UFO:Alien Invasion
Technical support => Feature Requests => Topic started by: sirg on June 27, 2008, 09:34:18 am
-
I would like to see snipers doing what they are supposed to do - oneshoting enemy targets.
It's quite unrealistic to shoot an alien with a powerful sniper rifle without harming him. So I'm proposing a headshot mode of fire - many TUs, and requiring good sniper skill, lower chance of hit. But if you hit, then the target is dead.
I'm not suggesting to implement aiming body parts, but you can have a special mode for the rifle with a big damage boost, so if it hits then you make 300% more damage or something like that.
-
there already is one.
-
yep there is one already. On 'very hard' mode I use nothing else than headshots. Usually 2 headshots will down an enemy.
I have had only 1 instance where I actually 1shotted an alien. In all other cases ( 99% ) they need 2 headshots.
-
At a risk of sounding like a woos - this is why I won't play on "very hard" - anything hit in a head with a 20 mm round is bound to be missing significant part of the head. this planet or the next, it is just hard to imagine them walking around with large chunks of head missing.
Just like the (alleged) true story abour a lawyer questioning a doc:
was the patient alive?
No.
Did you check for respiration?
No.
Did you check for pulse? Body temperature?
No and No.
How could you know they were not alive, then?
Their brain was in a jar, being weighed on the coroner's scales.
So, could the patient have been alive, since you did not check for vital signs?
Well, I suppose he could have been practicing law somewhere...
-
So you're saying that a headshot from a sniper rifle should always kill its target if it hits? Why would anyone bother researching new and alien weaponry then? The sniper rifle is already the ultimate weapon after all. Not counting machine enemies.
-
Are there plans to add damage areas to the characters ingame? If there are, I'm sure the Headshot could be adapted to by default target the 'head' area of the enemy. Should research later reveal a better weak point, a soft spot in their protection, whatever, the sniper can hit a more damaging area. This would be an alternative to the Headshot just doing more base damage, and the effectiveness would likely vary from target to target.
-
The sniper rifle, when used properly, is indeed a devasating weapon with "one shot, one kill" capability for anything remotely human.
The reason to use/research more tech is to have other options. Sniper rifles are not the most useful weapons for clearing rooms, for example. I suppose they can be adopted to that, if one moves very, very slowly. For example, in a highly urban setting my sniper on the roof can often see an enemy, but not hit it. When moving cover-to-cover, a sniper may not have enough time to find the target, shoot, and cover. In other words, sniper is a designated killer who needs support, at the very least in shape of scouts who id the targets.
All that being said, maybe I will stry a game with a team of 8 snipers only, just to see if it can be done. Off the bet - capturing anything alive would be very tough with a team like that.
-
So you're saying that a headshot from a sniper rifle should always kill its target if it hits? Why would anyone bother researching new and alien weaponry then? The sniper rifle is already the ultimate weapon after all. Not counting machine enemies.
I see alot of talks about realism and people are focused in creating a realistic game, so correct me if I'm wrong but a shot in the head from any sniper rifle means instant death, especially from a late 21st century state of the art sniper rifle.
Not any soldier can score a headshot, that's the idea. Having a game design that will allow having very few skilled snipers that could do it would balance things. Besides, you can't clear a map with sniper rifles.
But, if you take the actual .50 cal sniper rifle as a reference, it can kill a target at 2kms, and it can destroy vehicles, not only kill humans. So it is the ultimate weapon, but you can't fire 20 shots in 2 seconds or something. You just have to balance things and find a way to implement this (if you want ofc) in your game.
and I'll return the question in this way - what's the point in having a sniper rifle after all, if it performs like a Garand M1 or any other rifle? In order to snipe you'll have to put a soldier on stand by and use all his TU's for that, so I wasn't thinking that you would take a headshot while moving or something wild like that...
-
Helmets made out of alien materials could stop a sniper rifle bullet, even one from a late 21st century rifle. Aliens are supposed to use equipment superior to anything humans can field, and most human weapons, including the sniper rifle, should be rendered obsolete after a while. That's what I'm saying. If the sniper rifle is still an insta-kill weapon by the final mission, there's something wrong.
-
Really? The goal is that by final mission ALL human weapons are obsolete? I am with Sirg here - a full-on sniper rifle is hard to wield, heavy, slow to fire...but if it hits - it hits.
Maybe, a compromise - some aliens are so tough, even a sniper rifle won't kill 'em in one shot. Especially if they have no head to speak of. I would say, for any humanoid alien not wearing complete, all-inclusive armor, a head shot (can be neck shot) is instant death. That leaves room for robots with distributed and highly parallel CPU or tough aliens with multiple brains or aliens wearing some serious armor.
Far as helmets stopping a round - OK I will buy that a helemt is so tough, it won't even dent. But transfer of momentum still takes place. That's some vicious whiplash there. Imagine, it would break whatever passes for a neck there. No way vertibrae should withstand the impact...
-
Well, depends on species. for humans that's true, but I imagine the Ortnoks for one might be able to deal with it better.
Anyway, I'm not here to talk realism. It's just the game formula that most human weapons should be rendered useless/obsolete. And no, that isn't all. There is a human based coilgun sniper rifle that will likely remain effective even in the late game. It isn't available from the start though.
-
High-end alien armor would not just be tough materials, but "smart" materials capable of reducing harm from whiplash and other secondary weapon effects. Nano-tech, some form of reactive armor, force-dispersion, energy shielding, pick your poison... or antidote, as it may be. The multiple brains thing is a nice point, cockroach anyone? You could even have a wholly decentralized nervous system in some case, and probably redundant vitals and whatnot. In the long run, you have to adapt to survive.
-
Another solution is a (small ?) change to game mechanics. Remove the headshot entirely. Instead, every weapon has a chance to "critical hit" - hit a vital part. The closer the target, the easier it is to hit vital bits, hence probability is higher. If an alien is super-armored or has no singularly critical bits, probability is zero.
An innacurate weapon, like a SMG, has a very low critical hit probability, but fires many rounds. A sniper rifle has a significantly higher crit hit rate, especially at short range - put that round right ...up...into the left rear nostril on the end of the lower middle testi tentacle.
Another elegant idea was in UFO: Aftermath - skill called "alien anatomy", which of course requires at least an otopsy of that type of alien. The higher the soldier's skill, the likelier they are to hit a vital point.
Just throwing thoughts out there...
-
Critical hits is something we're not going to have as long as Winter is on the team, and I don't like it much either. We already have a several random elements involved in combat - chance to hit, damage variation and grenade bounce. Adding more is going to make combat a big mess of randomness.
If it were up to me I'd like to take the headshot off the sniper rifle anyway, though. I don't see why there should be a special shot like that, other than that head shots are traditionally associated with sniper rifles. We don't model damage to specific body parts for any weapon, and I don't think there is a need to. Adding a firemode called headshot that does increased damage is going to give people the wrong idea (i.e. that we do) and is going to not make sense against enemies that don't even have a head.
-
Yup, that is reasonable and consistant. Than the sniper rifle will be a slow-firing, far-reaching weapon that will be naturally eclipsed by something that does a better job of same...
-
We don't model damage to specific body parts for any weapon, and I don't think there is a need to.
I'm taking this to mean you don't want to track damage for each body part. If you do mean you will just be lumping all hits from all body parts together with no difference based on hit area, then you can mostly ignore the next paragraph.
You could apply multipliers for damage to body parts, if the game tracks where hits land or somesuch. Penalties could be imposed whenever such an area is hit for a certain percentage of the character's total health (say 15%, 30%, and 45+%) and these penalties could include accuracy (arms), movement costs (legs), and perception/reaction (head), etc. The current 'Headshot" can be renamed "Precision Shot", and it could target the enemy head or head-analogue instead of the center of body, with some accuracy boost to compensate for the added TU cost versus a smaller target area.
With the Headshot as-is, though with some renaming, it could well have a morale impact on the enemy if it kills the target, above and beyond the normal dead-alien effect. Also, I suggest maybe doubling the damage after it is reduced from enemy armor, instead of just increasing the base damage. To me, increasing the bullet's effect after armor has been considered makes a bit more sense than firing an enchanted bullet that hits harder against other bullets fired from the same gun.
