Home » PLAYER'S HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Combat/Weapon Academy » "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #199735]
|
Wed, 22 October 2008 19:00  
|
|
 Kharn |
 |
Messages:22
Registered:July 2004 |
|
|
I think you have a few terms confused.
HBAR (Heavy Barrel) is used to denote a rifle (usually seen in M16s/AR15s) with a heavier than normal barrel. For example, the M16A1 has a "pencil" barrel, its very, very thin (I'd say dropping down to 1/2"-5/8") and light, the A2 has a "government" barrel, its heavier in front of the front sight (3/4") and cuts down to ~5/8" under the handguards. An HBAR is considered to be a rifle with 3/4" or larger for its entire length. This does aid in rapid fire, but its used more for its accuracy (better barrel harmonics) when you do not have to carry the rifle in a 20km road-march. Some ARs have barrels up to 1.5" in diameter for match/competition use.
LMG (light machine gun) or AR (automatic rifle) is usually a beefed-up assault rifle in the Eastern Bloc but the West commonly uses purpose-built guns (they'll almost always fire an assault rifle cartridge, 5.56 or 7.62x39, etc) designed for sustained rapid fire. RPK, M249, HK23E, Shrike, Steyr AUG with LMG barrel, etc fit into this catagory. Bipods are common, tripods are not.
GPMG (general purpose machine gun) is a medium-caliber MG that can be used as either a light or medium MG while still being man-portable. These will fire 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R and are for example, the MG42, HK21E, M240, PK/PKM, 1919A6. A bipod is a requirement due to the weight and recoil but usually includes provisions for mounting on a tripod for more effective employment.
HMG (heavy machine gun) are either large caliber (.50bmg, 12.7 or 14.5) or designed for sustained firing and limited mobility (water-cooled .30-06 1917s). These are much too heavy for a single person to employ in battle, they are always mounted on a tripod and require 2-3 crewmen.
Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #199844]
|
Thu, 23 October 2008 14:05
|
|
| Matryoshka |
 |
Messages:90
Registered:September 2004
Location: New Zealand |
|
|
HeadrockRIFLES
...
OK, the SKS doesn't really have much of an advantage, but its high damage value (33) may still keep it useful. It is the slowest semi-auto rifle yet (3 to Draw, 7 to Fire), although that can be corrected to 2-to-draw by a Folding Stock. It has a 1 point range advantage over the Mini-14 (37 vs 36), but causes somewhat more damage (33 vs 30). Unfortunately, it is inaccurate (+3 vs +5) and cannot take a suppressor at all, or even a basic Reflex Sight. Overall, waste this one if you've got a Mini-14, otherwise it's a nice heavy-hitting rifle.
Point of order? The SKS doesn't like Reflex Sights, true - but it's quite happy with an ACOG scope, and if you can scrounge/create an ACOG Combo, you might be surprised how much longer it stays useful. :wrysmiley:
And thanks for drawing my attention to the tidbit about the Calico M950 and Mini-14. I hadn't actually realised that before, and it's prompted me to go back to near the start of my current campaign and give an SA/BF Mini-14 to Biff. Based on early results, who knows? By the time we scrounge up an M4A1 for him, he might not want to make the switch anyway - lower weight or not. 
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #199879]
|
Thu, 23 October 2008 19:09
|
|
| cdunigan |
 |
Messages:132
Registered:September 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA |
|
|
I notice one thing you don't mention that may make a difference, and one that I think might make a difference if I'm understanding it correctly.
First is the fact that some pistols and machine pistols are small enough that you can attach a pistol suppressor and still fit them in normal holsters (NIV only, obviously). I tend to divide my night ops team into a forward team with knives and quiet SMGs, and a rear team with heavier but noisier weapons. But, I really like to equip the rear team with silenced sidearms for those pesky unexpected close encounters when I don't want to alert the whole sector of my presence just yet. The fact that I can then put the silenced weapon away again without needing a combat pack makes a difference, especially in the earlier stages of the game. I love being able to slip a silenced Skorpion into an MP holster that a silenced MP5K just won't fit, at least until the lack of AP ammo makes it impractical.
Second is the AP reduction part of the weapon stats. I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but when I look at, for example, the Benelli M3 in my XML Editor, it says that it has an 8% "General" AP reduction, while the M4 has that plus a 30% "Ready" AP reduction. In the game, it seems to me that a low agility merc like Bull will move much slower with the M4 than an M3. Am I perceiving that correctly? How does the AP reduction work?
