Talk:Weapon Analysis

This will be great for any future arguements. Muton commander 20:25, 8 October 2008 (CDT)

Debate re Aimed vs Snap vs Auto efficiency

Would it be unreasonable to correct the TU and/or accuracy values of human weapons, so that if we call the efficiency (hits per unit of time)

K = accuracy/TUs

and we have

Kai (K - Aimed) Ksn (K - Snap) Kau (K - Auto)

we correct the game tables to ensure that for any given weapon:

Kai > Ksn > 3 Kau

( In an unmodified game, this relationship does not hold, in a large number of cases. )

The purpose of this modification would be to ensure that, in terms of delivering hits to the target per unit of time, Aimed fire is more effective than Snap fire, which in turn is more effective than Auto fire.

Otherwise there are few reasons not always use the fastest available fire rate.

(3 reasons I can think of are:

• Conserving ammo - often of minor importance
• Avoiding "collateral damage"
• "First shot kill" - killing the target before it can reaction-fire

But for general combat, there is often no reason to prefer Aimed fire over Snap, or Snap over Auto.

Having said that, analysis of 20th century battles showed that ordinary soldiers were more effective at killing the enemy when they were given automatic weapons. Resistance to equipping troops with full auto small arms as standard was mainly on ammunition cost grounds (as well as conservatism). This was further refined by studies showing that a burst mode (as used in XCom) was optimum.

However, this was true only for the ordinary troops, who were found to be too unsettled by combat to fire in a controlled fashion. For the minority who had the presence of mind to fire under control, taking slow, carefully aimed shots was more effective and this is where the bulk of the overall effective firepower of an entire formation would come from.

Now, which group do we think XCom soldiers fall into?

Spike 13:28, 10 November 2008 (CST)