Accurate representations of real world military equipment

[Steelpoint]

So this entire debate was sparked because a certain group of people have a problem with the ammo count of a machine gun that is depicted in a Video Game? At the end of the day, compromises have to be made by the developers to balance the game. Unfortunately you will never make a mechanic or decision that everyone will like, as is evident.

I mean let's not forget that the range's that these engagements are occurring should mean that the soldiers would have a hard time missing their targets. Ultimately it seems that pursuing this line of argument is pointless, the energy spent would be far better expended on discussing how Machine Guns and other weapons be balanced within the game itself.

(Or I could have missed the whole point of this argument and made a fool of myself).

[AaronBrudenell]

Exactly what Steelpoint and others have said.

I mean, if we're going to talk about how "unrealistic" it is for a weapon to not have the same amount of round, then let's talk about how a Chinook can travel over vast distances and back without fueling. Or how aliens could be captured and transported back to base without incident.

X-Com never was a "What you see, actually happens." As it's turn based. You fill in the gaps yourself with your imagination - that's what made it great.

[StellarRat]

the energy spent would be far better expended on discussing how Machine Guns and other weapons be balanced within the game itself.

(Or I could have missed the whole point of this argument and made a fool of myself).

Well, that's the main reason I'm in this thread. IMO, it is not impossible to balance AND reflect real world weapon characteristics. However, HWP does have a good point in that the arc of scatter for auto fire is really messed up and that makes everything else really hard to fix for MGs.

[TrashMan]

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.

What?

Why?

Aliens should be tough from the get-go.

[HWP]

Aliens should be tough from the get-go.

Why?

They are just light scout crews, noncombatant at that.

If it's difficulty, they can just be more accurate with their shots.

[Gauddlike]

I think that would depend a lot on the weapons.

If you can only fire once or twice a turn then it shouldn't take many shots to kill an enemy.

If you can throw out five bursts of five rounds each then the aliens should be able to soak up a lot more rounds before going down.

They would take the same sort of damage in both cases.

If you increase the amount of rounds you fire then you need a corresponding reduction in potential damage per round.

If your MG fires ten rounds per turn at ten damage per round then increasing it to fire twenty rounds per turn should see the damage potential go down to at most five per round.

Potential damage also needs to consider the armour mitigation and degradation effects of the increased number of rounds for lower damage.

I would suggest that aliens can take at least the amount of damage that the average weapon (assuming proper tier of both enemy and weapon) can dish out in a turn.

That way you almost always need your troops to support each other, or risk taking multiple turns to take out an enemy that can kill you much quicker.

The different races would have different properties as well remember.

Androns could be tougher to kill but only average marksmen while Caesans could be physically fragile but better shots, for example.

Sebillians may have poorer armour than Androns but lots of hitpoints and regeneration to make them a different challenge.

[HWP]

I would suggest that aliens can take at least the amount of damage that the average weapon (assuming proper tier of both enemy and weapon) can dish out in a turn.

Why should they?

The gaming term for this sort of mechanic is "Bullet Sponges". And it's disparaging, because the mechanic makes games boring. In more basic shooter games, it works, for the sofa and gamepad crowd at least. In strategy games, it trivializes tactics to rubber-boxing and rushing units. In tactical games, it makes players ignore all weapon considerations in favor of damage per turn or per second.

This mechanic is gradually being phased out from all genres, from more recent shooters to what little remains of the strategy/tactics genre, and rightly so. Not fast enough, because it does help hide the deficiencies of other systems of a game.

I know you imagine it bringing tactical goodness. It never does. You quickly realize that "support" that can't kill an enemy is worthless and the only thing worth doing is bringing maximum DPT. There is only one weapon in each tier you will ever use, the one with the highest DPT. Except when you have to do a plot-related capture or something. All others become just distractions to confuse newbie players; fortunately, experienced ones will quickly set them on the right path.

[StellarRat]

I think that would depend a lot on the weapons.

