Energy Weapon Analysis

[NoirWolf]

I'd love a grenade launcher in this game, but it would be so unbalanced. Can you imagine a squad armed with M32s on the field? Heh heh heh heh heh

Not really as the grenades from a grenade launcher if I am not mistaken are HE shells which in turn makes them slightly more prone to exploding when hit by something hot...like a bolt of plasma and 5-6 of those puppies going off at the same time in close proximity? yeah... plus long reload time plus slow rate of fire plus shells would have to be carried individually and be only slightly smaller than a regular rocket ( imagine if the grenades in the backpack go up as well when the ones in the launcher go up... I think that would kinda fuck with your squad and anything within close proximity of the poor bastard).

[Elydo]

You can put almost anything you like into some models. And a 40mm grenade round is about the same size as a hand grenade is anyway. One inventory square in-game certainly. Plus a rotary model is semi-automatic. The Milkor MGL was designed in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_gun

Edited September 21, 2013 by Elydo

[NoirWolf]

You can put almost anything you like into some models. And a 40mm grenade round is about the same size as a hand grenade is anyway. One inventory square in-game certainly. Plus a rotary model is semi-automatic. The Milkor MGL was designed in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40mm_grenade

Actually they range from grenade sized to slightly bigger (so from 1 to 2 slots) and considering the nature of the enemy (advanced aliens) I would assume they'd go with HE or Frag type shells both of which explode quite well when launched or when hit ( smoke shells could also be in but not non-lethal variants as those just tickle xenos).

[Elydo]

Or in the game; stun gas, flashbangs, electroshock, alenium explosive, plasma. All hand varients, only at a range more than three feet away and two or three rounds a turn.

[NoirWolf]

Or in the game; stun gas, flashbangs, electroshock, alenium explosive, plasma. All hand varients, only at a range more than three feet away and two or three rounds a turn.

Smoke grenades, flashbangs, traditional explosives and maybe alenium enhanced explosives, you do not want to level the area you're in with what could class as nuclear explosives (going with the trope: alien plutonium! must explode gud!). All cold war era grenade launchers were single shot, I just checked so the rate of fire per turn would be slightly better than a rocket launcher (so 1 maybe 2 with a veteran soldier) but the ammo size is still an issue as is getting shot while carrying what amounts to 40 mm HE tank shell warheads in your backpack if you're carrying only traditional HE, alenium could make you into a nice wall shadow if you carried allot of them and they all got touched off.

[Elydo]

The game takes place in 1979, the MGL I referenced was designed in 1980. Not that much of a stretch. The Foxhound design we steal to develop the Foxtrot didn't come into service until 1981. Now yes, it was on the books before that but we're still dealing with similar time periods.

I don't see much difference between a backpack full of hand grenades, rockets or grenade rounds. We already have two of those without much concern.

Actually, do explosives sympathetically detonate or cook off in Xenonauts, anyone? I know they didn't in Apocalypse, and I 'think' they did in the OG.

[EchoFourDelta]

I just had the thought, with all the talk of inventory space and the stuff they're carrying...

Someone needs to tell these soldiers they can wear LBE and a backpack at the same time, that you can sling weapons without putting them in a backpack, and that it's a lot faster to reach for something on your chest than it is to dig through a backpack.

[NoirWolf]

The game takes place in 1979, the MGL I referenced was designed in 1980. Not that much of a stretch. The Foxhound design we steal to develop the Foxtrot didn't come into service until 1981. Now yes, it was on the books before that but we're still dealing with similar time periods.

I don't see much difference between a backpack full of hand grenades, rockets or grenade rounds. We already have two of those without much concern.

Actually, do explosives sympathetically detonate or cook off in Xenonauts, anyone? I know they didn't in Apocalypse, and I 'think' they did in the OG.

The Foxhound was introduced in 81 but started design phase in 75-76 while the MGL was designed in 81 and introduced in 83 into the South African Defence Forces, it wasn't until the 2000s that it made it into the US arsenal (donno if/when it made it into the Soviet or Russian arsenals).

Hand grenades in a backpack can jumble and toss around as they're, usually, very well secured in terms of priming mechanisms and they do not require mint condition to work, a grenade launcher projectile though may give you issues if it's been mishandled thus you'd usually have them in the backpack roughly close to one another in a holding compartment or system of some sort.

