regarding gatling/minigun

[TrashMan]

For hard targets a LAW rocket type weapon would be best. Currently my grenadiers carry rocket launchers in their packs while snipers and SMGs carry spare rockets. Unfortunately the rockets see almost zero use because they are so large, and end up being one shot weapons anyways.

A minigun on a vehicle is fine. The primary problem with the weapons is the extreme ammunition usage, vehicular cargo capacity allows for this. It is questionable if caseless ammunition would fully compensate for that.

Ammo is pretty much always the problem.
The question is - how much is enough. If  you take a look at how many bullets aircraft or helicopters carry for their gattling cannons, you'd see that it really doesn't seem like much (ammo is counted in hundreds, not thousands).
Yet they still are used in aircraft. Why? Because you probably wont' need more, and you retreat and re-arm if you need to.

Currenlty, a solider with a rocket launcher can carry what? 6-8 rockets? That doesn't seem like much...only 8 shots and then you're screwed, right? But that's enough for almost any mission.
In the same vein, a gattling gun with 500 bullets may not seem enough, but it definately should be enough for 10+ bursts (assuming a high RoF and 1 second bursts at max speed)
And that usually means 10+ dead enemies.


Alternatively, you can go high-tech and have a LASER MINIGUN. *drools*

[Winter]

The vehicles we have aren't that big. Nothing like a real tank. They aren't really big enough to carry loads of ammo.

No, but UGVs with computer-assisted weapons would be a lot more efficient at conserving ammo than a human soldier, and it would actually be able to aim the weapon (unlike a human, regardless of future tech wank). Give it modern small-calibre rifle bullets like the 4.7mm -- or something even tinier -- and the prospect becomes slightly more plausible.

Overall, the only workable application for these things in UFO:AI would be on vehicles, just like in real life.

Ammo is pretty much always the problem.
The question is - how much is enough. If  you take a look at how many bullets aircraft or helicopters carry for their gattling cannons, you'd see that it really doesn't seem like much (ammo is counted in hundreds, not thousands).
Yet they still are used in aircraft. Why? Because you probably wont' need more, and you retreat and re-arm if you need to.

Wrong. Aircraft cannons don't usually carry that much ammo because they're rarely ever used, missiles being by far the preferable method of engagement. Cannons have been a weapon of last resort ever since the birth of beyond-visual-range engagement. If your craft gets close enough to the enemy to use cannons, unless you're making a ground support run in an armoured Warthog, you are usually in big trouble.

Also, you've completely ignored the fact that infantry soldiers do not have the option to 'retreat and re-arm', ever. It's completely against the purpose of infantry, which is to take and hold an objective until relieved. They can't pop back to base to grab some more bullets when they run out because they're opening themselves up to getting gunned down like pigs if they retreat, and even if they survive they'll be giving up any advantageous ground they may have gained, and would then have to reclaim that ground from an entrenched enemy with heavy losses assured.

Really, don't argue in favour of things (or against them, for that matter) if you don't know the realities behind them. Go into basic training or, failing that, at least read up on things before you make these utterly baseless assertions. Whatever video games may have told you, it was wrong, and there isn't a soldier in the world current or ex-service who will agree with you.

Regards,
Winter

[TrashMan]

Overall, the only workable application for these things in UFO:AI would be on vehicles, just like in real life.

Except that RL doesn't have power armor.

Wrong. Aircraft cannons don't usually carry that much ammo because they're rarely ever used, missiles being by far the preferable method of engagement. Cannons have been a weapon of last resort ever since the birth of beyond-visual-range engagement. If your craft gets close enough to the enemy to use cannons, unless you're making a ground support run in an armoured Warthog, you are usually in big trouble.

Aircrafts not so much, but helicopters - yes. They use those side-mounted and nose-mounted gattling often while supporting troops. You don't really need THAT much ammo.

Also, you've completely ignored the fact that infantry soldiers do not have the option to 'retreat and re-arm', ever. It's completely against the purpose of infantry, which is to take and hold an objective until relieved. They can't pop back to base to grab some more bullets when they run out because they're opening themselves up to getting gunned down like pigs if they retreat, and even if they survive they'll be giving up any advantageous ground they may have gained, and would then have to reclaim that ground from an entrenched enemy with heavy losses assured.