-
Critical hits is something we're not going to have as long as Winter is on the team, and I don't like it much either. We already have a several random elements involved in combat - chance to hit, damage variation and grenade bounce. Adding more is going to make combat a big mess of randomness.
If it were up to me I'd like to take the headshot off the sniper rifle anyway, though. I don't see why there should be a special shot like that, other than that head shots are traditionally associated with sniper rifles. We don't model damage to specific body parts for any weapon, and I don't think there is a need to. Adding a firemode called headshot that does increased damage is going to give people the wrong idea (i.e. that we do) and is going to not make sense against enemies that don't even have a head.
Then your team is dismissing a very fun gameplay concept. I read your explanation about SF incredible strong materials, and I don't think you understand how powerful a .50 cal depleted uranium hit really is. The impact force is so brutal that it can pass through a light tank, break apart engine blocks, etc... If something would be that strong to survive this hit, it would take all the kinetic energy, which is huge. It would snap the head off. Unless your Ornoks are made of steel, then their neck might sustain such an impact, but I guess you are realizing how daft is that.
Regarding enemies that don't have a head, like a machine, you simply have that mode greyed out, unavailable, even though any machine has some weak spot.
I agree with the idea that aliens should be much more evolved in armor technology, yet I think you are exagerating and stretching physics to the limit with these concepts. I.e. aliens taking minimal damage from a direct hit from a rocket... that's exagerated, because even if your armor resists the impact, the body gets all the kinetic energy and the impact shock would destroy all the internal organs or machinery inside. It's like a high speed car crash. Even if your car's hull takes the damage from the impact, and the body is protected by airbags, if the impact is to strong, you're going to die because of the shock, because the shock will destroy your internal organs.
I think it's a bad idea to substitute tanks with aliens. Alien beings aren't tanks unless their weight is dozens of tons.
-
It's exactly arguments like that that make me want to remove the headshot fire mode even more.
-
I agree up to a point.
Offense has substantially overshot defense. We got nukes, SABOT and delpeted urainum high-calibre weapons. Anything that was designed to take out a tank will rip trough any alien armor. There are limits to protection and mobility. You can't put 3 feet of armor and a solider.
-
i highly oppose removing head shot- changing the name to precision shoot should be enough, as you can hit robot in a sensor, or an exhaust, or even damage the cooling system
-
It's exactly arguments like that that make me want to remove the headshot fire mode even more.
If the name bothers you then you can call it precision shot, like Nevasith suggests. But if you dislike the idea, then what of my arguments makes you want to remove this concept, and how do you see things on this?
Imo, the idea of unstoppable aliens comming trough a rain of bullets almost unharmed is ridiculous, no matter how much you come up with hi tech/ scifi tech armors. With such armors you can stand a hit in the torso, but a high velocity hit in the limbs would rip it off from the body or cause serious internal injuries. Unless you imagine a SF force field type of shield, which also absorbs inertia, you can't neglect the power of modern sniper rifles.
I think I understand that you want us to fear the aliens and feel puny and vulnerable, but still, modern weapons are very powerful. If the aliens would have come in the 16th century, then I agree that even 100 musket rounds won't harm an alien's helm. :) However, a Barret .50 cal sniper rifle can destroy a vehicle from 2km!
-
If the name bothers you then you can call it precision shot, like Nevasith suggests. But if you dislike the idea, then what of my arguments makes you want to remove this concept, and how do you see things on this?
Pretty much what I've said earlier in this thread. There is a premise that (almost) all human weaponry is to be rendered ineffective with the introduction of alien technology. To me, this concept is at the heart of the UFO game formula, and as such it's sacred. By making a headshot deadly against aliens no matter what they are wearing, you create a weapon that is superior from the beginning to the very end. That fits in with Jagged Alliance, which has a (theoretically) balanced set of weapons across the board. Not so UFO. Weapons aren't supposed to be balanced; alien tech is supposed to be superior to human tech.
Imo, the idea of unstoppable aliens comming trough a rain of bullets almost unharmed is ridiculous, no matter how much you come up with hi tech/ scifi tech armors.
Again, game formula. If you argue like that then there is no point to this game. If aliens could be beaten by overpowering them with normal human weaponry, there would be no need for PHALANX. The idea is that PHALANX is mankind's only line of defence the only chance at countering the alien invasion, because the normal military is incapable of dealing with the aliens' superior technology. Incidentally this is why I don't care much for the thread about local troops. You might think it's unrealistic to disregard the normal military in the struggle against the aliens, but as far as I am concerned, so be it.
I think I understand that you want us to fear the aliens and feel puny and vulnerable, but still, modern weapons are very powerful. If the aliens would have come in the 16th century, then I agree that even 100 musket rounds won't harm an alien's helm. :) However, a Barret .50 cal sniper rifle can destroy a vehicle from 2km!
Well, by now you probably already get the message, but I don't care. No matter how powerful human weapons are in real life, in the game they are no match for alien technology, because that's what the game formula demands.
-
Then you have a very unrealistic game formula, unless the alines are protected by individual bubble shields. There is one universe which is similar to this game - Stargate SG-1/Atlantis. There you have several squads as the only line of defence against vastly superiour alien races such as the Goa'uld, Replicators, Wraith, Ori and so on... Yet, human weapons prove very effective to a certain point, like the real SMG P90c. Even with Earth based tech, they can effectively kill lots of aliens with superiour techology, without having any advantage. I'm only comparing things, I don't want to start a discussion about Stargate, but because the series are successful, I think the writers of that show have balanced things quite nicely.
During the episodes there are several creatures or constructs who are very resilient and almost indestructible, but they are an exception.
And only last thought about the real sniper rifle - you will get the sniper rifle from the start, but the sniper skill will need many missions to build up, in order to have a lethal sniper, or so I imagine this concept. And also, it doesn't have to be an old style sniper rifle... you get to upgrade it and such, be better in TU usage, better accuracy, etc.
-
I don't care if you call the game formula unrealistic, it's just how it is. It's one of the fundamental things that make a UFO game a UFO game. Without it, it'd be a different game, which would not be as much fun from my point of view. And that's what matters.
-
I find it funny how often the game premise is defended with "science" or "belivability". But when, those two oppose the game premise, they are suddenly forgotten.
IHMO human weapons should always remain effective up to a point. I like em as they are now - even late game I can kill aliens with only standard human weapons. Not easy, but doable.
The idea is that PHALANX is mankind's only line of defence the only chance at countering the alien invasion, because the normal military is incapable of dealing with the aliens' superior technology. Incidentally this is why I don't care much for the thread about local troops. You might think it's unrealistic to disregard the normal military in the struggle against the aliens, but as far as I am concerned, so be it.
Except that PHALANX isn't the ONLY line of defense. Last I heard, those super-counties haven't disbanded their militaries and funnles all $$$ into Phalanx. their militaries still exist. PHALANX sells excess weapons to them. Sure, PHALANX still carriers the brunt of the burden, but I fail to see a logical reason why the normal military couldn't help PHLANAX.
-
I find it funny how often the game premise is defended with "science" or "belivability". But when, those two oppose the game premise, they are suddenly forgotten.
For the record, I've never attempted to do that. I've always placed gameplay above realism when the two could not be successfully combined.
Except that PHALANX isn't the ONLY line of defense. Last I heard, those super-counties haven't disbanded their militaries and funnles all $$$ into Phalanx. their militaries still exist. PHALANX sells excess weapons to them. Sure, PHALANX still carriers the brunt of the burden, but I fail to see a logical reason why the normal military couldn't help PHLANAX.
The thing is that if PHALANX fails, it's the end of the world. You need to put that kind of pressure on the player, or the game will be a joke. So if you let the military take too big a role, you take away from the game's atmosphere.
-
But if you take away any role from the military, make it practicely non-existent,. you also take away from the games atmosphere, and even more.
