is it just me or do some of the turrets in the game need buffing ?
my first candidate for this is the mini rockets because these are pretty much obsolete as soon as you get them because they just don't cause nearly enough damage and when you factor in the fact that machine guns have the same sort of firepower, rate of fire and more body points there is absolutely no reason to use these
my next sugestion would be to make rounds from things like the assault gun hard points etc homing at least against aircraft because while these can shoot at vtols they simply cant hit them much like the AAA emplacements couldn't before there shots where made homing
one further suggestion would be to combine the assault gun and the whirlwind AAA turret and the assault gun turret into one turret because both are basically the same weapon
which brings me to my next point how come the whirlwind AAA cant shoot at ground target it should be able to because its basically just a twin assault gun isn't it ? and i think in the long run that would actually be more effective against late game units then the normal assault gun because its unloading twice the firepower and each shot hurts more because its a bigger and more powerful round it also begs the question why you cant use quad AAA cannons against ground units as well because if warzone was real life you would be able to take for example during the second world war the Germans using there 88 millimeter AAA weapon as a tank killer
Germany's high-altitude needs were originally going to be filled by a 75 mm gun from Krupp, designed in collaboration with their Swedish counterpart Bofors, but the specifications were later amended to require much higher performance. In response Krupp's engineers presented a new 88 mm design, the FlaK 36. The eighty-eight would go on to become one of the most famous artillery pieces in history. First used in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the gun proved to be one of the best anti-aircraft guns in the world, as well as particularly deadly against light and medium tanks.
my first candidate for this is the mini rockets because these are pretty much obsolete as soon as you get them because they just don't cause nearly enough damage and when you factor in the fact that machine guns have the same sort of firepower, rate of fire and more body points there is absolutely no reason to use these
Mini-rockets are an important part of the early-game balance. The main point about them is their good range. If you put them on wheels, they can shoot enemy tanks and towers from a distance without taking any damage at all.
Yeah, exactly. It's usualy not a matter of weapond being useless, but of players using weapons not the way the were meant to be used. Try taking a closer look on all those weapons availible in game, because it looks like You don't really get the game mechanics. Modern games are made simple and better bun is always stronger shot, but here getting higher damage is not always the most usefull part of upgrading.
Minipod is useless against buildings when compared to machinegun. In a tank vs tank battle, however, the minipod wins, and for anti-structure and anti-cyborg you get the MRA.
About AA: game balance requires a certain sacifice of realism, especially since the hurricane turret is homing while the double assault gun is not. (obviously homing bullets don't exist in modern warfare and will propably never take the place of simple metal projectiles, but are required to prevent vtol:s from being too powerful)
^^That is not entirely correct. There is "Copperhead" ammo for artillery that CAN correct it's trajectory in mid-air. Uses a laser designator carried by a spotter, a guidance module and deforming fins. Extrapolating this into the future, homing AA shells seem possible.
And the mini-rockets are a force to be reckoned with indeed.
Qui desiderat pacem bellum praeparat Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De re militari
I must point out though that I was specifically talking about bullets
An artillery shell is essentially a barrel-launched bomb, and making it guided is not very much harder than making an ordinary guided bomb. These things, of course have a pretty good reason to be guided, since they use the one-shot-one-kill strategy.
This means, of course, that guided bullets may be implemented for things like snipers, as long as they are not laser-guided.
For machineguns and autocannons, however, i doubt that guidance will be that viable in real life, especially considering the expense of adding guidance to each individual bullet.
@Rman Virgil unfortunately the title of that article is misleading if not completely wrong. It's just an air-bursting grenade launcher where each grenade contains a timer chip which is set by the laser range finder prior to firing, allowing it to detonate above the target. Still a nice weapon though
Well the US Army, Alliant Techsystems (the merchant developer) & US Patent Office call it a Bullet too - a bullet that has a chip that can be programmed by the soldier in theater based on laser range finder information to detonate at a set distance and elevation.
Is there a semantic missrepresentation at work here by the US Army, Alliant Techsystems, the US Patent Office & all the media coverage as far as defining a "bullet" ? Dunno Jorzi. I honestly haven't thought it over.
Well it's of course a matter of definition. After all, it does look just like a big bullet, but so do most cannon and grenade rounds too.
I'd still consider it a grenade for the following reasons:
In the usa any firearm with a caliber above .50, except for shotguns, is not legally considered a rifle but a destructive device, so at least the xm25 is not a "normal" rifle.
The border between "rifle" and "cannon" is somewhere in the 20mm area. Grenades generally have similar calibers as cannon rounds but a much lower recoil impulse and velocity.
Most bullets deliver a significant amount of kinetic energy on impact. This one isn't even supposed to physically hit its target.
Here's a good article about the weapon: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/usa/xm25-e.html
My Google search yielded 1000s of refrences to the weapon as a rifle and its munition as a smart bullet (including the US Army, etc.).
Reminds me of an old flippant expression:
"Are you gonna believe me or your own lieing eyes." LOL
BTW... my understanding is that there 5 unique types of warheads; Thermobaric, Flechette, Training, High-explosive airbursting, Non-lethal.
- RV
EDIT: Looks like a bullet....
According to the manufacturer the range is 2300 feet and the cost per round $ 15.50 US (compare to using a Javelin missile under the same circumstances at $ 43,000.00 US per...)
Funny how easy you can get a thread off-topic. I have no idea how engineers define this, but we rangers distinguish a bullet from a grenade, ignorant of it's caliber, by whether it has a detonating warhead or not. That is, even a APFSDS round fired from a 120 mm MBT cannon is a bullet to us, since it's merely a tungsten dart. On the other hand, a humble HE shell fired from a 20 mm Rheinmetal machine cannon is a grenade because it detonates on impact. The AP shell fired from the same weapon is not a grenade again... Still both cartridges look like oversize rifle rounds.
So the XM25 round would be a grenade. But that is only the opinion of german troops in the field. If US high command deems it a bullet, so be it.
That whole discussion is off the point. I merely wanted to say it is possible to make self-guided non-propelled projectiles. If we can do if with 155 mm howitzer ammo today, it may be possible with AAA shells in the future. Whether or not those are explosive, what makes no difference in this respect.
Qui desiderat pacem bellum praeparat Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De re militari
Perhaps I was mistaken in reading the subject "turrets need buffing" being expansive enough to qualify as a liquid networking opportunity & thus apt of me to engage in generative adjacent possible thinking for fresh insights and gamer fun of a speculative stripe.
BTW, I have no problem with my posts being deleted if they are judged totally inappropriate or objectionable to the thread author's subject & interest.
Again - the XM25 is able to fire at least 5 unique types of warheads - including armor piercing shells. (I can even imagine a Gunship in an assault posture being vulnerable to a number of those war heads - or Heavy VTOL Bombers in WZ terms. Brings to mind Strata's Tornado Flak Borg.)
I predict that projectiles in the future will be evolving in two different directions:
-High-velocity unguided kinetic energy projectiles, these are so fast that they don't need guidance and will probably take the role of traditional cannons, rifles and machineguns.
- Guided/smart explosive projectiles which can control their own trajectory and/or detonation. These will probably replace most grenades, rockets and artillery shells. These will need to overcome certain problems though: If they are radio-controlled they can e disrupted, if they are heat-seeking they can be distracted or simply change target by mistake and if they are laser-guided the one who does the targeting will be easily detected and dealt with. This will always leave a niche for unguided munitions.