True, but in UFO you don't really do protraced engagments that last for hours. You don't need much ammo there. And not to mention that you'd probably cart extra ammo for a minigun if you were to carry it (there are missile launcher systems where  soldier carrier the launcher and the other extra missiles).
And IF you go into protraced engagements you wouldn't carry a minigun in the first place. You carry equipment appropriate to the mission/situation.

Speaking of which, you don't go into battle with a whole squad carrying miniguns - it is a specialized weapon.
Just like soldiers carry those missile launchers with 1-2 missiles. What do you think happens when they spend the ammo? They use their *gasp* sidearms and fall back, their squadmates (with other weaponry) giving them cover. According to your logic, such missile launchers should never exist then - they are heavy and expend their ammo too quickly!
You should stop treating a gattling gun like a convetional infantry assault rifle.

Really, don't argue in favour of things (or against them, for that matter) if you don't know the realities behind them. Go into basic training or, failing that, at least read up on things before you make these utterly baseless assertions. Whatever video games may have told you, it was wrong, and there isn't a soldier in the world current or ex-service who will agree with you.

I know quite a lot, thank you very much. and what should I care IF or if not a ex soldier agrees with me or not. It's not like running around with a M-16 or swabing the deck makes you an expert on gattling cannons and their application. I rather trust the assesments of people who design and build weapons.

The Microgun can already be carried by a single strong solder (but not fired at full speed standing up). Future advancements in tech can make it somewhat lighter, and powered armor and caseless ammo would allow far greater ammo capacity, while mantaining mobiltiy.

The XM214 was first developed for aircraft applications. Later General Electric developed it into a man-portable weapon system, known as the GE Six-Pak. The complete Six-Pak system weighed 85 pounds (38.5 kg) with 1,000 rounds of ammunition, comparable in weight to some heavy machine guns. The XM214 itself weighed nearly 27 pounds, or 12 kg.

The Six-Pak consisted of the XM214, the ammunition package, and the power module, and the ammunition module consisted of two 500 round cassettes mounted to a holding rack. Linked ammunition was fed through a flexible chute to the gun; when the first cassette was empty, ammunition would then feed from the second cassette, tripping a visible signal that a new cassette needed to be added to the rack. The power module contained a 24 volt nickel-cadmium battery, a 0.8 horsepower motor, and solid state electronic controls. Unless the battery were plugged into a vehicle's power supply, the battery's charge would be depleted with 3,000 rounds.

Using the electronic controls, the weapon's rate of fire could be adjusted from 400 rpm all the way up to 4,000 rpm. Later editions of Jane's Infantry Weapons claimed a theoretical cyclic rate of up to 6,000 rpm. The electronic controls also contained a burst limiter and handled the automatic clearing of the gun after bursts.

That's 38 kg for a weapon designed in the 80's with 1000 rounds of conventional ammo.
You can halve that weight by now. The recoil is the only problem that really remains - and as I said before, there are ways of taking care of that one too.

[vedrit]

someone mentioned that nanoammo and nanobullets would not be good. Wrong. A speck of dust, flying at the same speed as a bullet, can still be lethal, especially in the numbers we're talking about. And, considering the size, there wont be much air resistence because of the small surface area, so range would be long, though incredibly inaccurate. But u dont use miniguns and gatlings for accuracy or range.

As for carrying a thousand or so ammo, thats where strenght comes in. You wouldnt put an extremly heavy load on someone like me (6'4", 140 lbs, 3% body fat. Imagine), the weight would crush the guy before he could get off the plane.
And having the allies around carry extra ammo is a very good idea. The gatling could be adjusted to be comapitble with many rounds, much like the IAR, which fires the same rounds as the M-4, the standard infantry rifle for the US army. The IAR has a setting which allows it to fire full auto (Never have to take the finger off the trigger to keep firing), and when the gunner runs out, he can get another clip from his teammate

[Aiki-Knight]

someone mentioned that nanoammo and nanobullets would not be good. Wrong. A speck of dust, flying at the same speed as a bullet, can still be lethal, especially in the numbers we're talking about. And, considering the size, there wont be much air resistence because of the small surface area, so range would be long, though incredibly inaccurate. But u dont use miniguns and gatlings for accuracy or range.