-
The military is only nonexistent in tactical combat, though. It is implied that the U.N. (and thereby the military) handles support tasks such as transport of goods and UFOs. But I assuming you were in fact talking about tactical combat, and when it comes to that I just plain don't agree.
-
So? The military should just wait and sit idly while a village near to a military base is under attack? Even if it takes hours or days for PHALANX to show up...if it shows up at all?
Yea...let's put our full trust and defense of the Earth into the hands of a dozen people (you start with 8 soldiers and you will never have 1000's anyway), even tough we have a large and capable military and the aliens outnumber the PHALANX and the PHALANX can't defend everything at once alone.
Yeah...great logic. ::) Great government too..
-
So the military should take care of it? Assuming for the sake of the argument that they are even capable of that? Great, no need for PHALANX then. And with no need for PHALANX there's no need for this game. So why are you still here? Go pretend it's "logical" and "realistic" somewhere, because you won't be needing to play. As far as you're concenred the game will never comply with those notions, after all.
-
I don't care if you call the game formula unrealistic, it's just how it is. It's one of the fundamental things that make a UFO game a UFO game. Without it, it'd be a different game, which would not be as much fun from my point of view. And that's what matters.
It's bad if you don't care. I see you saying that alot. I just say that you should take in consideration what people are saying, or at least parts of what they saying. Taking in consideration doesn't mean implementing that, however you are dismissing other concepts very easy.
Besides, like Trashman said, there are double standards applied here when it comes to game realism. Miniguns were discarded because they are unrealistic as a handheld weapon (which is true), but on the other hand surviving a direct hit in the head from a heavy sniper rifle bullet doesn't matter if it's unrealistic. The list could continue with many examples.
I guess that everyone here understands that you are trying to create this feeling of apocalypse, but there are so many other ways to enhance this mood, beside strong armors.
I also think that you are trying to cover to many areas because of the complex and rich story that you have. When I played X-Com I have never thought about where are my armies or what does the airforce do, etc... I had the feeling that I was doing the special ops, not replacing the army. Anyway, X-Com is the greatest example of balancing game play issues, I don't know what I would add to that game beside a modern graphic engine.
-
It's bad if you don't care. I see you saying that alot. I just say that you should take in consideration what people are saying, or at least parts of what they saying. Taking in consideration doesn't mean implementing that, however you are dismissing other concepts very easy.
It's not that I dismissed it at face value. The game design regarding obsoletable weapons has been made long ago, and it's already a fixed part of our design strategy. So from my point of view, you're trying to change something we've already established. And sometimes you just have to go with the plan. There's always going to be someone who will argue for a change to something, but you can't keep changing stuff you've already done, because then you won't ever finish the game.
Besides, like Trashman said, there are double standards applied here when it comes to game realism. Miniguns were discarded because they are unrealistic as a handheld weapon (which is true), but on the other hand surviving a direct hit in the head from a heavy sniper rifle bullet doesn't matter if it's unrealistic. The list could continue with many examples.
Yes, sometimes realism is counted more heavily than at other times, that is true. It depends on the situation. But it is especially because I want to avoid having this whole talk of realism that I want to get rid of the headshot. That's what I meant when I said your arguments made me want to lose it even more.
I also think that you are trying to cover to many areas because of the complex and rich story that you have. When I played X-Com I have never thought about where are my armies or what does the airforce do, etc... I had the feeling that I was doing the special ops, not replacing the army. Anyway, X-Com is the greatest example of balancing game play issues, I don't know what I would add to that game beside a modern graphic engine.
Then you might be better off moving to Xenocide. They're trying to do exactly that. Me, I think X-COM had some pretty big flaws, but that's me.
-
Then you might be better off moving to Xenocide. They're trying to do exactly that. Me, I think X-COM had some pretty big flaws, but that's me.
No, I'm not thinking "moving" to something else just because it looks more like X-Com. It will never feel right, unless it's a remade by the same people at the defunct Microprose.. That's why I still replay some savegames of the old legend.
The idea of obsoletable weapons isn't bad at all, in fact it's the core of a game such as this. But I'm against the idea of dismissing all the human weapons after 10 missions to have squads with the same weapons as the aliens. That's plain. In X-Com I didn't like the fact that by the end of the game I was using the alien's weapons against them (or was it in TFTD). In my imagination it would be great to have a mix of human and alien designs by the end of the game, humans having modified or tweaked versions of the alien designs, along with "classic" weapons, improved ofc.
I like the idea of having some alien weapons that can't be used by humans because of the handle or other issues. Other than that I would like to be able to customize some of the weapon designs, to make my own weapons - like sacrificing range for rate of fire or power, or less power for a lighter weapon that could be fired with one hand, etc, all based on a base model. An other thing that I would like is to see from the 1st glance if it's an alien weapon or a human weapon (even if hi-tech plasma), to have different models even if the 2 weapons are basically the same.
-
You are free to like or not like what you want, but humans using aliens' weapons against them is (among other things) what a UFO game is all about. If you don't like that part, fair enough, bit it's not a reason for us to come back on our design philosophy.
Also, as far as I understand it Xenocide aims to faithfully remake X-COM, with the same story, aliens, weapons and rules. Same with Cydonia's Fall.
-
than remove our snipers one hand- not much of a realism a single handed sniper, but that would surly justify their inability to shot at head, as he would barely hit anything.
And to be more serious - leave it as it is, instead of making ridiculously resistant aliens, use that time to fix their AI- im no scripter, but but it would be nice to have a challenge not depending on immortal godlike aliens capable of surviving a direct blast in the head from a sniper rifle, or a RPG. Rather than that teach aliens how to crouch and hide, give them reaction fire, improve their grenade handling- better to make it a tactical chalange.
A slightly different AI for species would be nice- large heavy ortonok would tend to charge hidden troopers- mostly getting killed by a sniper, while tamans would rather snipe and hide. Sheevars would probably sneak behind- lot of crouching, maybe even make it their default move if its possible to reduce movement TU cost
along with "classic" weapons, improved ofc.
plasma rounds for MG- something like current phosphorous rounds
Im afraid that custom designed weapons would be do complicated to code
-
I wanted to say that I don't like the idea of using exactly the same weapons like the aliens use, or captured weapons. Where is the element of inventivity and creativity in that, if you are looting and using the loot to kill the aliens? It's perfectly ok to use their tech against them, but as Winter said in a post, it's highly unlikely that their weapons will be usable by humans. Just replacing a handle and a trigger mechanism doesn't require to many brilliant scientists. So I would preffer a human made weapon based on alien tech rather than the same weapon aliens use.
As for the customizable weapons I wasn't thinking of something to complicated. You could adjust the damage done, rate of fire, TUs, range, etc... but not the graphical model (like in Gal Civ). Ofc you have to think of some limitations, like if you increase the damage you lose range, etc, and some attributes can't be changed, depending on weapon and so on.
-
Customizable weapons in that sense already exist, because everything the weapon does is defined per ammo type. So all you have to do is make a new ammo type that has the properties you want. Want to make the shotgun fire missiles? Easy. Just make a clip that fires a projectile that looks like a missile and has a splash effect.
-
i like the idea of alien-technology based human weapons and ammo- like the plasma grenades. This could open many great perspectives of developing the strategy- you could stick to human weapons keeping them effective- plasma rockets, and 20mm grenades, flachettes and many other weapons.
maybe some electric weapons for our green friends that would work on humans as stun weapon, while being much less effective against aliens?
-
Hey, don't they have those frag grenade rounds for military shotguns now? Additional ammo types for more of the traditional weapons based on alien tech sounds rather appealing: monomolecular sniper rounds? Plasma variant of the Flamethrower (derivative of the "Plasma Blade" tech)? Maybe even a carbon nanotube flechette gun that carries a payload of blister gas?
The Plasma rounds for the Grenade Launcher was a good first step. For an X-COM spirit, it felt both fresh and right at the same time. How many everyday things can you say that about?
