regarding gatling/minigun

[inquisiteur2]

Just made a quick check of last trunk version. Dont have time for indepth comment, but regarding the minigun:

1. I am very happy that this weapon has been included
2. This weapon, in my opinion, should not be used like the heavy canon/gatling as in the original X-com, but as a real minigun; means that only 3 shots for the main trigger is not enough. I was expecting something more than the submachine, at least 15-20 shot, to have bullets raining on aliens. Of course the weapon should be very heavy with low accuracy etc..to couterbalance its power.
3. We should maybe de-animate the shooting sequence of the gatling, don't think that we can raise this weapon the same way we raise a gun. No need to texture a belt to show that the soldier is keeping it in a fixed position in front of him, but wether the soldiers fires or not, the gatling should remain straight in front of him
4. Weapon being heavy I suggest that only nano-armors wearers could handle it, or maybe soldiers having a minimum of strengh
4. I know this may be planned but this weapond deserves its own shooting sound

Any opinon ?

I have noticed the huge mass of change, will give a better feedback later, thkx a lot for the team.

[Zenerka]

1. I am very happy that this weapon has been included

You mean chaingun probably? It is included but for multiplayer only.

3. We should maybe de-animate the shooting sequence of the gatling, don't think that we can raise this weapon the same way we raise a gun. No need to texture a belt to show that the soldier is keeping it in a fixed position in front of him, but wether the soldiers fires or not, the gatling should remain straight in front of him

Yes, that's true, maybe you can prepare such animation?

4. Weapon being heavy I suggest that only nano-armors wearers could handle it, or maybe soldiers having a minimum of strengh

Currently we even don't know if we will include chaingun to the campaign at all. I have some thoughts about heavy (and very heavy) weapons or about the exoskeletons but that's really the future, and such things needs to be carefully considered storyline-wise.

4. I know this may be planned but this weapond deserves its own shooting sound

Yes, as any weapon.

[inquisiteur2]

Thank you for your answer Zenerka. I was indeed speaking about the chaingun.

Regarding animation, there is no need to prepare a new one, maybe I am wrong but at the beginning of the project the animation was less complex, soldiers didnt wave their hands before firing. It this is still in the project archives, it can recycled for heavy weapons.

[Captain Bipto]

I like the idea of UGVs serving as the heavy weapons platform for these nasty weapons.  I remember the old tanks from x-com, boy did they suck except for soaking up shots instead of your guys.  One thing I like about AI is that the humans actually have their own decent technology and I can't wait to see what is in store with these UGVs and UAVs. 

[Aiki-Knight]

It would take an extraordinarily strong person to wield such a weapon, much less carry a substantial amount of ammo for it.  The recoil from such a weapon would be insane. Movies aside, has such a weapon ever been fielded on an infantry soldier in a real war? It seems an unnecessary addition. It looks cool, but seems out of place with UFO:AI's wonderfully realistic equipment and uniform set.

[DanielOR]

A brief point on the "realism" of it - a smalle version of the gatling is not fisible for human for fundamental reasons.  The weapon that Jessie Ventura caries in "Predator" would produce several tons (!) of recoil force.  More of a personal propulsion system, really.  To make that human-usable it would have to be slowed down lots, to the rate of fire that makes it any old machine gun.  There is a nice article in wikipedia, if anyone is interested.

Now, anal-retantive realism aside, no reason not to have such a weapon, maybe requiring huge strength and a heavy armor. 

[Konraden]

A brief point on the "realism" of it - a smalle version of the gatling is not fisible for human for fundamental reasons.  The weapon that Jessie Ventura caries in "Predator" would produce several tons (!) of recoil force.  More of a personal propulsion system, really.  To make that human-usable it would have to be slowed down lots, to the rate of fire that makes it any old machine gun.  There is a nice article in wikipedia, if anyone is interested.