As for carrying a thousand or so ammo, thats where strenght comes in. You wouldnt put an extremly heavy load on someone like me (6'4", 140 lbs, 3% body fat. Imagine), the weight would crush the guy before he could get off the plane.
And having the allies around carry extra ammo is a very good idea. The gatling could be adjusted to be comapitble with many rounds, much like the IAR, which fires the same rounds as the M-4, the standard infantry rifle for the US army. The IAR has a setting which allows it to fire full auto (Never have to take the finger off the trigger to keep firing), and when the gunner runs out, he can get another clip from his teammate

Another "clip"? What kind of "clip" would a gatling gun use? at 100 rd/sec, what kind of clip would there be? Only link ammo in large chains would feed such a weapon, and you probably couldn't hand-feed it. Think of the logistics of the ammo! A slower-rate machine gun is already in the game. Look, I fully grant that a gatling gun would do a nice job of tearing apart enemies. But it's a game where the agents start off using modern-day firearms. By the time technology advanced to make a gatling gun possible, it would be late-game, when more powerful beam weapons would be in use, anyway. If I could roll a Bradley IFV with a rotary cannon into the mission and hose down enemies, I would. That would be possible. But you wouldn't have agents using SMGs and a sniper rifle while another agent is using some super-advanced space-age gatling gun - it would be highly anachronistic. If the developers want to deploy a late-game rotary cannon that shoots lasers, that's a little more acceptable. But the multiple barrels are only there to distribute heat from bullet friction. A good fast-firing beam weapon might not have an overheating issue.

Now, if we could deploy a good APC with a rotary cannon on it, that would be cool. Although, I must say, they don't even really mount gatling guns on vehicles, unless for air-defence. The fire rate is too fast to be useful, most of the time. Ultimately, a human-ported gatling gun is a cool idea, but belongs in a different kind of game.

[TrashMan]

Technicly, some gattling guns use what you might call a "clip".

The Microgun in particular uses 2 boxes with 500 bullets each. Both boxes are carried on the back. Those ammo boxes have 2 openings for both ends of hte ammo chain, and the begining from chain 2 is attached to the end of chain1, so the gun feeds from both boxes. F'course, once both boxes are empty you need to replace them. But 1000 bullets is a lot of firepower thrown around.
Use caseless ammo and you can easily go to 3000 bullets with roughly the same volume and weight.


Now you shouldn't start with such a weapon. You could get an option to develop it later in-game, after your think tank fiddled with alien tech for a while. That's got to inspire whole new ideas by itself, let alone new materials and other tech that could be used.
In that regard, such a gattling cannon wouldn't be "standard" human tech (no more than the bolter rifle).


And IIRC, both X-Com AND the UFO series both had miniguns of some sort. And both games were great. So you were saying something about a different type of game?

[Darkpriest667]

since you guys reignited the topic ill add my 2 cents


instead of miniaturization of powder weapons im wondering

This might be an idea for a new research proposal... rapid fire bolter weapons (based on guass or rail gun technology)

any thoughts?

[BTAxis]

We already have all the human tech weapons we want. So no.

[Darkpriest667]

We already have all the human tech weapons we want. So no.

you guys certainly arent going for 2084 earth ... ... thats all im gonna say about this....


every technology mentioned could be factory produced today... but its your game do what you want.

[BTAxis]

Thank you, we shall.

[TrashMan]

since you guys reignited the topic ill add my 2 cents


instead of miniaturization of powder weapons im wondering

This might be an idea for a new research proposal... rapid fire bolter weapons (based on guass or rail gun technology)

any thoughts?

Well, you already do have coilguns today - you can build a coil pistol in a garage, only it won' be very powerful (more like a painball gun, probably even weaker)
Now, of course we're talking 2084, so by that time technological advancement would have gone further.
If anything, human weapon are too low tech for the supposed time period.

But a gauss gattling cannon? Now we're talking huge amounts of both ammo AND power. Kinda hard to get BOTH to be light, reliable and portable, especially since you have to power every barrel.

Now, for me it stands to reason that you would improve the weapons you already have..I bet that half of the knowledge gained from alien plasma/particle weaponry and UFO's could be in some ways used to improve them. After all, we are clever little monkies.