-
Customizable weapons in that sense already exist, because everything the weapon does is defined per ammo type. So all you have to do is make a new ammo type that has the properties you want. Want to make the shotgun fire missiles? Easy. Just make a clip that fires a projectile that looks like a missile and has a splash effect.
Yes, that's one of the great concepts successfully implemented in this game, for which I like the combat part. However, you should play with the sniping idea a bit more..
-
I think sniped shot that kills on a successful hit should cost a lot of TU- as it takes time for a precisive aim, so no other action, but some short walk could be performed this round . On the other hand it should be a cheaper on reaction fire, as that way sniper is already scoping the area for potential targets.
-
Monomolecular sniper rounds. A researched ammo type, consisting of 3-4 small MM blades forming a single round (they naturally bend, and so don't make for a good round singly), and with terrific penetration potential. Of course, rounds would be exceedingly expensive to produce, taking considerably longer than a MM combat knife to produce a single clip (which would contain 15-20 small MM blades).
Could keep the Sniper Rifle weapon alive in the mid- to late-game, even when a nromal headshot through alien armor wouldn't be fatal (I still like the idea of the HS command giving a damage multiplier to the hit, but only after the damage has been reduced by armor). Of course, larger aliens would be more resistant to this sort of small projectile tearing through their bodies, and so would need something with more punch, or a lot of spare rounds.
-
you don't need a sharp bullet, because it's not like shooting with a crossbow.. you need heavy bullets, like depleted uranium which is several times more heavy than lead. So maybe if you come up with something heavier... but even with current bullets the impact is devastating. A bullet would pass through light armor (vehicle) with no problems, and higher caliber would pass through tank armour as well. If it hits a human it would rip apart limbs or make massive wounds.
-
Nevasith, I like that idea: how about having the sniper rifle stay a one-kill weapon, but increasing the TU cost to some like 28 and removing snap shot. Reaction fire limited to 1 shot per round. Than the sniper has to either move or shoot. And really, really require protection.
Would that be a good balance?
-
Stay away from the one-hit-kill idea. The snipers will be up against beasties of unknown biology and durability, and shooting the head off of some of these may only accomplish pissing them off. Then then there are the robots... High damage or a multiplier or something I could understand, but the instant-kill option should not be.
-
To balance this the devs can do alot of things such as making it difficult to have many good snipers, high skills requirement, TUs, etc.. and also none said the headshot is a guaranteed hit! So you have almost no chances with a rookie sniper to shoot an alien in the head at a great distance.
-
Stay away from the one-hit-kill idea. The snipers will be up against beasties of unknown biology and durability, and shooting the head off of some of these may only accomplish pissing them off. Then then there are the robots... High damage or a multiplier or something I could understand, but the instant-kill option should not be.
It's a very fun game concept that you are missing here. The idea is that if you hit you kill the target. But in order to hit, you have to apply different tactics. Having more tactics to apply = more fun. This isn't like a cheat. It's real warfare.
-
Okay, so if you hit the tank with the sniper rifle, the tank dies automatically. Very real. Or the gelatinous blob. Or the 7-brained giant insectoid. Hell, you should just replace the SAM sites with teams of snipers. I'm sure one of them is bound to hit the UFO, and once that happens... boom.
-
Models for those aliens, please?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/hmsabre/UFOAI/th_Untitled.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/hmsabre/UFOAI/Untitled.jpg)
Seriously, though, I will take a stab at the insectoid. The 7 brain think is a cockroach reference, which wouldn't look all that scary, but something fast with some wicked-sharp appendages and durability up the wazoo sounds fun.
-
Forget 7 brains - no brain centers at all - highly distributed processing - brain is, effectively, throughout the body cavity which is covered by the exosceleton. They need not be too smart, they are the top of the evolutionary chain because they are damn near impossible to kill - a whole in a body would hit some organs, and the functions are taken over by redundant ones. The way to kill such a thing is to either literally blow it to bits, pump it full of led (literal here), or burn it. Lasers hit well enough, but have almost no effect (self-cutterizing wounds - awesome!). Fire or explosive ammo, ot TONS of led slugs.
-
How many redundant organ can it possibly have? I mean, there are limits... You can only stuff so much stuff within a certain volume, and it will have weak spots, since everything in this universe has them.
Has it eyes? Shoot it in the eyes. Can't hit you if it can't see you!
Hunts by smell? Shoot it in the nose!
Bipedal? Shoot the knees!
Has a spine? Shoot it there!
Has a stomach? Ooooo...those acids are nasty..hurt like hell too.
Exoskeleton? Crack in a few strategic places and it will hardly be able to move.
EDIT: Even assuming it has multiple brains, those hardly wouldn't be set on OFF and turned on only when another brain "dies". More likely it would get dumber or loose body control with each dead brain.
-
Still, that's, what, 7 sniper rounds before its braindead, which is kinda the point.
-
Even a human brain has redundancy, i.e. parts of brain can take on roles of each other, at least to a degree. We have two kidneys and can live with one, same goes for anything else, pretty much, we have two of. transition from kidney 1 to kidney 2 is seemless...not sure why brain would be that different. maybe memory loss and eventually - high cognitive function. But not easily...
Now imagine you redesigned a human for maximum survivability. place all vitals in chest cavity and make ribs stronger. Feed 'em special goo, so that digestive system can be vastly simplified and the track shortened shortened. The remaining space can house the (second) brain, another liver, a third lung, second spleen... Any docs in here? What if there is no need to digest anything - just transfer from liquid to blood...No solid waste, either...How much room would be saved?
The extra space is packed with hard muscle that surrounds and compartmentalizes the extra organs. Compartments mean that bleeding is limited and fragments/bullets are less likely to damage multiple organs.
What else...Eyes - add a few more, some fixed around the head, a couple of flexible stocks. Expand the range of visible frequencies a little into infrared. Ears - screw it, two are enough, maybe three, but make 'em movable like those of a deer. Add hearing in frequencies bats use. In a pinch can be used for navigation. A couple of noses, two at the most - shooting by smell is not reliable, and two are plenty for tracking.
The head no longer houses the (only) brain. No brain - smaller head. At least thicker skull. Prefered "forward" is no longer needed. Periferal eyes + two on stocks guarantee that even with all eyes on one side burned off, the two stocks can still provide depth perception and allow to attack (shoot/strike/persue precisely) in the direction.
Speaking of direction. Three legs, at least 3-4 arms. 3-prong system is way more stable for shooting and even a complete loss of a leg "reduces" the creature to human mobility. 4 arms = 2 two-hand weapons. With full set of eyes - fixed perimeter eyes + two on stocks = depth perception in two directions at once, so aimed shooting in two directions at once. Hands: one thumb? Weak! two thumbs, three opposed fingers. I'd prefer all joints (at least sholders and elbows) to be omnidirectional. If that is too difficult muscle-wise, at least full range of motion in two directions - very double jointed. Makes hand-to-hand extra fun.
So, by my reckoning, with one leg and two arms blown off, half the torso a mess from a frag grenade or a rifle salvo, and side of the head burned to crisp - what is left will be equivalent to a pissed off PHALANX soldier.
how's that for ET?
-
how's that for ET?
How about "stupid"?
You can't just lump organs as you wish and play Dr. Frankenstein.
Genetics and biology are a weeeee little more complicated that that.
-
Honestly - the somewhat rude response aside - I don't know! Does someone here have a medical degree or an anatomy degree? Maybe locations of organs are not random. Fine. But aside from that - what was so stupid?
-
Yeah, it was a bit rude..Sorry about that. Some responses just make my blood boil :P
-
Okay, so if you hit the tank with the sniper rifle, the tank dies automatically. Very real. Or the gelatinous blob. Or the 7-brained giant insectoid. Hell, you should just replace the SAM sites with teams of snipers. I'm sure one of them is bound to hit the UFO, and once that happens... boom.
I think you are deliberately missing the point here. None said that you can destroy a tank with a sniper rifle LOL. How exagerated is that? If it's a joke, I'm amused.
