On Machine Guns

[HWP]

HWP,

I thought that SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) was a designation one assigned to an LMG. Like, LMG is the class (for lack of a better word) of firearm, and SAW is how it's deployed.

SAW or LSW or SAR or whatever - anyone calls it what they want - is a separate class of weapon, but a subclass of LMG.

There is a lot of overlap and ambiguity in these definitions. SAW will always use an intermediate round, while LMG covers both intermediate and rifle calibers.

Also, I've never heard of LMG implying a two man crew. If there were two people, the second would be used mainly in a support role, carrying ammunition, extra barrels (you're going to need them), etc. He's not absolutely necessary, though, as LMGs are designed to be able to be operated by one man, hence the term Light.

LMG that are SAW/LSW are 1-man weapon, with an assistant preferred. LMG that are not, using full rifle rounds, are 2-man. The second operator is never absolutely necessary - even M2HB or KPVT can be operated by one person.

MMGs (Medium Machine Gun), or GPMGs (General Purpose Machine Gun) as they've been recently designated, do require more than one operator to be used effectively.

GPMG is a distinct class from MMG. GPMG are guns that can be used in LMG role with a bipod, less ammo (sometimes magazine feed), occasionally a lighter barrel and 2 men, or in MMG role with a tripod, always belt feed, proper barrel, and 3 men.

E.g. US has a total of 22 men, 18 operators and 4 command and auxiliary, for six M60 or M240 GPMG deployed in MMG configuration.

Just that it's possible to use a gun alone doesn't change how it's used best. What makes almost all MG crew-served weapons is their role as heavy duty cycle (15%-30%) weapons, as opposed to light duty cycle (2%-5% max) weapons like assault rifles.

Heavy duty cycle requires rapid ammunition reloading and often quick barrel changes, taking more men, it requires resupply and it requires separate fire coordination; the gunner in such cycle is too busy just aiming and shooting to spare time for anything else.

Using insufficient crew for a machine gun will make it impossible to sustain the duty cycle it was built for, essentially reducing it to little more than an overweight assault rifle. "Crew required" is a bit of a wrong way to look at it; rather, it's having a 2-man or 3-man crew that gives machine guns their sustained rate of fire and combat effectiveness, and weapon's own construction is a necessity to make use of that crew.

[StellarRat]

There is no such thing as a "standard" burt with auto-fire weapon.

They shoot as long as you hold down the trigger.

Of course they do. I'm not stupid. I meant a soldier is trained to fire 5-7 round bursts. Everyone I know that has been in the military tells me the same thing. That guy in the video was just having fun. The way he was firing he wouldn't have hit crap unless it was standing right in front of him. Edited February 11, 2013 by StellarRat

[HWP]

Of course they do. I'm not stupid. I meant a soldier is trained to fire 5-7 round bursts.

Burst length depends on the weapon and its role, inc. particular military. When obstacle breaching bursts can get longer.

It doesn't really matter, though. MG burst fire is not the same as rifle burst fire. You fire multiple bursts with only a second in between them. So either they need to take very few TU or one should go for longer bursts - 8-10 is still within usable range.

[StellarRat]

Burst length depends on the weapon and its role, inc. particular military. When obstacle breaching bursts can get longer.

It doesn't really matter, though. MG burst fire is not the same as rifle burst fire. You fire multiple bursts with only a second in between them. So either they need to take very few TU or one should go for longer bursts - 8-10 is still within usable range.

Well, I think the TU amount for each burst is certainly too high right now, if you're making a real life comparison to the M-16. It shouldn't take any longer to fire a burst from MG than an assault rifle comparatively. I assumed the reason was to prevent the SAW/LMG from becoming an uber weapon. I think I mentioned in a previous post that if you actually set the values to something approximating the correct damage and accuracy for an M-60 it is the best weapon you can get for at least the first couple tiers of tech. If the spread was correct I could see it being viable even at third or fourth tech tier. I think one of the balancing "fixes" for the SAW/LMG would be to give it a HUGE penalty if you tried to fire while moving. That would encourage players to use it as a covering weapon like it's meant to be used. If that were in place I could see lower the burst TU. Of course, if they ever tighten up auto fire further adjustments would probably have to be made. One other critical factor is the caliber. I pictured it as a 7.62 mm weapon while others have stated it's a .223. There is a large damage/pentration difference between the two. It wouldn't be nearly as uber with a .223 caliber.

