Weapon balancing/finetuning

[Neko]

For normal fire, I absolutely agree. Let the players decide whether they want to waste a shot on a small chance...

But range is also important for reaction fire. Imagine an alien walking back and forth on the other end of the map, and your guy is wasting all his TU and ammo firing at him with a SMG. Frustrating. So here a max range is definitely needed.

[nemchenk]

Hmm... Isn't that the same as forgetting to set your reaction fire to Aimed when you are on a long-range section of the map, and Burst when you enter a building? Tactics: to avoid that, dash your SMG guy over the open ground with no RF set, while he is covered by riflemen with Aimed Shot RF.

[Surrealistik]

But range is also important for reaction fire. Imagine an alien walking back and forth on the other end of the map, and your guy is wasting all his TU and ammo firing at him with a SMG. Frustrating. So here a max range is definitely needed.

I agree, but it should be possible to specify at what hit probability/% a soldier is to engage in reaction fire, rather than rely on max range to define when he should. This allows the player more control and involvement, and consequently, allots more satisfaction and tactical depth to the game.

[SpaceWombat]

I remember hearing that a pistol bullet fired expertly can travel over a mile, by angling the bullet up.  What if projectile weapons had a maximum range, and over that range there would be a 50/50 chance the bullet would hit the dirt? 

A 9 mm pistol bullet might have a maximum range of several 100m using the optimal angle for max range but this does not matter anyway. The kinetic energy left to a bullet after flying a certain distance will be reduced to a point where it is not harmfull anymore due to air resistance. Not to mention that no human being possibly can aim with a gun 30 degrees up in the sky over the target and other factors like air density, wind etc. will have an extreme influence at extreme ranges.
The maximum range cannot be considered relevant in my opinion. At a certain distance the possibility to hit is very near zero. You might be able to luck shot but no one serious would try it in combat.

The interesting side is whether weapons like the laser should lose damage over distance. I think a laser loses coherency at a very low rate. If that's true I would disagree with this idea.

[shevegen]

I agree partially, especially about close combat. I think close combat is extremely risky, there should be some benefits to compensate a _bit_
Here a few suggestions i.e. mostly based on bladed weapons or hammers:
- can cause enemy to lose weapon
- may move enemy a few squares back if you win the attack (you followup on the hit), this represents something like a bull rush forward (sounds desperate...)
- ability to destroy enemy weapons under certain circumstances (should be extremely rare)

Also, i dont want to make the game too complicated, but one thing which is great is any tech/skill tree for your soldiers. One could even focus on close combat, using ninja stealth suit and sneaking from alien to alien - just for fun!   might be a fun way to play the game using people with swords instead of guns against aliens

[Surrealistik]

The interesting side is whether weapons like the laser should lose damage over distance. I think a laser loses coherency at a very low rate. If that's true I would disagree with this idea.

It does due to air particulate, and other diffusers, but I doubt if it'd be relevant over the maximum distances encountered in a typical battlescape map. Even if it is, it's not going to diffuse entirely over such a span (unless attempting to move through something like a smoke screen) and as such the effects of diffusion should be reflected in damage decay, not arbitrary maximum ranges.

[Starship_Yard]

In the ranges we are talking about lasers are unlikely to degrade much.  The US Air Force is currently testing a laser replacement for the AC-130 Spectre Gunship (the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft with all the miniguns and cannon firing out the side).  The current AC-130's usually operate around 5000 feet (3200m) which puts them within range of light anti-aircraft weapons and light missiles.  The new laser turret in the same aircraft would do the job from 30,000 feet well out of the range of most light to medium anti-aircraft systems.  And from 30,000 feet, the laser turret can precisely target a tire to disable a vehicle or the gas tank to blow it up.

Brett

[SpaceWombat]

In the ranges we are talking about lasers are unlikely to degrade much.  The US Air Force is currently testing a laser replacement for the AC-130 Spectre Gunship (the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft with all the miniguns and cannon firing out the side).  The current AC-130's usually operate around 5000 feet (3200m) which puts them within range of light anti-aircraft weapons and light missiles.  The new laser turret in the same aircraft would do the job from 30,000 feet well out of the range of most light to medium anti-aircraft systems.  And from 30,000 feet, the laser turret can precisely target a tire to disable a vehicle or the gas tank to blow it up.

That's nice for a big laser in a C-130. But as far as I understand laser tech the coherency of the beam is related to the qualities (i.e. in most cases size) of the components. Optical devices like a focussing lense or reflectors will be much smaller in a handgun. That would be a comparison between a 80MP professional airborne spycam with your mobile cam.

But breaking these numbers down to a laser rifle and -as you mentioned- much lower ranges you should still be right.