Home » OTHER STRATEGY » JA3 Wish List » Guns Versus Tactics.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3680] Mon, 20 September 2004 02:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message

Registered:June 2003
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Hmm. Y'know, it really could be the lack of scopes rather than range alone that turns my valuable ambi's into useless hanger-ons by the end of a game. I had Meltdown dual-wielding Mac 10's with barrel extenders, giving her (I think... too lazy to look it up) a 28 range. Now I got pretty sick of hearing that "out of range" sound, because most mercs were using 35+ rifles, but even when she was in range she couldn't hit a barn door by the last half of the game while my other mercs were using spotters to shoot... and nail 'em... blind.

So maybe it really is the scope that adds so much to the effectiveness of the weapon. It occurs to me that in the VietNam SOG '69 mod, where dual wielders really did rule, there was a specific one-handed weapon that could be barrel extended AND scoped, and made ambi's powerhouses to the end. Hmm. Something to consider.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3681] Mon, 21 February 2005 06:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message

Registered:November 2001
Location: behind you ...
Reducing the AP's allowable for an interrupt may be the way to counter the overwhelming superiority of big guns in the game system.

For example, say everyone can only use a maximum of 10 AP's {arbitrarily} on any given interrupt. This allows a turn & burst with SMG; a snap shot with pistol & run back to cover; aimed pistol/SMG & duck; a single shotgun/rifle shot - but can only use a longer arm if it's pointing in the right direction.
Unfortunately makes H-t-H too risky (unless AP's for melee are reduced).
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3682] Mon, 21 February 2005 11:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message

Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
That's a good idea. A very precise method of doing this sort of thing was discussed several months ago at the Strategy First Ja3 section.

This would make pistols much more valuable and give the entire combat system more dynamic interface.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3683] Thu, 10 March 2005 06:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message

Registered:January 2004
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
On the original topic here I have to agree that tactics should triumph over guns in "most" cases. Hiroshima would be one of those where no amount of tactics could have made a damn bit of difference.

Personally I like getting new weapons and trying to decide who gets what based on their role in my squad(s). I always figured that it was a third world country we were fighting in and it had less of a military than it did a large group of goons. This might explain why everyone of them seems to have different weapons but I digress.

As for as the interrupt thing, I think there needs to be serveral approaches to this. If you are going to enter a room, what person in their right mind just goes busting through the door when you think there might be someone in there. Any sane person would be going in "slicing the pie" trying to cover all angles before exposing himself to anyone inside the room.

Another thing I would like to see is interrupts taking movement speed into account. Have you ever tried to hit a moving target with a scope from 300 yards away? It is nearly impossibile if they are at a dead run and not on perfectly even ground. If I am running between cover from one spot to another, I should have a chance to be hit, but someone sniping me from across the map and having to turn and lay down to do it is just a bunch of bull.

I think interrupts should rely heavily on reaction time, and what you have to do prior to firing. If you run into someone, and you are both facing away from each other at a 45 degree angle, then it all boils down to reactions given that you both spot one another at the same time.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3684] Thu, 10 March 2005 09:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message

Registered:November 2002
Location: Virginia (USA)
1) Bearpit's idea about MG barrels (overheat, warp and become nonfunctional/ drop off) is excellent. Replacement barrels are heavy and bulky and would require time to replace. So a heavy Mgunner would need to tote the ammo AND the barrels to be effective. That rules out Buzz, Raven, etc. Maybe even need to have some mechanical skill, too...

2) Tactics are a substitute for brute force. Brute force was invented first. Tactics were invented to circumvent force advantages. All else is a variant on either brute force, tactics, or force multiplyers and levelers. Guns are the ultimate leveler to date. A 97-pound weakling can take out Goliath with the motion of a finger. What wins battles, however, is known as "force superiority" "situational superiority" or "tactical superiority." When your force gains superiority over the enemy, for whatever reason, be it sheer force, surprise, technological, situational, geographic, logistical, whatever, you win. I like to be able to explore all of these. I share people's annoyance with the fact that game developers don't seem to appreciate all of the variety of ways one can influence engagements...

3) Reflexes are important, but you cannot necessarily spin a 20 pound MG faster than someone else can draw and shoot a pistol. In fact, some people can draw a pistol faster than a person who has one leveled at their head can react to pull the trigger. Truth.

4) I suggest that the game should have an "active weapon" and a "standby weapon" and the player could switch between those with minimal AP. This would represent a main weapon in a sling as well as a "fast" weapon like a pistol in a holster, a knife, or whatever one thinks appropriate for surprise situations. The merc would essentially have an active plan to switch to this fallbakc weapon at a moment's notice, and would react accordingly if appropriate. To switch from an "inventory" weapon would cost APs like digging out anything else from the pack. I think this cost ought to be much higher. In the same light, however, I think that vests and belts ought to keep some things fairly handy (low AP).
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3685] Sat, 19 March 2005 01:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message

Registered:February 2004
I know a weapon that could definitely change the tactics and the concept of suppression fire,should it be implemented:a mini Gatling,kind of like the one the auto weapons specialist from Predator I was using.
Not sure many of us would like such a monstruosity in the game,though...

Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3686] Tue, 22 March 2005 02:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message

Registered:November 2002
Location: Virginia (USA)
Umm... the recoil factor in a chaingun would be... excessive. There's a good article here http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm The recoil force for a six-barrel would be somewhere close to 300 pounds per second. That's like being hit by a linebacker. A 55-pound ammunition load (2000 rounds) would last twenty seconds. The batteries would weigh another fifteen to twenty pounds and protection from the ejecting casings would require body armor and face protection. So assuming you could carry about 140 pounds of gear devoted solely to the chaingun, it would still knock the shooter on their @ss pretty quickly. They could be mounted on a hardpoint, tho...
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3687] Thu, 24 March 2005 15:13 Go to previous message
Registered:January 2005
Location: Small rural village in Si...
Originally posted by Doc Croc:
I agree with Alpha, it is about strategy with the types of guns used coming afterwards. I eman lots of high tech firepower is nice but it's still possible to beat JA2 using nothing but a crowbar if you play it right.
I would love seeing how you complete JA2 with just a crowbar !!! Very Happy
Previous Topic: Oh joy - another wish list...
Next Topic: Celebrity Voices
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Thu Mar 30 17:38:04 EEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01034 seconds