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #199882]
|
Thu, 23 October 2008 19:22
|
|
| Headrock |
 |
Messages:1760
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem |
|
|
Quote:First is the fact that some pistols and machine pistols are small enough that you can attach a pistol suppressor and still fit them in normal holsters (NIV only, obviously).
I didn't take size into account, mostly because not everybody uses NIV, and I couldn't make two different NIV and OIV guides, so I opted to (mostly) ignore size. There are several places in the text where size differences are still mentioned, but they don't figure into the final result.
Quote:Second is the AP reduction part of the weapon stats. I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but when I look at, for example, the Benelli M3 in my XML Editor, it says that it has an 8% "General" AP reduction, while the M4 has that plus a 30% "Ready" AP reduction. In the game, it seems to me that a low agility merc like Bull will move much slower with the M4 than an M3. Am I perceiving that correctly? How does the AP reduction work?
It's hard to say, because the values you see in the XML and the Description box are NOT AP costs, instead they go through a whole bunch of recalculations to convert them to AP costs. I don't know why the M4 costs you more, as there's no reason it should. Perhaps there's a factor in that calculation that messes things up. Could you be more specific? What exactly is slower, the drawing part or the shooting part?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #199886]
|
Thu, 23 October 2008 19:47
|
|
| cdunigan |
|
Messages:132
Registered:September 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA |
|
|
HeadrockQuote:First is the fact that some pistols and machine pistols are small enough that you can attach a pistol suppressor and still fit them in normal holsters (NIV only, obviously).
I didn't take size into account, mostly because not everybody uses NIV, and I couldn't make two different NIV and OIV guides, so I opted to (mostly) ignore size. There are several places in the text where size differences are still mentioned, but they don't figure into the final result.
Understood. By the way, I forgot to mention that I'm in the process of trying to develop a "by difficulty" Merc starting gear for myself, and this is incredibly valuable to me for that. Thanks!
HeadrockQuote:Second is the AP reduction part of the weapon stats. I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but when I look at, for example, the Benelli M3 in my XML Editor, it says that it has an 8% "General" AP reduction, while the M4 has that plus a 30% "Ready" AP reduction. In the game, it seems to me that a low agility merc like Bull will move much slower with the M4 than an M3. Am I perceiving that correctly? How does the AP reduction work?
It's hard to say, because the values you see in the XML and the Description box are NOT AP costs, instead they go through a whole bunch of recalculations to convert them to AP costs. I don't know why the M4 costs you more, as there's no reason it should. Perhaps there's a factor in that calculation that messes things up. Could you be more specific? What exactly is slower, the drawing part or the shooting part?
The running or crawling part, actually. It seems to me that when carrying certain weapons in their hands as opposed to in a pack (and maybe even slung, I'm not sure), low agility mercs move across the map slower than they do when carrying other weapons. I thought I noticed it when I was trying out different shotguns for Bull, and I could swear that Bull was running faster carrying an M3 than he was carrying an M4. At the time, I looked at the XML Editor to see what could account for it, and I saw that large and presumably unwieldy weapons had the 30% reduction, which seemed to account for the slower movement. I don't know a thing about the real world counterparts, but it made sense to me, so I assumed that was what was happening. But I'm also very bad for the gaming "placebo" effect, meaning that if I think something is true, it will appear to me to be working that way in the game even when it really isn't. So I ask to see if I'm seeing it right, or just fooled by my misperceptions again.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #199945]
|
Fri, 24 October 2008 10:53
|
|
| Starwalker |
 |
Messages:759
Registered:October 2005
Location: Hannover, Germany |
|
|
JAPHSecond is the AP reduction part of the weapon stats. I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but when I look at, for example, the Benelli M3 in my XML Editor, it says that it has an 8% "General" AP reduction, while the M4 has that plus a 30% "Ready" AP reduction. In the game, it seems to me that a low agility merc like Bull will move much slower with the M4 than an M3. Am I perceiving that correctly? How does the AP reduction work?
Some guns should have an AP-cost for single shots that is not achievable via the ShotsPer4Turns-value, thus they were given their own AP-reduction to reach the correct value. For example, you cannot make a gun having a single-shot cost of 12AP (S4T=7 makes for 13AP, S4T=8 gives 11AP), thus it needs to be tweaked a little with AP-reduction (which can take negative values as well).
And it is a 'real' percentage.
These tweaks will vanish with the 100AP-system, because Chris changed S4T from an integer into a decimal.
The 'Ready' reduction is for a built-in folding/retractable stock.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #200951]
|
Thu, 06 November 2008 02:54
|
|
| ShortRange |
|
Messages:2
Registered:November 2008 |
|
|
I recently bought JA2 after many recommendations and I've been browsing this site religiously for a week or so now. I registered simply to tell "Headsock" that 'he rocks'. This is the sort of post that takes a superhuman effort and real dedication simply to type out, never mind to have researched/tested to get to this point.