If you can only fire once or twice a turn then it shouldn't take many shots to kill an enemy.

If you can throw out five bursts of five rounds each then the aliens should be able to soak up a lot more rounds before going down.

They would take the same sort of damage in both cases.

If you increase the amount of rounds you fire then you need a corresponding reduction in potential damage per round.

If your MG fires ten rounds per turn at ten damage per round then increasing it to fire twenty rounds per turn should see the damage potential go down to at most five per round.

Potential damage also needs to consider the armour mitigation and degradation effects of the increased number of rounds for lower damage.

I would suggest that aliens can take at least the amount of damage that the average weapon (assuming proper tier of both enemy and weapon) can dish out in a turn.

That way you almost always need your troops to support each other, or risk taking multiple turns to take out an enemy that can kill you much quicker.

The different races would have different properties as well remember.

Androns could be tougher to kill but only average marksmen while Caesans could be physically fragile but better shots, for example.

Sebillians may have poorer armour than Androns but lots of hitpoints and regeneration to make them a different challenge.

I'm a little fuzzy on this. Are you saying that an alien should be able to take a full five round burst from the MG before going down OR a three round burst from the assault rifle? I could potentially see the latter, but what would be the point in making the lower level aliens so tough that only the top tier weapons can kill them?

My view about this whole question is that each weapon class ought to have some distinct advantage and disadvantage vs. other classes or it simply shouldn't be included in the base game. Right now, we are partially there. The pistol is one handed, rifle is mobile but two handed, MG is not really good for entry and room clearing (or shouldn't be) but deadly in the outside for direct fire, rocket launcher has blast effects, etc...

I'm a bit hesitate to comment on the aliens vs. weapon damage balance right now because we don't have a competent alien AI yet. Without that it's really hard to say if the aliens should take more or less damage, etc... Obviously, if the AI is very good then it makes sense to make them less formidable so they aren't wiping out the player. I could definitely see the higher level aliens being very hard to take down with conventional weapons (there should be a chance though), if they weren't there would be a lot less reason for the player to do any research.

I think the biggest problem I have right now with the conventional weapons is the way the burst fire is done. That could/should be fixed before balancing is started. It's really completely wrong. Currently, it is so bad that it actually detracts from my enjoyment of the game. It should calculate the hit chance ONCE BEFORE the burst is fired. To me it looks like the hit probability is calculated per round. That's wrong. If the gunner is off his first round will miss and the rest should scatter based on the where the first round goes. You really can't "walk" a short 3 - 9 round burst into the target. As soon as you pull the trigger you bascially lose a great deal of control over the weapon.

And, of course, the amount of scatter is still outrageous. One thought I had about fixing this using the current game limitations is to give the scatter both a horizontial AND vertical component (shots go over and under the target). Right now it looks to me that shots only scatter in the horizontial. If a vertical scatter could be added then it would be possible to tighten the horizontial substantially and that would make the burst look and act much better.

Edited December 26, 2012 by StellarRat

[Gauddlike]

I can't say I have noticed enemies that survive more than one hit being phased out of any game.

Can you provide a set of links to back that up?

Remember that in my suggestion the enemies would survive maybe five or six assault rifle rounds (at current weapon settings) before going down.

That doesn't quite take it into bullet sponge territory for me but that is a vague term which can be applied anywhere if you really try.

I have played quite a lot of tactical and strategy games where the enemy did not die in one shot.

I can't say that I found them boring or lacking in tactical goodness.

In the original x-com for example I rarely thought that snakemen or chrysallids would be much more challenging if they died easier.

Remember that I did not suggest a bullet sponge situation where enemies would stand up to your whole squad for several turns.

Two of your troops should easily be able to take out an enemy that has roughly the same HP as the DPT of an average weapon at the equivalent tier.

I agree that in some games it makes no sense for enemies to absorb multiple hits.