As for cooking or exploding, in real world terms: cooking off happens when a non-explosive projectile's propellant charge touches off (example traditional tank sabot rounds, main reason you don't usually see turret getting blown off these days is because tanks don't carry as much in the way of HE shells as they used to and AP shells have removed their HE charges) while explosive shells may cook off initially but they most definitely will explode and traditional explosives will touch off one another in a chain reaction.

[EchoFourDelta]

The Foxhound was introduced in 81 but started design phase in 75-76 while the MGL was designed in 81 and introduced in 83 into the South African Defence Forces, it wasn't until the 2000s that it made it into the US arsenal (donno if/when it made it into the Soviet or Russian arsenals).

Hand grenades in a backpack can jumble and toss around as they're, usually, very well secured in terms of priming mechanisms and they do not require mint condition to work, a grenade launcher projectile though may give you issues if it's been mishandled thus you'd usually have them in the backpack roughly close to one another in a holding compartment or system of some sort.

As for cooking or exploding, in real world terms: cooking off happens when a non-explosive projectile's propellant charge touches off (example traditional tank sabot rounds, main reason you don't usually see turret getting blown off these days is because tanks don't carry as much in the way of HE shells as they used to and AP shells have removed their HE charges) while explosive shells may cook off initially but they most definitely will explode and traditional explosives will touch off one another in a chain reaction.

The biggest reason they don't blow off nowadays isn't so much because of ammo load; it's because of protective measures most tanks have these days. The magazine is isolated, and there are blow-out panels in place, so that a sympathetic series of detonations generally just destroys ammo reserves, with the bulk of explosive force being vented relatively harmlessly outward. They're basically the equivalent of "crumple zones" in this context, an in-built fail-safe mechanism.

That said, in the applications tanks are used for in modern combat, the majority of their tasking is destruction of unarmored or lightly armored vehicles, hardened emplacements, and structures in support of infantry operations; most of them roll with a fair complement of HE. Not exactly a lot of tank on tank happening these days.

[Elydo]

Xenonauts is a global organisation, they can steal stuff from anyone. And I know the MGL wasn't designed until 1980 (by my info) but someone was probably kicking the idea around before that. Or we just just say we developed it ourselves, my point is that the technology of the time allows for its existence. Although it'd still be overpowered for the game.

Regarding either cooking off or sympathetic detonations, is that mechanic in the game? Anyone? I haven't seen it happen so I'm guessing it isn't.

[EchoFourDelta]

I think the C4 does. Also, yeah, on the MGL, design started in '80; they didn't have a functioning product until late '83.

[Bhazor]

Interesting analysis but the key is game balance. A weapon may be more effiecient but less useful. The shotgun style weapons are super efficient but limited to short range, the sniper rifle is really powerful and accurate but takes a full turn for every shot. Looking at the numbers is looking at only a small part of the picture.

I will agree that pistols are pretty much useless at the moment and I don't even bother equipping them.

Edit: My mistake, just reread and noticed this was a realism debate as opposed to game balance debate.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Bhazor

[Josip Broz Tito]

Elydo, I'm having a hard time finding your focus on the issue. You did mention that you wanted their TU cost to fire reduced. Now you mention a reload TU and magazine change.

In regard to the rest of the contents of your posts, you seem to put forth that casters are under and overpowered alternately.

I've advocated leaving them alone, or at the most giving them unique magazines as Ishantil suggested in another thread.

Where can we compromise? Idea: When I first acquired plasmacasters, the description made the weapon seem similar to the alien plasma cannon- in that it fired a ball of plasma that exploded. What if it were a high single-target damage weapon that had an AOE suppression effect at the point of impact?

+aimed or snap shot at the unique points of 30 snap, 50 aimed (the reduce spammability)

+high damage (slightly less than sniper)

+medium/high accuracy

[NoirWolf]

That said, in the applications tanks are used for in modern combat, the majority of their tasking is destruction of unarmored or lightly armored vehicles, hardened emplacements, and structures in support of infantry operations; most of them roll with a fair complement of HE. Not exactly a lot of tank on tank happening these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGYSySbfnJc - grenade,standard frag, down the stove pipe (cannon), tank blew its lid almost. Probably had only AT shells though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnpzgHwL0Lc - this looks like it hit the ammo rack and it did have HE onboard (assumption of course but I don't think a fuel tank explosion would be that catastrophic on the T-72A).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQEeZut1EU - first one portion of the video, that shows a RPG hit (likely) on the turret, notice the results.