But, high power sniper rifles are used to disable vehicles, and even light armored vehicles, like crippling the engine or killing the driver/gunner. Not even the most powerful sniper rifle can penetrate the armor of a tank (i guess that's obvious)
Battlegrounds are a bit more complex than 1 and 0 logic (alive or dead/destroyed). To destroy a tank you need a missile, to blow it up, but you don't really need to destroy it. If you cripple the tank, like destroying it's track, you make it lose it's offensive capability. If that happens (track gets destroyed) the crew will most likely abandon it before some chopper comes to shoot a missile at it.
From your posts I see that you understand a target as a single entity with no components and not as a sum of parts, like all real beings (natural or artificial) things are. Well, if the game wants to be a bit realistic, you can't have that. Even if the target has 7 brains, or 7 limbs, it has critical parts. THat's why you have a lab at HQ to disect aliens. To learn about their weakneses.
Having redundant organs doesn't make a creature stronger in battle. Even if the human body has 2 lungs, a shot in either of them is almost fatal if not fatal. Even if you have 2 eyes, if someone shoots you in the eye, you are dead, right? The idea of a creature with 7 brains is funny, but absurd imo. I guess each brain works one day/week and sunday halftime.
The concept behind the powerful sniper shot wasn't one to allow squads of snipers, but to have one precious sniper in the squad or in the entire phallanx, that would have a chance for a kill shot maybe once each mission.
-
Just my 2 cents but I've gotten tired of the argument of the "realism" of the power of modern weapons when the entire premise of the game is made up. Guess what, we have not, and I believe, will not ever find aliens. Balance is always> Realism. In the original Xcom, Grenades became obsolete due to tougher aliens. Even the rocket launcher wasn't powerful enough for certain enemies, ie: cyberdisc. I am a firm believer in this game design. You can't have equal or inferior enemies or the challenge isn't there. There will always be a way to exploit AI to gain the upper hand. If they start out equal to begin with, you have a boring, dull game.
On topic about the headshot feature: I think it should either be removed or have it cost the unit a turn sort of like silent storm sniping. The next turn the sniper can take a carefully aimed, precision shot with X chance of doing say double damage. This way it still scales decently and the later aliens would have enough health to essential "tank" at least one shot. I'm not sure you could do that with the engine but its a thought.
-
The tank thing was half joke, half not. I've always been a fan of compartmentalized damage, ever since playing my first online game, Starsiege. In this game, though, there is no compartmentalized damage, and I do not think there are plans for that. It has to be faked. The tank reference was an approximation of the protection level of alien heavy armor, with thousands of years of development and resources of many planets, versus considerably lower-tech weapons.
The seven brain comment was a reference more to creatures with decentralized nervous systems, like our friendly neighborhood cockroach. Blow off the head, it will eventually die, but that may take weeks. If a giant one came at you in heavy armor and a plasma torch, one sniper round is not going to keep it from slicing you up real nice, and probably several of your best friends. Yes, the sniper rifle will probably inflict lethal wounds with just about every adequately-aimed shot, but not all will be fatal in a convenient time frame.
Perhaps a compromise is needed. The old X-COM had a "Fatal wound" system which essentially amounted to life-threatening bleeding. Something similar, and possible with any weapon inflicting sufficient damage to a target, and the Precision Shot could have a disproportionately high chance of inflicting such a wound. It would consequently be more effective against aliens with low HP (less vital distribution/redundancy) and less effective against more distributed/redundant/durable targets. There is still the idea that the sniper has caused some serious damage, but there is not one-hit-kill-versus-anything mentality.
To be honest, if you have a sniper who can OHK, even just once a turn, you end up with a situation where it feels like the aliens are hiding from you, and you're just there to exterminate them and move on. There will [need to] be aliens, whether monstrous beasties or armored up the wazoo, for which there are no quick fixes among human infantry weaponry.
-
In the 1st phases of the game tamans could be killed with one sniper shot, which is allright with me. So, I was only suggesting to extend this concept further. Even if tamans start wearing heavy armour, you have to keep your skilled sniper alive so his skill will grow to the point where he'll be able to hit a head shot, not miss it all the time. That was the idea. Make the player to keep the soldiers alive and plan ahead their specializations. You might have a very good sniper in the end. I don't see how this concept unbalances the game. You'll still need lots of other weapon choices.
We can extend this talk to rocket launchers which in some cases don't kill the alien. Just because they are advanced it doesn't mean that they defy the laws of physics and don't take inertial damage from an absorbed hit. There is really no problem in making the aliens stronger than humans in terms of everything you may think of. Just add more hitpoints, more armor, more TUs, more power, etc... and more numbers plus better AI.
But don't create unrealistic fights, because they ruin the very essence of squad tactics.
The idea is to recreate and simulate - in the limits of a game - a battle scenario. On the battlefield, if you are hit by a rocket or a sniper bullet you die. Why do you want to romance this gruesome fact, and pretend it doesn't happen?
Now let's ask ourselves - do military squads have a full team of snipers or just a single sniper in the squad? No, they have one, if any. So you can't kill the enemies with snipers alone, and also the sniper doesn't kill most of the enemies. He kills only strategic targets like the CO, gunner, enemy sniper, driver, etc. I was only suggesting to have this type of unit with this role in the game.
-
There will always be a way to exploit AI to gain the upper hand. If they start out equal to begin with, you have a boring, dull game.
That's what numerical superiority is for. More enemies = bigger challenge
The seven brain comment was a reference more to creatures with decentralized nervous systems, like our friendly neighborhood cockroach. Blow off the head, it will eventually die, but that may take weeks.
Yeah, but that cockroach is a vegateable after that. Technicely alive, but not really up for doing anything. Like a man on machines with no brain activity.
-
Yes, Trashman is correct, I forgot to comment on the cockroach idea...
If you blow up an alien's head even if it behaves like a cockroach, it will wander randomly until it dies from bleeding or whatever. I understand that you imagine aliens as some supercreatures, but there is a threshold where you step from SF to comicbook fantasy. Brainless blobs who act intelligent are impossible, because you can't have intelligence without a brain.
-
Cockroaches are a basic example, and they will still respond to some basic stimuli. Also, it suddenly has very limited resources and senses, so it has less stimuli to respond to and with, and fewer basic needs it can fulfill. Since basic needs and response to stimuli are the backbone of most cockroach behavior, of course it will be far less active. A more evolved variant of that same model, with a larger body and thus more space to work with, could have either a more redundant anatomy, or a far more sophisticated set of stimuli responses. Functions, such as "chase", "catch", "kill", could be hardwired in many places, as well as the associated biological functions which support those, and you have one very resilient terror agent, even without armor.
Anyways, the aliens are supposed to have some level of distributive intelligence on a societal level, so would it be such a leap to have some semblance of that on a biological level? There would be anatomical limitations, especially among the aliens who are evolutionarily more humanoid, but with sufficient genetic variety there would be some with anatomies more inclined to that structure.
-
Sophisanmus, thank you! So, how whacked is my idea of a 3-legged, 4-armed, vital-redundant, brain destributed, omni-eyed battle alien? Sort of luck two Ortnocks glued together.
-
we are going offtopic here talking about creatures with redundant organs. Even with hardwired responses, like you say, they won't be more intelligent then a rat.
It's much easier to imagine a mechanical creature, like a spider-robot or something like that. It can feature very good AI, and redundancy isn't absurd anymore. Like Terminator, it can continue fighting until it's powersource or vital systems are destroyed. (the Terminator pursued it's victim even without legs and a missing hand).
Back to topic - if the devs won't allow powerful sniper shots, then what's the point of having the sniping skill and sniper rifles? A sniper is a unit that one shots his victim. He can either miss or kill. In the rare occasions, where the sniper aims for the torso, the victim might not die instantly, but it will be seriously incapacitated to continue fighting.
-
good point, Sirg.
So, shall we say that sniper rifle is a nice weapon and it would be really cool to have a slow fire / high damage human weapon in the game.