Source please, and can you show the math for this? How much force is each bullet exerting? If chain\Gatling guns caused such massive recoil, they wouldn't be able to mount them on HUMVEE's, considering they aren't more than a few tons. Add to the fact that much torque force would roll the thing if fired perpendicular to the vehicles motion.

Now, anal-retantive realism aside, no reason not to have such a weapon, maybe requiring huge strength and a heavy armor. 

The Japanese have already devloped a working power-suit Powered Armor isn't only a possibility, it's a reality in UFOAI. What is it in the game, 2086? 78 years to perfect this stuff is pretty simple. Definitely should have massive Chain guns roaring up, blasting away.

[Aiki-Knight]

If chain\Gatling guns caused such massive recoil, they wouldn't be able to mount them on HUMVEE's, considering they aren't more than a few tons.

I don't think actual rotary cannons like the phalanx are mounted on the HMMVW, but rather on much heavier tracked vehicles. However, I don't think the author means literally "tons" of recoil, but rather "too much recoil for a person", which I imagine is true. Certain helicopters like the Super Cobra and some gunships carry rotary cannons like that, as do some medium armored vehicles.

The Japanese have already devloped a working power-suit Powered Armor isn't only a possibility, it's a reality in UFOAI. What is it in the game, 2086? 78 years to perfect this stuff is pretty simple. Definitely should have massive Chain guns roaring up, blasting away.

Powered armor will be a reality, for sure, but I doubt the point will be to field such large weapons. Rotary cannons need a great deal of ammunition to be effective; no human could carry the load. Anyone who's been in the army knows that your pack, your webbing, weapon, and ammo already weigh a great deal, and lightening this load is likely the objective of powered armor, not to arm soldiers with weapons only vehicles can mount (and carry enough ammo for). Ultimately, it's just a game, but I just think it would detract from the game's excellent realism. There's advancement, and then there's science-fiction. I really like that UFO:AI doesn't have super-weapons that make the game somewhat irrelevant to the realities of squad tactics. Even if a soldier could carry the weapon and the ammo, he (/she) would not be very mobile with it, and special forces troops are typically meant to be highly mobile.

That being said, there's no reason why mini-tanks or even APCs couldn't carry such weapons. How great would it be to see a futurized Bradley IFV leading the charge against aliens? I doubt we'll see that, but mini-tanks could be made quite awesome with long-range grenade launchers, missile launchers, and rotary cannons.

[Darkpriest667]

a minigun barrel(s) have to rotate for 3 to 5 seconds before the first round will fire


thats one thing to take into account when how many time units to be considered for a short burst (15 to 20 rounds) and a spray and pray of 5 seconds (200 to 600 rounds depending on the model of minigun)


That being said... the autocannon/heavy cannon idea needs to be brought back to the table and im glad someone is mentioning it.. I like the machine gun..  its a nice light machine gun..


I dont consider the machine gun a heavy weapon i consider it what it is.. a LSW(light support weapon)  you allow soldiers to carry rocket launchers but not a minigun... the rocket launcher is almost useless unless you are firing at an aircraft (semi smart or smart missles) or a ground vehicle (laser guided or fire and forget)  .. i dont see the use of a rocket launcher versus "people"(aliens) as much as i do the grenade launcher..

[DanielOR]

I have to admit, i really meant "tons of force of recoil".  I stand corrected on exact number, but not on spirit.

1. The Gatling guns (aka Vulcan, aka GAU family), of which a Minigun is a member, were mostly designed for aircraft and with high calibers DO produce recoil in access of 1 ton - with barrels rotating at 4,000 to 10,000 rpm.  Talking about A-10 Thunderbolt here - the airplane has a second engine for the express purpose of maintaining airspeed whilst firing. 

2. Flipping over a car.  Great point.  The high caliber ones would, for sure.  The ones mounted on HUMV-s are 5.56 or 7.62 mm (.223 and .308 respectively) + the barrels rotate much slower.