Anyway, when the game is stable and the XML is no longer changing I'm going to release a more comprehensive gunpowder mod to address some of the things I talked about. Right now, it's fairly pointless because the data structures might change and I'd have to redo it everytime that happened.

Edited February 11, 2013 by StellarRat

[Tacobandit]

Of course they do. I'm not stupid. I meant a soldier is trained to fire 5-7 round bursts. Everyone I know that has been in the military tells me the same thing. That guy in the video was just having fun. The way he was firing he wouldn't have hit crap unless it was standing right in front of him.

Well it's a good thing that the Xenonauts aren't part of the military. They might do more... unconventional things. Thinking about this game in realistic terms is hopeless, because A) Why would they only send one skyranger? B) Why would the aliens not launch a full scale assault on your base the second you launch anything from your base, and C) Why would the aliens only attack one site at a time?

[Gorlom]

Well it's a good thing that the Xenonauts aren't part of the military. They might do more... unconventional things. Thinking about this game in realistic terms is hopeless, because A) Why would they only send one skyranger? B) Why would the aliens not launch a full scale assault on your base the second you launch anything from your base, and C) Why would the aliens only attack one site at a time?

D) Why would they fire long bursts on the LMG (when Chris tellls them not to)?

[TrashMan]

If JA2 can do LMG's right, then Xenonauts has no excuse.

[StellarRat]

If JA2 can do LMG's right, then Xenonauts has no excuse.

Within the current game system and programming of Xenonauts I think the MG's are mostly right. Some of it can be fixed with modding. My biggest problem is the spread with MG's. My understanding is that it is not that easy to fix due to the game engine they chose and the existing code base. Edited February 13, 2013 by StellarRat

[Gauddlike]

Maybe if the stopping chance of a human sized target was reduced, say to 40% for kneeling and 80% for standing (from 60% and 100%).

The tighter arcs would be much less devastating then as a close miss would be less likely to become a hit.

If the arcs were tighter larger bursts would look less ridiculous.

They would still be incredibly powerful though.

In addition to my thread on changes to how weapon fire modes are handled this is something that I think would be of benefit to the game to be examined closely.

The current system just doesn't feel right.

[StellarRat]

Maybe if the stopping chance of a human sized target was reduced, say to 40% for kneeling and 80% for standing (from 60% and 100%).

The tighter arcs would be much less devastating then as a close miss would be less likely to become a hit.

If the arcs were tighter larger bursts would look less ridiculous.

They would still be incredibly powerful though.

In addition to my thread on changes to how weapon fire modes are handled this is something that I think would be of benefit to the game to be examined closely.

The current system just doesn't feel right.

It seems OK, well "liveable", to me other than the spread. But I thought you said tightening the spread arc would cause misses to become hits because any bullet passing through an occupied tile still counts as a hit??? Actually, the whole spread issue applies to more than just machine guns obviously, but you'd have to get Chris to take another look at it. To me it is definitely not right. It works pretty much like the old XCom games, but those were pretty messed up in that regard too. I think I actually proposed what you're saying earlier, but maybe we didn't understand each other.

[Max_Caine]

I'm pretty certain burst fire has already been discussed at length... let me see... aha! Here we are. Looking back through that thread, I think peeps who want to change burst fire are going to have to make a really awesome argument why it should be changed. Probably with visual aids as to why?

[Gauddlike]

But I thought you said tightening the spread arc would cause misses to become hits because any bullet passing through an occupied tile still counts as a hit???

That was why I mentioned the part about reducing the stopping chance numbers so that this would not be the case 100% of the time.

[StellarRat]

I understand what you're saying. I guess I thought all along the if a bullet passed through a tile and there was a soldier in it it HAD TO count as a hit. I didn't realize it was within the programmers ability to not count it as a hit due to the game engine they chose. I believe we might be on the same page now, finally. I'm in total agreement with you on this. That brings up question two, what happens to round that pass through a tile with a person in it? Do they just fly on or can they damage something in the tile anyway or hit something behind the target tile?

[Gorlom]

I understand what you're saying. I guess I thought all along the if a bullet passed through a tile and there was a soldier in it it HAD TO count as a hit. I didn't realize it was within the programmers ability to not count it as a hit due to the game engine they chose. I believe we might be on the same page now, finally. I'm in total agreement with you on this. That brings up question two, what happens to round that pass through a tile with a person in it? Do they just fly on or can they damage something in the tile anyway or hit something behind the target tile?

