Home » OTHER STRATEGY » JA3 Wish List » Guns Versus Tactics.
Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3640] Thu, 19 August 2004 19:46 Go to next message
Alpha Male

 
Messages:29
Registered:April 2004
Now,i see the whole issue of Starting with more advanced weapons has surfaced up yet again.

This to me brings up an even bigger issue:
-Somehow the game becomes about who has the bigger/better guns,and not about the tactics employed with your men,wich is sad.i mean "Yeah,i got
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3641] Thu, 19 August 2004 22:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Scottybrown100

 
Messages:203
Registered:December 2003
Location: Michigan, USA

I always thought it would be good to have to buy your equipment for your mercs before they inserted into the country. Then you could go for good mercs/bad weapons or bad mercs/ good weapons or medium everything.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3642] Thu, 19 August 2004 22:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doc Croc

 
Messages:92
Registered:September 2003
Location: VT
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.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3643] Thu, 19 August 2004 22:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doc Croc

 
Messages:92
Registered:September 2003
Location: VT
Make that "I mean lots of high tech firepower..."
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3644] Fri, 20 August 2004 00:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dr.Quack

 
Messages:125
Registered:November 2001
Location: old Europe
Well I've attempted to have these differences in both the SOG'69 weapons and my UC edit, but both are not 100% like that. In JA2 it's hard to with the drawcost being limited to 3 AP and SOG'69 looks somewhat old right now, though its guns are still much more low-tech. Maybe the real hardcore version of my UC edit will be ready before I go on holidays. But even now there are some real drawbacks to using LMGs all the time, and SMGs are good for the whole game, thats an achievement already. The hardcore edit will have more pronounced differences between weapons classes and a high power paradigm applied to all of them, so to speak Smile Then all you have to do is avoid the various night-ops exploits, go Ironman and the game can be pretty challenging again.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3645] Fri, 20 August 2004 00:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ramfall

 
Messages:406
Registered:January 2001
Location: JAmodsquad, Helsingborg, ...
@Dr. Quack,
thanks, I really tried to make each weaponclass stand out from the rest. But it's hard since there's limitations in the game engine itself - like the drawcost, as you mentioned.

I hate the fact that there's no real difference between LMG's and Assaultrifles in the .exe. Just to tweak the damage doesn't make a LMG in my view. And the realiability points doesn't make up for it either. Increased ammo size, interchangable barrels and sustainable suppression fire is the pros of the LMG's. Weight, long reload times and bulkiness are it's cons. A LMG shouldn't be the prefered choice in CQB. Never. But it's hard to totally get rid of that.

And can someone please explain to me why the draw cost is limited to 3 in Ja2? Or rather, HOW it's limited to 3?
:ramfall:
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3646] Fri, 20 August 2004 01:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dr.Quack

 
Messages:125
Registered:November 2001
Location: old Europe
Hey I'm just playing maybe one or two sectors a day and making some changes to the weapons setup as I go along. It's just a way of setting the game up without listening to the whiners who want every assault rifle to do one-burst kills.

The one property of LMGs you didn't mention is high APs - SMGs are better for CQB when they can do 2 or 3 bursts, as opposed to the regular 1 shot + burst from an LMG. High range and damage is enough of a bonus already. Plus the LMG should (almost) never have a scope as thats the proper domain of sniper rifles.

Dvornik has done a drawcost fix for UB, with that on top of SOG'69 it's a nice real machinegun mod and still keeps the SMGs useful to the end.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3647] Fri, 20 August 2004 01:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Here's an idea from honey muncher ...

Quote:
And the realiability points doesn't make up for it either. Increased ammo size, interchangable barrels and sustainable suppression fire is the pros of the LMG's. Weight, long reload times and bulkiness are it's cons. A LMG shouldn't be the prefered choice in CQB.
What about the old barrel extender idea being adapted to machine guns with replaceable barrels in real life.

