Reaction fire for machineguns Yes/No?

[StellarRat]

Last I heard you hadn't decided. I think they should have it. There is big drawback that keeps it from being OP. You basically can't have done ANYTHING during your round due to the high TU costs to fire an MG. That means you have had to setup and be waiting plus with the low ammo in the magazine you will only get one planned shot before you have to reload. Also, from a realism and logical perspective it makes sense that MG's should be able to reaction fire. I really can't think of a better use for a machinegun than to cover an area where you think the enemy might pop out. They were made for that job. I really don't think it makes them OP.

As a side note: The players asked for MG's (burst fire) to have reaction fire capability for a long time and you guys had to change the code to make it happen. Seems ashame to take it away after all that.

Edited March 7, 2014 by StellarRat

[vaultdweller]

I vote yes. As I said in the other thread, I strongly favour using machine guns to cover an area against enemy movement. You walk into No Man's Land, you walk into a rain of bullets.

[Ol' Stinky]

Chalk up another "yes" vote for reaction fire on LMGs. Stellar sums it up nicely.

[frank_walls]

I agree. A major role for an MG is to provide covering and suppressive fire.

[legit1337]

Yes. For the same reasons you have given.

[Skitso]

It's a yes from me too. It fits perfectly for it's area denial role.

[Asmodean]

yes

[DreXav]

Another yes, MGs are designed to suppress and cover large areas. It really takes away from the weapon and feel of the game. The high TU cost and accuracy-after-move penalty already balanced the firepower out.

[Chris]

You can't really equate reaction fire to a realistic equivalent, because real life isn't turn-based. Suppressing an enemy with an MG and covering a large area etc is represented perfectly well by shooting with it in your turn, because in real life actions from both sides are resolved simultaneously.

Reaction fire is more like those moments in a FPS shooter where you run around a corner and come face to face with an enemy, or you see an enemy at a window for a moment and have a split-second opportunity take them down before you lose line of sight on them. That's why it relies on the soldier's reflex stat, and weapons that aren't well disposed to having a quick reaction time are bad at it or disallowed from doing it at all. An LMG isn't really the sort of weapon that's particularly good at dealing with that sort of situation.

Nevertheless, I am considering putting it back in, perhaps with a similar modifier to the precision rifle. As people have pointed out, the TU cost of being able to fire it with reaction fire is sufficiently large that it wouldn't be too imbalanced if we did so.

[quiescat]

You can't really equate reaction fire to a realistic equivalent, because real life isn't turn-based. Suppressing an enemy with an MG and covering a large area etc is represented perfectly well by shooting with it in your turn, because in real life actions from both sides are resolved simultaneously.

Reaction fire is more like those moments in a FPS shooter where you run around a corner and come face to face with an enemy, or you see an enemy at a window for a moment and have a split-second opportunity take them down before you lose line of sight on them. That's why it relies on the soldier's reflex stat, and weapons that aren't well disposed to having a quick reaction time are bad at it or disallowed from doing it at all. An LMG isn't really the sort of weapon that's particularly good at dealing with that sort of situation.

Nevertheless, I am considering putting it back in, perhaps with a similar modifier to the precision rifle. As people have pointed out, the TU cost of being able to fire it with reaction fire is sufficiently large that it wouldn't be too imbalanced if we did so.

so this is a small note if give it reaction fire you don't have to change things to fix the kinda bug that lets aliens reaction 100% of the time on soldiers using the lmg. ( another vote for yes even if it does not matter )

[Lidhuin]

The way I see the reaction fire from the machine gun isn't so much like many of the other weapons (where it's a matter of reflex), but rather a case where you've got it pointed down an area and anyone who tries to enter that area is going to get a fistful of bullets to their face.

That doesn't work if the LMG doesn't have reaction fire, because the aliens can hide and wait when it's your turn and then move in without getting shot at during their turn.

[lemm]

Yes. You might want to cover a hallway in an alien base with an MG. It's hard to do this without reaction fire.

