Accurate representations of real world military equipment

[imperialus]

What is the in-universe explanation for it to be reduced to 10 rounds? Is that overweight dude in the supply deciding "Damn jocks, if I give them 100-round belts, they won't even have to reload! No, bully jerks, now is my ti-i-ime... Eat this, see you fight aliens with a 10-round belt, ha-ha!"

Well... During the 19th century the Austrian army refused to provide breech loading firearms to their soldiers. Their logic was it would encourage soldiers to waste ammunition. Then they fought the Prussians so I'm not saying it was a good idea, but still.

At the end of the day it's a pretty pedantic thing to get up in arms about. As for an in universe explaination it may well be that because unlike most soldiers during the lat 70's the Xenonauts tend to wear bodyarmour as a matter of course. The wight of the bodyarmour may make 100 round belts impractical.

Edited December 19, 2012 by imperialus

[Max_Caine]

Having thought about it further, why the hell am I arguing about tier 1 weapons which will get swapped out at for lasers in the first 2 game months? Sod it, model them however people care to please. I'll be off playing with the zap guns.

[StellarRat]

But there's too much focus on "ammo on the MG". This is an example. Of which I gave 2. What's your view on the Makarov example, HWP? If the graphic is of a Makarov, then it should be an 8-round weapon, yeah? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? And all the weights of all the weapons are so wrong. They all have to be redone. And the effective ranges need to be changed up. The amount of damage each ballistic weapon is wrong as well. Shouldn't a pistol stand a much better chance of killing a human than it does right now? Perhaps I should reduce the HP of a human. Wait... am I now modelling the game around the weapons?

Medium size pistols actually don't have much chance of killing a human with a single hit unless carefully aimed. I'm assuming in Xenonauts "careful aim" is basically centering the target and pulling the trigger it's not a shooting contest. Also, Xenonauts doesn't take where the shots hit into account, so you have to figure grazes, leg hits, arm hits and shot off digits. As far as ammo for the machinegun goes, well, it's a pretty heavy weapon and NORMALLY there is a two person team to run one, a gunner and ammo bearer/assistant. If you have to carry both the weapon and the ammo I could see not carrying more than 50 rounds to save weight. The same applies to the rocket launcher. So, IMO, they are about right for just a generic representation of the type of weapon. I don't really care about an exact match of the graphic and the weapon details. BTW, you're always modeling damage around something, so you could start with the weapon damage and fit the target to it or vise-versa. Edited December 19, 2012 by StellarRat

[Gorlom]

Yes. That's why they might be better designed for that niche.

But worse? That doesn't fit. And yes, a MG modded to fire proper long bursts becomes better in the game.

What the deuce are you talking about? If the niche changes, the criteria for what is the best changes. What do you even consider when you say "best"? From which point of view? soley from the soldiers PoV or what? that woud be rather poor design wouldn't it?

This conversation has been very unharacteristc for you HWP. It feels like you have forgotten to type out half your arguments or skipped over certain parts or expect me to read your mind half the time.

[thothkins]

get up in arms about.

It might be a futile discussion, but it's won you a Pun King/Pun Queen/Pun Alien Hive master award of the day! Well done.

[shabowie]

The point is not "why don't the Xenonauts use a 'better' weapon".

Yet that would be my question if the in game sidearm was a makarov.

The point I'm trying ...to make is if the graphic were changed from the current graphic to another one... then the stats would have to be altered...

It would make sense to me to have the stats match whatever firearm is being depicted. Same thing with other equipment. With fictional equipment I would decide what you could reasonably expect that type of object to weigh, how it would perform, how it would look and be shaped (example, maybe the human plasma rifle is shaped much like an m16 for ergonomic purposes for ease of training the soldiers on the new weapon), etc.

I don't think your point is a very good one, no offense. Using real facts as fluff makes the necessary abstractions when modeling something difficult to model well like a gunfight with aliens more believable, IMO. The fact you need to make abstractions does not mean you shouldn't use any facts at all.

Edited December 19, 2012 by shabowie

[crusherven]

The fact you need to make abstractions does not mean you shouldn't use any facts at all.

This isn't about not using any facts at all vs absolute realism. There is a middle ground that I think they hit--make weapons that are plausible representations of a weapon *type* and balance them for the game. Most pistols carry 7-15 rounds, and many rifles will have 20 or 30 round magazines. If you want more, make a mod.

[HWP]

Or you wouldn't have written things like: When I wrote 10 bursts

That was an example for why this approach - "put in whatever numbers seem to work, realism be damned" - is wrong.

Also, for the record, I have no objections to 50-rd mags for MGs. What I have objections to is the broken hit/miss calculation and patching it by limiting MGs to 5 rounds per burst.