Extended auto fire causes the barrel to fall off ... however now you cant put it back on or repair it ... you can only fit a new replacement. New line for Tony, black market NPC or quartermaster ...... lmg barrels.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3648] Fri, 20 August 2004 11:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Snap

 
Messages:286
Registered:September 2000
Location: USA (by way of the Old Wo...
Some of the real-life variety of functions simply doesn't transfer easily into the game. For instance, even if everything was implemented with maximum realism, in JA2 there simply wouldn't be much reason to use pistols, because they will always lose out to SMGs or assault rifles.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3649] Fri, 20 August 2004 11:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Snap

 
Messages:286
Registered:September 2000
Location: USA (by way of the Old Wo...
Quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Male:
As for the lootable enemy arsenal id say go for it...but of course indrocude a lil thing called standardization,i mean even in third world nations armied end up having a main type of weapon they use or at least a certain common thread...
Certainly, in the real world everyone would have been using an AK or a FAL. But that would have been pretty boring, no?

Quote:
it becomes a lil too mutch like D&D when you seem to get all your guns fromy uor enemy akin to "treasure".
To be honest, I don't mind that aspect, unrealistic as it may be.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3650] Fri, 20 August 2004 15:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Khor1255

 
Messages:1834
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ
So the real problem lies with draw cost penalties having a 'cap' at 3? I wasn't aware of that. I'm currently working on two vintage weapons mods and need something more diverse than just a huge ammount of aps being required for black powder rifles for instance. It would be cool if there was some way to separate the ammount of aps required for a first shot even further than it already is. My solution was going to be a high draw cost for first shots but if there is a maximum of 3 additional points that leaves me with just aps.
Is there also a cap on loading aps? It would be great to have black powder rifles load at say 20 aps so you'd only be able to fire every other turn.
Perhaps the whitehats are working on this as we speak. This would come in handy for modern guns as well because you could introduce clips sinched together which require perhaps 4 aps to load or revolvers without speed loaders requiring 10 aps etc.

One nagging cheat that has persisted from the start is the fact that you could draw a new weapon when you run out of ammo for almost no aps. It would be great if this were adjustable because thise of us who like a little realism could then maybe introduce harnesses or holsters that reduce the initial draw cost as sought after items.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3651] Fri, 20 August 2004 18:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alpha Male

 
Messages:29
Registered:April 2004
A Few ideas about weapon balance,(i was refering to Future installment
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3652] Fri, 20 August 2004 19:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AZAZEL

 
Messages:754
Registered:February 2004
I'm am ambidextrous fan,too.
About the dual wielding-and vintage weapons- Khor,could you design a double-barrel pistol,so that the "two-round burst" will become a four bullet orgy?
Dunno if graphics allow this,though. Wink
Derringers,the miniatures,if I remember correctly had a double barrel and two separate cocks(or one with 2 extensions)that could be modified to fire simultaneously!At that caliber,it would be almost necessary...
No scope attachable,it would be an aberation...how could you pull two triggers at the same time(!) and look through two scopes?
I heard it was done!Pity...

Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3653] Wed, 25 August 2004 00:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alpha Male

 
Messages:29
Registered:April 2004
Anyway,back to topic!
Tactics is what should win battles,not guns,severl well equiped and armed military forces have met their demise in the hands of ragtag rebels with greater use of strategy and tactics.
If Half a dozen Mercs were to actually go about taking over a country it wouldnt be because they have bigger guns...the Army they opose has BIGGER and MORE guns.it
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3654] Wed, 25 August 2004 09:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doc Croc

 
Messages:92
Registered:September 2003
Location: VT
Look at history for the answer to this one. I seem to remember reading about the battle of thermopylae where a handful of Spartans with great tactics held off few hundred thousand Persian invaders. Tactics decide who wins the battle, good weapons make it that much easier... I really hope there aren't any missions in JA3 where your six man squad has to hold off a few hundred baddies...
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3655] Mon, 30 August 2004 23:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grindedstone

 
Messages:90
Registered:August 2004
in england
2 knights and 6 men at arms held a castle till the troops came back
tactics 2 win

edit: but then again the british held an island when 10,000 natives attacked. The brits had rifles and a MG, the natives had arrows and spears

war is never a level playing field
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3656] Wed, 01 September 2004 08:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alpha Male

 
Messages:29
Registered:April 2004
"edit: but then again the british held an island when 10,000 natives attacked. The brits had rifles and a MG, the natives had arrows and spears."

