Talk:HE vs single target weapons

General Discussion

Just a few thoughts:

HE's accuracy is really inaccuracy compensated for by its area of effect nature. It's careless accuracy if you will.

Training is another aspect. Direct fire weapons train Firing Accuracy once per hit - but so does HE on every enemy caught in its area of effect. What's true for both types is that the more powerful the attack, the less overall training you will get.

Now, HE in the form of grenades banks on both of the aspects I've just mentioned. HE rounds just have to land near their targets to strike them - and this in turn improves your firing accuracy which you can then use to improve your use of your ranged weapons.

Then there's damage. HE does 50% to 150% the listed damage. So while it doesn't have a high max damage roll, it is guaranteed to deal at least 50% damage minimum at its strongest point. Single target weapons have a much higher damage roll, but the damage is wilder, going from 0% to 200%.

Area-of-Effect Stun is the oddball out - it uses the 0 - 200% model, but all the same benefits as HE without the lethality. -NKF 15:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

A few more thoughts.

This discussion is not quite the same as the other weapon comparison discussions because HR/area vs single target weapon selection is surely a matter of the tactical situation, not what you equip troops with as standard? HE-only is one of Scott Jones' suggested special challenging scenarios - i.e. not a routine load-out choice. Or maybe not - maybe some of you would equip HE rounds as standard, default issue? By the way, if you carry HE as primary and AP as spare, you lose out on the ammo weight bug and have to carry the full weight of weapon plus ammo - usually the loaded ammo is 'free' weight. But you can only take advantage of this if you carry no AP, since AP is loaded by the game in preference to HE. (Or possibly you are ok if you use XComUtil, not sure about that.)

So isn't this really a discussion about the pros and cons of area effect vs direct single fire, and the tactical situations where you use one over the other? Personally I would never equip troops only or even primarily with area effect weapons. But maybe that's just because I find it too difficult to control the various downsides which are listed on the main page - self-harm, friendly fire, loot damage, and missed fire opportunities due to avoiding the risk of any of those.

Probably we should consider all area effect weapons and not just HE, as they all suffer from similar limitations. The IN limitations go away when you have sufficient armour of course. And Stun rounds are not quite as dangerous to friendlies - though they still take them out of the fight and vulnerable to HE.

You could also consider auto weapons as more similar to an area effect weapon in some ways. OK they are unlikely to rebound on the firer at point blank range and cause self-harm, but the low accuracy and multiple rounds does create a sort of area effect - conical rather than circular.

Spike 18:34, 7 April 2009 (EDT)