-
I'd have to say half the appeal of the Sniper Rifle is hitting a target out of range for most other weapons. The second appeal would be high per-hit damage, which would retain its usefulness even after weaker-per-hit automatic weapons have been rendered unusable by enemy armor. Of course, modern sniper rifles are capable of obliterating their targets with a single hit, but these targets are human infantry. Just because they are not capable of doing the same to many of the aliens does not delegate them to the scrapheap, they are still unmatched in effectiveness among other human ballistics at long range, and their accuracy is not diminished.
-
Sniper rifles are by definition one shot one kill weapons since the independence war in America where they were 1st used as a military weapon (and with great succes). After that armies started using dark uniforms (English had those red coats).
What you are suggesting with your comment is that an alien needs to bullets in the head to die which is a bit absurd. Better scap this concept of sniper rifles completely rather than make pea shooters from them. I'm starting to repeat here, if you get hit in the head by a bullet, even if it doesn't reach your skull, the head takes all the inertia from the bullet and the brain is smashed to the skull, so the victim will lose consciousness to say the least (the neck might break too). Probably it will suffer braindamage and never recover. That's why surviving headshots is foolish. Then if this concept is to much, just remove sniper rifles from the game.
I think there is a tendency to exagerate how much powerful the aliens are or how weak the humans are, while there is no need for that. The aliens are very powerful as they are designed in the game right now. You want to see aliens that need one squad to kill while the alien kills half of your squad and cripples the rest. That won't be funny. It will be frustrating.
-
Just because they are not capable of doing the same to many of the aliens does not delegate them to the scrapheap, they are still unmatched in effectiveness among other human ballistics at long range, and their accuracy is not diminished.
We are talking alien heavy armor here. Not the stuff that has appeared so far in the game. By the time the aliens begin fielding these, PHALANX has already had a chance to adapt, in weapons and armor alike. You're asserting it is impossible for highly advanced alien heavy armor, their top stuff deployed to decisively crush human resistance, can't stop a bullet, distribute the force, support the biological asset inside, and otherwise counter arcane human ballistic weapons. The head wouldn't take all of the inertia from the bullet, the helmet would manage most of it. Penetration would be more valuable than raw inertia (hence why a monomolecular round could be a potential upgrade for the rifle later in the game). Hell, this stuff would be designed to survive a particle beam and keep the wearer alive, and that's entire tiers above a simple bullet.
-
Technicely we already reached the point at which we're capable of making weapons so powerful that it's hard to believe any armor can stop it.
Offense has surpassed defense by a lot, and with nukes it made a huge leap again. Just like you can't make a ship capable of surviving a nuke hit (no matter what armor you use or what nano-tricks. The energy is just too big), you can't make a soldier armor capable of withstanding 20x110mm shells.
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm
Unless you bring in handwavium and magic shields and stuff. But purely from a material standpoint, it's no can do.
-
Brainless blobs who act intelligent are impossible, because you can't have intelligence without a brain.
And yet, that's exactly what the main enemy in this game is - an intelligence without a conventional brain.
***
The sniper rifle should become obsolete just as much as any of the other human weapons, even if a perfect head-shot from the original would kill an any alien every time.
On the battlefield, if given the choice between a sniper rifle that needs a headshot or a high tech rifle that can still do headshots but also has more chance of punching though the chest armour of an alien that's just run around the corner at you, the high tech choice will naturally take precedence.
A pure sniper version of the Bolter rifle would be a good starting point, and would stop that research being such an instant dead end given that laser research (which allegedly makes bolters obsolete) can be started at exactly the same time. Built for accuracy it could be nearly as accurate as the laser rifle but with more one-shot stopping power.
-
And yet, that's exactly what the main enemy in this game is - an intelligence without a conventional brain.
Which is IMHO the weakest part of the story. All that clinging to science when it comes to humans, but when it comes to aliens, who cares?
That intelligent virus is one of the silliest things I ever heard.
Not to mention that that whole "uuppps, the aliens were actually soldiers/mind controlled zombies/servants of the Big bad - which happens to be a giant brain/space creature/something" plot twist is definately overused.
-
XVI isn't so silly to me. It seems to me that it forms a complete brain, so to speak, by using telepathy as synapses between the individual cells.
(Sorry to get a little off-topic)
Anyway, I see merit in both sides of this debate. However, people seem to be arguing about the sniper rifle like it's an anti-material rifle. It certainly isn't. If it was, it would be larger and take more time to fire.
Anti-material rifles are intended for destroying vehicles, not people, but they can do so in a pinch. They're just far too over-powered and heavy for shooting people to be used for this all the time. In other words, they'd never be issued for this purpose and thus, the in-game sniper rifle can't possibly be one.
-
XVI isn't so silly to me. It seems to me that it forms a complete brain, so to speak, by using telepathy as synapses between the individual cells.
Daft. Daft. Daft.
Viruses are small, simple structures who have very limited purpose. Brain cells are huge compared to them and they exchange data directly.
Transmitting any data to other viruses would require quite e energy expenditure, especially at ranges mentioned. Not to mention that virusus wouldn't even have a fraction of the processing power a brain cell has, given their small size and specialized nature.
Anti-material rifles are intended for destroying vehicles, not people, but they can do so in a pinch. They're just far too over-powered and heavy for shooting people to be used for this all the time. In other words, they'd never be issued for this purpose and thus, the in-game sniper rifle can't possibly be one.
If enemy infantry is as armored as a APC, they would.
-
Daft. Daft. Daft.
Viruses are small, simple structures who have very limited purpose. Brain cells are huge compared to them and they exchange data directly.
Transmitting any data to other viruses would require quite e energy expenditure, especially at ranges mentioned. Not to mention that virusus wouldn't even have a fraction of the processing power a brain cell has, given their small size and specialized nature.
First off, don't call me daft. That's rude.
From the bits I've read, XVI isn't a virus. It's referred to as a small organism that behaves like a virus, but is somewhat more like a bacteria. Course that's a little off the top of my head, but I remember that it isn't a virus.
Also, we don't know how much energy telepathy takes. Period. It's not been seen and studied in real life, so we just don't know. It could take very little, but is a complex trait to develop.
-
Anti-material rifles are intended for destroying vehicles, not people, but they can do so in a pinch. They're just far too over-powered and heavy for shooting people to be used for this all the time. In other words, they'd never be issued for this purpose and thus, the in-game sniper rifle can't possibly be one.
Just FYI, the sniper rifle in the game is quite specifically referred to as an AMR rifle using 20mm HMG rounds.
-
I'd like to issue an alternative to simulatoralive's explanation. XVI could easily be a virus. A virus is a simple structure, too simple to have cognitive abilities. But the virus' payload, which re-writes the DNA of the target, could easily create cells which would act as brain cells. The actual incarnation of the XVI virus, and its various strains, would be inherently unintelligent, but the altered organisms resulting from XVI infection would form the actual distributed nervous system which could be called the XVI "organism".
I have been arguing under the impression that the rifle was anti-material, and that heavy alien forces would be at least equivalently armored, thanks to their far advanced technology, materials, and manufacturing processes, to most modern front-line combat vehicles. And AMR rifle would be the most effective human-created weapon for dealing with these targets, but to accomplish that they do not have to be one-hit-kills. It may do enough damage to OHK most lesser-armored enemies by obliterating a sufficiently vital area, but against the heaviest alien armors, the armor would provide sufficient defensive measures, and possibly after-the-fact recuperative assistance, to make even a proper headshot non-lethal.
Keep in mind, with an intelligence controlling a vast array of 'host' organisms, I don't think it would be entirely opposed to using advanced life support functions to keep alive an otherwise fatally wounded host body. When we consider it inhumane or pointless to keep a victim alive via machines when there is no hope of recovery, XVI may have their heavy armor suits designed for such functions. Humans supposedly have broached the possibilities for nanotechnology-based medical technologies, so perhaps XVI has further advanced that technology integrated into their heavier armor suits.
-
I think the devs have to come up with some magic concept to keep this in realistic boundries. Even if you imagine super tech heavy armor you can't ignore physics. This arguement has transformed the alien heavy nano armor into a matter of faith - do you believe it can stop a bullet or not. It's the same kind of irrational talk like preachers do.
