Can we please have accurate Weapons please?

[_Quinn]

The machine gun took 2 people to operate.

Which is half the PCs in your party, so I think to the extent we care about realistic weapons, we can ignore heavy machine guns. On the other hand, Ranger HQ might have a few mounted in its guard tower.

In terms of RPG stats for firearms, though, this doesn't exclude weapons like sniper rifles -- they'd weigh a lot, they'd cost a lot, do tremendous single-shot damage, but be slow between shots, to reload (?), and to aim, as well as have the highest penalty (whatever form it might take) to CQB -- and, of course, the longest range and least intrinsic inaccuracy.

For antitank weapons, sticking with the after-the-80's milieu means we can stick with the simpler one-shot weapons of the original game. Maybe "RPGs" (including the LAW and other rockets) would be a better category name, because two-man reusable missile systems like the Javelin, with its 2.5km range and IR seeker, might be a trifle difficult to keep in the same combat model. Heck, at 2.5km, it probably takes more than a single combat round to arrive.

[Harpo]

With the proper penalties to the heavy machine gun I think they could cool in the game and we might let realism slide a little bit for the sake if in-game fun. But don't make them like assault rifles that do extra damage, making assault rifles obsolete.

There are also one-man light machine guns that often have 5.56mm ammo, but unlike the assault weapons they are belt-loaded.

Sniper rifles, as you say, are also a must but also a category often nerfed.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

Just give the heavy machine gun a high str requirement, give it to McBrutus right there and let him carry and deploy that baby while the others cover for him for the duration of the set up. After that, 2 of his colleague would be free to flank the enemy as McBrutus and McSharpy suppresses the enemy from the front.

You could even insert animation of McBrutus standing up, unzipping his pants and peeing on the MG when it overheats.

[Harpo]

Just give the heavy machine gun a high str requirement, give it to McBrutus right there and let him carry and deploy that baby while the others cover for him for the duration of the set up. After that, 2 of his colleague would be free to flank the enemy as McBrutus and McSharpy suppresses the enemy from the front.

You could even insert animation of McBrutus standing up, unzipping his pants and peeing on the MG when it overheats.

Hahahaha. It he carrying a gas mask to protect himself from vaporizing pee?

[Bloodshard]

You could have your heavy's mounted to a truck to lay down suppression with a 50cal, send a light gunner (M-60) to flank, the sniper you left 10 ticks (or just out of range) away to pick off their heavy, and the infantry (M4/AK-47) group to kill the rest.

So that's one driver, one heavy gunner, one light gunner, one sniper and a squad of 3 infantry.

Total squad size 7.

The setup would change alot if you where taking a building, so extra gear in the truck is a must.

[Harpo]

You could have your heavy's mounted to a truck to lay down suppression with a 50cal, send a light gunner (M-60) spead to flank, the sniper you left 10 ticks (or just out of range) away to pick off their heavy, and the infantry (M4/AK-47) group to kill the rest.

So that's one driver, one heavy gunner, one light gunner, one sniper and a squad of 3 infantry.

Total squad size 7.

The setup would change alot if you where taking a building, so extra gear in the truck is a must.

A fantastic description! I really didn't enjoy the way vehicles performed in turn based combat in Fallout Tactics. But you know what? They don't have to work to be able to fulfill the scenario you just described. Let the truck be stationary in combat. Allow the player to mount heavy weapons on it, use it as cover and also for storing weapons. Excellent call Bloodshard.

[GodComplex]

The machine gun took 2 people to operate. The shooter and the loader. It was too heavy to shoot standing. You could barely aim it standing up. You could squat if you were providing suppessing fire with no actual hope of hitting anything. You would do so from your hip. The preferred way of shooting it was when it was deployed. Normally you would lay down.
The loader was carrying a 10kg ammo case with loaded belt and an extra barrel, which would have been too heavy for the shooter to carry. He would reload the machine gun and replace the barrel every 250 fired shot to prevent it from getting too hot and start to deform (melt). After carrying it around in battle for a day the had to end each burst while squatting by pointing the machine gun down so that the recoil would help the shooter to stand up

I suggest reading up on Tony Stein and his 1919 'Stinger.' And really, 250rds? There must be a wicked rate of fire on that thing. The latest M60s can put 8000rds through them before there is a threat of jamming, have they not made similar improvements to other belt fed lead spewers? But hot dusty environments may have more of an adverse effect on whatever contraption your squad was issued than I am currently aware of.

Just recently a soldier made a headline for having the brilliant idea of welding 2 ammo cans to a pack frame and putting a belt feeder out the top similar to this. So a single person can be geared to operate suppressing fire solo, but I certainly don't envy the person lugging around a SAW and 2 ammo cans in the desert.

And I echo my sentiment from other threads, screw reality, reality isn't fun.

[Harpo]

<snip>

I suggest reading up on Tony Stein and his 1919 'Stinger.' And really, 250rds? There must be a wicked rate of fire on that thing. The latest M60s can put 8000rds through them before there is a threat of jamming, have they not made similar improvements to other belt fed lead spewers? But hot dusty environments may have more of an adverse effect on whatever contraption your squad was issued than I am currently aware of.

Yeah. The machine gun we operated was a model based on the Belgian Fabrique Nationale FN MAG. Now the soldier handbook had the instructions to exchange barrels every 250 rounds (i just double checked on the internet), but I'm certain there are some safety limitations mixed in there as well.
And the environments were quite favorable I would imagine. I'm from Sweden which have similar climate to Canada. Negative 20-30 celcius (negative 4-22 Farenheit) in the winter and +20C (70F) in the summer.

