Best way to deal with Ship Turrets on Terror missions

[PPQ]

I was more thinking about the swords when I wrote about alloy sharpness.

Swords are not immune to what I said. There is a reason why you make a thin and sharp blade for going through flesh but a thick and beastly one for chopping wood. The blade of a sword would chip and bend if impacting logs much the same as the blade of a felling axe would be suboptimal for cutting flesh.

Physics really don't care if you are throwing things at something or holding it in your hand and swinging.

I've always imagined the alloys as more varied than just the lightweight but tough UFO hull material, what with them being called alloys.

Hence my comparison to titanium. It's the only material that matches the overall characteristics of what we see in game. That being a material more resilient than steel and yet also lightweight enough to be used for aviation and body armor. Hence it makes sense that the alloys would be some form of uber-titanium.

True, but they can also deflect. Most vehicle armour is supposed to at least somewhat deflect armour penetrators, not tank them head-on. Which is why we have shaped charges and modern top-attack munitions.

That is not really true. At least not any more. Deflecting a projectile is in terms of physics no different than stopping it. In both cases you are attempting to modify the movement vector of the projectile. The difference is that in deflection you are not absorbing the energy so much as redirecting it. But to accomplish this you need very sharp angles. That is why a modern tank will have its glacis place ridiculously sloped. That super sloped nearly horizontal plate is the only thing that will actually deflect a modern high velocity projectile.

Infantry versions are iffier on that front.

Not really. You absolutely could make infantry body armor designed to deflect enemy attacks. In fact we did so back in the middle ages. The difference is simply that the more energy an attack carries the sharper the angle your armor meets it at needs to be in order to deflect it. So you could absolutely make infantry body armor today that deflects bullets rather than absorbing them. It's just that it would look like pyramid head from Silent Hill and your soldiers would have to face the enemy head on or else it wouldn't work.

Being in merely super-tough body armour is not all that cool for the person inside. Which is why you no longer see much of steel or titanium plates in modern plate carriers.
Or that the small pieces don't get you in the neck, hand or somewhere else important. And there are a lot of these small pieces.

Firstly that is just wrong. We do in fact see a lot of steel and titanium, mostly steel, in modern body armor. We also see a lot of super tough plastics and composites as well. That is in fact the only way to reliably stop a projectile. And before you mention ceramics they work the same way. Ceramic armor plates are in fact super strong. So hard in fact that they shatter on impact.

And yes, of course you also want a soft absorbent backing layer underneath that to cushion the blow. But that is not something new either. Armor throughout history has always been a composite of soft and hard materials. Historical armor being universally worn with thick cloth dress underneath. The modern kevlar plate carrier with steel or ceramics inserts is really just a modern reimagining of the arming doublet and armored cuirass.

War, war newer changes. Because the physics behind it stay the same.

And those prayers are quite likely to be answered. The limited number of big chunks have an entire sphere of directions to go towards, and most of those are completely void of targets. Well, maybe there's some ground deflection.
HEIAP.

They are more likely to be answered than praying that you don't get hit by anything at all. But not that high in absolute terms. That is why body armor looks the way it does even though we absolutely do have full body suits.

Modern armies have quite literally decided that the odds of getting hit by something that will go through your armor is low enough that having some sort of protection is worth it but at the same time high enough that it's not worth sacrificing peripheral vision, hearing or mobility by giving everyone a full body armored suit.

Edit to the edit:IMO, what's there is merely a different excuse, just not one I like thematically. A tactical game lives and dies on its mission variety, and Solarius does make some interesting missions.

But OXC(E) is not a politics game, and has nearly no engine support to be one. If I want to play a diplomacy/faction management game, I'll play something where that's built in. Even Phoenix Point, if I need some hostile aliens in it.

Obviously, you and Solarius have different tastes.
That will basically be a branching string of missions. That's no longer classic X-Com, that's more like a story-based game like Silent Storm, Chimera Squad or Fire Emblem.

Think of it this way. Imagine if the number of cult outposts was cut to say 1/5 of their current numbers. And instead you got random events like these:

Council member ordinarily friendly with one of the cults has had a falling out with a branch of that organization. Ordinarily hunting down every cult outpost is beneath us as this is something that local authorities would take care off. But the council member wants an example made out of these people. He has provided us with the location of the manor in question. This council member is not ordinarily friendly to our cause but if we can win him over to our side he could be persuaded to share information critical to our cause.