After reading your post in the 19th Feb update post I got the feeling that you and me assume the stopping percentage Gauddlike mentions works differently.

You see it as a satisfactory way to fix the close miss turning into hits problem. I don't know if you see any drawbacks.

I assume that with a stopping percentage of 80%, 20% of your shots that are calculated as hits will still pass through dealing no damage. 40% stopping would mean 60% of your hits would miss.

If this is the case I think it would be subpar solution to the problem. Too small percentage and there is no difference, close misses still hit. To much and your regular accuracy will be useless. I don't think there can be a balanced % that isn't too much or too little. in the cross over you would get both situations downsides together instead of the satisfactory scenario.

If anyone could clarify: Does the stopping percentage only affect misses or hits as well? Is the stopping percentage included in the "to hit %" calculation. Can the stopping percentage be worked around somehow?

Can there be over 100% to hit? If you have 180% to hit with a 50% stopping would you have 90% to hit in actuality?

[StellarRat]

After reading your post in the 19th Feb update post I got the feeling that you and me assume the stopping percentage Gauddlike mentions works differently.

You see it as a satisfactory way to fix the close miss turning into hits problem. I don't know if you see any drawbacks.

I assume that with a stopping percentage of 80%, 20% of your shots that are calculated as hits will still pass through dealing no damage. 40% stopping would mean 60% of your hits would miss.

If this is the case I think it would be subpar solution to the problem. Too small percentage and there is no difference, close misses still hit. To much and your regular accuracy will be useless. I don't think there can be a balanced % that isn't too much or too little. in the cross over you would get both situations downsides together instead of the satisfactory scenario.

If anyone could clarify: Does the stopping percentage only affect misses or hits as well? Is the stopping percentage included in the "to hit %" calculation. Can the stopping percentage be worked around somehow?

Can there be over 100% to hit? If you have 180% to hit with a 50% stopping would you have 90% to hit in actuality?

I don't think we're on the same page. Suppose you auto fire with a 5 round burst with the SAW. The chance to hit is 20%. Each round is calculated to see if it hits. If it's supposed to hit you proceed as normal. If it's supposed to miss you calculate the spread amount (with a smaller arc than they do now), but now if, after the spread is added, it still goes through the target tile, it just keeps going and could hit something behind the target OR it could stop just short and ground splash OR it could hit the cover in front of the target (doesn't really make much difference.) So, in this scenario, if you were at point blank range in a hallway or what have you, you could fire and if you miss the shot could appear to pass through the target tile and hit the wall behind your "victim". The shot sprites are already independent of the terrain for drawing purposes so I don't see a problem from a graphics standpoint. I believe that is preferrable to having the shot go off at a 45 degree angle and hit the wall beside the "victim" which makes it appear that your highly trained soldier can't even point his/her weapon into the correct quadrant! The mechanics to do this are already mostly in place as Chris made it possible to shoot over crouching soldiers already. In my scenario, you basically could treat a miss the same way if the spread didn't move it to the left or right far enough to take it out of the target tile or at least past the target itself.

I guess I should say a bit more about your post...I'm not sure about how the "stopping" chance actually works. I always thought the to hit chance took any intervening cover into account. If it doesn't I still don't see how my proposal would have much effect on anything other than the graphical appearance of the misses. I believe we need an explanation of the hit and miss mechanics from a developer to truly understand how the current system works.

Edited February 19, 2013 by StellarRat

[Gorlom]

I don't think we're on the same page. Suppose you auto fire with a 5 round burst with the SAW. The chance to hit is 20%. Each round is calculated to see if it hits. If it's supposed to hit you proceed as normal. If it's supposed to miss you calculate the spread amount (with a smaller arc than they do now), but now if, after the spread is added, it still goes through the target tile, it just keeps going and could hit something behind the target OR it could stop just short and ground splash OR it could hit the cover in front of the target (doesn't really make much difference.) So, in this scenario, if you were at point blank range in a hallway or what have you, you could fire and if you miss the shot could appear to pass through the target tile and hit the wall behind your "victim". The shot sprites are already independent of the terrain for drawing purposes so I don't see a problem from a graphics standpoint. I believe that is preferrable to having the shot go off at a 45 degree angle and hit the wall beside the "victim" which makes it appear that your highly trained soldier can't even point his/her weapon into the correct quadrant! The mechanics to do this are already mostly in place as Chris made it possible to shoot over crouching soldiers already. In my scenario, you basically could treat a miss the same way if the spread didn't move it to the left or right far enough to take it out of the target tile or at least past the target itself.

