From UFOpaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Just reading through most of the equipment entries in sequence, I must say we've gathered some very good information over the years. There's always work to be done, of course, but I thought I'd mention some to-do's that just occured to me that need looking into at some time in the near future.

  • Standardisation of the individual weapon subsection layouts - suggestions welcome. It's rather inconsistent at the moment.
  • Improvement of weapon stat display. I was thinking, perhaps a template would be handy in this respect? Perhaps two or three varieties such as for items that don't need the different firing stats. Sort of like what I did for the base display kit template, only less complex.
  • Some descriptions of weapons need work on - although I must admit I quite like the extremely short description for the High Explosive. Short and sweet. It conveys so much!
  • There are some universal notes in the various sections that could use a section on their own. Like the tips for the rocket launcher usage or the notes on the special qualities of the basic pistol and the idiosyncrasy involved in pistol armament in UFO. Lots of little interesting things like this that deserve a place of their own rather than being tucked away in all the pages.


Here's my suggestion for a standardized template, starting from the top of a page.
Auto-generated Table of Contents
General Description
Weapon Statistics
Auto(Auto Accuracy) (If applicable)
Snap(Snap Accuracy)
Aimed(Aimed Accuracy)
Purchase/Manufacturing Cost
Sale Price
Ammo Statistics(If applicable)
Purchase/Manufacture Cost
Sale Price
Continuous Fire Rate
Tips And Tricks
Anything else(Grenade Relay, Pistol distribution notes, Blaster Bomb Safe Practice section, etc.)
Suggestions? Comments? Approvals? Arrow Quivershaft 11:47, 13 September 2007 (PDT)

Quick Overview Table

It's ugly, too ugly for the article IMO. But after all that work I want to put it *somewhere*. So here it is. old table has been cast away --Schnobs 13:50, 25 October 2007 (PDT)

Yeah, sad to say that does look a bit clunky. Perhaps Zombie would be willing to put together an HTML table saying the same thing? I can think of a few other things that should go on that list myself, such as loaded weight and size. Arrow Quivershaft 15:45, 25 October 2007 (PDT)

A quick tweak to the header and you get this:

Weapon Damage Accuracy TUs Rounds
per Clip
Pistol 26 60/-/78 18/-/30 12
Rifle 30 60/35/110 25/35/80 20
Laser Pistol 46 40/28/68 20/25/55
Laser Rifle 60 65/46/100 25/34/50
Heavy Laser 85 50/-/84 33/-/75
Plasma Pistol 52 65/50/85 30/30/60 26
Plasma Rifle 80 86/55/100 30/36/60 28
Heavy Plasma 115 75/50/110 30/35/60 35
Heavy Cannon 56 AP
52 HE
60 In
60/-/90 33/-/80 6
Auto-Cannon 42 AP
48 In
56/32/82 33/40/80 14
Rocket Launcher 75 HE
90 In
55/-/115 45/-/75 1
Small Launcher 90 Stun 65/-/110 40/-/75 1
Blaster Launcher 200 HE -/-/120 -/-/80 1

There's also damage tolerance (endurance?), value, damage types (laser/plasma/AP), the Stun Rod, the double-handed req, and perhaps grenades.

- Bomb Bloke 17:00, 25 October 2007 (PDT)

A major tweak and you get the following:

WeaponDamageShot TypeAcc %TU %
Heavy Cannon56APAutoNANA
Rocket Launcher75HEAutoNANA
Laser Pistol46LasAuto2825
Laser Rifle60LasAuto4634
Heavy Laser85LasAutoNANA
Plasma Pistol52PlaAuto5030
Plasma Rifle80PlaAuto5536
Heavy Plasma115PlaAuto5035
Small Launcher90StuAutoNANA
Blaster Launcher200HEAutoNANA

I just reused a bit of the code I made for the UFO Aftermath weapons at StrategyCore. I suggest we use the same format as that page. (Why reinvent the wheel?) Granted, this table isn't as condensed but it at least it is organized. Also, I didn't add any other stats to it. No time right now, but tomorrow maybe. --Zombie 21:28, 25 October 2007 (PDT)

O! M! G! -- You didn't do this by hand did you? It has indeed become much prettier. However, I don't agree with the way you arranged the auto/snap/aimed stats. Having one line per weapon and all data sorted in columns allows for easier comparison, which was the prime reason why I started a table in the first place. First glance issues are also the reason why I prefer a dash over "NA". Hmm. It just changed the header first, did it, my precious? Let uss ssssee...
Weapon Damage Acc ura cy TUs Rounds
per Clip
Pistol 26 AP 60 -- 78 18 -- 30 12
Rifle 30 AP 60 35 110 25 35 80 20
Laser Pistol 46 Las 40 28 68 20 25 55
Laser Rifle 60 Las 65 46 100 25 34 50
Heavy Laser 85 Las 50 -- 84 33 -- 75
Plasma Pistol 52 Pla 65 50 85 30 30 60 26
Plasma Rifle 80 Pla 86 55 100 30 36 60 28
Heavy Plasma 115 Pla 75 50 110 30 35 60 35
Heavy Cannon 56 AP
52 HE
60 In
60 -- 90 33 -- 80 6
Auto-Cannon 42 AP
48 In
56 32 82 33 40 80 14
Rocket Launcher 75 HE
90 In
55 -- 115 45 -- 75 1
Small Launcher 90 Stun 65 -- 110 40 -- 75 1
Blaster Launcher 200 HE -- -- 120 -- -- 80 1

Not better than before, under "first glance comparison" aspects. Even if I could make rowspan work on headers. --Schnobs

Which weapons are two-handed?