If youre suggesting it was the firepower that made the Brits win,please refrain from engaging in any game based on strategy and tactics.
The logic where "the bigger guns win" didnt help the Russians in Afghanistan or the Americans in Nam,where they were thouroughy *ss-f*ck*d...i rest my case.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3657] Wed, 01 September 2004 17:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grindedstone

 
Messages:90
Registered:August 2004
mate, please dont miss quote me, i had both sides of the story
please read

"in england
2 knights and 6 men at arms held a castle till the troops came back
tactics 2 win"

my overall comment was depending your situation, different things are needed (is it bigger guns, or tactics)
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3658] Wed, 01 September 2004 18:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alpha Male

 
Messages:29
Registered:April 2004
Your Second Example is a Fallacy,Firepower alone is never an awnswer to anything, use of tactics to maximixe that advantage or lack of tactics by your enemy dictates victory.
My opinion:Tactics over Firepower,if having to choose one,id go with Tactics.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3659] Wed, 01 September 2004 19:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grindedstone

 
Messages:90
Registered:August 2004
i'm currently playing wild fire

individuals - tactics, sneak up, either shoot ehm in the head ot beat them to death

group - spray or throw a nade

you need to use both in order to take a sector (quickly...well semi)
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3660] Thu, 02 September 2004 09:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sarge McSarge

 
Messages:51
Registered:February 2000
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand

Actually at the battle of Thermopylae the Persians won after being repulsed in the first days of the battle. The Greeks had the advantage of defending on a narrow front where the Persians could not use their large numbers to advantage. Also Persians, with arrows and short spears, could not break through the long spears of the Greek hoplites, although it was said that the Persian arrows blotted out the sun. So it was a combination of technology and tactics that repulsed the Persians. The Persians then found an alternative route and the Greeks realising they were about to be flanked disbanded. 300 Spartans (part of the Greek force) and some others stayed as a rear guard and all were killed fighting overwhelming odds. This was seen as a great example of fighting spirit and commitment to duty.

If you use heavy firepower without carefull control there will be increased colateral damage (what a dreadful euphemism for civilian deaths) and in the media spotlight that we now live in this has major negitive concequences as we have repeatedly seen in recent times.

Sarge


Sarge
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3661] Thu, 02 September 2004 10:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doc Croc

 
Messages:92
Registered:September 2003
Location: VT
Sarge, I was trying to be optomistic and not mention that Leonidas and a few hundred of his men were killed. But then again, the only way a Spartan could get his name on a tombstone was to fall in battle, so maybe it still helped my point. Damn, those guys must've had some major stones to face down the Persians, especially since they knew what would happen. Very Happy
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3662] Mon, 13 September 2004 07:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Folkewulf

 
Messages:56
Registered:August 2003
@Dr Quack, Ramfall, &Snap

I may be wrong but I don't think draw cost is the issue. The problem is how inituitive is determined. If in a close quarters situation a man with a hand gun or SMG always got the first shot over a man with a machinegun, you'd never walk into a room with a big clumsy weapon. From what you've said the type and draw cost of the weapon aren't used in determining who shoots first.

Just a thought.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3663] Tue, 14 September 2004 19:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alpha Male

 
Messages:29
Registered:April 2004
Heres a few other suggestions to keep HMG
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3664] Tue, 14 September 2004 21:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
grindedstone

 
Messages:90
Registered:August 2004
i think burstng while standing is a joke, and no more then 3 when crouching

i think no sniper scope (if possiable to do it that way) when bursting, and no laser scope in general
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3665] Wed, 15 September 2004 10:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Snap