- controlled testing vs a T-72.

If I am not mistaken the post T-72 generation of tanks (M1, L2, etc) have the creature comforts in terms of ammo rack protection you described.

[EchoFourDelta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGYSySbfnJc - grenade,standard frag, down the stove pipe (cannon), tank blew its lid almost. Probably had only AT shells though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnpzgHwL0Lc - this looks like it hit the ammo rack and it did have HE onboard (assumption of course but I don't think a fuel tank explosion would be that catastrophic on the T-72A).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQEeZut1EU - first one portion of the video, that shows a RPG hit (likely) on the turret, notice the results.

- controlled testing vs a T-72.

If I am not mistaken the post T-72 generation of tanks (M1, L2, etc) have the creature comforts in terms of ammo rack protection you described.

Excellent observations, and accurate calls (for what I assume is a layperson [thumbs up]), and yeah, none of those feature the blow-out protection common to later revisions of T-80s (or equivalent first-run generation-3s of Western tanks).

[Elydo]

You did mention that you wanted their TU cost to fire reduced. Now you mention a reload TU and magazine change.

I mentioned that as an option, one of many. Not as a suggestion.

In regard to the rest of the contents of your posts, you seem to put forth that casters are under and overpowered alternately.

I put forth that they are underpowered for being a weapon you equip every soldier with, an option I don't think is appropriate anyway. I don't think they're overpowered as it currently stands; they do a lot of damage per shot and put a lot of shots downrange but not all those shots are going to hit. I do think they aren't balanced properly as it currently stands but how to alter that balance is tricky. Even beyond the given variables of shot count, ammo count, ap to fire, ap to reload, damage, accuracy etc. you have weapon weight, accuracy penalty after moving, suppression. The existence of the Predator armour, which offsets some of those to alter the role the weapon can play.

If there was the option of giving them larger cells, both in terms of capacity and inventory size, then that would make them akin to the ballistic LMG and justify the high reload ap cost. As I'm really doubtful the team are going to be wanting to change any art at this point I think we should figure out a balance solution with the assets we currently have. Personally I would them to be much better at inflicting suppression, have a lower reload cost and maybe, MAYBE, five more rounds in the cell to give an extra shot, but the numbers will have to be run to see if that makes them overpowered, keeping in mind they need to be balanced for Pred armour as well. (Given the predator armour apparently isn't dexterous enough to throw a grenade, how can it reload... anything?)

Interestingly, I regard the alien plasma cannon as pretty much a grenade launcher. And the animation for the 'caster only seems to suggest one shot. Even the name "plasmacaster" would lend itself to a such a weapon. But I like dakka so I'd rather retain the LMG type.

[Max_Caine]

Elydo, just to answer your question about sympathetic explosions: the answer is no. The only thing that's supposed to go boom in that manner is high explosives when activated and put on the floor.

[NoirWolf]

Elydo, just to answer your question about sympathetic explosions: the answer is no. The only thing that's supposed to go boom in that manner is high explosives when activated and put on the floor.

Hope this can be modded in somehow then (a trooper getting shot to pieces while he's carrying 3-4 HE missiles and none of those deciding to go off anywhere in between is rather wrong in my mind, it should be chance based no doubt but still).

Excellent observations, and accurate calls (for what I assume is a layperson [thumbs up]), and yeah, none of those feature the blow-out protection common to later revisions of T-80s (or equivalent first-run generation-3s of Western tanks).

Yup, never served in the military or even seen a tank up close (modern or otherwise) yet. Gotta ask though is blow-out protection meant to funnel the explosion outside the crew compartments or is it a more protected ammunition storage area in general? I ask because in either of those cases they don't prevent a tank from blowing its lid (especially if hit at a bad angle for it), they just reduce the odds of it happening quite a bit by what I know

[Max_Caine]

I very much doubt it will be added in. Between overdamage and range multipliers, there are already good reasons not to use rockets or stock up on grenades. EDIT: Adding a "your soldier may blow up" is a form of discouragement that, I believe, would provoke a very adverse reaction because it's not something that a player can do anything about other than have less of item X or Y. EDIT2: In fact, "your soldier may blow up" would provoke rather bizarre responses, such as the player ordering his squaddie to unload all his ordinance when the squaddie sees a target, and spend extra AP to pick up items to prevent ordinance from blowing the soldier up.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Max_Caine

[NoirWolf]

I very much doubt it will be added in. Between overdamage and range multipliers, there are already good reasons not to use rockets or stock up on grenades. It doesn't need another form of discouragement.