Frankly, I don't know exactly which weapons are two-handed, as related to the accuracy penalty. This information would best go either in each weapon page, or here on a weapon list.

All weapons are two handed, with the exception of the three pistols.
Technically, the stun rod and blaster launcher are also two handed weapons. They are marked as such in the object file. However, the stun rod is hard coded to attack any adjacent enemy unit at 100% accuracy and the blaster launcher has its own special guidance system, so the -20% penalty doesn't apply to them. -NKF 05:14, 23 October 2008 (CDT)
How about for TFTD? Spike 08:10, 23 October 2008 (CDT)
Same for TFTD. All weapons are two-handed excepting the pistols. Thermal Tazer still has 100% accuracy, the PWT has guidance. The drills are two handed, though as melee weapons, they benefit from the 100% accuracy of the Thermal Tazer. Arrow Quivershaft 08:36, 23 October 2008 (CDT)

Chryssalids Technically Do Not Use Melee

I intentionally left the Chryssalid off the alien list which use melee. True, they attack with their claws which can be defined as HTH. However, the litmus test of being a damage type is the ability to do damage to health. Unlike those other creatures, the Chryssalid's attack has only 2 possible outcomes:

  1. Attack is successful in which case the unit immediately turns into a Zombie. -or-
  2. The attack fails and the unit survives.

In both cases, no damage is ever done to the resulting unit. Suppose we could call the Impregnation attack a ninth damage type, but the game files only have (and allow) 8. So that's my case. --Zombie 09:17, 18 December 2008 (CST)

Then again, I just remembered that the Chryssalid can kill Tanks. However, I never really intensively tested whether the Tank ever saw a drop in health. It may have. --Zombie 10:18, 18 December 2008 (CST)

Just made a test run and saw 2 laser tanks being killed by Chryssalids. Hobbes 12:00, 18 December 2008 (CST)
Ok. I have hardly ever fought Chryssalids and not under controlled conditions so I was going by the discussion in Chryssalid#Zombification which pretty much states that damage occurs from the Chryssalid HTH attack at the same time as impregnation. Maybe it needs correcting? On the other hand, what damage type modifier do Chryssalids use then, if it's not "melee"? Spike 12:27, 18 December 2008 (CST)

It's unknown whether the Chryssalid's attack even has a damage modifier type. For all we know at this point, it's attack is a special type that's hard-coded without an associated damage modifier.

On another note, I pitted a Chryssalid against a Rocket Tank in the desert today. Right now I'm only focusing on damage. I edited the tank to have 250 health and no armor and then ran about 100 trials. In each test, the Chryssalid only needed one attack to kill the tank. I checked the tank's stats in unitref and it was 0. This leads me to believe one of two things are happening:

  1. The Chryssalid's attack produces damage which is always greater than 250. (Unlikely) -or-
  2. The Chryssalid's attack is hard-coded to zero out health of tanks.

I'll need to run some more tests without armor to see if that has an effect. Failing this, I'll need to go into the executable and edit the tanks damage modifier against melee from 90% to something like 1%. That should lower damage down. If that still doesn't help and the tank continues to get killed, it should be safe to say that the hard-coding idea is sound. --Zombie 17:30, 18 December 2008 (CST)

More results: cranked the armor of the tank up to 100. Ran a few trials and checked on the tank after I heard a Chryssalid attack but no tank destruction sound. Health was sitting at 185 (which means that attack dished out 265 pts). So I guess the attack does indeed do damage. I'll be running more tests in a short while. --Zombie

Ok, I edited the tank so that it had 1 health unit and no armor, then ventured into the executable and edited the tank's damage modifier to melee damage from 90% to 0%. Then I went back into the mission and let the Chryssalid loose. It proceeded to try to kill the tank, but nothing happened. So it should be safe to say the Chryssalid's attack is melee-based. Perhaps what is happening is that a unit doesn't get turned into a Zombie unless health reaches 0 with melee attack from the Chryssalid. So I'll take back my objection. I don't have much time right now, but when I do, I'll set up an automated testing scenario with Bomb Bloke's logger and AutoHotKey to check out how much damage the Chryssalid (as well as the other melee-based terrorists) really can cause. --Zombie 23:03, 18 December 2008 (CST)

I think that "Zombification on 0HP" theory works. It might be a slight bit easier to code than a rule exception, and if the Chryssalid can throw damage out in excess of 250 points an attack, then the exception really isn't needed, anyways. Arrow Quivershaft 09:07, 19 December 2008 (CST)

Maybe it's "Zombification on any non-zero damage". That's what the Chryssalid#Zombification article seems to suggest. Given the high levels of HTH damage it would be hard to tell the difference in most cases. But Zombie's tests will soon reveal all! Spike 10:02, 19 December 2008 (CST)

