Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback



Message

MatthewVilter -> Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/21/2020 7:56:31 PM)

It seems to me that right now there's a bit of a gap in the mid-range of weapon systems you might expect to find on battlefields like the ones in this game. In particular anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and autocannons. The game does have RPGs but irl those are a much shorter range more widely issued weapon than ATGMs — standard equipment for modern infantry fireteams. ATGMs are a more specialty weapon that makes more sense than RPGs to me to represent as a separate subunit type.

I'm not entirely sure what RPGs and the low end of the howitzer range are supposed to represent so the suggestion of added weapon types might be redundant (or better represented as a simple name change) if the added complexity of differentiating howitzers from autocannons and RPGs from ATGMs is unwanted.

However in any case I think it would interesting to have the option to mount light autocannons and/or ATGMs on APCs (basically making them into IFVs*) and buggies (for a heavier kind of recon or light tank-hunting unit**).


* I've got another post describing IFVs under the topic "Add infantry fighting vehicle model"
** image search TOW_fired_from_Jeep.jpg
(I can't post links yet)



Malevolence -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/21/2020 8:37:20 PM)

Indeed. Keep in mind that Shadow Empire is based on a WW2 eastern front game. Did you notice Bazooka?

There is a lot of focus on ammunition's caliber and no measurable consideration of propellant and case length.

Everything from 12.7mm to 30mm is handled much like a typical MG.

Some crossover fans refer to infantry as grenadiers. [:D]

In another thread--

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

My input comes with the caveat that it's difficult to remember the setting of this game sometimes.

I tend to think of this as an alternate-history ww2 game set on some world Captain Kirk would find during a five-year mission.

...

[image]local://upfiles/34589/48F81D807C514E5F964651B4B491E91C.jpg[/image]



MatthewVilter -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/21/2020 11:10:38 PM)

Yeah hahaha!

I think getting some more modern weapons in play might help with that.

The map scale makes it a little bit awkward but getting some transport helicopters or tilt rotors might give the conflict with freefolk and minors more of a Vietnam '65 feel which I would love.



Hazard151 -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 12:14:15 AM)

ATGMS already exist as an upgrade for RPGs. I can understand why there's no change in unit type because frankly there's not much difference in role. The difference is in the range you can expect to score a damaging hit.

Small caliber howitzers should represent small caliber cannon or mortars.


One issue with aircraft in the game is that there's such a wide possible scale of atmospheres, all of which would offer their own restrictions on effective air travel. As does a complete lack of atmosphere.



Malevolence -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 12:17:59 AM)

The same could be said for ppl breathing and buildings.

Why don't engines have to be more powerful on high-g worlds?

It's all handwavium.



MatthewVilter -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 4:57:10 AM)

Oh idk I would be pretty upset if I saw helicopters flying around in a vacuum. :P

Actually I think aircraft performance would be a really cool way of further emphasizing the difference between planets. Let's see...I think the three big factors would be gravity, atmospheric density, and the availability of oxygen.

Nuclear thermal ramjets could have very long-range indeed on any planet with a decent atmosphere.
Even on an airless world you could probably provide pretty decent (air) void support with rocket powered ballistic/vtol craft as long as the gravity is low enough (which seems likely if there's not much atmosphere).
I'm not sure if electrothermal ramjets could compete with oxidized fuel on planets with dense but oxygen-poor atmospheres.
And of course if you've got a decent oxygen rich atmosphere conventional aircraft are viable.

EDIT: typo



Malevolence -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 5:12:08 AM)

I doubt we will see any aircraft with blades.

Imagine surface vessels on an ocean of carborane acid or lava. [8D]

I'm down for it all.



MatthewVilter -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 5:35:18 AM)

[8D]

Ah yeah!

I do really hope that, in the fullness of time, we get to play around with all of the above.



zgrssd -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 7:46:01 AM)

What would be the gameplay difference between a 20mm Tank Howitzer and a 20mm Autocannon?
More focus on defense then offense?
More vulnerable to entrenchment?

The only definition I could find was basically "every full auto weapon that shoots exploding ammo". So putting Exploding ammo into a MG, already makes it a "Autocannon". But some definitions even include every Gatling, so not limited to exploding ammo. I guess "every full auto wepaon that fires what we call a shell"? But then, what the f*** is the diffference between a shell and all those others words?


As for Aircraft:
I get a feeling we will be getting Naval first. It seems a whole lot easier to work in and it did receive more votes in the polls, while also allowing a wide range of planet types.



Hazard151 -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 10:46:26 AM)

The definition I generally use for 'autocannon' is 'any automatic weapon of 20mm caliber or larger'.

The difference between an autocannon and a howitzer of the same caliber is similar to the difference between a lever action gun and an assault rifle of the same caliber. The autocannon can fire a lot more munitions in a lot smaller span of time at the same target. It would be more demanding of munition but offer more attacks. Damage would probably remain the same.



