Mobile Gun emplacement and new mission goal

[Prinegon]

Hi,

there is something in my mind i would love to see integrated into games: Mobile gun emplacements. The description how i think this could work are done for bulltet guns and should be adaptable for laser, plasma and particle without problems. The mobile gun emplacement is to be the biggest possible heavy gun but the vehicle guns.

This is, how this should work:

installation
The gun has to be transported by two men. Whoever transports the gun itself needs to use up his whole backpack. He will need to have tools in his hands in order to be able to assemble the gun, too (like a stunrod, tools disable both hands but only take 6 spaces in the backpack, once unequiped. The second man transports the guns ammunition using up 4 squares of his backpack. To make the gun operable you have to construct it first unsing the tools.
If there is space in front of the soilder's facing direction, he is able to spent 30 points of movement (the same way how a weapon would be shot or a medikit would be used) and has the mobile gun emplacement in his backpack, he will be able to install the emplacement in the first square in the soildiers facing direction. The gun emplacement will face in the same direction. The sprite of a gun on a tripod will be visible on the map.

To load the gun emplacement and make it operational a soldier has to take the guns ammunition into his hands and to stand next to the gun (any square but the square in front of the gun will do). The Ammunition will be usable and load the gun for 400 shells, if used.

Any soldier behind a gun with both of his hands unequipped will be able to use the gun (instead of only kick or punch, he will have the operate gun options).

Fire modes
The gun has up to 3 fire modes: Burst, full burst and coverfire. The burst-mode works just like a normal autogun burst, shooting 3 times using up 9 shells. The full burst will use up 15 shells and works like the normal autogun full burst, firing one time and spreading a little bit.

The cover fire works a little different. A soldier can't be moved after starting cover fire. The soldier will aim on one square. Every adjectent aimable square will be in the zone of cover fire, too. (so squares below the ground will not be aimed).
The soldier will fire up two shots immediately after starting cover fire. The rest of his shots will be fired as reaction fire. If there is any movement in the zone of cover the reaction fire will be triggered with a high reaction bonus. The soldier will always shoot twice at once. Cover fire can be triggered three times in the enemy phase. Every untriggered reaction fire shot will be done at the end of the enemy movement. However the cover fire is very inaccurate. It will use up 40 shells.

mission goal
The gun emplacement can help to save civilians, because it will be a save point for them. This is, how it works: As long as there is a operational and loaded gun emplacement near the edge of the battlescape and a soldier is standing next to it, every edge square in a 3 square radius to the gun emplacement will turn into a civilian exit point. Civilians will try to reach exit points, if they see them and will disappear from battlescape, once reached the exits. Those civilians will count as saved (perhaps civilians saved this way will even give a bonus).

[Destructavator]

This is indeed creative, but I'm afraid that this idea as it is doesn't have a high chance of making it into the game.

We already have plans for UGVs which will possibly do some of these things, although what stands out to me as a problem is:

1 - The idea of complicating the game with new mission types just for a specific new weapon/tool,

and,

2 - The idea of lots of blasting of inaccurate "cover fire."  It has the same issues as air strikes and bombs.  Phalanx is supposed to be a secret, discrete organization, low-profile.  The player's units are more supposed to go in and cleanly pick and choose targets while saving civilians, not just blow everything up in a barrage of massive cannon fire.

Edit:  I also had a grandfather who fought in two world wars - He once told me that many people favored the idea of tons of blasting everything in an area to total destruction - a popular concept, but even in conventional warfare such a thing has been proven to generally be inefficient in defeating an enemy, and it isn't the best option for fighting.
 

[Legendman3]

How about in some maps there is maybe a mounted machine gun left by the military, terrorists, gun freaks, etc. that can be used? I think it would be hard to code though.

[Prinegon]

This is indeed creative, but I'm afraid that this idea as it is doesn't have a high chance of making it into the game.

We already have plans for UGVs which will possibly do some of these things, although what stands out to me as a problem is:

1 - The idea of complicating the game with new mission types just for a specific new weapon/tool,

I don't think adding more options is complicating the game. One could still do missions without using gun emplacements at all. I often see the tendency do simplify some good game principals. That is the main reason why some of the old stuff is still prefered above the graphical superior new stuff. Look at the discussion started as civilization 3 was released, how mad people got, because many of the possibilities civilization 2 had have been taken out to simplify stuff.

I don't say games should get too complicated, that succeeding in a game needs to study hard in game mechanics. But I don't think, one should fear too much in a game getting too complex, as long as the game mechanics still feel natural.

The idea a gun emplacement may add a civilian exit point is a bonus for this idea. I still would love to see a gun emplacement in this game without these exit points. I just thought, if a player takes time to do some fortification, he might as well be rewarded for that.

and,

2 - The idea of lots of blasting of inaccurate "cover fire."  It has the same issues as air strikes and bombs.  Phalanx is supposed to be a secret, discrete organization, low-profile.  The player's units are more supposed to go in and cleanly pick and choose targets while saving civilians, not just blow everything up in a barrage of massive cannon fire.

Edit:  I also had a grandfather who fought in two world wars - He once told me that many people favored the idea of tons of blasting everything in an area to total destruction - a popular concept, but even in conventional warfare such a thing has been proven to generally be inefficient in defeating an enemy, and it isn't the best option for fighting.

I thought to have read a discussion about phalanx be not a secret operation, but a operation with full nato support. There was a discussion about, if phalanx should be a secret department, like xcom was, and I think it was eigher you, or mattyn, who said, it is not on purpose.
However, i understand phalanx has no desire to blow up areas big, because this could cause bad news. Phalanx is, however, a new facility, that could also be dismantled due to too much collatteral damage. But looking at the original xcom series that organisation didn t mind to use explosives, explosive ammunition and such at all. Ever played xcom apocalypse with autocannon explosive shells on autofire? :-P

The idea of cover fire is not to actualy hit anything but more in lowering the enemy morale. One in the area of cover fire might not be willing to raise his head to watch, if someone is approaching. I already wrote i intend the cover fire to be at very low accurancy. So one using it a lot will see, he is vasting much of ammunition without doing much damage.

However, if there is ever a feature added, that someone will have lower accurancy, if it was shot on him (even without being hit), coverfire may get useful, even without hitting anything. The lower accurancy would be justified, imho, because one has to fight his instinct to take cover, to be able to shoot.