Just remember that this theory is only for tanks and hence, no zombification (I always love using this word), just death. Humans on the other hand, are different. I think I can set up a testing scenario much like the tank to see if soldiers actually take damage before getting zombified (another word I like too). At least for the tanks, armor is the most important attribute to keep Chryssalids at bay. The crap armor of the land-based tanks really don't offer much protection though. One or two pokes and that's it. --Zombie 11:04, 19 December 2008 (CST)

Even with Health and Armour patched very high, the Zombification Experiment against humans will be harder to interpret due to the high attack rate of the Chryssalid, unless there is a way to patch the TU% of its built-in attack to 55%. Good luck Zombie!Spike 12:30, 19 December 2008 (CST)

In case it case help, I think you can disable zombification by patching:
.text:004065BF 66 C7 05 CE 7B 47 00 01 00    mov     word_477BCE, 1
.text:004065BF 66 C7 05 CE 7B 47 00 00 00    mov     word_477BCE, 0
If the chryssi can kill your guys, then we'll know that it can do melee damage... HTH Seb76 14:56, 19 December 2008 (CST)

I'll give it a shot. Do you happen to know where the integrated weapon stats for the aliens are located (like %usage, damage, ammo for the turret etc)? That would save me a whole bunch of time. --Zombie 15:10, 19 December 2008 (CST)

Not related to melee but I have this table for "builtin" weapons stats:
.data:0046D57C 00 00 04 00 3C 00 3C 00 21 00+builtinWeaponStats structBuiltinWeaponStats <0, 4, 3Ch, 3Ch, 21h, 0, 0, 5Ah, 50h, 0>; 0
.data:0046D57C 00 00 00 00 5A 00 50 00 00 00+                                        ; DATA XREF: sub_403350+99�r
.data:0046D57C 02 00 0C 00 55 00 37 00 2D 00+                                        ; sub_40FF70+105�r ...
.data:0046D57C 00 00 00 00 73 00 4B 00 00 00+structBuiltinWeaponStats <2, 0Ch, 55h, 37h, 2Dh, 0, 0, 73h, 4Bh, 0>; 1
.data:0046D57C 03 00 11 00 6E 00 32 00 21 00+structBuiltinWeaponStats <3, 11h, 6Eh, 32h, 21h, 0, 0, 55h, 4Bh, 0>; 2
.data:0046D57C 00 00 00 00 55 00 4B 00 00 00+structBuiltinWeaponStats <4, 24h, 6Eh, 56h, 1Eh, 0, 0, 64h, 3Ch, 0>; 3
.data:0046D57C 04 00 24 00 6E 00 56 00 1E 00+structBuiltinWeaponStats <2, 28h, 8Ch, 0, 0, 0, 0, 78h, 50h, 1>; 4
.data:0046D57C 00 00 00 00 64 00 3C 00 00 00+structBuiltinWeaponStats <7, 26h, 8Ch, 4Bh, 1Eh, 0, 0, 6Eh, 3Ch, 0>; 5
.data:0046D57C 02 00 28 00 8C 00 00 00 00 00+structBuiltinWeaponStats <4, 22h, 82h, 4Bh, 1Eh, 0, 0, 6Eh, 3Ch, 0>; 6
.data:0046D57C 00 00 00 00 78 00 50 00 01 00+structBuiltinWeaponStats <3, 22h, 64h, 4Bh, 1Eh, 32h, 23h, 6Eh, 3Ch, 0>; 7
with the following format:
00000000 ; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
00000000 structBuiltinWeaponStats struc ; (sizeof=0x14)
00000000 damageType dw ?
00000002 ammoType dw ?
00000004 damage dw ?
00000006 snapshotAcc dw ?
00000008 snapshotTU dw ?
0000000A autoshotAcc dw ?
0000000C autoshotTU dw ?
0000000E aimshotAcc dw ?
00000010 aimshotTU dw ?
00000012 blasterEffect dw ?
00000014 structBuiltinWeaponStats ends
00000000 ; [00000027 BYTES. COLLAPSED STRUCT structAlienStats. PRESS KEYPAD "+" TO EXPAND]
00000000 ; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think each line maps to a "turret" weapon type (unitref.dat offset 0x75). HTH, Seb76 08:47, 20 December 2008 (CST)

I thought the Chryssalid used 15 TUs flat for melee, along with the other melee aliens...? Arrow Quivershaft 17:49, 19 December 2008 (CST)

I've seen different numbers for TU usage for melee attacks (Possibly because when I was testing on different skill levels, it took either 14 or 15 TU. Variation like that would indicate integer rounding is to blame and that usually happens when you are calculating cost based on a percentage). So that's why I'm starting to think it's a % cost. Not sure though. Needs testing too. --Zombie 17:59, 19 December 2008 (CST)

This is a pretty out of date discussion, you guys want to hold onto it for posterity of delete it? Anyhow, have all the mysteries of Chryssalid attack damage been revealed? I think so, right?
Does the Xcom "HIT" attack do melee damage? Jasonred 08:21, 8 April 2009 (EDT)