Rogue Spear was a great game that regularly had both your character and the enemies fall to a single shot.

However player skill at getting into position and aiming that shot was important.

In a game where you just have to see and click on the enemy to kill them it becomes less of a tactical game and more x-com themed whack-a-mole.

[Gauddlike]

I'm a little fuzzy on this. Are you saying that an alien should be able to take a full five round burst from the MG before going down OR a three round burst from the assault rifle? I could potentially see the latter, but what would be the point in making the lower level aliens so tough that only the top tier weapons can kill them?

I would lean toward the latter rather than the former.

It depends a lot on how the weapons are balanced against each other.

Damage should not be the only thing considered.

The accuracy of the weapons, for example, would also be a major factor.

If the AR had poor accuracy so you were only likely to land two rounds per turn then two would be the threshold I would aim for.

If it had a full auto mode that meant you were likely to land eight rounds on target then eight times bullet damage would be where I would set the health (numbers for example only).

Remember as well that this would only be a starting point.

It gives a solid and easily duplicated starting point that can be adjusted up or down depending on play testing.

I would probably drop the noncom aliens down below this point and use the first combat oriented aliens as the centre point.

[StellarRat]

It depends a lot on how the weapons are balanced against each other.

Damage should not be the only thing considered.

The accuracy of the weapons, for example, would also be a major factor.

If the AR had poor accuracy so you were only likely to land two rounds per turn then two would be the threshold I would aim for.

If it had a full auto mode that meant you were likely to land eight rounds on target then eight times bullet damage would be where I would set the health (numbers for example only).

OK, that's pretty much my thinking. The only time I can imagine a full auto weapon hitting with every shot is at point blank range. I'm hoping your basing you "base line" toughness on something other than that circumstance??

[HWP]

I can't say I have noticed enemies that survive more than one hit being phased out of any game. Can you provide a set of links to back that up?

You need links, just game names won't suffice?

BF2, BF3, CoD (not to mention ArmA) - much closer to realistic damage tolerance than 1990s shooters

M2033 - bullet sponges at low difficulty, but maximum difficulty has almost all enemies killed with 1-2 proper hits, as is the player.

Really most recent games have much lower damage tolerance for both the enemy and the player character. Note that we're talking about surviving damage "dished out in one turn", which is 6-10 seconds, not one shot.

About 10 years ago it was very different.

In a game where you just have to see and click on the enemy to kill them it becomes less of a tactical game and more x-com themed whack-a-mole.

Then we are all living in a whack-a-mole machine.

In X-COM/Xeno you have to 1) see the enemy, 2) not get killed by reaction fire, 3) hit the enemy.

Remember that I did not suggest a bullet sponge situation where enemies would stand up to your whole squad for several turns.

You suggested that an enemy should be able to take a long, all-time-units MG burst and survive:

"If your MG fires ten rounds per turn at ten damage per round then increasing it to fire twenty rounds per turn should see the damage potential go down to at most five per round."

Which is ridiculous. It's a machine gun. The whole point of a machine gun is to put a high volume of fire downrange. If pistols delivered as much firepower as machine guns, they would be used instead, MGs would only be found in history museums.

And yes, in a game about dealing with bullet sponges, heavy weapons should be the only weapons you ever use. All others are should be thrown out altogether. You don't see a lot of anti-tank squads armed with BB guns, do you?

So, if your proposal is adopted, rifles and shotguns should be thrown out completely. You would be choosing between a variety of GPMG, MMG, AMR, MGL, rocket launchers, recoilless rifles, ATGM.

[Gauddlike]

You need links, just game names won't suffice?

A few game names don't really show the trend that you mention.

I thought if it was a factual statement you would have some information on the trend that supported the statement and that might provide interesting reading.

I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, just curious where that information could be found.

Really most recent games have much lower damage tolerance for both the enemy and the player character. Note that we're talking about surviving damage "dished out in one turn", which is 6-10 seconds, not one shot.