 
Messages:286
Registered:September 2000
Location: USA (by way of the Old Wo...
Quote:
Originally posted by Folkewulf:
I may be wrong but I don't think draw cost is the issue. The problem is how inituitive is determined. If in a close quarters situation a man with a hand gun or SMG always got the first shot over a man with a machinegun, you'd never walk into a room with a big clumsy weapon. From what you've said the type and draw cost of the weapon aren't used in determining who shoots first.
You are opening a can of worms with this suggestion. Shooting is not the only thing, and not necessarily the first thing that I do. Because of that, giving the right of turn to the guy with the quickest gun doesn't make much sense.
What if I wasn't going to shoot in the first place? What if I had no gun in my hand? What if I have a knife? What if, once I get my turn, I put away the gun I am holding and draw a different one?
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3666] Wed, 15 September 2004 13:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magnum
Messages:7
Registered:March 2000

Quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Male:
Your Second Example is a Fallacy,Firepower alone is never an awnswer to anything, use of tactics to maximixe that advantage or lack of tactics by your enemy dictates victory.
My opinion:Tactics over Firepower,if having to choose one,id go with Tactics.
Tell that to Hiroshima...
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3667] Wed, 15 September 2004 13:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magnum
Messages:7
Registered:March 2000

Quote:
Originally posted by Snap:
Quote:
Originally posted by Folkewulf:
I may be wrong but I don't think draw cost is the issue. The problem is how inituitive is determined. If in a close quarters situation a man with a hand gun or SMG always got the first shot over a man with a machinegun, you'd never walk into a room with a big clumsy weapon. From what you've said the type and draw cost of the weapon aren't used in determining who shoots first.
You are opening a can of worms with this suggestion. Shooting is not the only thing, and not necessarily the first thing that I do. Because of that, giving the right of turn to the guy with the quickest gun doesn't make much sense.
What if I wasn't going to shoot in the first place? What if I had no gun in my hand? What if I have a knife? What if, once I get my turn, I put away the gun I am holding and draw a different one?
A good way to deal with that might be to make the "draw penalty" for bigger guns extremely high, so it will take them an entire turn just to raise their weapon. Maybe lower the penalties for mercs with heavy/auto weapons skill and merce with higher strength and dexterity.

I'd also like to see anticipation play a bigger role in initiative. For example, a merc hiding behind a doorway could focus his attention one anyone coming through the doorway, to guarantee the interrupt. Of course, he might give up his chances of interrupting someone who enters from somewhere else.

Sorry for the double post.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3668] Thu, 16 September 2004 02:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Folkewulf

 
Messages:56
Registered:August 2003
Interesting Snap, and alot of things I hadn't thought of. You're right about "giving" the right of turn to the guy with the fastest gun but I still think it should be a factor along with the level and condition of the merc.

If you aren't going to shoot in the first place? If you and the enemy spot each other at the same time what do you do? Give him a kiss? (sorry, couldn't resist that) That's really the only time this will apply, if they spot you, you get shot, and if you spot them you can choose your action.

No gun, a knife, carry a handgun then switch to a LMG. You're also right about the can of worms, and one of them is crawling right into the inventory costs. And since this is the JA3 wishlist thats another thing that I think needs to be revamped. Walking in barehanded to get the initive then equiping a LMG at for 0 action points is just plain wrong. Like taking off your NVG and putting on a gasmask at no cost. Besides changing weapons or drawing one should be an automatic interupt for an enemy that has a weapon ready and can see you.

So lets see how this flies for JA3. Everything is based on the draw cost number. Just using a generic list as an example (someone who uses knives can argue if they should be 0 or 1);

0 - barehanded
1 - handgun
2 - SMG
3 - carbine
4 - assault rifle, shotgun
5 - LMG, sniper rifle
6 - heavy weapons

If you and the enemy spot each other at the same time the weapon class equiped should be used in determining initive along with your levels. So clearing room to room an MP5 has a definate advantage, as it should. And if you do anything but shoot the enemy gets an interupt.

Switching weapons is another subject. I think it should cost triple the draw cost to equip and unequip a weapon. Say you're carying your MP5 and you spot an enemy in the distance but they don't see you. It would cost 6AP to put the SMG away and 15 to unlimber the LMG or sniper rifle. then you still have to pay the draw cost of 5 to put it on target.

