[V18] Assault Rifles and pistols are just useless right now.

[SuperBazza]

This is more of a heads up than anything. I'm not sure this is supposed to be like this, but I feel it needs to be said.

Standard assault rifles, in this game, are thoroughly useless. There is a range in which shotguns work great, there is a range in which snipers work great. Same for grenades, heavy machine guns, bazookas, stun prods. Assault rifles, though, seem to fall short in every category in some aspect: they use up too many TUs for single firing, are too innacurate in burst fire, their damage is too little, even at point-blank range. I mean, what is the tactical advantage of using one of those instead of shotgun, for example? I have no riflemen in my entire team (20+ soldiers), as I have replaced all of them. Worse, my tactics got all more efficient as I got rid of this kind of weapon.

Another obsolete firearm is the pistol, which for whatever reason is more innacurate than shotguns even at medium ranges and use more TUs than most weapons, considering the fact that you have to shove your main gun in the bag and equip it. My feeling translates as this: I have never seem a situation in which the use of a pistol would be the optimal choice.

WHAT COULD BE DONE: the main thing here is, there has be an exclusive advantage for each kind of firearm.

I'll agree shotguns, snipers, bazookas and machine guns are all more powerful than assault rifles, but there is a reason most men in armies go with the usual AK-47 or similar: they are functional in most situations, as opposed to those specialized guns. In my view, this would translate into the game as the use of minimal TUs in either fire mode. Accuracy, while not great, should definitely be better than that of a shotgun after 10 meters/squares. Firepower doesn't have to be changed.

For the pistol, I think there has be a different paradigm in using it: it really is weaker than all the rest, but soldiers use them because they are the quick option. In the game, that would translate in a sidearm which use almost no TUs to equip, almost no TUs to fire from the hip, and would weigh next to nothing. In fact, there are pistols today that weigh as little as 200g, so why not incorporate this into the game? That would give some use to the pistol.

Tactics game get richer the more alternatives you offer. At the moment, the justified roles (in my humble opinion) are centered in 4 areas: assaulters with shotguns, sweepers with HMGs, pinpointers with snipers and painters with explosives. Add these tweaks to the assault rifles and you could have true supporters too. Change the way the pistol is used and every soldier would be two times as flexible.

What do you guys think?

[svidangel]

Pistols are amazing.

[Black Cat]

From my understanding pistols shine when combined with combat shields. Granted never used shields.

My squads are always the same. Full sniper rifles till I research Lasers. Then I switch over to standard Laser rifles for everyone. Why worry about a shotgun when a full burst fire Laser rifle will do the same from short range it seems.

I am going to switch things up and do 2 precision plasma's this time through for each squad. See how those play out.

[Max_Caine]

Pistols are wonderful for training troops. Even if new stat gain caps go in, there's nothing like a pistol for training reaction fire or for training accuracy. Pistols are also nastier than you might think in the hands of a skilled operator. It's not the damage per shot that matters so much as the number of reasonably accurate shots you can get out of a pistolier, combined with with large random damage score. I love me some pistol on shield action.

[WalrusJones]

Its fairly hard to balance the bards.

[DNK]

Balancing this basically requires a total redo of the combat system's tradeoffs, including how they handle weight. Weight should be a major issue (included with recoil), but currently strength stats get so overblown so easily that you never really worry about it after September 1st. If you made weight go up far slower (with a much lower cap) AND made it so that you start losing TUs to weight at kg #1 instead of kg "half of strength", both added recoil/weight/TU requirements to sniper rifles would make them far less OP and less able to be mass equipped.

[WalrusJones]

Balancing this basically requires a total redo of the combat system's tradeoffs, including how they handle weight. Weight should be a major issue (included with recoil), but currently strength stats get so overblown so easily that you never really worry about it after September 1st. If you made weight go up far slower (with a much lower cap) AND made it so that you start losing TUs to weight at kg #1 instead of kg "half of strength", both added recoil/weight/TU requirements to sniper rifles would make them far less OP and less able to be mass equipped.

My mod makes this somewhat true, the standard sniper has very poor damage for its excellent range, the alternative sniper rifle has unheard of damage, but has recoil and weight. (As does a high damage pistol, and all battle rifles.)

I'm not asking you to become a subscriber, I am simply saying that this is something I would like to see your feedback.

[Max_Caine]

Regarding weight, a new system was proposed by Chris a while ago. I wonder if we'll see it in place?

[StellarRat]

..there is a reason most men in armies go with the usual AK-47 or similar: they are functional in most situations, as opposed to those specialized guns...

Well, that's sort of true. But your ignoring the biggest reasons:

They are cheap and plentiful as is the ammo.

They take minimal training - Training a sniper takes months or years and you have to have some talent.

They are easy to maintain.

They don't weigh very much and neither does the ammo.

I would much rather face 10 guys with assault rifles than 10 trained snipers in nearly any situation. Don't forget that snipers are deadly in urban combat too not just in the open field.