About 10 years ago it was very different.

This also confuses me.

It appears to suggest that the enemies should be able to survive no more than an average amount of damage.

That is almost exactly what I suggested and you felt was an incredibly poor suggestion.

So, if your proposal is adopted, rifles and shotguns should be thrown out completely. You would be choosing between a variety of GPMG, MMG, AMR, MGL, rocket launchers, recoilless rifles, ATGM.

So if an enemy is balanced to survive a single turn of fire from a single soldier with the average weapon from the tier all weapons below anti tank become useless and should be thrown out?

I reckon that is a bit of an over reaction.

Remember that I stated the damage of an average weapon from the tier as the basis for the balance.

Without bothering to work out the numbers let's assume that the AR would be a little over that average damage while the shotgun/carbine falls a little underneath it.

I think it is safe to assume that a machine gun would be well above that average while a pistol would be well below.

A pistol would take a lot of shots to kill a target using this system (assuming they had no supporting fire) while a machine gun would likely take it down in a single burst.

Following that trail then, two troops with assault rifles would take down that same alien in a half turn, a sniper might take it down in one or two shots, a shotgun at close range would do serious damage also.

You suggested that an enemy should be able to take a long, all-time-units MG burst and survive:

"If your MG fires ten rounds per turn at ten damage per round then increasing it to fire twenty rounds per turn should see the damage potential go down to at most five per round."

Which is ridiculous. It's a machine gun. The whole point of a machine gun is to put a high volume of fire downrange. If pistols delivered as much firepower as machine guns, they would be used instead, MGs would only be found in history museums.

No that was not my suggestion, the section you quoted also does not state that.

I said that when significantly increasing the rate of fire of a weapon you need a balance or that weapon becomes too powerful.

That 'damage potential' reduction could be anything, set up time, less damage per round, reduced accuracy or whatever else you want it to be.

That is the very nature of balancing.

Bad balance comes when people make poorly thought out changes to a single item without considering how it would affect other items.

You suggested that a soldier with 90 AP should be able to fire roughly 30 rounds from an MG per turn (up from 10) and that the damage per round should be increased from its current 40 damage to over 45 damage, plus increasing its ammo capacity by 300%.

You then suggested that the enemy should be made weaker.

That all felt a little over the top to me, hence why I suggested an alternative model of balancing than 'this would be cool'.

I really fail to see how this would promote weapon diversity in the way you assume it would.

I also never said that pistols should do the same damage as a machine gun.

Feel free to argue against the things I say but please try not to make up arguments simply to disagree with.

[Gorlom]

You need links, just game names won't suffice?

BF2, BF3, CoD (not to mention ArmA) - much closer to realistic damage tolerance than 1990s shooters

M2033 - bullet sponges at low difficulty, but maximum difficulty has almost all enemies killed with 1-2 proper hits, as is the player.

All those games belong to the same sub genre of FPS, don't they? 0.o It's not really a wide variety of examples...

There are still a lot of FPS games coming out that has bosses, heavy enemies and even average enemies that are damage sponges. I don't think the gaming industry is moving away from it as much as some parts of it are exploring alternatives.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Gorlom

[Betuor]

All those games belong to the same sub genre of FPS, don't they? 0.o It's not really a wide variety of examples...

There are still a lot of FPS games coming out that has bosses, heavy enemies and even average enemies that are damage sponges. I don't think the gaming industry is moving away from it as much as some parts of it are exploring alternatives.

Weren't all those games listed mostly multiplayer too or at least mostly played for the multiplayer?

[Gauddlike]

Only playtesting will tell anyway.

The method you use to find your starting point doesn't really matter, it's where you end up that counts.

[HWP]

All those games belong to the same sub genre of FPS, don't they?

What other genres are still alive?

RPG - ah, right, the new Deus Ex. One melee attack, 1 or 2 kills. One shot, with good weapons, one kill.