Edit: The M249 SAW with 200 rounds is approx 22 lb. Carrying it around is one thing, but to fire it standing up is another. Aiming it standing is doable if you have strong arms, but fire it like that? Not likely. Hit? Say what?

I agree to a certain degree that realistic is not always fun, but in a lot of cases: that's exactly what it is. When it works in favor of diversity it is and if it prevents the player from constantly rolling his/her eyes because things are just silly it is.

[GodComplex]

Good to know. Of course I was always under the impression to point of a SAW was just to suppress and provide cover fire while people advance. Also being part of the reason most squads don't carry the large support weapons like the 1919/M60/MG42, to lighter lead throwers in smaller caliber. I don't think many armies have to deal with a human wave attacks, at least until China or India gets all invadey. And I thought that's why they used tracers out of the big guns, cause aiming is just a hassle. But all reality aside, you don't have to worry about aiming when your 14 feet from a punk with a bad hair cut. Kinda like that scene in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" with the stoner chick and a Bren.

[Harpo]

WE carried them for primary use to penetrate light vehicles. Jeeps, trucks and it could actually penetrate weak points (like the dock doors) of some tracked personnel carrier vehicles. Secondary use was to use it for fending off enemy soldiers. It wasn't very effective at suppressive fire other than making an intimidating noise It was simply too heavy.

[GodComplex]

But how do you think it would perform against a rogue cyborg?

[Harpo]

I'm assuming the rogue cyborg has some armoring so I think a heavy machine gun would be an excellent choice due to the penetration abilities of the larger caliber! If you just deploy the thing in order to be able to hit the cyborg I'd say you have good odds

[ravenshrike]

I do like the idea that one class of weapon isn't uniformly better than the next.

I don't like this idea. Assault rifles are better than most other arms in almost all situations. I don't see any value in trying to encourage players to keep using bolt-action rifles and SMGs until end-game; it would feel clunky and random.

Bolt action rifles are still very popular since the design allows for larger calibers (which in the game should translate both into more damage inflicted but foremost better penetration against high armor enemies, robots and vehicles*). Most modern day sniper rifles are bolt action rifles, for the caliber reason and since they offer top of the line accuracy. This is also easy to translate in to the game, is it not?

Erm, no? Bolt action rifles are popular with the military because they eject the shell casing much closer and slower than semi-automatic, are easier to maintain, and are much, much, much less likely to jam. All of which for military snipers in the field are a big deal. Until 2002 the longest range kill was gotten with a M2 machinegun rigged to fire semi-auto by Carlos Hathcock.

[Bloodshard]

You could have your heavy's mounted to a truck to lay down suppression with a 50cal, send a light gunner (M-60) spead to flank, the sniper you left 10 ticks (or just out of range) away to pick off their heavy, and the infantry (M4/AK-47) group to kill the rest.

So that's one driver, one heavy gunner, one light gunner, one sniper and a squad of 3 infantry.

Total squad size 7.

The setup would change alot if you where taking a building, so extra gear in the truck is a must.

A fantastic description! I really didn't enjoy the way vehicles performed in turn based combat in Fallout Tactics. But you know what? They don't have to work to be able to fulfill the scenario you just described. Let the truck be stationary in combat. Allow the player to mount heavy weapons on it, use it as cover and also for storing weapons. Excellent call Bloodshard.

now being that the driver and the gunner would be two different PC's they should have two different turns. unlike most PC's that only get one turn a armed truck or whatever would have two one to move and the other to fire. This would also mean that ether could be killed.

[lordreaven448]

We need Muskets. Think about it, a Musket was easier for a 1500th century blacksmith than a Crossbow. A musket could in theory be made in a day, while a crossbow could take a week. and not to mention the ammo could be scrap left from making the gun itself.Sure it was not as effective as a Bow or Crossbow, but it was cheap, and easy to train people with. AND you could put a knife in the barrel (by put I mean shove) and make it into a primitive ye advanced spear. Not only that, Rifled guns (the barrel being rifled) was around back in the 15th 16th century too, just VERY expensive and a little hard to make (not to mention the ammo).

[GodComplex]

Depends on the crossbow style. Ballista mechanisms can be built in an afternoon. Example.

[Bloodshard]

I just had a crazy idea, any heavy weapon would need to be mounted to a vehicle to be effective in the game. So how about a siege type ballista mounted to a truck. 1000lbs draw force hurling explosives or solid projectiles.

[Harpo]

I just had a crazy idea, any heavy weapon would need to be mounted to a vehicle to be effective in the game. So how about a siege type ballista mounted to a truck. 1000lbs draw force hurling explosives or solid projectiles.

With one of those motorized wires you see mounted on off-road vehicles (to pull yourself out when you are stuck) used to stretch the ballista when loading it

[Bloodshard]

I just had a crazy idea, any heavy weapon would need to be mounted to a vehicle to be effective in the game. So how about a siege type ballista mounted to a truck. 1000lbs draw force hurling explosives or solid projectiles.

With one of those motorized wires you see mounted on off-road vehicles (to pull yourself out when you are stuck) used to stretch the ballista when loading it

a winch? Even in the 1000's people used them to cock a heavy crossbow or Ballista. For any one that dosent know what we are talking about click link http://www.legionxxiv.org/ballista.htm It may look antiquated but add a chunk of C4 and you got one hell of a weapons platform.

[GodComplex]

I just had a crazy idea, any heavy weapon would need to be mounted to a vehicle to be effective in the game. So how about a siege type ballista mounted to a truck. 1000lbs draw force hurling explosives or solid projectiles.

You have nearly acquired all of my hate. Where's the fun of strength enhancing power armor if you can't carry a 6ft long crossbow?