True but this discussion started from the notion of a MGL or SGL being added in as a sort of weapon to help with indoor environments (laying down smoke or firing a flashbang into a room or even carrying its own 40mm HE shells).

[StellarRat]

Hope this can be modded in somehow then (a trooper getting shot to pieces while he's carrying 3-4 HE missiles and none of those deciding to go off anywhere in between is rather wrong in my mind, it should be chance based no doubt but still).

Yup, never served in the military or even seen a tank up close (modern or otherwise) yet. Gotta ask though is blow-out protection meant to funnel the explosion outside the crew compartments or is it a more protected ammunition storage area in general? I ask because in either of those cases they don't prevent a tank from blowing its lid (especially if hit at a bad angle for it), they just reduce the odds of it happening quite a bit by what I know

They protect crew by preventing the powder in the ammo from building up enough pressure and heat to explode. The give way before that happens and vent the fire to the outside. Like the safety valve in a pressure cooker.

[NoirWolf]

They protect crew by preventing the powder in the ammo from building up enough pressure and heat to explode. The give way before that happens and vent the fire to the outside. Like the safety valve in a pressure cooker.

Even pressure cookers explode sometimes.

[StellarRat]

Even pressure cookers explode sometimes.

Modern pressure cooker s usually have THREE different ways to release excess pressure as do water heaters. That's why you don't ready about people being killed all the time in cooking and bathing accidents. I use one at home and don't feel like there is any danger from it unless I do something intentionally stupid. I don't know if your serious or joking about exploding pressure cookers because of the Boston bombings, but anyway, the final safety device on a pressure cooker is usually a blow out valve which is very similar in concept to the blow panels on a tank. I don't know how effective blow out panels are in combat, but I do know that casualties among US tanks crews have been very low in the last 30 years since the introduction of the M1. There are multiple reasons for that, of course, but it is engineered with crew safety as a high priority. Edited September 23, 2013 by StellarRat

[NoirWolf]

Modern pressure cooker s usually have THREE different ways to release excess pressure as do water heaters. That's why you don't ready about people being killed all the time in cooking and bathing accidents. I use one at home and don't feel like there is any danger from it unless I do something intentionally stupid. I don't know if your serious or joking about exploding pressure cookers because of the Boston bombings, but anyway, the final safety device on a pressure cooker is usually a blow out valve which is very similar in concept to the blow panels on a tank. I don't know how effective blow out panels are in combat, but I do know that casualties among US tanks crews have been very low in the last 30 years since the introduction of the M1. There are multiple reasons for that, of course, but it is engineered with crew safety as a high priority.

Actually if memory serves the M1 has crew safety as a priority, the Israeli Merkava has crew protection as a high priority ( you can see the distinctions between the two quite readily ). Also I was in no way making reference to the Boston bombings, in truth I'd forgotten it even involved a pressure cooker, what I was trying to point out that even new ones sometimes explode (flaws, accidental damage in the vein of heat-cold stress fractures, etc) and in combat if a tank takes a direct hit to the ammo storage area it's gonna pop its lid, if it takes a hit that breaches into the ammo storage area it's gonna pop its lid, the only times I know that the newer storage racks help with preventing explosions and crew death directly is when it's a hit that doesn't breach the ammo storage area. Otherwise... yeah M1s still go up due to their racks just under more specific circumstances than the M48s and M60s before them.

[EchoFourDelta]

Actually if memory serves the M1 has crew safety as a priority, the Israeli Merkava has crew protection as a high priority

Now you're simply trying to pick apart word choice; you know what he meant

Otherwise... yeah M1s still go up due to their racks just under more specific circumstances than the M48s and M60s before them.

And that said... this is true of any tank constructed in a similar matter. Can it happen? It's a possibility. But most Abrams that - through whatever means - suffer a catastrophic kill simply stay intact; even when you have one run over some thousand-pounder platter charge or some shit, it's usually a tank hull sitting there. There's a hole, a burnt-out compartment, but it's not torn to pieces.