I guess I should say a bit more about your post...I'm not sure about how the "stopping" chance actually works. I always thought the to hit chance took any intervening cover into account. If it doesn't I still don't see how my proposal would have much effect on anything other than the graphical appearance of the misses. I believe we need an explanation of the hit and miss mechanics from a developer to truly understand how the current system works.

Yeah, that is pretty much how I thought you viewed the situation. Your focus seem to lie on how to treat misses. My concern is what happens to the hits? If it works only on the misses it would be a wonderful solution to your problem (I on the other hand don't have that problem and would like a mod with the silly misses again for nostalgia purposes. But I do not want to deprive you of your happiness.)

I assume the stopping chance applies to ALL shots, hits and misses, that passes through the tile. That means it is in effect an accuracy cap. I don't know if you consider this or not?

My example with 180 % to hit is rather ridiculous, I can't see how that would ever be possible. So if there is a 50% stopping percentage that would mean that accuracy can never go over 50%. I see that as a big problem if that is the case.

Optimally you would want 0% stopping for the misses and 100% stopping for the hits. But unless it is possible to separate them I think it is a bad idea to mess around with the stopping percentage. The only use it has is to make a comparable shot less accurate (such as when one is crouching instead of standing). Making all shots less accurate across the board (if there is no way to raise the accuracy up again over that % hurdle) seems like a horrible solution imo.

At any reasonable stopping % reduction (20-40%, numbers taken out of the air) you are still going to have the near miss turns into hit X% (60-80%) of the time. Making it largely pointless.

And if you go overboard (reducing it by say 70%) you're not going to hit with the regular legit shots (70% of the time) that are supposed to hit. If the reduction is taking into the accuracy calculation you will never see accuracy over Y (30% in this example).

If you go for a middle ground I feel that you just get the downside of both options, making it largely pointless and frustratingly low accuracy)

I'd really like some clarification from someone that has a better understanding of how the stopping percentage works.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Gorlom

[TrashMan]

MG's still feel off to me. The cost to shoot is too damn high.. when they fire they feel more like shotguns, as there is practicly no latency between shots.

Even at point black, with high ACC soldier, it is still incredibly innacurate.

[StellarRat]

MG's still feel off to me. The cost to shoot is too damn high.. when they fire they feel more like shotguns, as there is practicly no latency between shots.

Even at point black, with high ACC soldier, it is still incredibly innacurate.

I agree with you, but here's the rub. We can't MOD the spread arc for misses, but we can MOD weapon accuracy, TU's to fire and the number of rounds very easily. So, that's why I've asked to have the arc reduced to something more realistic. If Chris is agreeable to that, then if you don't like the stuff you mentioned you can always use a MOD.

[StellarRat]

That was why I mentioned the part about reducing the stopping chance numbers so that this would not be the case 100% of the time.

Chris told me to bring the whole topic again when the Beta Forum opens. He sounded like our idea is worth consideration.

StellarRat - that's something we'll think about in beta, as it's not actually a bug or a usability issue. Let's get there first and then I'll sit down and think about it. That might be a good solution though, suggest it again when I open the beta forums.

Edited February 20, 2013 by StellarRat

[Gauddlike]

The stopping chance of the target tile does not get calculated on hits so reducing it should not make hits end up passing through the target tile.

The stopping chance of any tiles between the shooter and the target is instead used as part of the hit calculation.

That same calculation determines if one of those intervening objects or any cover the target has is hit.

This seems to work quite well from what I can see.

The problem is not with hit rolls at all, it is only with how misses operate.

Ok now let me go through an example that shows how I believe the stopping chance works.

StellarRat fires two shots at Gauddlike with a 75% chance to hit.

The first rolls as a hit on Gauddlike so the projectile animation is drawn between the two points and damage is calculated.

The calculation and hit generation is a little more complicated of course but not in any way that has a bearing on the deviation angle.

The second shot rolls as a miss.

Because it has been fired but has no destination point a deviation angle is generated.

The projectile then flies along that new path and every tile it passes through is checked (could be done on the fly or prior to the shot firing).

