Home » PLAYER'S HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Combat/Weapon Academy » 1.13 (NCTH) Weapon Comparison Guide
| | | | |
|
Re: 1.13 (NCTH) Weapon Comparison Guide[message #301904] |
Sun, 18 March 2012 12:46   | |
| Fozzie
|
 |
Messages:183
Registered:April 2010
Location: Germany |
|
|
|
Now that think about it, the NCTH aim cursor maybe should have an indicator that shows laser sight "effectiveness" very much like scope magnification. All I know is that lasers get less efficient with greater distance, but not how much so or at what distance.
And as I have gathered it so far, a laser sight doesn't actually give a penalty to your sniper rifle, but the more powerful the laser is, the higher are the chances that it is being used instead of the scope, giving you the "flat scope penalty" of 50%, even though the actual distance to the target would allow for a lower penalty if the scope was being used. If a laser sight works only up to a distance at which the scope penalty is already above 50%, it can be helpful, since you can effectively cap the scope penalty at 50% with it. But if the laser is effective over a longer distance at which the penalty would normally be less than 50%, using it rather hurts your chances to hit, even more so, if the merc by courtesy of his sniper trait would hit that 50% penalty mark only at a considerably shorter distance from the target. So it hurts mercs with sniper trait (who get a lesser scope penalty) even worse.
What I'm not sure about are possible other correlations with traits, since I don't know how laser sight effectiveness is actually calculated in the game. It appears to be a multiplier of maybe "standard" sight range, but I have no idea if alterations to sightrange are also considered in the final calculation. As an example: Rifle LAM and Rifle LAM + Flashlight have the same "effective laser range" value, but the latter also gives a flat bonus of 20% to sightrange - does that "indirectly" increase the effective laser range? If yes, how about the bonus from e.g. sunglasses or the scout trait? That could be interesting, cause a hunter/scout merc (with or without marksman/sniper trait) could then suffer yet even more from using them.
I'd like to point out again that all this is purely based on fuzzy deduction and wild assumptions, since I don't actually know how all those mechanics work and I remember Sandro mentioning once that his trait system might show some unintended oddities if coupled with NCTH, since he devised it for OCTH. So I'm not pointing any fingers or putting any blame, but if this discussion might perhaps be able to help to improve our beloved game, then it's all for the better.
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
Re: 1.13 (NCTH) Weapon Comparison Guide[message #302285] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 04:09 | |
| Ryft
|
 |
Messages:278
Registered:June 2009 |
|
|
|
Ah, sorry, forgot about the built-in reflex site. What else is covered under "general" AP reductions, then, besides aim levels? Also, then, why does the P90 have one more aim level than almost every other SMG? I would think it should be 3, which is equal to the Steyr AUG Para... another bullpup configuration SMG.
KaerarThe P90 is a pretty epic piece of kit compared to a lot of others in its sector. Fast, light, hard hitting, low recoil, easy to handle and large magazine...
It covers pretty much every base very well, the only real negative is the proprietary ammunition which costs a fair bit and is hard to find. However that's offset by it's ability to breach body armour at 200m with ease...
Maybe in this game, but I'm skeptical beyond that. With the exception of the NATO CRISAT test that the FN 5.7 and HK 4.6 rounds were designed to beat, I think newer "PDW" weapons are over hyped, especially because all they are being used for is an SMG, really. They actually aren't all that light compared to a carbine rifle, their wound characteristics are generally inferior to the 9mm or 5.56 (especially in police actions where the targets aren't likely to be wearing armor), and the lighter round is also going to be more prone to both drop and wind drift.
Give me an MP5 with a C-mag and AP ammo any day... probably just as good at the distances you are using an SMG at. Or for that matter, re-design a 9mm SMG from the ground up in a bullpup configuration, as for a weapon the length of an SMG you get a lot of mileage out of a bullpup design. The Steyr 9mm doesn't really count, because it's really a retrofit, rather than a purpose built SMG design. The JS 9mm comes close, given that it's a retrofit of an SMG, rather than a rifle.
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
Re: 1.13 (NCTH) Weapon Comparison Guide[message #302335] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 23:30 | |
| Ryft
|
|
Messages:278
Registered:June 2009 |
|
|
|
I could agree that, in certain applications where ranges might be extensively varied, and where your target is likely to be wearing body armor (spec ops, but almost certainly a military application), a P90 is an excellent choice, and probably the MP7 as well.
So... why are police departments purchasing them? Because they are aggressively and effectively marketed, that's why. Yet at typical SMG ranges, a 9mm MP5 is easier on my tax dollars, and performs as well or better against unarmored targets that are likely going to be in a known location at a given range (close range, inside of buildings). An MP5 gives you a controllable burst fire option, a wealth of accessories (under barrel grenade launchers for tear gas, anyone?), and by this point in it's history, weapon familiarity. Sure, 9mm AP ammo isn't going to penetrate a plate at 200m, but I'm probably never going to realistically engage a target at that range with such a weapon, anyways. Think about how far 200 meters really is, and what your accuracy is going to be like with such a small weapon.