It would have been simpler if the aliens had a bubble shield around them, like a force fields we saw in Star Trek movies. Then sure, np, it could stop a train. But from what I understand, this kind of tech doesn't fit with Winter's story.
Other thing - regarding the virus/bacteria - such a micro-organism doesn't behave like a creature, with a goal in mind. It multiplies as long there is a host or enough energy for it to do so, but without following any strategy or given goal. Even an artificial creature has some kind of programming to serve a purpose. You can't have some gel behaving like a creature or a brainless creature behaving like one that has a brain. Sure, you can imagine anything, but then people will have that reaction "oh, come on" when they'll see daft things.
There are alot of great concepts and ideas in other games that could be adapted to this one - why spend so much time and energy on some that are flawed from the start?
-
First off, don't call me daft. That's rude.
I didn't call you daft. I called that virus part of the story daft ;)
Also, we don't know how much energy telepathy takes. Period. It's not been seen and studied in real life, so we just don't know. It could take very little, but is a complex trait to develop.
Basics of science...action and reaction. To transmit information you need energy. The greater the distance, the more energy.
that said, telephaty is a load of bull***.
-
Armor can stop bullets, and have been able to since the dawn of gunpowder. It has never been an issue of faith, but of technology and logistics. I do not believe there has ever been a bullet made that could not be stopped by sufficient armor, sufficient being the operative word. Hell, modern technology has many ways of stopping such weapons, we just cannot deploy a mass-producible, cost-effective, man-portable version of it. Modern AMRs can be blocked to the point of nullification; of course, the armor required to do so equates to a main battle tank or something in that range. The aliens, on the other hand, have introduced materials, manufacturing, and technology which may allow for such levels of protection to be issued to heavy infantry.
In terms of the organism standpoint, I see here the assumption here that the XVI in question is of the same size as a regular body cell. In fact, it may well be significantly larger, and thus more capable. It does seem you are too much judging the potential for undiscovered organisms and technologies by what has already been observed. I take it from your comment that you are not a religious individual; when an intelligent civilization beings playing God, what is to keep them from being too good at it?
I do prefer my own XVI explanation, but that may be more of an operation of pride than anything else.
-
Armor can stop bullets, and have been able to since the dawn of gunpowder. It has never been an issue of faith, but of technology and logistics. I do not believe there has ever been a bullet made that could not be stopped by sufficient armor, sufficient being the operative word. Hell, modern technology has many ways of stopping such weapons, we just cannot deploy a mass-producible, cost-effective, man-portable version of it. Modern AMRs can be blocked to the point of nullification; of course, the armor required to do so equates to a main battle tank or something in that range. The aliens, on the other hand, have introduced materials, manufacturing, and technology which may allow for such levels of protection to be issued to heavy infantry.
No, you can't REALLY stop everything. Offense surpassed defense a long time ago. We got SABOT and Depleted Uranium shells that can punch trough heavy armor with ease.
Point is, my professor brought top-line researches in nano-technology who held presentations and answered questions. Nano stuff is crazy and has some weird properties, but there are limits.
You'll never be able to make 1cm think armor that can stop modern high-calibre shells (like the Barret sniper rifle), simply because the atomic structure and connections themselves are the limit (how much energy they can take, etc).
You can make armor that will stop a armor piercing rocket launcher, but that armor won't be man-portable, since it would have to be main-battle tank like in thickness. Not to mention that guns in the future will only become more powerful.
In terms of the organism standpoint, I see here the assumption here that the XVI in question is of the same size as a regular body cell. In fact, it may well be significantly larger, and thus more capable. It does seem you are too much judging the potential for undiscovered organisms and technologies by what has already been observed. I take it from your comment that you are not a religious individual; when an intelligent civilization beings playing God, what is to keep them from being too good at it?
I base my conclusions on knowledge of basic biology and the most fundamental laws of physics.
XVI is called a virus. There's a clear definition of what a virus is and it's structure. If it's not a virus, then it shouldn't be labeled as such.
Regardless, the capabilities and behaviour of the XVI are redicolous.
It's like saying you can make a fusion reactor out of a chewing gum, paper clips and duct tape...that level of redicolous.
-
I also think it's strange that it's called a virus (by name) and then later contradicted. The writer of the segments on XVI should never have referred to it as a virus, because they made it quite clear that it isn't. All it does is create confusion that doesn't need to be there.
-
I think the "virus" referral was meant more as an example of how it spreads, and not necessarily its function. I do think it needs re-writing; the concept is good for a game of this genre, but it needs some clarification. It is still an outline, though, and will probably be fleshed out in a more plausible fashion through the in-game research landmarks.
With regards to the armor, 1cm appears to be about thickness of alien light armor at its edges. I figure that was more for example, but still consider that alien heavy armor may well be many times that thickness.
Offensive technology surpassed defense technology in cost effectiveness a long time ago. Medieval body armor was more than a match for most guns of its time while still maintaining mobility, and even for several generations thereafter; the suits, however, were far to expensive to deploy in numbers needed to counter the more mass-producible gunpowder weapons.
Now, the offense surpasses defense argument holds much weight when the periods of progress are approaching equivalence. That is not the case in the fiction here. Alien weaponry clearly surpasses their armor technology, though not by the same significant margin as with human history. Perhaps that is why PHALANX stands some chance at success; the aggressive human mindset has pushed weapons development disproportionately farther than defenses, while the aliens have pursued a more equalized approach.
That said, the raw stopping power of the armor is not the end all and be all of defense, there are other considerations which may factor into the heavy suit's ability to survive a single high-power shot to the wearer's most vulnerable area. Whether by distributing or dispersing the force, deflecting the projectile, activating some reactive mechanism capable of disrupting or destroying the projectile, material strong enough to deny full penetration, serving to bridge/supplement the damaged areas, or some combination of the above, there are numerous ways the heavy combat armor could reduce an AMR "headshot" to severe, but non-lethal (at least not alone), levels.
-
Point is, my professor brought top-line researches in nano-technology who held presentations and answered questions. Nano stuff is crazy and has some weird properties, but there are limits.
You'll never be able to make 1cm think armor that can stop modern high-calibre shells (like the Barret sniper rifle), simply because the atomic structure and connections themselves are the limit (how much energy they can take, etc).
I base my conclusions on knowledge of basic biology and the most fundamental laws of physics.
XVI is called a virus. There's a clear definition of what a virus is and it's structure. If it's not a virus, then it shouldn't be labeled as such.
Basics of science...action and reaction. To transmit information you need energy. The greater the distance, the more energy.
The basis of scentific fact is a human explanation of a cause and effect. It has throughout time been proved that what we believe to be irrefutable evidence is simply one layer of understanding.
People were jailed and executed for saying the world was not flat 500 years ago. Less than 50 years ago computers were the size of a room, now they can fit inside an envelope...I understand that modern science is compelling and has mountains of evidence but there are GALAXIES like sand on a beach.
My point?
Scientific knowledge is only what we've figured out so far - there's plenty more to come, even faster if we had some alien tech to reverse-engineer :D
You just can't keep pulling the "You can't prove it, so it cant be done"
for developing a game, Imagination > Scientific Proof.
-
The basis of scentific fact is a human explanation of a cause and effect. It has throughout time been proved that what we believe to be irrefutable evidence is simply one layer of understanding.
People were jailed and executed for saying the world was not flat 500 years ago.
500 years ago there was no real scientific method. No real scientific community. Thus, that argument doesn't stand.
Less than 50 years ago computers were the size of a room, now they can fit inside an envelope...I understand that modern science is compelling and has mountains of evidence but there are GALAXIES like sand on a beach.
My point?
Scientific knowledge is only what we've figured out so far - there's plenty more to come, even faster if we had some alien tech to reverse-engineer :D
what we know so far isn't ALL the knowledge, sure. But that doesn't mean what we know so far is incorrect. there are some theories that are yet to be proven, some that are on shaky legs - but there are a few that are the foundation of science and the universe and they are proven to work each second of every day. the universe couldn't exist as it is if they were not true.
