new weapons and amphibious propulsion

[Corporal Punishment]

I'll just leave this here

I wasn't thinking of adding a sniper rifle, but you're giving me second thoughts.

Hmm, range 12, damage 600, ROF 2? Prereq: Heavy Machinegun + Tungsten-Tipped?

As an AP weapon, it probably wouldn't be very useful against anything worth sniping. So maybe not.

If not making a sniper rifle, why not get rid of the scope, scale it up and replace the current howitzers with it? Looks more like an artillery piece to me anyways.

[Avestron]

I would suggest that sniper rifles be an early T2 weapon.

T1 would see the general purpose rifle - predecessor to both the machine gun and the light cannon. The rifle would have less power than a cannon, slightly more ROF and increased range.

T3 would be the lasers.

MG and Rifle weapons share ammunition.

[Olrox]

If not making a sniper rifle, why not get rid of the scope, scale it up and replace the current howitzers with it? Looks more like an artillery piece to me anyways.

Because me and MaNGusT are going to remake original howitzers anyway in Art Revolution, and I like to make models specially for their purpose.

The howitzers will have a wider barrel, because they have a larger caliber. they would need a barrel pitching mechanism also, and this model's barrel is somewhat fixed horizontally.

Hmm, range 12, damage 600, ROF 2? Prereq: Heavy Machinegun + Tungsten-Tipped?

As an AP weapon, it probably wouldn't be very useful against anything worth sniping. So maybe not.

I think 3 ROF is an acceptable fixed value. Range could be almost four times of a heavy cannon's, and damage could be initially... don't really know 500?
Body points could be similar to artillery, and production points could be... ahm between medium cannon & heavy cannon? Don't remember exactly how much they cost :rolleyes:

The main purpose would be to take out light vehicles and cyborgs as a direct-fire artillery of sorts. A blend of cannon and machinegun in role, slower and weaker than a cannon, stronger and more long ragne than a cannon as well. Can't shoot VTOLs, no way. Very weak against structures. Didn't want to bother you Zarel, but you're a balancing expert!

T1 would see the general purpose rifle - predecessor to both the machine gun and the light cannon. The rifle would have less power than a cannon, slightly more ROF and increased range.
T3 would be the lasers.
MG and Rifle weapons share ammunition.

General purpose rifle would turn out to be a "very light cannon", I think Don't think it would have any practical use this way, with regular range.

MG and Rifle wouldn't share ammunition, also. Rifles use cartridges with more propellant usually, due to their role of damaging targets at long range. Due to that role, they have targetting aid systems to allow precision, otherwise it wouldn't be worth shooting at long range, it wouldn't hit a thing.

Rifles capable of piercing heavy armor - anti-materiel rifles -, such as Barret M82 are usually .50 caliber or higher. Machineguns usually have half of the caliber, and the cartridge has less propellant as the weapon is intended for medium-range combat.

This one I've designed is supposed to be 35mm, which is a bit larger than most modern anti-tank auto-cannons.

[Zarel]

I think 3 ROF is an acceptable fixed value. Range could be almost four times of a heavy cannon's, and damage could be initially... don't really know 500?
Body points could be similar to artillery, and production points could be... ahm between medium cannon & heavy cannon? Don't remember exactly how much they cost :rolleyes:

The main purpose would be to take out light vehicles and cyborgs as a direct-fire artillery of sorts. A blend of cannon and machinegun in role, slower and weaker than a cannon, stronger and more long ragne than a cannon as well. Can't shoot VTOLs, no way. Very weak against structures. Didn't want to bother you Zarel, but you're a balancing expert!

"Taking out light vehicles and cyborgs" is a horrible role for a weapon with 3 ROF. High ROF weapons are horrible against heavy targets, low ROF weapons are horrible against light targets.

You're proposing 32 range. The problem is, tank weapon range is capped at 15 tiles. Well, actually, I don't think it is anymore, so your idea could work. But we might need to use a cannon round (i.e. all-rounder instead of anti-personnel), which would do high damage to heavy tanks and hard structures. Sniping a wall seems like a weird thing to do, though, so I'm not sure if "sniper rifle" would be the right name for such a weapon...

[Olrox]

Isn't it horrible against light targets at regular range? I mean, just like a sniper rifle at close quarters, the weapon is too flimsy to target & aim at different directions quickly, and there's recoil issues anyway. But the weapon is that way because it specializes at shooting at extreme ranges with high precision.

Hmm, if it won't work as anti-personnel, I'd rather go all the way around and make that T3 Bunker buster (which I was thinking of calling "Base Buster" :rolleyes: ), for which that scope might be very nice anyway. Then we're got a direct-fire, anti-structure, long-range weapon, with low ROF and high damage, which might be similar to this sniper gun but with opposite role.