TBT... let's take XCOM 2012. Early game they only need one hit, later on your soldiers shoot twice per turn and carry plasmas, so it's one turn, one kill. For snipers can be two kills.

TBS... Haven't played anything recently. And shooters is all you hear about, I haven't even played COD, but know about it. Not the case with other genres.

I wasn't suggesting you were wrong, just curious where that information could be found.

Just personal experience I'm afraid. Been dealing with games since Wolfenstein 3D, so seen quite a few.

And in the 2000s was pleased to see how it ceased to be the case in about half of newer games. It wasn't just Flashpoint, even Far Cry took steps towards realism.

It appears to suggest that the enemies should be able to survive no more than an average amount of damage.

That is almost exactly what I suggested and you felt was an incredibly poor suggestion.

The "almost" bit makes all the difference. "No more" vs "no less".

I also never said that pistols should do the same damage as a machine gun.

I never said you did. But right now the game is set up that way. And you seemed to feel it's reasonably balanced.

Remember that I stated the damage of an average weapon from the tier as the basis for the balance.

Without bothering to work out the numbers let's assume that the AR would be a little over that average damage while the shotgun/carbine falls a little underneath it.

All right. The shotgun isn't really weaker ATM, so I presumed that "average" covered both ARs and shotguns.

Reply on substance coming later.

[Gauddlike]

I never said you did. But right now the game is set up that way. And you seemed to feel it's reasonably balanced.

I also never said I feel that the weapons are balanced.

I have said that balancing needs to be done with care, and preferably with a systematic approach.

The system I would use was the one I mentioned previously.

I am sure others would do it a different way, and that may prove to be better.

Only playtesting will tell.

Current values are not balanced, they also do not have the pistol and MG on par as you seem to suggest.

Pistol:

Range - 10, damage per shot - 20, mitigation - 5, AP per round 9.

MG:

Range - 30, damage per shot - 40, mitigation - 15, AP per round - 9.

I think it is only the hit/miss mechanic that makes the MG more difficult to slot into its role.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Gauddlike

[HWP]

So if an enemy is balanced to survive a single turn of fire from a single soldier with the average weapon from the tier all weapons below anti tank become useless and should be thrown out?

I reckon that is a bit of an over reaction.

Know how a minimum caliber for big game hunting is selected?

The minimum caliber should be such that it brings the target down in one hit with a shot that misses the vitals.

In jurisdictions where hunting weapons are regulated, it's a legal requirement. Elsewhere just good practice.

Not even one turn, which is multiple shots, just one hit.

There is quite a bit of push in the military to either bring back 7.62 or move to a new 6.8 or 6.5mm caliber.

Know the reason? It's because 5.56 sometimes won't hit its target, if it comes across foliage, or not disable it in one hit. Even though all the weapons are automatic. This little is enough that people push for 7.62.

If you were fighting something that always survives and keeps shooting back after a burst of 5.56, and that's the weakest they come, you would not be bringing 5.56 rifles. If you had a limitless supply, you would put them under powered guillotines and hammers, have them crushed into bits, use the plastic to make toys or something and melt the metal to make real weapons.

Real weapons here would be things that do take enemies out in one hit. It doesn't take a lot. Cases are known when unloading a 5mm mag into an animal still kept it alive and kicking enough to rip the shooter apart, while 12ga. is sufficient against one.

So your light weapon lineup would include:

Pistol replacement - Model 29, magnum, 8" barrel

Shotgun - Atchisson, with 20rd drum mags. You'd want to customize it to eat 3.5" magnums, though.

Carbine replacement - M14 rifle or FN FAL

AR replacement - battle rifle chambered in .338 Win Mag

Marksman rifle - Boys Rifle

Once coming across enemies that survive the Boys, you'd be upgrading it to PTRS. Also, if it wasn't only 1979, you'd be seriously considering deploying monsters like 6P62.

All of these would, of course, be complemented by a solid variety of grenade launchers and recoilless arms.