I realise it came up as a corollary to making the EDB and I have a question on that point: I am a fair way through a cherished campaign on 'vanilla' 1.13 (build 2085) and I tried to install the 1.3 version as per the instructions but, on dbl-clicking the exe (after the other files and .ini were in place), the game started and then just went back to desktop. Is there a version of EDB that works with 2085 or can I use a later SVN version without wrecking my saves?
Report message to a moderator
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #200954]
|
Thu, 06 November 2008 05:07
|
|
| Headrock |
|
Messages:1760
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem |
|
|
Welcome to Bear's Pit, ShortRange, and thanks for the complements.
As to EDB, you can't run EDB 1.3 with the build you're using, or at least I would definitely not recommend it anyway. If you want to use EDB, you basically have two options:
A) You could learn how to download the SVN ("cutting edge") version of JA2 1.13, then install EDB 1.3 on top of that. Of course, it would render your cherished campaign unusable, as the save-games won't be compatible once you upgrade.
B) You could download EDB 0.3b, a very old version of the code which lacks several features and bugfixes, but will run with the version you've got now. I've removed the link from the EDB homepage, so here it is: http://www.bookgallery.co.il/JA2PublicPosts/2124_Enhanced_Description_Box_0.3b.zip . Again, this version lacks some features and isn't guaranteed to be 100% functional, but I remember there were no complaints about it so it should be fine.
Enjoy!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #201325]
|
Mon, 10 November 2008 02:10
|
|
| redgun |
 |
Messages:190
Registered:March 2007
Location: Austria |
|
|
in multiplayer M14 seems to be king of the hill by far.
next time ill try FN-FALS, SG542 and Galils. What other weapons might be interesting?
edit/update:
it seems like the Galil AR is the best weapon for multiplayer. the reload AP (6) is ridiculously hight, but the ready AP is low (3) so the whole reloading process is 9 points, which is not optimal but ok.
[Updated on: Tue, 11 November 2008 12:03] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #203204]
|
Wed, 03 December 2008 20:33
|
|
| MarkDey |
|
Messages:2
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Headrock,
After reading the massive number of posts that you have put together to benefit the JA2 community, I registered mainly to thank you for your dedicated efforts. They are very helpful, and have increased my enjoyment of JA2, as well as my understanding of the underlying code.
Thank you!
-Mark
Report message to a moderator
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #203724]
|
Wed, 10 December 2008 13:37
|
|
| FalconArrow |
 |
Messages:6
Registered:February 2008 |
|
|
what happened to the Magpul PDR? Is it me, or did it get something of a nerfing in the latest build with the 100 AP system...? Also, why the change to the 6x35mm caliber? This directly goes against a selling point of the PDR -- namely, using the same 5.56x45mm ammunition and magazines as the M16/M4 family.
P.S. In a future update I'd like it if the P90-style handguard ("PDR-C") replaces the one with the built-in foregrip currently used for the weapon portrait ("PDR-D"), as seen here.
[Updated on: Wed, 10 December 2008 13:40] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #203747]
|
Wed, 10 December 2008 18:57
|
|
| cougar |
 |
Messages:254
Registered:March 2000 |
|
|
FalconArrowP.S. In a future update I'd like it if the P90-style handguard ("PDR-C") replaces the one with the built-in foregrip currently used for the weapon portrait ("PDR-D"), as seen here.
Why?
Just personal preference or some other reason?
Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Best of the Best" - 1.13 Weapon Comparison Guide[message #203793]
|
Thu, 11 December 2008 09:02
|
|
| FalconArrow |
|
Messages:6
Registered:February 2008 |
|
|
I just looked at the latest version of the PDF, seen here; it doesn't mention the IPS stuff, and while it does note the ability to refit its caliber the effective range and effective fragmentation range are both specified as being for 5.56x45mm.
On PDWs and the PDR:Quote:While the capability of this latest class of weapons fills the gray area between the pistol and the rifle, it comes with some drawbacks. Primarily, both the MP-7 and the P90 utilize exotic ammunition and proprietary magazines that are not interchangeable with any other system whether it is a pistol, carbine or rifle. This situation creates an undue logistical burden since a completely new set of consumable materials must be manufactured, transported, stockpiled and distributed to soldiers in the field. Quote:For logistics reasons it was decided that the PDR
[Updated on: Thu, 11 December 2008 09:10] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pages (7): [ 2 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Dec 03 09:24:42 GMT+2 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02788 seconds
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