[TVR]

Here are some inherent issues with a long range, low ROF, direct fire weapon:

->All of its niches are full:

• -Anti-tank rocket for hard targets at long range
  -Pepperpot for light vehicle clusters at long range
  -Artillery for structures at any range
  -Heavy cannons for hard targets at close-medium range
  -Assault cannon for softer targets at close-medium range

->Basic concept is ridiculous:

• -35 mm round already has less range than 120 mm shell
  -Flat trajectory reduces range further
  -35 mm does almost no damage to tanks in comparison to 120 mm

... Barret M82 are usually .50 caliber ... Machineguns usually have half of the caliber ...

.50 BMG AKA .50 Browning Machine Gun.

[Zarel]

Isn't it horrible against light targets at regular range? I mean, just like a sniper rifle at close quarters, the weapon is too flimsy to target & aim at different directions quickly, and there's recoil issues anyway. But the weapon is that way because it specializes at shooting at extreme ranges with high precision.

Hmm, if it won't work as anti-personnel, I'd rather go all the way around and make that T3 Bunker buster (which I was thinking of calling "Base Buster" :rolleyes: ), for which that scope might be very nice anyway. Then we're got a direct-fire, anti-structure, long-range weapon, with low ROF and high damage, which might be similar to this sniper gun but with opposite role.

Well, we'd have to change it up a bit to make it look like a missile launcher instead.

Currently, it looks like it could be an upgraded HPV cannon? In general, cannons need more variation in their line. HPV in general takes care of most of cannons' weaknesses, and is basically a direct-fire version of an artillery weapon, except with more damage against tanks. We could move HPV to earlier game, and let this thing be the upgraded version? HPV could be concurrent to Medium Cannon, and would have slightly lower damage and HP, while being lighter and having longer range.

Alternatively, we could rework it and make a T3 bunker buster. Seraph was supposed to fill that role, but it's a bit lacking in that department.

[Olrox]

Or we could make this as an upgraded HPV cannon AND make a T3 bunker buster?
I'll make a Base Buster model tonight, when I've got time. The propposed changes to the HPV cannon look interesting to me! I always liked HPVs between tank killers and heavy cannons

[NaxShaleChan]

Hmm, it seems to me that the light cannon is lacking. I analogize the light cannon to the 25 mm Bushmaster that a M2 Bradley mounts, but the ROF and damage is way too low. Then I analogize the heavy cannon to the 120 mm smoothbore that a M1A2 mounts. But the ROF and damage are still low compared to real life. Plus, modern APCs and MBTs all mount additional MGs. The Bradley has a pintle mounted 7.62 mm MG, the Abrams has a co-axial 7.62 mm MG, a .50 cal M2, and a pintle mounted 7.62 mm MG. Russian T-90s mount a 125mm smoothbore cannon, plus a 7.62 mm MG and a 12.7 mm AA gun (.50 cal equivalent).

But none of the WZ tanks mount a cannon with similar ROF (a loader moves the shells into the breech in one hell of a hurry when they're trying to kill another tank, and a Bradley has a freaking CHAINGUN as it's cannon) or secondary armament. Why? Everything seems a bit underpowered... Thus ends my rant.

On another note, if you are going to have a sniper-type weapon, it should be a high-caliber AP focus, like anti-cyborg. Plus, it should BE a cyborg. Not much point in mounting a simple sniper rifle on a tank, especially if it doesn't have a secondary weapon.

[Olrox]

I've only seen that right now:

Here are some inherent issues with a long range, low ROF, direct fire weapon:

->All of its niches are full:

• -Anti-tank rocket for hard targets at long range
  -Pepperpot for light vehicle clusters at long range
  -Artillery for structures at any range
  -Heavy cannons for hard targets at close-medium range
  -Assault cannon for softer targets at close-medium range

->Basic concept is ridiculous:

• -35 mm round already has less range than 120 mm shell
  -Flat trajectory reduces range further
  -35 mm does almost no damage to tanks in comparison to 120 mm

... Barret M82 are usually .50 caliber ... Machineguns usually have half of the caliber ...

.50 BMG AKA .50 Browning Machine Gun.

Dictating a cartridge's effective range despite the barrel, cartridge's design and ammount and type of propellant is very risky, and the shape of the projectile also comes into account. .50 BMG is the caliber used by the highest-caliber machinegun in Warzone, the first one is 7.62mm... also, only heavy machineguns, usually mounted on vehicles or on tripods, you got .50 caliber rounds. I wasn't clear enough about that, but after comparing Barrett m82 to a "machinegun" I was referring to infantry "light machineguns", such as the m60 or PK.

35 mm does almost no damage to tanks... have you ever seen the hole a barret m82a1 makes into a 5cm thick steel plate, even with non-AP .50 BMG ball ammunition? We are not even talking about common 35mm rounds anyway.

You can say that the basic concept is ridiculous, but I say that your statements really are. I wonder if you really think that one dimension can really determine wether a round is effective agaisnt this or that, or if you came here today only to mock someone's productive ideas. I really, really won't pay attention to you any further if you are not willing to be a bit more humble and coherent on your arguments. :-S

On another note, if you are going to have a sniper-type weapon, it should be a high-caliber AP focus, like anti-cyborg. Plus, it should BE a cyborg. Not much point in mounting a simple sniper rifle on a tank, especially if it doesn't have a secondary weapon.