Edited July 19, 2013 by StellarRat

[GizmoGomez]

Regarding weight, a new system was proposed by Chris a while ago. I wonder if we'll see it in place?

I quite enjoy this idea.

[SuperBazza]

I don't really see nerfing the other guns as a good alternative for a lackluster assault rifle. I mean, you should give more options to the player, not take them away because you couldn't think of something else. The thing with weight/TUs trade-off from the first kilogram is a good idea, as is taking recoil into account. But I maintain that the accuracy in assault rifles should be higher.

As for the pistols, I don't see them working, really. I mean, maybe for training... maybe with shields... but I feel the opportunities to benefit from them are too limited, as opposed to what they actually do in real life (which is to serve as kick-ass alternatives or discreet ranged weapons). Maybe the inclusion of suppressors and ZERO TUs to draw them would bring them closer to their real counterparts.

Well, that's sort of true. But your ignoring the biggest reasons:

They are cheap and plentiful as is the ammo.

They take minimal training - Training a sniper takes months or years and you have to have some talent.

They are easy to maintain.

They don't weigh very much and neither does the ammo.

I would much rather face 10 guys with assault rifles than 10 trained snipers in nearly any situation. Don't forget that snipers are deadly in urban combat too not just in the open field.

It's true that specialized guns come with high price for their effectiveness, but this doesn't explain the use of assault rifles as a first choice. Besides, some of the most modern rifles come for no less than 40 thousand dollars, and there are snipers that cost no more than a few hundred, so that's debatable.

The thing is: you give a guy a sniper and see he go face-to-face with someone bearing an assault gun, or even a pistol. Snipers won't do most of the time, they are slow to aim, difficult to hold, take forever to get in optimal position. Sure, once you are in the sweet spot, you are god among men, but it is unthinkable to give a soldier a sniper rifle and say "Go kill aliens out there". This is done with infantry weapons.

[GizmoGomez]

What assault rifle costs $40,000? What?

On topic;

Pistols should be there for making a volume of fire.

Carbines should make even more of a volume of fire, making them identical in damage, but higher in accuracy and slightly higher in TU cost. Pistols are balanced in that they're one handed. Also, I kinda like the idea of making pistols require no TUs to draw; maybe 1 TU just to shake things up.

Rifles should be more accurate, have longer range, and deal more damage than carbines, but have a higher TU cost-per-bullet, meaning their rate of fire is reduced from a carbine (which I tend to consider a submachine gun-esk weapon).

Really, rifles should have a medium small TU cost (same as a shotgun, ideally), be medium ranged, deal medium damage, and be high accuracy within it's range.

[Black Cat]

Regarding weight, a new system was proposed by Chris a while ago. I wonder if we'll see it in place?

I still think the problem is our guys skill up way to much.

8 ranks should equal 8 skill up. The fact that there is such a huge huge difference between a 20 mission vet and a 3 mission rookie is just bad. On top of that balancing becomes so much easier for things if you know a soldier's stats are going to fall between x and y.

Plus it eliminates the powerleveling of guys through means that make no actual sense in combat such as overloading you troops with weight and spamming shots you hope to miss at.

It also kills the worry about only wanting 8 super soldiers and anything beyond that becomes wasted because their stats are so low by the time you get them up and running.

It makes losses become more acceptable because while a lost soldier is bad, replacing him isn't the end of the world. My first squad is a full 8 guys with almost 100 TU's or more each. At this point if one dies it is a reload because that kind of skill is just to much to lose.

It also makes starting stats more important. A guy who starts with 60 TU's is going to be way more desirable vrs a guy who starts with 50 when you know at best he is going to get another 8-16 TUs throughout his career.

It also makes the tradeoffs are starting stats more important. That guy with only 50 TU's might look really nice when he starts with 60 Strength.

[RawCode]

pistols and assaults not bad, simply sniper is too good in every situation.

[Endominus]

Honestly, I love pistols, particularly when I can stop using terrible ballistic weapons. The laser pistol is the first laser weapon I develop, followed by the carbine, because my commandos are just unstoppable killing machines (in my stable playthrough, my initial commando had a kill-to-mission ratio of 2:1, and had been on almost every mission). Mostly, that's a result of them being really liberal with grenades, but the utility of a one-handed sidearm is fantastic. I only expect this to get better once I really begin using shields in my gatecrashing maneuvers.

On balancing assault rifles... While I agree that they do little damage, I honestly find no fault with their accuracy (except at extremely close ranges, where everyone seems to be incompetent. I find that they give me much more mobility than sniper rifles; I can actually move around with my riflemen without feeling like I've lost every semblance of accuracy.

Starting the TU reduction from 1kG would be very interesting. I would definitely have to rethink how I outfit my dudes. But wouldn't it make strength a useless stat? Unless it worked purely as mitigation (so that x kG of weight reduce your TUs by x*(100/(100+STR)), I suppose.