Lets assume that the deviation amount was only a couple of degrees in this particular case.

The projectile first passes through a tile containing a half height wall.

The stopping chance of this tile type is 60%, however a roll of 68 is made so the projectile continues.

After passing through a few empty tiles (0% stopping chance) the projectile attempts to pass through the tile that Gauddlike is standing in, because of the low deviation angle.

Because he is standing up he gives that tile a 100% stopping chance.

That means that as the projectile cannot roll over 100 it has to be classed as a hit on that tile.

Damage is now calculated against the object within the tile, and Gauddlike now gets hurt by the missed shot.

This means that any low deviation angle that is generated which allows the projectile to pass through the tile poor Gauddlike is standing on will almost certainly become a hit.

This is on top of the 75% chance of actually rolling a hit.

Tighten the deviation arc and more shots will be generated that cannot miss the target, even on a miss roll.

The actual hit percentage becomes meaningless after a certain point, or at a certain range, because it become increasingly difficult for a shot that rolls as a miss to go anywhere but into the target.

Imagine it as firing a bb gun at a tennis ball from 10 metres away.

You may be a good enough shot to hit it 10% of the time.

Now lay a drainpipe between you and the tennis ball then fire down the pipe at it.

It no longer really matters how good a shot you are as the projectile cannot go wide enough to miss any more.

If you miss then it hits the sides of the pipe (or deviation arc) and cannot go any wider.

The only way to reduce the number of missed shots that actually end up hitting (in the current system) is to have a stupidly wide potential deviation angle.

If you can only miss by 5 degrees each side then the majority of missed shots become hits.

You may have a 60% chance to hit the target displayed but then your misses also have a 90% chance to become hits (the other 10% pass wide of the target tile).

If you can miss by 50 degrees each side then you can actually miss your target now.

[Gorlom]

The stopping chance of the target tile does not get calculated on hits so reducing it should not make hits end up passing through the target tile.

The problem is not with hit rolls at all, it is only with how misses operate.

Gauddlike: If you set the stopping chance to X% for player/alien units can accuracy ever go over X%? If it can why not just set the stopping chance to 0%?

[StellarRat]

If it can why not just set the stopping chance to 0%?

It seems to me that the stopping should be set to zero only for the target if you've "rolled" a miss. All other chances ought to remain the way they are. If my understanding is correct that ought to allow misses to continue on and possibly damage or wound/kill other objects along the firing path. This makes complete sense to me. I much prefer some randomness in what all the those shots going down range are going to hit. 100% stopping should never happen if the target is not terrain.

[TrashMan]

I agree with you, but here's the rub. We can't MOD the spread arc for misses, but we can MOD weapon accuracy, TU's to fire and the number of rounds very easily. So, that's why I've asked to have the arc reduced to something more realistic. If Chris is agreeable to that, then if you don't like the stuff you mentioned you can always use a MOD.

I have palyed a bit with the numbers. It makes no sesne that a weapon designed to spew out bullets can fire LESS bullets ina a turn than a M16.

Frankly, a MG burst should cost as much TU's an assault rifle burst.

[StellarRat]

Frankly, a MG burst should cost as much TU's an assault rifle burst.

You are correct and I did, in fact, mod the MG to have the proper accuracy, damage, and firing rate that it should have compared to an M-16. Unfortunately, it becomes overwelmingly powerful even with the current spread machanics. I think I had a 100% kill probability on all 1st and 2nd level aliens at any range. If you could see the alien it was as good as dead. (It also killed several friendlies due to the spread.) When my squad was equipped with two of them it was nearly invincible specially in terror missions. So, I had to back it off to nearly the same settings as what it came with default.

The biggest advantage it has over a rifle is long range accuracy. Since the current mechanics don't decrease the hit probability with each successive round you are nearly aways guaranteed a couple hits on any target. If you mod in more damage and penetration for a 7.62mm NATO round it becomes even deadlier. I can probably "fix" the accuracy by averaging for 5 rounds of fire (or whatever the standard burst turns out to be) instead of using the first round hit probability. It won't be perfectly realistic but I doubt many people will notice and the outcomes should be about the same.

Once the beta is underway I will try again so I can make a contribution to the "cause".

[TrashMan]

All I did was change the fire cost and it seemed to work well for me. Dunno what changes you have been making.

Technicly, you could reduce damage a bit. You have machinguns that use same caliber bullets as rifles after all.....