Home » SIRTECH CLASSICS » Jagged Alliance 2 » The A.I.M. Library » Problem With AET Research
| Problem With AET Research[message #204298]
|
Thu, 18 December 2008 08:20 
|
|
| incognito253 |
 |
Messages:53
Registered:December 2008
Location: Ohio, USA |
|
|
Well, everyone knows what the good stuff is in JA2 1.13, and those who don't, should pine for their FMJ's ability to pass right through a target while damaging nothing vital, and their HP ammo's ability to flatten against a ceramic body armor insert. Again. And again. And again.
Solution: AET ammunition. Superior penetration, superior damage. It literally combines the positive features of AP/FMJ and HP/JHP with the obvious balancing factor of causing degredation to your weapon status. Oh, and being absurdly expensive.
The only problem is, when researching Advanced Energy Transfer ammunition, every thread I can find points to it being the official term for what is known colloquially as 'frangible' ammunition. It points to the source of frangible AET ammunition as the Glaser company, in 1974; creation of a composite round that shards when coming into contact with any hard surface, designed to achieve maximum energy transfer into a target without the fear of overpenetration and collateral damage.
SO...if AET is actually a term to describe Glaser ammunition, both in name and in function, is the AET ammo in the game representative of another techonlogy entirely? It doesn't really bother me, so to speak, it's more academic curiousity than anything.
Thanks for any knowledge!
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Problem With AET Research[message #204302]
|
Thu, 18 December 2008 08:52 
|
|
| incognito253 |
|
Messages:53
Registered:December 2008
Location: Ohio, USA |
|
|
I thought of that after I posted, actually, as the pre-1.13 mod P90 ammunition acted in a similar way. I'll go look into that bullet technology. Now of course, real-world 5.56mm AET rounds (glaser) is in the game, although I only find glaser useful in 5.56 in bloodcat extermination and in snipery clandestine activity, sneaking around with a suppressed AR with a battle scope and picking off enemies who aren't protecting their head or chest.
But, yeah, the AET in-game is fine and good (except maybe in a few cases where its combat strength is off the chain), I was just highly curious about its nature.
Now what we need for game balance is small arms with depleted uranium bullets. Depleted Uranium chambered in .44 magnum FTW.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Problem With AET Research[message #204379]
|
Fri, 19 December 2008 05:59
|
|
| incognito253 |
|
Messages:53
Registered:December 2008
Location: Ohio, USA |
|
|
AET should not be available for rifle class weaponry due to balance issues. However, there are a number of players who want to utilize any number of tactics that pistols or submachine guns are specialized in, and that, frankly, rifles aren't designed for. In real life, rifles are not designed with high-powered man stopper cartridges in mind, and the technology used in AET ammunition actually does not translate correctly to high power, long-range rounds. CQB is primarily the job of submachine guns and hand arms. Now, this would be all well and good except that without AET technology, subs and pistols would useless in the game's later stages. However, if you increased the damage potential on these arms to compensate, it would disrupt the early game balance, which, imho, is very good as well. Whereas AET capability for high power weapons would disrupt the end-game balance.
The limited calibers and high coolness rating means it shoehorns in just as small arms start to become -completely- useless, as it becomes vendor available. You won't see enemies carrying this stuff near the end of the game except very rarely; then again, you won't see enemies carrying pistols and subs near the end of the game to fire it, so it's not like you have some big technology advantage because of it. Actually I think rifle-class tracer ammunition is far more unbalancing to the game than AET. And AET is extremely expensive and probably only found through BR, limiting it a bit further. But it does have some really good sides -
It makes Ambidexterity almost worth having (ambi still needs something more, but this helps a lot)
It means you can use super-cool guns like the HK MP7A1 and FN P90 at the end of the game, which stay balanced due to their inherent limitations such as range
It means you can have side arms for your snipers and such that are actually going to protect them, where without avanced cartridges, carrying a Colt .45 would be, frankly, useless.
And as I said, this kind of ballistic round isn't mass produced for any rifle cartridge to speak of, so it's actually realistic to not have it available in, like, 7.62x51 (shudder). The advanced military-grade ballistic 5.7x28 round for the FN P90 is designed to have this penetration/stopping power, though I don't fully understand the technology just from the limited information I could find online.
Anyway, I think it works rather nicely implemented in the game as it is; though frankly, I don't know if AET should be relegated to the sci-fi game mode in some calibers. Welp, that's all there is to say aboot that. Ciao folks.
Edit.
Quote:And I have explained this a few times already 
Sorry Star, I just got back into this forum after not being on Bear's Pit since, oh, 2003. I promise I'll do better research next time. 
Do you know anywhere I can go to do some research about this ballistic technology?
[Updated on: Fri, 19 December 2008 06:02] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
| Re: Problem With AET Research[message #204388]
|
Fri, 19 December 2008 10:23
|
|
 Starwalker |
 |
Messages:758
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany |
|
|
BuzzsawDo you know anywhere I can go to do some research about this ballistic technology?
Here's a bit about THV/SIB/Monad:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/THV.htm
EDIT: Here you see that THV /does/ exist in 5.45x45mm and 7.62x51mm. But I do not implement it in 1.13, as it would severly shift gamebalance. It would also cut down on range for rifles.
The AET bullets for the P90 have an aluminum body with a steel tip, the whole is encased in a steel jacket. So the center of mass is far forward, for easier penetration of hard targets. In soft targets the lighweight tail flails around, and exit probability for a torso hit is given as being 5% (by the manufacturer, so take it with a grain of salt). Being of comparatively light weight, this bullet needs a high speed and thus is not usable in silenced guns (coldloading would defy its purpose, at low speed it loses much of its effect).
Subsonic rounds for the P90 exist, but they are conventional FMJ bullets that do not have the same effect as AET.
I do not know exactly about the innards of the MP7's ammo, but believe that they are similarly built, as they have similar performance.
[Updated on: Fri, 19 December 2008 10:26] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Problem With AET Research[message #204463]
|
Sat, 20 December 2008 00:43
|
|
| incognito253 |
|
Messages:53
Registered:December 2008
Location: Ohio, USA |
|
|
Very interesting. So you can still achieve this "tail flail" (ooo...rhyme) after the bullet zips right through a kevlar vest.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Jun 11 04:15:42 GMT+3 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00966 seconds
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