It's not a simple sniper rifle, it's an high precision, hyper velocity auto-cannon of sorts. The cyborg version should be proportionally balanced as the actual HPV cannon is.

[TVR]

... Dictating a cartridge's effective range despite the barrel, cartridge's design and ammount and type of propellant ...

The relationship of two engineering concepts, inertia & aerodynamic drag, determine the effective range of any given round.

The lower mass of the 35 mm rifle bullet will cause it to be more susceptible to windage, and due to rifling, it will also be affected by the Magnus effect.

... shape of the projectile also comes into account ...

The 120 mm KE-penetrator is discarding-sabot & fin-stabilized, which decreases drag & eliminates the Magnus effect, unlike the 35 mm rifle.

... the hole a barret m82a1 makes into a 5cm thick steel plate ...

Unfortunately, a M1A2 Abrams provides 96 cm of RHA equivalent protection.

[Olrox]

... Dictating a cartridge's effective range despite the barrel, cartridge's design and ammount and type of propellant ...

The relationship of two engineering concepts, inertia & aerodynamic drag, determine the effective range of any given round.

The lower mass of the 35 mm rifle bullet will cause it to be more susceptible to windage, and due to rifling, it will also be affected by the Magnus effect.

... shape of the projectile also comes into account ...

The 120 mm KE-penetrator is discarding-sabot & fin-stabilized, which decreases drag & eliminates the Magnus effect, unlike the 35 mm rifle.

... the hole a barret m82a1 makes into a 5cm thick steel plate ...

Unfortunately, a M1A2 Abrams provides 96 cm of RHA equivalent protection.

Ok, give me the thickness of the armour of the bodies, propulsions, as well as the type of material and necessary kinectic energy to piece the armour. Also do that for the cyborgs, weapon turrets and structures. Also ensure me that the 120mm rounds referred to in warzone are the same as you mentioned before, and ensure me that the round I am thinking about isn't stabilized by sabots and that the propellant doesn't make it achieve high enough velocity, and that in comparison to the 120mm rounds from the cannon, it is not designed to produce less aerodynamical drag. Tell me that the material used in the 120mm is the same as the 35mm round I've got in mind. Tell me that, because it's the same material, the weigth of the 35mm round is smaller than the one of the 120mm one.

Or simply stop acting like everyone is talking about regular, modern materials, cartridge designs and technologies, because this isn't the case. It's like saying that gauss cannons are stupid and would never be better than normal cannons just because the nowadays technology doesn't allow it to be better, ignoring the fact that the game's late weapons use technology from ninety years later than what we got today.

I like to imagine the technical aspects behind my models pretty much, sure, but the kind of talk you got is boring and full of empty explanations, empty because you suppose just a lot of things (actually it's mostly everything) on other people ideas.

If you think you are quite the genius, stop playing warzone and go work on NASA or something, but don't bother me with this kind of unproductive talk where you keep supposing before asking and don't propose any consistent solution. This is one of the few things that can get me really mad, and you don't seem to care about this...

I mean... you won't keep me from making those models, and if you aren't willing to propose a different solution, I think you aren't really welcome :-S
If you've got a different solution, post it and see if people agree with you. But attacking other people's propositions like that won't get anything done.

[themousemaster]

"Taking out light vehicles and cyborgs" is a horrible role for a weapon with 3 ROF. High ROF weapons are horrible against heavy targets, low ROF weapons are horrible against light targets.

Not too jump into this thread TOO late, but...

This isn't necessarily true. I can imagine such a sniper weapon being useful against quickstrike teams; light-bodied Hover units, mounted with either Rockets or Artillery. If anything, such a sniper rifle would make the "micromanaging" of fast units to avoid incoming return fire less a problem for the defenders, giving an option to people who aren't trying to maximize their clicks-per-minute a counter to these pepole...

Hover howitzers giving you problems? Snipe em! Or, at the very least, snipe their Sensor Tank that's riding with them.

[Olrox]

Yeah, that was I thought of at the first moments. Then, for close range light unit fighting, the machinegun's role doesn't need to be replaced.

[TVR]

... necessary kinectic energy to piece the armour ...

16 megajoules, minimum.

... ensure me that the 120mm rounds referred to in warzone are the same as you mentioned ...

http://guide.wz2100.net/r/apfsdscannonrounds

... Tell me that the propellant doesn't make it achieve high enough velocity ... Tell me that the material used in the 120mm is the same as the 35mm round I've got in mind ...

Tell me why the technology of this 35 mm round couldn't be applied to a 120 mm cannon, considering they are the same in-game tier.

... If you've got a different solution ...

Artillery satisfies the function of ranged bombardment, carpet or precision.

It is also balanced, as one of the most important aspects of Warzone 2100 is counter-battery RADAR.

... a T3 bunker buster. Seraph was supposed to fill that role, but it's a bit lacking in that department ...

So the SRMA as close-range anti-defence artillery didn't work out, does that entail a revert to the Angel missile artillery?