X-Mod thread

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Yes, I agree with Jeff that the "status" of weapons is not just "wear and tear" like many think it is (although it does often represent that with the poorest quality weapons -- like Chauchat), it is mainly modeling ammunition consumption. In SB:FWW field guns have X reliability, simply because it is assumed they have plenty enough ammo to last through one relatively short SB scenario. Other than that, continuous fire of small arms would deplete ammunition to the point that fire will lessen, suppressing fire will slack off to a minimum, and that is where your status comes in.

Since lethality values came up in the conversation -- in regards to modern titles, my issue is when the titles move into the present and the M-16 stays the same lethality as it does in Vietnam. I can see that on the surface of it it might seem like it makes sense that it would, being the same rifle after all, but the problem with that is that these weapons now have various attachments like AN-PEQ lasers, M68 red dot or ACOG sights, floating barrel, hand grips for better stability, etc (I have used all of these things as an MOS 11B). These things have combined to create significant combat multipliers to the aged M4/M16 to the degree that lethality can/should be double or more the lethality that it was in the 1960s, because of greatly increased accuracy, because you are more lethal than using the decked out M4 than using the old "M16 musket" with iron sites. This is where consistency becomes a bad thing. I am a slave to uniformity myself (thanks to the military), so I am often guilty of not deviating from the path.

Anyway, just saying, something to keep in mind in the present day titles going forward. Assuming that Modern War was balanced off the standard M16 lethality values then the effect should be minimal in that title -- i.e. this is not a complaint about that game! -- but going forward it would be nice to see modern "bling'd out weapons" become more lethal in a 1:1 comparison. :)

Just my two cents...

I'm same as you VM, 10 years Inf and the uniformity thing as one seeks organization and solutions to your problems. I personally think that the way to do things easy is to be organized. But people also need to understand that sometimes the only way to do something or the best way is to do it the hard way.

As for these weapons, I mostly used the M16A1 and A2 the second time I volunteered. The only real difference between those two were the second one had different shaped forward hand grips along the barrel and it was the three round burst vs full auto. I prefer burst over auto. I think it was designed that way to stop people from blowing through all their ammo so fast. One only carries a basic combat load of 180 rounds then unless you were able to acquire extra magazines.

I don't think the lethality should degrade for Panzerfausts, LAWs and other similar one shot weapons. if you have one and others have three, the lethality for one is still the same.

Weapons such as Bazookas, RPGs, Flamethrowers etc should also not degrade in lethality, but should be limited to basic ammo load. Most FTs I have seen usually have 3 shots and they are done, understandable as you only have so much liquid in those tanks. Bazookas, RPG and AT4 type weapons should also be limited in shots to the tune of how many extra rounds were carried by him and his assistant gunner/loader. Lethality of one shot should always be the same unless there is the chance of dud rounds. This would also include so many shots for the Dragons, TOWs and Saggers and whatever else is out there now. If all of that is already done in the games, all I see that is missing are any more titles, some larger scenarios or some sort of campaigns.