I just think there has to be a better way to make it work that inflating draw costs out of proportion with reality.

Very Happy Very Happy
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3669] Thu, 16 September 2004 03:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Richard

 
Messages:29
Registered:June 2004
Location: Montr
I certainly agree that boosting the draw penalty does not deal with the issue appropriately.

The current scheme considered for JA3 (not JA3D) is to allow the player to fiddle with the equipment in the inventory so that he can get some feedback on how many points would be used up if he were to switch weapons. If he restores the original weapon, the cost is cleared (there would be some feedback to this effect, such as adding a +x after the current cost while the player is experimenting with the other weapon which would go away if he were to switch back to the weapon originally wielded). (This of course gives away the intent of adding a cost to equipment switching.)

In relation with right of turn, one has to be careful. To an extent, you would end up with a 'character turn' based on a number of factors such as his initiative (which would have to be added and factored in) modified with other stats such as strength, speed/reflexes, injuries, morale, weapon wielded and so on. (Not necessarily a bad thing and a possible solution for an eventual multiplayer system that is more user friendly.)

The idea of switching weapons resulting in an interrupt also makes sense. You could even consider that any action initiated other than firing could result in an interrupt if it happens in plain sight and out of cover (provided there is no element of surprise).

There is also the possibility of being penalized for carrying a long range specialized weapon in close quarters (not necessarily related to being inside but rather to the closeness and angular speed/reflexes of the target). At the very least, any long-range add-ons (like sniper scopes and laser scopes) should not help you and its associated bonuses cancelled for a close shot. You could even go as far as penalizing aiming at close range when using a long range rifle and possibly give an interrupt if the target is within melee range AND is aware of your maneuver.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3670] Thu, 16 September 2004 18:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Snap

 
Messages:286
Registered:September 2000
Location: USA (by way of the Old Wo...
Right of turn: what I meant to say is that when I see an enemy, instead of shooting I may want to duck or turn tail, in which case it doesn't matter what weapon I am wielding. Or I may need/want to turn, change stance, or move to a better position before shooting. Or imagine this situation: I have a pistol, while the opponent has a rifle. On this basis I get an interrupt but instead of firing quickly, I procede to carefully aim in his head. In reality, that would've given my opponent more than enough time to raise his weapon and cut me with a burst.

I think you are trying to "fix" the turn-based scheme, which may be a counter-productive venture.

BTW, I like the proposed inventory manipulation scheme.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3671] Fri, 17 September 2004 01:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Folkewulf

 
Messages:56
Registered:August 2003
More good points Snap :ok:

Besides shooting, diving for cover is another legit reaction. Turning, changing stance, and moving are reasons for a possible interupt though. In the game now I know I've interupted the enemy as they turned and brought their weapon to bear. I think they've interupted me too. Your example of aiming giving them time is a good example of the limitations of a turn based system. On the other hand, facing down the enemy wondering can I use one more action point to aim without triggering an interupt? Ya I think so. The bar turns yellow! OH SHIT!! Fun stuff there!

We can debate if changes to the system are improvements or not. Personally I'd like to see JA3 as something more than JA2 with improved graphics and a new story line. And seeing Richard in here makes me optimistic.

So heres another balloon I'd like to float going back to something Snap said way up top

Quote:
Some of the real-life variety of functions simply doesn't transfer easily into the game. For instance, even if everything was implemented with maximum realism, in JA2 there simply wouldn't be much reason to use pistols, because they will always lose out to SMGs or assault rifles.
After all the discussions there have been about draw costs, action points, and fractions of a second, a handgun has one real advantage that never comes into play in JA2. It can be concealed. Personally I'm not a handgun fan but alot here are. As long as there is no liability to walking into an area in full body armor carrying an assault rifle handguns will only be good untill you get better guns. I'd definately like the action in JA3 to be military like JA2, but a couple areas or side quests where a concealed weapon and sportsjacket are more effective than a mortar and LAW could be interesting.