MatthewVilter -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 10:59:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

What would be the gameplay difference between a 20mm Tank Howitzer and a 20mm Autocannon?


I don't have a lot of experience with this specific kind of war game combat simulation so I'm not sure. I imagine that if you're comparing autocannons and (non-auto) cannons of a particular caliber the autocannon would be a lot more expensive, heavier, and more powerful but not as effective against armor as a different (higher caliber) cannon of equivalent cost or mass.



zgrssd -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 2:02:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hazard151

The definition I generally use for 'autocannon' is 'any automatic weapon of 20mm caliber or larger'.

The difference between an autocannon and a howitzer of the same caliber is similar to the difference between a lever action gun and an assault rifle of the same caliber. The autocannon can fire a lot more munitions in a lot smaller span of time at the same target. It would be more demanding of munition but offer more attacks. Damage would probably remain the same.

Let's see:
Soliders with automatic rifle:
50/100 Soft
25/50 Hard

MG:
50/200 Soft
20/40 Hard

Same ammount of attack (1). About 3 times the ammo consumption over AR (4-10 of single shoot weapon; measurement is difficulty with such small values).



MatthewVilter -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (6/22/2020 8:56:26 PM)

Okay I'm reading the manual...


5.12.3.4. Calibre Modifier

"...
The calculation made is Weapon mm / Armor mm. So for example a 50mm gun used on 200mm armor will suffer a -75% penalty.
Small Arms / Quad / MGs counts as 20mm
...
Hollow Count as 100mm [I'm guessing that's RPGs]
...
Envirosuit counts as 0mm
Padded Armor counts as 20mm
Combat Armor counts as 40mm
..."

[I'm just guessing that if Weapon mm >= Armor mm there is no modifier.]


5.12.3.7. Operational Stats -> Attack Scores

...
Conventional Small Arms get -50% vs HARD
Howitzer Gun get -50% HARD
...
Hollow Charge get -66% vs SOFT
High Velocity Gun get -75% vs SOFT
...
Soldiers on foot without ranged attack get 1/2 on all Attack values
MGs also get 1/2 on all Attack values and 1/2 on HARD Defence
vehicles with Guns get 2/3 HARD Defence
Tanks without Turrets get 1/2 HARD Attack
...

[Note that I'm just looking at conventional forces at this point and stopping at Combat Armor for infantry.]


This looks like it calls for a spreadsheet...

*cross referencing and typing ensues*

...but...without firepower and weight values and so on this is not that useful...

I guess I’ll have to start taking notes in game on these numbers.


Okay so bottom line I think autocannons would have the “Weapon mm” stat of their actual caliber but higher attack/defence values across the board and be the size/cost of a significantly larger HV/howitzer gun. That should make them very effective against infantry and (very) light vehicles but a poor choice against anything with heavy armor. That seems to correspond well with real-world doctrine that often pairs autocannons with anti-tank missiles.

Of course by the time you are talking about mounting a weapon that is “significantly larger” than a 25-35 mm HV/howitzer gun you are pretty well into the light or maybe even medium tank range as far as overall vehicle size is concerned even before accounting for passengers.

It may be that, at the end of the day, with the way stats work and at scale of this game autocannons are best considered to be included in the machine gun category and likewise with ATGMs and RPGs.


That still leaves me wishing for the ability to mount RPGs on buggies and APCs. And for the ability to combine an MG and RPGs on one vehicle.



Eretzu -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (4/28/2021 11:50:11 AM)

Bump, was gonna create a new thread, good that I did a search.

Second this! My main gripe is that currently there is no offensive option for buggy (and apc). This means that having a buggy as a lonely border guard hunting stragglers in suboptimal as MG has a penalty to soft attack and especially bad against hard targets (some nasty fauna).

I would imagine autocannons to be the ultimate general weapon in the sense that their attack values would not be modified at all (soft/hard attack/defence would all be equal). Their caliber would be low (bad against heavy armor) and they would have high ammo consumption.

Alternatively it would be nice to be able to put some low calibre howitzers to buggies to that they would work as attackers or remove the soft attack penalty from MGs when mounted on vehicles.



zgrssd -> RE: Autocannons (or 20-40 mm "howitzers") and ATGMs (or RPGs) on Buggies and APCs/IFVs (4/28/2021 1:08:51 PM)

quote:

Second this! My main gripe is that currently there is no offensive option for buggy (and apc). This means that having a buggy as a lonely border guard hunting stragglers in suboptimal as MG has a penalty to soft attack and especially bad against hard targets (some nasty fauna).

Buggies do not have a penalty here.

MG have 2 or more times the Firepower. However, anything but soft defense has a addition /2 divisor - so this Firepower bonus is mostly limited to soft defense.

Note that buggies do not suffer the "all attack values /2" that foot infantry without artillery range does. So Buggies already start with better attack values. They also have more HP, better speed and a pretty good manpower efficiency.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.34375