[While SAW type MGs are commonly fired in short bursts, the bursts are repeated frequently, to an average fire rate of 50-150 rounds per minute.]

What's your view on the Makarov example, HWP? If the graphic is of a Makarov, then it should be an 8-round weapon, yeah?

What do you suggest it should be? A walkie-talkie?

Hey, an idea: Let's replace the graphics for all guns with cell phones! From the highest bidder's 2013 lineup.

The amount of damage each ballistic weapon is wrong as well. Shouldn't a pistol stand a much better chance of killing a human than it does right now?

The overall mortality of gunshot wounds is 11%.

For extremity hits the mortality is 2.5%.

For abdomen wounds it is 17%.

For headshots it's 40%.

The mortality for intentional shootings is 16%.

The median number of hits per victim is 2.

[TrashMan]

This is a game, so 100% accurate simulation is not needed - but you want to get the gist of it trough.

You don't have to model any SPECIFIC weapon, but a machingun should act and perform like a machinegun.

At this point I'd say JA2 does a far better job at it.

[TrashMan]

No one fires 250 bursts in real life. That's a fiction from the movies. Your barrel will overheat and then your weapon will jam plus it's diffcult to aim accurately for more than a few rounds. A trained machinegunner will fire 3 - 10 round bursts.

Oh really? You would be wrong.

Guns are a bit more durable than you give them credit for.

Difficult to aim? Sure, you accuracy suffers on full-auto, but you can't beat suppressive fire of that magnitude.

Full auto (number of bullets fired depends on TU's left) should be in the game.

[StellarRat]

Oh really? You would be wrong.

Guns are a bit more durable than you give them credit for.

Difficult to aim? Sure, you accuracy suffers on full-auto, but you can't beat suppressive fire of that magnitude.

Full auto (number of bullets fired depends on TU's left) should be in the game.

I never said full auto shouldn't be in the game. All machineguns by definition are full auto. I just said that firing 250 round bursts is stupid and will cause problems. Here is the US Army M60 training manual. You'll notice that the training is never more than 9 rounds per burst. If longer bursts were desirable they'd train for that.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c04.htm

Besides, the only weapon in the game that could conceivably fire 250 rounds without stopping is the M60, but we only have 50 round belts, so how could this happen? And how many TU's would that take? 500?

Edited December 19, 2012 by StellarRat

[HWP]

Who ever proposed 250rd bursts in this thread? The only mentions of such were in your posts.

I believe the quasi-scientific term is "strawman".

[StellarRat]

Who ever proposed 250rd bursts in this thread? The only mentions of such were in your posts.

I believe the quasi-scientific term is "strawman".

From Trashman - "I have to agree with HWP here.

If other games can portray weapons properly, then so can Xenonauts. Machineguns aren't the end-all weapon in RL and there are reasons for that have to be properly reproduced in the game too.

Just 5 bullets in a burts seems silly..look at JA2. You have machinguns with 200-250 rounds and the game works."

Then three posts or so back he's disagrees with my statement that no one fires 250 bursts. So, what exactly is being said then? Are we talking about ammo supply, how long some is holding the trigger down, TU's what???

Edited December 19, 2012 by StellarRat

[HWP]

200-250 round capacity. Where do you see anything about that being burst length?

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.

[StellarRat]

200-250 round capacity. Where do you see anything about that being burst length?

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.

OK, well, that makes more sense then. I guess I misinterpeted the sentence and then since he disputed my 250 round BURST comment I proceeded on that basis.

I agree that the M60 should have a higher ROF than the M-16, more accuracy, more range, better penetration, and should do more damage per hit. I actually modded that in my game. The only problem is that it turns it into an uber weapon against the lower level aliens. Of course, I have no idea how it would work against the really tough aliens since we haven't seen them all yet.

I find the whole TU/ROF thing kind of messy. You've got number of rounds per burst, TU's, and ammo capacity to think about. I mean if you want more ROF should lower the TUs required per burst or just raise the number of rounds per burst?

Edited December 19, 2012 by StellarRat

[TrashMan]

Wait, more accuracy? Since when?

IIRC, the way JA2 modeled it is that the number of bullets fired depended on how many TU0's you spent. The accuracy was calced for each bullet and it was dropping, making really long burst innacurate and

wastefull.

You could fire a 20-round burts and hit abosolutely nothing, or you could luck out and score several hits.

[Buzzles]

This whole topic has garnered a massive pffffffft from me.

I've been trying for a while to get Chris to use the correct terms for magazines for a while now......

...so you've probably no chance of him doing a few ammo count tweaks, as he's got much better things to do.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Buzzles

[StellarRat]

Wait, more accuracy? Since when?