That's the kind of weapons you would be bringing if your enemies did not go down from 1-3 shots from normal weapons. The only argument behind 5.56 was and is that it's "good enough"; the moment it's not, it's leaving. Although I can see SAW chambered in 5.56 APs, but used more like oversized SMG than LMG.

You then suggested that the enemy should be made weaker.

The term is "more vulnerable", no "weaker". The latter would imply the enemy doesn't fight back well.

Yes. Because if the target is equally dead when shot with a rifle or with a MG, why haul the weight, bulk and reduced accuracy (in single fire) of the MG?

The reason light rifles are issued as weapons is that they are enough to kill a human, their target. If they weren't, they would be sold as children's toys, the way BB guns are. And for military weapons, see above.

[Steelpoint]

However let us not forget that we are combating against Aliens! These creatures seemingly wear far superior Armour than their human counterparts do, meaning that a Terran weapon that would bring down a normal human in a single shot may only wind an Alien, but the reason we bring these weapons with us is because it is the best we can offer. Also we are combating a viarity of Aliens in different environments and situation from close combat to long distance, each Alien having different Armour, tactics and weaknesses, bringing weapons that can be adapted to these situations is vital.

Simply put, normal Human conventions of warfare are not going to apply easily against the Aliens. It is like comparing Archers to WW1 Riflemen. The riflemen have a big advantage with their better weaponry and ability to use tactics the Archers would never be able to employ, however the Archers could still kill the riflemen, eventually.

[Gauddlike]

You put forward the case that increased toughness of enemies would reduce weapon variety then say that making them more vulnerable would do the same.

As you say, if any weapon can kill them in one hit you don't need to bother with the heavier weapons.

You start the game with weapons that are not ideal for taking down the enemies you will be facing.

They will do the job though.

The minute they are no longer 'good enough' they are indeed leaving.

They are replaced with the laser weapons from tier two.

When the enemies become tougher/better armoured you then move your research up to another level for tier three weapons.

Know how a minimum caliber for big game hunting is selected?

The minimum caliber should be such that it brings the target down in one hit with a shot that misses the vitals.

In jurisdictions where hunting weapons are regulated, it's a legal requirement. Elsewhere just good practice.

Not even one turn, which is multiple shots, just one hit.

I wouldn't really know how many shots you would consider as normal for that type of hunting weapon to fire in a game turn.

One or maybe two perhaps, taking into account aiming time?

It would sit above the average damage line I would assume.

That then would fit right in with the system I suggested.

A good hit would take an enemy down while a poor hit wouldn't.

That is assuming a target with at least some armour of course, not an unarmoured animal.

[HWP]

but the reason we bring these weapons with us is because it is the best we can offer.

But they are not.

In terms of damage output, M16 is very far from the best. About as far as military weapons get, it fires a lengthened varmint round.

If it was the best, you would have a case, but it's not.

You put forward the case that increased toughness of enemies would reduce weapon variety then say that making them more vulnerable would do the same.

As you say, if any weapon can kill them in one hit you don't need to bother with the heavier weapons.

Any weapon above pistols can kill starting enemies in 1-3 hits. That's not 1 for some, 3 for other, but probabilistic (i.e. you don't always get a 1-hit kill).

You still need the heavier weapons for:

1) Additional volume of fire - more shots per round, mostly only if you don't move

2) Later, well-protected enemies

You start the game with weapons that are not ideal for taking down the enemies you will be facing.

They will do the job though.

A weapon that doesn't kill its intended target in 1 good hit doesn't do the job.

Your case would work if M16 was the most powerful rifle ever built as of 1979. It's not. There's even plenty of M14s still out there. If one shot from M16 isn't enough, you take M14. It's as simple as that.

It would sit above the average damage line I would assume.

It's not even the average. It's the minimum. Where regulated, you are by law prohibited from using anything less powerful. So the minimum weapon you use against target X is a weapon that tends to kill target X with one good shot. Good being torso, but not vitals (that's a very good shot).