3. Hand-held implementations.  Tried.  Primary problem - weight.  The gun + thousands of round of ammo + motor for spinning the barrels + the batteries for said motor.  Also, (see links) the "modest" 1,000 rpm of the barrels firing 5.56mm round produces 110kg of recoil.

Wikipedia on Minigun, with links to both craft using the weapon as well as variants of the weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigun

A great site on all firearms:
http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm

a couple more enthusiast sites
http://cerebralsynergy.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Machine-Guns/GE_XM214_Minigun.htm

[Winter]

In the field of infantry equipment, there is nothing -- literally nothing -- that a minigun could do better than an ordinary machine gun. The point of a fully-automatic belt-fed weapon is not to hose something down with bullets in the hope that you'll kill it before you run out. It's to keep suppressive fire on a position for a long time in order to keep the enemy pinned down and therefore unable to shoot at you through the hail of lead.

There is physically no way an infantryman could carry enough ammunition to make a conventional chemical-powered minigun preferable over a machine gun. Doesn't matter what kind of armour you put him in or if you strap bullet packs on every part of his body. You will still have a firing time measured in seconds with no reloading possible. These qualities do not make a good infantry weapon, and they never ever will.

Which is why you will never ever have miniguns in the official single-player campaign except on UGVs.

Regards,
Winter

[Darkpriest667]

Winter.... Maybe you should see what a minigun does to a concrete wall after 5 seconds.  you are correct its not made to hit people. but neither is a rocket.. Until the game mechanics are made to reflect structural damage (like the old x com where you could s hoot walls down with a plasma gun) I dont see much use in the rocket launcher either but its there.


Im just wondering why you allow soldiers to carry full blown rocket launchers but no heavy machine guns.. ( I consider the machine gun in the game now to be a LSW[light support weapon])

[Winter]

Winter.... Maybe you should see what a minigun does to a concrete wall after 5 seconds.  you are correct its not made to hit people. but neither is a rocket.. Until the game mechanics are made to reflect structural damage (like the old x com where you could s hoot walls down with a plasma gun) I dont see much use in the rocket launcher either but its there.


Im just wondering why you allow soldiers to carry full blown rocket launchers but no heavy machine guns.. ( I consider the machine gun in the game now to be a LSW[light support weapon])

1. You need to read up on what weapons are appropriate for which situations. You don't use a goddamned minigun to shoot down a wall. It's stupid and contrary to its purpose, wasting thousands of rounds of ammunition -- i.e. everything a soldier could realistically carry -- in order to make an entirely flaccid argument. The effects of a minigun on a concrete wall are entirely irrelevant to its value as a weapon to win infantry battles.

2. Infantry rocket launchers have been used for years and have a clearly defined purpose as mobile artillery and anti-armour weaponry. The aliens already have armoured robots and will be having more when the game is finished. With incendiary rockets the launcher is even useful as an area denial weapon. It adds something to gameplay, and is entirely plausible. I wouldn't mind seeing it remodelled to something more modern and less arsing huge, but its presence makes sense.

3. As a rule, heavy machine guns can't realistically be fired off-hand, and making certain weapons deployable on bipods or tripods is a bothersome complication that wouldn't do anything for gameplay. It sucked in UFO: Aftermath and it would suck here. Keeping that in mind, it's obvious that for the purposes of the game and for close-quarters urban combat, there is no use for a heavy machine gun that isn't already covered by the light machine gun we have.

That is how we have implemented everything and how we'll continue to implement everything: according to its appropriate tactical uses and its value to gameplay. We're sticking to a coherent design philosophy, as we've done for the past two years now. We don't twist logic or physics to shoehorn in something that isn't appropriate just to please the crowd.

Regards,
Winter

[TrashMan]

Personally, I'd like something like this:

A bastard child of a gattling cannon and assault rifle. I suppose it would have to use caseless ammo or be energy based...one of these days I'm gonna put it in the game.

[DanielOR]

I humbly propose that all six barrels have bayonet fixtures.  Just imagine what this baby would do in hand to hand!

Oh, wait, wrong thread.  Sorry!