Get enough of those and you can bypass the requirement to capture officers and such.

And the game could throw these at you if it sees you are struggling.

[Juku121]

Swords are not immune to what I said. There is a reason why you make a thin and sharp blade for going through flesh but a thick and beastly one for chopping wood.

If you're chopping someone with a sword, you're doing it wrong. Get an axe or polearm or something else meant for that.

I mentioned sharpness as one application of alloys, namely there being one that would make better swords. Not armour-piercing swords. Although there'd be a bit of that, too, if the alloy is magical enough.

It was probably too offhand if we're still discussing armour vs swords.

Physics really don't care if you are throwing things at something or holding it in your hand and swinging.

It very much does. One has constant acceleration and possibly prolonged contact, the other does not. Also, different contact surfaces and the ability to physically move your opponent, which a human-scale projectile really cannot do. That's why the mod differentiates between 'kinetic' and 'cutting' and 'concussive' ('AP', 'melee' and 'HE' in the original).

Hence it makes sense that the alloys would be some form of uber-titanium.

I see my point somehow went missing. I imagine that one of the alloys is uber-Titanium. There might be others with different properties, ones more suited for AP projectiles, body armour, super-conductive wire or other uses.

That is not really true. At least not any more. ... That is why a modern tank will have its glacis place ridiculously sloped.

So, it's not true any more, but it still is?

Deflection is also not binary. If you shoot a tank in the side armour with one of the long-rod penetrators and the tank is at an angle, it won't bounce off but it'll still have to punch through much more armour than with a straight hit.

Not really. You absolutely could make infantry body armor designed to deflect enemy attacks. In fact we did so back in the middle ages.

That mainly worked against arrows, only from certain angles, and during a rather specific point in armour evolution. Hand-to-hand or against non-arrow projectiles, the deflection was a lot less useful. You just couldn't really chop through munitions plate even with a giant axe, although said chopping did damage in other ways. But your axe didn't just slide off the guy.

It's just that it would look like pyramid head from Silent Hill and your soldiers would have to face the enemy head on or else it wouldn't work.

So, how is that not iffy?

We do in fact see a lot of steel and titanium, mostly steel, in modern body armor. We also see a lot of super tough plastics and composites as well. That is in fact the only way to reliably stop a projectile. And before you mention ceramics they work the same way. Ceramic armor plates are in fact super strong. So hard in fact that they shatter on impact.

So, that's why all these [X]SAPI plates are steel, right?

As you said, ceramics shatter - or more likely deform, modern ceramics are pretty tough, you can take a sledgehammer to them and they can still take a shot afterwards - and don't pass so much of the impact onto the rest of the body/armour. Steel is heavy, passes the impact on better, and can cause a lot more fragments (they do build soft armour around the plates to catch those).

That doesn't mean steel is no longer used, but it's usually chosen because it's cheaper, not better.

I'll admit that steel ringing like a bell isn't the primary reason for ceramics taking over, but from a performance POV they have.

But not that high in absolute terms. That is why body armor looks the way it does even though we absolutely do have full body suits.

Full body suits are not used because they weigh so much they make an infantryman useless in their role, not because of any hit chance calculus. Never mind that if an artillery shell goes off near you and you aren't in cover, it's a freaking miracle if nothing hits you, not 'not that high'.

If Uncle Sam could make an equivalent-protection full body suit that weighs 12kg, even if it limits peripheral vision or climbing ability, the U.S. Army would be all over it in a heartbeat.

And the game could throw these at you if it sees you are struggling.

I have nothing against failsafes. But I got the impression you wanted more of a scripted, possibly branching string of missions. E.g. one mission to capture a RD ganger, another mission to get one from another gang in exchange for killing ROUS if you failed, a third to find an outpost from the ganger and start getting a Lad, etc. Which would be a completely different game.

Also, having both the system that rewards captures and another that allows you to bypass it completely seems kinda redundant. IMO, it'd be better to decide which one to go with rather than try to ride two horses at once. We already have people ignoring a lot of cultist research because cataloging every shiv and baseball bat is kinda tedious, so it's not as if there are no alternatives right now.