A lot of hunters take more powerful weapons than the minimum, e.g. .308 where .270 would work, .378 where .338 would suffice, 12ga where 20ga is still a kill.

[Steelpoint]

M14 are all well and good but there are several factors to consider.

1. The Xenonauts employ the latest in military technology, due to their political ties they get access to a limited amount of the latest tech. The M14 was retired with the US military around 1970, nine years prior to the games, with the M16 being the latest gun used.

2. The M14 was retired, still in use but effectively not state of the art. This means getting access to the weapon in good quantity's would be more difficult (I would imagine).

3. The M16 is more versatile than the M14, at least in this game as having a weapon that is useable in most situations is more reliable than a battle rifle that is more effective in mid to long range combat.

4. Video game!

[Gauddlike]

As soon as there is an entry for Caesan and Sebillian in the database for how much damage is needed to take them out in a single shot then Xenonauts scientists will probably get right on designing those weapons.

We will call them tier two.

If a weapon that stands a chance of not getting a kill in one hit doesn't do the job then why do people still use weapons that are below your theoretical threshold for usefulness?

Many military and paramilitary organisations use weapons that are not guaranteed one hit kills against the enemy they will be facing.

A NATO soldier wearing standard issue body armour will likely stand up to a normal assault rifle shot to the body.

Yet armed forces all over the world are not rushing to deploy anti tank weapons to all of their front line troops.

Instead they issue the best weapon they have available and back them up with support weapons.

I don't really see how this affects the balance of the in game weapons any more though.

Even that was drifting from the initial point of the thread.

[HWP]

M14 are all well and good but there are several factors to consider.

1. The Xenonauts employ the latest in military technology, due to their political ties they get access to a limited amount of the latest tech. The M14 was retired with the US military around 1970

So... they employ the latest on principle, even if it's much worse than the previous thing?

I thought Xenonauts are a military organization that fights aliens, not Gadget Review. Guess I've been mistaken.

2. The M14 was retired, still in use but effectively not state of the art. This means getting access to the weapon in good quantity's would be more difficult (I would imagine).

It's not. There's still many thousands of these you can get. Will be for the foreseeable future, too.

As soon as there is an entry for Caesan and Sebillian in the database for how much damage is needed to take them out in a single shot then Xenonauts scientists will probably get right on designing those weapons.

And if these scientists are any good, they will have the preliminary report in 1 minute (60 seconds). It will read "Use M14 you morons". The other 55 seconds will be spent phrasing it in an undeservingly inoffensive way.

However, considering certain data from previous incidents, they should already know it.

If a weapon that stands a chance of not getting a kill in one hit doesn't do the job then why do people still use weapons that are below your theoretical threshold for usefulness?

A weapon that doesn't stand a good chance of killing or disabling the target with one good hit.

That's the threshold. Don't shift it.

A NATO soldier wearing standard issue body armour will likely stand up to a normal assault rifle shot to the body.

Yet armed forces all over the world are not rushing to deploy anti tank weapons to all of their front line troops.

They are not fighting NATO troops. Or intend to fight NATO troops. And should a need come to fight NATO troops, the militaries that might have to, have their plans. Explosive munitions, mostly; carbide tipped, carbide core and API rounds starting with 7.62; marksman tactics.

Also, an interesting note. Modern Interceptor+ESAPI body armor will not just stand up to one AR shot. It will stand up to 3, 10, 20, 30, 40. After a number of mags dumped in, though, the cracking will wear out the ceramic layer. Fortunately there's still the PE back layer and the vest.

So, basically, no reasonable number of AR rounds will pierce US body armor. Militaries don't fight by wearing each other's armor down with repeated shots. 5.56 isn't effective at all against body parts that are protected by SAPI or ESAPI, plain and simple.

Edited December 27, 2012 by HWP