Thanks for listening and the feedback Richard :ok:

I love this game

Very Happy Very Happy
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3672] Fri, 17 September 2004 02:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Richard

 
Messages:29
Registered:June 2004
Location: Montr
Hello Snap and all,

@Snap

I agree that you can't be forced into shooting.

What I am suggesting here is that (and it must not be forgotten that in order for you to be interrupted, the enemy char must have saved his APs to get some interrupt points) when two characters are obviously facing each other, the decision to move away instead of shooting may give an interrupt to the opponent.

I have explained a possible interrupt scheme that I have been working on lately on the SFI forums ( the thread that you participated to Snap ).

What I find important in this scheme is that if you get interrupted because you decided to run for cover, the interrupting character will only have so much time to aim and improve his precision, otherwise you will get to safety before he has the time to fire a single shot.

My goal is not to 'fix' the turn based scheme per say but to seek any avenue towards improvement. In this case, what I perceive as improved (still will need to be tested and accepted as an improvement) is the overall flow of things. Otherwise things remain pretty much the same, again because the only way you can get interrupted by a particular character is if he has not spent his APs during the same turn.

@Folkewulf
You have a valid point about handguns and what would make them desirable.

As you say, an environment that would require stealth would preclude usage of large guns that cannot be concealed easily.

Reconnaissance missions could work well for this.

A more dynamic world may also have the potential of creating such opportunities, especially in heavily guarded urban areas.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3673] Sat, 18 September 2004 06:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Snap

 
Messages:286
Registered:September 2000
Location: USA (by way of the Old Wo...
What bothers me in this and the earlier interrupt scheme to which you refer is that shooting is treated differently from any other action as regards to the time flow, whereas in the original shooting was an action just like any other. The latter scheme seems more consistent and invites fewer conceptual and practical problems.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3674] Sat, 18 September 2004 09:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gideon

 
Messages:54
Registered:February 2003
Location: Uppsala/Sweden

Quote:
Originally posted by Doc Croc:
I really hope there aren't any missions in JA3 where your six man squad has to hold off a few hundred baddies...
Why not? I love those missions. You have a bunker with limited supplies, like one MG, two AR, and three SMG's and only a few clips for them all. I would love it, l.o.v.e. it.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3675] Sun, 19 September 2004 03:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Di^^^

 
Messages:38
Registered:June 2003
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Eh, I like a challenge as much as anyone. There are sectors in UC where your valiant mercs face 30 enemies AND another dozen or two "citizen" groups. Those battles can take hours.

However, locking a small squad in a bunker with limited supplies and facing a massive onslaught means that some players... perhaps even many players... will run out of ammo before the enemy is dead, and will be forced to reload. Challenge is fun. Fighting the same battle (or replaying the same twitch-based minigame!) 2-3 dozen times just to move on is not fun. And in a non-linear mission-based game, the player is at the mercy of the designers. Sad

That said, another off-topic thought based on other comments in this thread: Pistols versus assault rifles. Now I am a fan of the ambidextrous... Meltdown cracks me up!... but I've tried many times to give my ambi mercs the best equipment, and keep them shooting dual until the end. I can't. A merc with a pair of short-ranged weapons simply cannot compete with teammates weilding assault rifles with a 30+ range. So they end up wandering from fight to fight, not even firing their weapons unless they round a corner and bump into a red-shirt at point-blank range. The only game I've kept Meltdown EFFECTIVELY dual-weilding 'til the bitter end was in VietNam SOG '69, because it was possible to upgrade her weapons to a 30 range using barrel extenders. Otherwise, all my ambi folks end up trading their pistols for a rifle about a third of the way through the game.

So my request, should it matter Very Happy , is that compatible weapons be available for ambis that make them viable squad members even after their mates have AK's tucked under their arms! (No, I do NOT want the effectiveness of assault rifles lowered so they aren't any better than pistols; I want the ability to increase the range of certain one-handed weapons so they can compete with the effectiveness of assault rifles.)

Another windy, off-topic post by Di! Brought to you by Boredom Inc.