My Army buddies tell me the few couple rounds in a burst are more accurate then what they can do with rifles specially at longer ranges. That makes a lot of sense to me since it's mounted on a bipod. I doubt the remainder of the rounds in a burst are going to be more accurate. I doubt it should make much difference in Xenonauts since the distances are so short.

[Corporal Hicks]

Man... Honestly? Hahaha! I really don´t give a damn if a weapon in the real world has more or less bullets than in a game?? I mean, that´s crazy... How can this possibly ruin gameplay?

[Gauddlike]

Realism is a good place to start.

When balancing takes place those real world values can, and should, be adjusted to make the game play better.

If this game was Rogue Spear then the wrong number of rounds in a specific pistol magazine would stand out and be an issue.

In Xenonauts the pistol is a generic pistol that happens to resemble a real world weapon.

The same goes for all of the weapons in fact.

For example if the assault rifle was called the M-16 then it should match the real world M-16 as closely as the game can manage.

That is not the case however.

It just uses an image that many people would recognise as an assault rifle.

I agree about full auto fire being in the game though and have posted a few suggestions on how it could be represented in other threads.

I think it would add more character to the weapons that have it.

It does really depend on if the way hits and misses are calculated is changed though, as the current system does not lend itself well to rapid firing weapons.

The only problem is that it turns it into an uber weapon against the lower level aliens. Of course, I have no idea how it would work against the really tough aliens since we haven't seen them all yet.

The down side I see to that is the upgraded machine gun type weapons.

To maintain the same balance between them and the upgraded assault rifles you would need to make them just as powerful against the higher ranked aliens.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Gauddlike

[HWP]

Realism is a good place to start.

When balancing takes place those real world values can, and should, be adjusted to make the game play better.

Only to the extent that such changes are plausible or involve aspects open to interpretation.

If changes are necessary that would not be plausible, then:

1) Ask yourself what you did wrong.

If you did everything reasonably well, real-world values would work reasonably well. That they don't indicates a problem.

2, a) Fix the problem, if it is possible with reasonable effort;

2, b) If you have identified the problem as something you can't reasonably fix, change the weapon used altogether.

[StellarRat]

Realism is a good place to start.

When balancing takes place those real world values can, and should, be adjusted to make the game play better.

If this game was Rogue Spear then the wrong number of rounds in a specific pistol magazine would stand out and be an issue.

In Xenonauts the pistol is a generic pistol that happens to resemble a real world weapon.

The same goes for all of the weapons in fact.

For example if the assault rifle was called the M-16 then it should match the real world M-16 as closely as the game can manage.

That is not the case however.

It just uses an image that many people would recognise as an assault rifle.

I agree about full auto fire being in the game though and have posted a few suggestions on how it could be represented in other threads.

I think it would add more character to the weapons that have it.

It does really depend on if the way hits and misses are calculated is changed though, as the current system does not lend itself well to rapid firing weapons.

The down side I see to that is the upgraded machine gun type weapons.

To maintain the same balance between them and the upgraded assault rifles you would need to make them just as powerful against the higher ranked aliens.

Maybe, we just lower conventional weapons all the way around and make the M60 and Rocket the top tier conventional weapons OR make all aliens tougher. There are a ton of ways to achieve balance. The conventional pistol is WAY too powerful right now compared to the M16 and M60. It should do about 7 damage with low penetration and about half the range, but I think it's at 15 damage right now.

[Gauddlike]

Only to the extent that such changes are plausible or involve aspects open to interpretation.

If changes are necessary that would not be plausible, then:

1) Ask yourself what you did wrong.

If you did everything reasonably well, real-world values would work reasonably well. That they don't indicates a problem.

2, a) Fix the problem, if it is possible with reasonable effort;

2, b) If you have identified the problem as something you can't reasonably fix, change the weapon used altogether.

Real world values work well if the game uses real world situations for those values to fit into.

If the game abstracts the game world then the values the weapons use can also be abstracted.

That is not really the case in Xenonauts to a significant extent, apart from the obvious turn based combat.

Otherwise your comment doesn't really add much to the conversation.

I don't personally feel that a few more or less rounds in a magazine is a particularly implausible way to balance a weapon.

Fitting a real time action into a turn based system could well involve changing how many shots you can fire before having to spend part of a turn reloading.

I don't see that as a problem.

[TrashMan]

Well, top-tier machineguns that can only carry 50 rounds and can only fire in 5 round burts DOES sound silly regardless how you look at it.

And what Xenonauts gets is the best equipment available.

Wether or not a MG has 100 or 200 bullets is no such much an issue as that is should feel like a top-tier MG and it's not really.

[imperialus]

200-250 round capacity. Where do you see anything about that being burst length?

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.