Jump to content

STR vs. carrying capacity


Skitso
 Share

Recommended Posts

I feel that weapons and equipment are way too light at the moment. Even the weakest rookies can carry pretty much everything needed. I can give first aid kits, tons of grenades and extra ammo to everybody.

Shield guy can carry two shields, a stun baton, a pistol, some c4, extra ammo, grenades and first aid kit. A standard assault rifle guy can pack a rocket launcher, couple of rockets and grenades without breaking a sweat. A strong heavy weapon dude should be encumbered when carrying a machinegun and few belts of ammo.

Strenght needs to mean more. Weak soldiers should only be able to carry a main weapon, few extra clips and grenades. This would make choosing new tropps harder than looking for highest TU's or ACC and also make designated medics a viable choice.

Edited by Skitso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However it only happens once, the armor weight restiction only ramps on the first armor upgrade. The second armor stays equal and the heaviest armor gives you infinite strenght.

I do think there should be more weight variations, its only a penalty once in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, an example from my last game: Cpl. Edmund Ward packs a whopping strength of 40 and wears a Jackal armour.

He's equiped with an assault rifle, one extra clip, a frag grenade, a smoke grenade, a flashbang, a C4, a stun baton and a medikit. And we are talking about an individual who is as weak as they come and I can still equip him to be an over efficient all-a-rounder.

Why would i equip a designated medic when even the weakest troops can carry this much gear? Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're right, it's too high. The Base capacity was 20 + 0.2*strength, so at 30 strength you has 26 carry capacity and Jackal / Wolf armour only weighs 16kg and Basic armour 6kg.

I've now changed the formula to 10 + 0.25*strength, so the carrying capacity of soldiers is now:

30 Str: 17.5kg

50 Str: 22.5kg

70 Str: 27.5kg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a different solution is called for. Instead of making soldiers weak wimps, decrease armor weight and increase weight of ammo, grenades and the like. That way most armored troops would run into limitations exactly as now, but unarmored troops would also have to choose loadout more carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now changed the formula to 10 + 0.25*strength, so the carrying capacity of soldiers is now:

30 Str: 17.5kg

50 Str: 22.5kg

70 Str: 27.5kg

I find that way too low. 50 STR is about the average starting strength, and 22.5kg means armor, assault rifle and one extra clip. And nothing more. Even for 70 STR, which is pretty good, that means two extra clips instead of one and 3 grenades and that's it.

That means that weapon specialists will be awfully expensive, because they'll be useless for carrying equipment for normal fights. I'm already sometimes stretched as it is with 8 soldiers where 6 of them are capable of carrying assault rifles (plus 2 snipers). Now, if I also want a shield for breaching and a rocket launcher for emergencies (and I'd actually prefer pairs), how am I supposed to search complex industrial maps when half of my tiny squad cannot even do anything safely without getting an escort?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, sounds okay to me, my proposal would be to keep the situation with armored soldiers as it is now, but also make things tougher for unarmored soldiers carrying capacity wise.

One goal should be to make strength matter. There should be a very visible difference between a str-65 and a str-45 soldier. Another goal should be to make equipment choice matter.

You can work it backwards. The average grunt is str-50. Let's say we want him to be able to carry a rifle, a medkit and 5 small items (mags / grenades). Adjust the numbers accordingly, then make it so that a str-60 soldier can have armor with a rifle, medkit and 2 small items, for instance. I think part of the problem now is that there is not a clear picture of how much equipment we want soldiers to be able to lug around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your heavy weapons soldiers and snipers aren't really meant to have heavy armour, though. If you want two snipers and a rocket launcher in a squad of 8 then you'll suffer in terms of general versatility; having a total of two would give you more flexibility. That'd be 1/4 of your squad that can't go off alone...as a guy with a combat shield would be fine by himself, as he's better protected than anyone else that way.