I must say that a improved and miniaturized gattling cannon sounds more plausable (and it is) than half the alien weapons. No matter. I enjoy playing the game with my Vindicator..but I find it only somewhat effective, despite shooting in bursts of 10 (or 50 in full auto). Aliens have high resistance to normal bullets..

B.t.w. - what is the second number in the damage entry for weapons?

[BTAxis]

Variation. The damage dealt is the first number plus or minus a random number between 0 and the second number. It's mainly there to make the damage inflicted vary a bit. The second number should always be small compared to the first one, or you'll get a weapon that behaves unpredictably.

[Darkpriest667]

trashman.... they already effectively proved to me they dont give a damn about the power requirements


particle beam weapons are going to take a heck of a lot more power than the coil gun you mentioned


By the way.. Texas Tech has one that throws rods the size of 2 x 4s through 50 feet of reinforced concrete... and that was in 1999 the last time i saw it used...


you are telling me the military isnt 25 years advanced to that.. and this is 2084.. but as i mentioned... these guys want 1985 technology in 2084...

Its fine i still enjoy the game.. I just wont give it any credit as far as realism.


I like what they are doing with it and its like xcom with better graphics. however im dissapointed to hear that reaction fire will be taken from my grenadiers...

[TrashMan]

@BTAxis - thanks.  I just managed to find it on the wiki, but it's good to have confirmation.

trashman.... they already effectively proved to me they dont give a damn about the power requirements

particle beam weapons are going to take a heck of a lot more power than the coil gun you mentioned

By the way.. Texas Tech has one that throws rods the size of 2 x 4s through 50 feet of reinforced concrete... and that was in 1999 the last time i saw it used...

True to some extent.
A particle beam weapon would require a lot of power, but we are talking about single barreled designs.

A gauss minigun, as I said, would need to power all barrels, and to miniauturize the power packs to that degree...well, I guess if the aliens can do it for the plasma/particle rifles, we MIGHT be able to do it somewhere in the future.
Then again, the story states that we cannot duplicate the alien particle power cells (but we can those from the plasma guns)
On the other other hand a single barrel coilgun would require less power than a particle cannon, since it doesn't accelerate to that big a speed.
Then again, you could use far smaller bullets the faster you accelerate them for the same effect. But not too small.

B.t.w. - the US army has bot working prototypes of both coilgun and railguns, but they require quite a lot of power (they are a big calibre since they are designed for the Navy) to fulfill their true damage potential.
In other words, the smaller and more powerful power cells you can make, the more powerful coilgun/railgun you can make. Power is the main factor here, but not the only one.
The firepower a single trooper will always be limited - even if you could make guns as devastating as nukes you would never, EVER give them to soldiers.

you are telling me the military isnt 25 years advanced to that.. and this is 2084.. but as i mentioned... these guys want 1985 technology in 2084...

Its fine i still enjoy the game.. I just wont give it any credit as far as realism.

I like what they are doing with it and its like xcom with better graphics. however im dissapointed to hear that reaction fire will be taken from my grenadiers...

Well, if you take into account that there was some major turmoil in the world I could understand if the tech advancement was slowed down somewhat. Still, its' a bit hard to believe. Now, if you said 2048 instead of 2084...that would be more believable.

Speaking of which, granadiers already don't get reaction fire

Oh, and I too do hope that some gattling cannon type hybrid or something does end up in the final game. After all, it appeared in every UFO or X-COM game ever made. It's a staple of the genre as much as aliens and interception. I'd hate if the work on the model goes to waste.

[Falion]

Trash, sounds like you've made the model already...situation is, from everything we have all read, Winter isn't remotely acceptable to the idea of such a weapon. So...that is that...as they say. Not really much sense in even debating the point, unless for some reason your able to convince him otherwise...not very likely given what I've read.

I have zero development skills as I've stated before, and as such I have no need to talk with the Dev's. However, since your becoming involved in this area...you should IRC with everyone working on this project...would seem you could throw around ideas more effectively like that.

BTW, I've only played the first XCOM and it's been YEARS since that was done...I had totally forgotten there were mini-guns in that game. But this project, as has been stated is NOT a remake of any of those games, just done in the spirit of them. My only hope, is that unlike so many open source and indie projects, that this one does indeed see the finish line...it has too much potential to be really great to fall short of that.