So we might discover some new stuff in the future, but the basic laws of the universe will not change. The atomic forces won't change.
You just can't keep pulling the "You can't prove it, so it cant be done"
for developing a game, Imagination > Scientific Proof.
I'm not really.
I'm just against double-standards when determining such things.
-
...the universe couldn't exist as it is if they were not true.
So we might discover some new stuff in the future, but the basic laws of the universe will not change. The atomic forces won't change...
That assumes our current "laws" of science are correct. What we even consider "laws" are just best-fit guesses that haven't been disproved. We still don't know what's really going on under the hood. 500 years in the future, schoolkids may well think we were chumps for believing it, and locking up the raving lunatics of our time who may have actually been on to something.
Something to live by: the more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Science fiction has often been more speculative than science "fact", and I don't see why that tradition has to stop here. With an alien enemy that has so much time to advance, they will have better military technology, both offensive and defensive. Now, your argument goes a ways to justify how standard human ballistics are still effective against light-armor aliens, but their obsolescence against heavier armors, including the AMR's inability to one-hit heavy troopers and large terror agents, is generally mandated by the tone and gameplay, and is well-supported by the plotline's generation gap.
Game mechanics aside, science doesn't say this is impossible. All it tells us is that we haven't figured out how, yet.
-
Sophisanmus,
TrashMan is absolutely right: the main achievement of the recent few centuries is the *method* of peer-review, as much as the results themselves.
As for physical law being relative...or an "approximation". Let me give you an example. Gravitational constant, "g", 9.81 m/s/s, is a damn good approximation. Sure, it comes from a more complicated equation that involves earth's radius, and, techincally, if you jump two feet in the air the value of "g" is corrected. That is, correction on the order of 0.6 m to a constant that is 6,360,000 m. Not to mention 1/ R^2, so another 7 orders of magnitude, but who cares, right? So, the correction is so tiny, that even the difference between see level and airplane altitude is pretty hard to observe. Yes, it is an approximation. Will it ever make any difference in your life? Nope.
And then there is something like conservation of momentum or energy. You know the T-shirt: "speed limit 300,000 km/sec - it's not just a good advice, it's the LAW" ? Those laws are fixed. Nothing "approximate" or "relative" about them. These laws are observed everywhere in this universe, completely and fully.
As to applying the laws to sci-fi... In my personal preference, the concepts should not offend common sense, i.e. not violate the basic physical law in a fundamental way. For example, no armor, alien or human, can violate conservation of momentum. I.e. a small, light alien, hit with a sledgehammer, should fly. He may be OK when he lands, being alien and all that, but fly he must.
Just my $0.02
-
I'm not refuting the existence of peer review; that's been around longer than mob violence. The method(s) of forming theories for said peers to review, however, could well change in the future.
And those examples are constants, not laws. Gravity, of course, varies depending on the rock or rock analogue you happen to be standing upon, if you're standing at all. And for all we know, there may be places where the formula for determining that constant is different. Speed of light... well, that's already out of the question what with the assumed FTL of the game. Well, okay, so they aren't actually surpassing that limit, just taking shortcuts to get where they're going faster. I think that actually illustrates my point; established science is based on a number of assumptions of which some are bound to be disproved, revised, or replaced, in the foreseeable future. Historically, what we once saw as limits have become milestones of our later progress.
I wholeheartedly agree with the sledgehammers and flying aliens, in whatever not-quite-as-awesome-as-the-example form it should take.
-
500 years ago there was no real scientific method. No real scientific community. Thus, that argument doesn't stand.
So the collection of historic world shaping thinkers from when the world was proven to be round isnt a scientific community? Copernicus and Galileo just messing around then?
So we might discover some new stuff in the future, but the basic laws of the universe will not change. The atomic forces won't change.
Those basic laws were written by man, and so are fallible. If you research black holes or white holes, you'll see the leading edge of academia in hot dispute about certain "hypothetical laws". Sooner or later they will agree on the best possible fit for evidence and theory. Thats what science is, an attempt to understand - not the absolute perfect truth you describe.
For all we know, the aliens may have a personal shield that relieson the kinetic energy from the projectile that hits it.
-
Laws are laws...doesn't matter if they were written by us or the aliens.
If they perfectly describe and explain and predict happening then they are laws. The atomic force that work within atoms is known. The basic laws of it's behaviour are known. It is KNOWN that if you apply X energy that the bond will break.
No nano-engineering or fancy-shamncy fantasy physics is gonna change that. That's why I mean when I say that all technology has some practical limit.
You can't continue to minimize computers ad infinitum - a line has to be drawn somewhere.
You can't continue to build stronger and stronger armor - the line will be drawn somewhere. And we (humans) are already near that line. That line is the very atomic bonds that make the armor. You can't make them stronger than they can be.
Sure, there are many tricks that can make armor withstand heat, or pressure or col or acid better. But just pure penetration? Without increasing density we are already reaching the atomic limit.
-
Laws are laws...doesn't matter if they were written by us or the aliens.
If they perfectly describe and explain and predict happening then they are laws. The atomic force that work within atoms is known. The basic laws of it's behaviour are known. It is KNOWN that if you apply X energy that the bond will break.
Human science works as far as we KNOW. My point is there are levels of understanding we have not achieved yet. How can you believe that we are so deep in understanding
You can't continue to minimize computers ad infinitum - a line has to be drawn somewhere.
You can't continue to build stronger and stronger armor - the line will be drawn somewhere. And we (humans) are already near that line. That line is the very atomic bonds that make the armor. You can't make them stronger than they can be.
Again your agument sounds compelling, are you aware the atomic bond is not the smallest level of attraction?
A subatomic particle is an elementary or composite particle smaller than an atom. Particle physics and nuclear physics are concerned with the study of these particles, their interactions, and non-atomic matter.
Subatomic particles include the atomic constituents electrons, protons, and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are composite particles, consisting of quarks. A proton contains two up quarks and one down quark, while a neutron consists of one up quark and two down quarks; the quarks are held together in the nucleus by gluons. There are six different types of quark in all ('up', 'down', 'bottom', 'top', 'strange', and 'charm'), as well as other particles including photons and neutrinos which are produced copiously in the sun. Most of the particles that have been discovered are encountered in cosmic rays interacting with matter and are produced by scattering processes in particle accelerators.
Just because we havn't utilised quarks effectivly doesn't mean the aliens can't.
-
Again your agument sounds compelling, are you aware the atomic bond is not the smallest level of attraction?
First off, we're wandering pretty far off from our stated topic. Secondly, the ingredients in the electrons, protons, and neutrons are irrelevant to how much energy it takes it takes to break up the atom. We already know exactly how many Joules it takes to strip off each electron, proton, etc. from the atom. If the quarks contribute to that, then their value is already part of what we measured. As the Trashman has said, we are already up against the breaking atomic bonds being the weak link in the chain.
-
The thing with laws is, again, they are just our interpretations of how we think things work. The actual way things work may be written in stone, but our interpretations, even if we call them laws, are just that. They are things which we have observed to be true in every known circumstance. As far as we know, we could be 5 minutes away from seeing an exception to a law, but we don't know about it until we see it.
I highly doubt that a sniper rifle bullet is going to go setting of an atomic reaction...
I think you're overestimating the progress of human armor. We're using ceramic, fabric, and some metal plating to protect our soldiers. Full-body armor is unheard of. To be honest, medieval armor offered better protection in many ways than the modern equivalent. Of course, that's because our armor technology actually slipped backwards for awhile when mass-produced firearms became the mainstay and personal metal suits were far too costly to implement in the numbers required for an effective armored infantry force. Hell, modern military helmets are Kevlar. This stuff is what our weapons are currently gauged against; alien armor tech could easily make use of stronger synthetic fibers (carbon nanotubes, like their light armor), high-density metals, layers of breakable (force dispersing) plates, other reactive methods. This whole atomic bond thing is getting a bit off topic, and giving our own armor technology way too much credit for the crap it is.
-
TrashMan:
A-men, brother! I whole-heartedly agree.