Actually, if stopping power is what they want, police departments should be looking into a .45 caliber SMG, which even has the benefit over 9mm of being somewhat less likely to overpenetrate urban structures. A UMP-45 or that new Kriss Vector would be right up their alley. But no, it's trendy to use the P90.
Likewise, in a typical military setting, the 4.6 and 5.7 ammunitions are going to have vastly inferior stopping power compared to 5.56, so you're going to need to make up for that by expending additional ammo (thank goodness for that 50 round magazine!) Also, the majority of our targets in modern conflicts are also unarmored, go figure.
All in all, a nice set of weapons with specialty applications, but very over-hyped for what they are.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: 1.13 (NCTH) Weapon Comparison Guide[message #302345] |
Sun, 25 March 2012 05:25 | |
| Ryft
|
|
Messages:278
Registered:June 2009 |
|
|
|
Oh, within the game they are definitely a solid later tier choice, no argument there!
Whereas in the real world, they are pure fail for "rear area troops", and their status as elite commando guns is actually probably more appropriate. Rear area troops are probably better off with an M4 or similar, especially when magazine compatibility with other troops comes into play. If weight/portability is a concern, they should consider issuing something similar to a Bushmaster Carbon 15 M4, maybe with an even shorter barrel, akin to something out of the CAR-15 family, perhaps.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: 1.13 (NCTH) Weapon Comparison Guide[message #302354] |
Sun, 25 March 2012 10:00 | |
| Ryft
|
|
Messages:278
Registered:June 2009 |
|
|
|
KaerarIMO the UMP 45, MP5 A4 and other common round weapons would suit rear guard troops better. The M4 is a little too large for them and unless they are in open areas is overkill. A modded PDR-C would be the ultimate choice as they are small, light, easily manoeuvrable and use the same 5.56mm round as the M4's but are much smaller.
I wouldn't think a 10" barrel on an M4 would be that large, but the Magpul PDR is an excellent point. It's an excellent design for rear guard troops.
Quote:In reality the tax dollars you spend aren't even used by the government other than to repay loans on the cash they get from the Fed Reserve. But that's a totally different discussion better suited to Off Topic 
The reason cops and other agencies get those weapons are due to idiots in the procurement depts who suffer from bling syndrome.
ROFL, so true, both of these.
Uh... in other reporting, all this stat comparison I've been doing is pointing out some weapons, notable for one reason or another.
Comparing several standard configuration rifles with ranges from 31-33, IIRC:
SIG 551 SWAT, G36K RAS, Colt M4A1, FN SCAR-68 CQC, HK 416 14"... the M4A1 is easily the fastest, and has the most controllable recoil besides. The SCAR variant stands out for having a much better damage score than the others, with the obvious drawback of not using a C-mag adapter. The other three are far less impressive.
Comparing several standard configuration rifles with ranges of approximately 35-36:
SIG 540, G35 RAS, 416 16", M16A1... the 416 is slightly speedier than the others, but can't use C-mags. The M16A1 has the most controllable recoil. The SG 540 can't use a rifle LAM, and the G36 is typical.
Comparing several standard configuration rifles with ranges of 37-38:
SCAR-H CQC, M16A4, Diemaco C7A2, SG550... the SCAR variant is faster, more powerful, has better range, and better accuracy. Again, no C-mag is possible with it. The M16 has decent recoil control, but of course has no full auto. The C7A2 has the best rate of fire, and also has excellent recoil control. The 550 isn't particularly notable in any way.
Comparing several rifles with ranges of 43-48:
FN FAL OSW, Barrett M468 (among the other two M4 6.8 clones), Steyr AUG-A3, HK 417... the AUG A3 has the best draw speed, but has one more aim level than the Barrett or OSW. The A3 has the best range and accuracy of the bunch. The OSW is pretty speedy, but has crazy recoil, and a much lesser range than the others. The 417 is slower than the others, but has a slightly better range than the other M4 types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 1.13 (NCTH) Weapon Comparison Guide[message #302359] |
Sun, 25 March 2012 11:14 | |
| DepressivesBrot
|
 |
Messages:3747
Registered:July 2009 |
|
|
|
RyftOh, within the game they are definitely a solid later tier choice, no argument there!
Whereas in the real world, they are pure fail for "rear area troops", and their status as elite commando guns is actually probably more appropriate. Rear area troops are probably better off with an M4 or similar, especially when magazine compatibility with other troops comes into play. If weight/portability is a concern, they should consider issuing something similar to a Bushmaster Carbon 15 M4, maybe with an even shorter barrel, akin to something out of the CAR-15 family, perhaps. You can't make a barrel arbitrarily short. Below a certain threshold (I'd have to sift through the material for hard numbers, but the M4 is close already), the standard charge won't burn completely anymore with consequences on accuracy and damage.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jan 26 07:15:30 EET 2020
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02430 seconds
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