Not saying we won't tweak the variables, but I'm not sure it'll be as bad as you're making out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solver - I think it's fine for unarmoured soldiers as is; the lack of protection means they have the flexibility to take a load of gear to battle. I don't really see a need to constrict it beyond what it will be with the updated numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't unarmored soldiers have a bit too much flexibility now? It's fine for them to be all-round good, with a weapon, extra ammo and a choice of grenades. But as it is, they can carry pretty much everything. Full belt of grenades, a weapon, a medkit, another weapon in the backpack and a C4 charge. You can give your snipers a shotgun in the backpack to let them switch to close combat when needed. I would say that is too much.

Also how about differentiating between Jackal and Wolf weight? It would be interesting to see a situation where Wolf gets assigned to the vulnerable frontline troops, but where Jackal is an option to give some protection to snipers or others. Currently I tend to skip Jackal altogether, instead researching Wolf right off the bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't unarmored soldiers have a bit too much flexibility now? It's fine for them to be all-round good, with a weapon, extra ammo and a choice of grenades. But as it is, they can carry pretty much everything. Full belt of grenades, a weapon, a medkit, another weapon in the backpack and a C4 charge. You can give your snipers a shotgun in the backpack to let them switch to close combat when needed. I would say that is too much.

Also how about differentiating between Jackal and Wolf weight? It would be interesting to see a situation where Wolf gets assigned to the vulnerable frontline troops, but where Jackal is an option to give some protection to snipers or others. Currently I tend to skip Jackal altogether, instead researching Wolf right off the bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your heavy weapons soldiers and snipers aren't really meant to have heavy armour, though. If you want two snipers and a rocket launcher in a squad of 8 then you'll suffer in terms of general versatility;

I actually don't have a single heavy weapons soldier in my squad, as I don't consider somebody with a rocket launcher with a single shot to be a heavy soldier. LAW (which I'd consider to be about as effective as the game's rocket launcher) is less than 3kg according to wikipedia, so I can't imagine having that on the back being any noticeable burden to the average soldier. You could argue that this is a game and I shouldn't insist on reality, but I can use the same argument the other way around. For example, my assault soldiers have assault rifles and a shotgun on the back, and my shield guys have assault rifles and shield on the back, and they all switch before breaching (and mind you, it means they carry only very few grenades, so I actually have to juggle it carefully as soon as I start equipping armor, and don't me started on the trouble with laser clips). You could argue that a soldier shouldn't carry that much, but if this change will mean they won't, I'll simply dump the secondary equipment in the Chinook and run back to it before breaching. Or maybe I can give up on soldier roles and just give everybody the same generic stuff. It won't add anything to the game except for annoyance, so the game actually becomes worse.

having a total of two would give you more flexibility.

If I have only a single sniper and single rocketeer in the squad, they're next to useless, because they'd have to run around to wherever they're needed, which may take ages. Or I can't split up, which means the ground combat will take longer. One way or another, again, the game gets worse.

That'd be 1/4 of your squad that can't go off alone...as a guy with a combat shield would be fine by himself, as he's better protected than anyone else that way.

I thought the basic idea was that the soldiers are fighting an enemy that is superior in many ways. That means that nobody should be fine by themselves (and especially a shield guy with insufficient firepower). A lone soldier entering a building with an Andron inside should be as good as dead (and you said that aliens should sometimes lurk inside buildings, didn't you, so that should mean they will need cleaning). That yet again can be solved by proceeding slower with the combat, again with the consequences. Unless you want higher difficulties to be hard because of being annoying rather than actually being difficult.

Not saying we won't tweak the variables, but I'm not sure it'll be as bad as you're making out.

That's why I'm providing feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been uproar in the past about carrying capacity being too small, which has lead to the existing weight structure. Something to think about is that a solider in tiers 2+ will need to carry a lot more power cells/magazines in tiers 2+ because each cell/magazine has far fewer shots per cell - 4 cells for a laser rifle have 4 fewer shots than 2 magazines for a ballistic rifle, so there are certain underlying basics that have to be addressed for extras like smoke grenades can be tacked on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a crap idea but what about limiting soldiers to only being able to take up to their max strength limits worth of equipment into battle and once in battle they can go over it at the expense of ap's and do whatever. It'd at least knock the incentive to overload people in the first place since you currently can and therefore probably should (since humanities future is on the line and all that) and the idea of simply hiring someone because they have a high strength should go up in value.

Edited by Mutton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...