Heh-heh. Very Happy
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3676] Sun, 19 September 2004 04:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pheloncab

 
Messages:266
Registered:August 2004
Location: So. Cal. or texas
To comment on your long topic: specifically the range- when doing some research using multiple sources online and a few books, i found that one of the biggest problems is that no one agrees on the effectiveness of weapons as it is.
in fact i did find (and lose) a great article about gov. agencies finally trying to make a standardized test because they all used different ones and so the effectivness of a weapon, and therefore how it got written up in the manual for that agency was different depending on which agency tested it. ie. Dod had one set of stats for an m-16, FBI another, colt a third, etc....

I believe, that figuring out a rough standard for ranges would be the first step in fixing the issue. defining 'effective range' as numeric data
such as ft/lbs of energy at impact range.
woudl sure beat the 50% chance of incapacitating kinda drivel that they try to guestimate on now.

Secondly, the biggest problem with ambi weapons is terrain.. in the right terrain, esp. at night you can use a 2 fisted fighter with pretty much any 9mm sub effectively, in the open field- like RL you do have issues with range, though i found you could still get in the occasional shot.

I always found the AMbi person a great sniper, carry a sniper rifle, and some clips, 2 SMGs and minimal reloads. let the team carry some extra smg ammo to swap in between fights, and then that person covers both ranges, extreme and extremely close.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3677] Sun, 19 September 2004 06:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Snap

 
Messages:286
Registered:September 2000
Location: USA (by way of the Old Wo...
First of all, let's separate game stuff from real world stuff: it's a bit confusing when you talk about real gun effectiveness and ambi shooting in the same breath.

Shooting with twin handguns is the stuff of games and movies: no one, and I mean no one does it for real. Which is not to say that it shouldn't be in JA Smile In JA2 the limitation of ambi mercs was not so much limited range of handguns (a MAC10 with a barrel extender has a respectable range), as the inability to attach a scope. Ambi mercs are mostly useful in night missions. They are great in early to mid-game, and because they always shoot single shots (and a lot of them) their marksmanship improves quickly. Later, however, they lose out to riflemen with automatic rifles or LMGs.

As for gun range, in JA2 its primary function was modeling relative accuracy of guns. Damage is a different beast altogether, which depends a lot more on the ammunition than on the gun, and has its unique challenges in game implementation. Figuring out bullet speed or energy at a distance is actually not difficult: test data or calculations can be used. Figuring out how (if at all) it relates to game damage is harder, as I myself found out.
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3678] Sun, 19 September 2004 08:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fulby
Messages:1
Registered:September 2004
Location: UK
It may be too movie-ish, but one advantage of dual wielding over rifles could be independent aiming and firing of each pistol. This would let a merc cover two locations and avoid the turn and draw costs if an enemy appeared at either one. It could also let a single merc suppress two locations cheaply - if not fully suppressing enemies then at least affecting their aim and reactions. This ability would make the interface more complicated as the player would need left/right/dual aiming and firing commands.

Lastly, getting extended clips for pistols mid- to late-game would prolong their use.

Fulby
Re: Guns Versus Tactics.[message #3679] Sun, 19 September 2004 23:32 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Gideon

 
Messages:54
Registered:February 2003
Location: Uppsala/Sweden

Quote:
Originally posted by Di^^^:
However, locking a small squad in a bunker with limited supplies and facing a massive onslaught means that some players... perhaps even many players... will run out of ammo before the enemy is dead, and will be forced to reload. Challenge is fun. Fighting the same battle (or replaying the same twitch-based minigame!) 2-3 dozen times just to move on is not fun. And in a non-linear mission-based game, the player is at the mercy of the designers. Sad
I know it's not fun, I hate those kind of games, but still, it could work, especially if there are backups ready to arrive, so you have to hold the location for a couple of minutes only, and not killing them all, that is what the re-inforcements are there for.
Previous Topic: Oh joy - another wish list...
Next Topic: Celebrity Voices
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jun 23 08:13:56 EEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01361 seconds