Spread around non-MG weapons. Realize that there is no reason whatsoever to issue any weapon that is not a marksman rifle, a pistol, or a rocket launcher.

* Mission 3: Issue MR and pistols all around. Breeze through.

* Mission 4: Get bored and deliberately use inferior weapons.

Better damage, most rounds fired, and good accuracy in exchange for requiring a higher strength to use.

Damage should not matter as early game aliens need to fall down from 1, sometimes 2 shots from anything other than a pistol. With later in the game competition from lasers and the need to stay out of enemy range.

Rounds fired, I'm thinking something like 30TU+1rd/2TU.

Alternately, and better, require kneeling to use the MG and make kneeling with MG take considerably longer, e.g. 20TU, maybe 24. That's each way. Then options of 30TU short burst (so you can have 2 per turn once kneeled) or 24+2TU/round long burst for all remaining TU.

Use 200 round belt box just for the sake of adding weight without making the weapon heavier than it really is.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...