[dmholt]

I'm still playing the stable build, so I haven't actually tried the various new(ish) arrangements for MG fire - movement penalty, recoil, etc. However I think that if I was unable to move and then fire the MG in the same turn (I agree that this is probably silly, no problem with a movement penalty), and also had no reaction fire, that I would probably never use MGs. The number of times that the aliens end their turn with any soldiers in view as suitable targets for a MG is just too low. In fact in the stable build, where some soldiers can move then fire the MG quite effectively, I think I hardly ever manage to actually shoot an alien with the machine gun without either reaction fire or moving and shooting. As I said, I've no problem with making it impossible or difficult to move then shoot the MG in the same turn, but if you can't do this and there's no reaction fire, then the MG is essentially dead weight in my opinion.

Edited March 13, 2014 by dmholt

[smoitessier]

If you didn't move at all with the machine gunner it would be cool to be able to reaction shot

[qdlat]

Sorry for breaking the line people, but one vote for no. I do not see neither sniper rifle nor heavy weapons as guns capable of reaction fire. Machine gun is already a one turn - one kill weapon and I don't think it requires further boosting. Besides, I imagine more than once that sort of ability would turn against us because of low ammo. Reaction fire empties the clip and there is nothing left for blowing enemy to pieces in your turn.

If we really going to have it, then please also add an option to disable reaction fire for a given soldier.

[Gauddlike]

If machine guns have reaction fire I would also like two checks to be done before firing.

One for chance to hit the enemy and one for chance to hit friendlies.

To be fair that check should be there for all weapons...

[kabill]

If machine guns have reaction fire I would also like two checks to be done before firing.

One for chance to hit the enemy and one for chance to hit friendlies.

To be fair that check should be there for all weapons...

I think there's already something like that in the game. Might only apply to burst reaction fire though? Not entirely sure.

[Gauddlike]

Doesn't seem to work then for my soldiers.

Either that or they just don't really get on so well

[kabill]

I'm fairly sure it works probabilistically, i.e. it will take shots with a low chance of friendly fire, rather than no chance.

(Yep, there's definitely a variable for it in config.xml ("ReactionFriendlyRisk"). As I say, though, it still allows some risk of friendly fire.)

[Chris]

That check is broken, unfortunately. I'll put a fix for it on the to-do list actually.

The MG will have a 0.5 reaction modifier in the next build as discussed in my earlier post.

[StellarRat]

That check is broken, unfortunately. I'll put a fix for it on the to-do list actually.

The MG will have a 0.5 reaction modifier in the next build as discussed in my earlier post.

Another piece of good news! Thanks!

[dmholt]

Would any of the experts here like to explain to me what "MG will have a 0.5 reaction modifier" means?

I notice this feature is listed as being implemented in v21 stable - I have been playing this for a while and yet to see any reaction fire from MG. Just chance, or are do the various calculations for reaction fire make it possible but unlikely from MG?

[kabill]

Would any of the experts here like to explain to me what "MG will have a 0.5 reaction modifier" means?

I notice this feature is listed as being implemented in v21 stable - I have been playing this for a while and yet to see any reaction fire from MG. Just chance, or are do the various calculations for reaction fire make it possible but unlikely from MG?

The 0.5 reaction modifier means that the soldier's Initiative value counts half as much as it normally would. Basically, it means that a soldier with a LMG is more likely to trigger reaction fire before they can act, and enemies will have more of a chance to act before triggering reaction fire from a LMG weapon.

None of this should mean that you don't get reaction fire with a LMG, however. It just means that you're more likely to get shot first. If you're not seeing LMG reaction fire, it's likely to be because the (potential) target is outside of 10 tiles (the minimum required for burst reaction fire).

[TacticalDragon]

I vote YES!

The Machineguns suppose to make as a contention weapon for enemy advancement.

[Okim]

My game seems to hang whenever my MG soldier is about to trigger reaction fire. And it hangs with violent and constant 'tr-tr-tr-tr' sound as if MG fired in infinite loop.