Finally, that would also reduce the randomness of the factions turning up in a particular game, which Solarius seems big on; and it'd be hard to indicate 'we are wooing a Councilman, he'll stop playing with us if we fail these missions' in the UI. Or 'we have 19 relations points with the Discordians, do 6 more missions against the Syndicate to progress the relationship'.

[PPQ]

If you're chopping someone with a sword, you're doing it wrong. Get an axe or polearm or something else meant for that.

I do not follow. What is a swing with intent to cut if not a chop?

I mentioned sharpness as one application of alloys, namely there being one that would make better swords. Not armour-piercing swords. Although there'd be a bit of that, too, if the alloy is magical enough.

That's the thing though, armor/hide penetration is really the only way  sword or any melee weapon really can get "better" than steel. Against regular flesh normal steel is plenty good enough. Making the blade sharper or stronger or what ever else isn't really going to make your slashes, cuts, stabs or chops more effective than what you can get with a regular sword.

Now, if you could make a sword that goes through armor than yes, that would be very useful. But I am unconvinced that the limitation there is materials as opposed to the strength of the user.
 

It very much does. One has constant acceleration and possibly prolonged contact, the other does not. Also, different contact surfaces and the ability to physically move your opponent, which a human-scale projectile really cannot do. That's why the mod differentiates between 'kinetic' and 'cutting' and 'concussive' ('AP', 'melee' and 'HE' in the original).

And yet the physics don't actually change.

The reason why this mod and indeed almost all games use damage types is not because they exist in reality but because they are a good enough approximation when you don't want to run a full scale physics simulation in the background. The only game that does that that I know of is Dwarf Fortress.

I see my point somehow went missing. I imagine that one of the alloys is uber-Titanium. There might be others with different properties, ones more suited for AP projectiles, body armour, super-conductive wire or other uses.
So, it's not true any more, but it still is?

That is a good point actually. Is the "alien alloys" one material or several? And if the later is the case are they related and how? Steel alone varies massively depending on alloy composition.

Deflection is also not binary. If you shoot a tank in the side armour with one of the long-rod penetrators and the tank is at an angle, it won't bounce off but it'll still have to punch through much more armour than with a straight hit.

Yes, but that is as you say not deflection. It's just putting more material in front of the target through basic geometry.

That mainly worked against arrows, only from certain angles, and during a rather specific point in armour evolution. Hand-to-hand or against non-arrow projectiles, the deflection was a lot less useful. You just couldn't really chop through munitions plate even with a giant axe, although said chopping did damage in other ways. But your axe didn't just slide off the guy.

Actually no, it worked against melee weapons as well. Curved surfaces on medieval armor could and would deflect blows from weapons, especially edged weapons. Remember, when dealing with identical materials impacting one another penetration vs sliding off becomes a matter of momentum. And it's much easier to make a blade slide sideways just enough that it turns in someones hand and thus glances off than it is to push a guy in armor backward or dent solid steel.

The second reason is actually why maces, picks, war hammers and the like were popular for fighting against armor. They would bite in and dent the armor hurting the person inside even if they did not penetrate. Where as a sword with its large surface area was likely to slide off.

So, how is that not iffy?

Iffy does not begin to describe it. It is absolutely positively useless. Worse than useless. It would literally be a danger to the user due to the shape getting stuck on things and making him an obvious target on top. It is such a stupid idea that contemplating it murders ones brain cells. That is why nobody has done it.

But if you really wanted to do it and didn't care about it being pointless you could. The physics are there.

So, that's why all these [X]SAPI plates are steel, right?

As you said, ceramics shatter - or more likely deform, modern ceramics are pretty tough, you can take a sledgehammer to them and they can still take a shot afterwards - and don't pass so much of the impact onto the rest of the body/armour. Steel is heavy, passes the impact on better, and can cause a lot more fragments (they do build soft armour around the plates to catch those).

That doesn't mean steel is no longer used, but it's usually chosen because it's cheaper, not better.[/quote]
It all depends on the steel and the ceramic. Both are families of materials that, depending on the composition, can have wildly different properties. And depending on your price point, industrial capability and desired protection level one can be better than the other.

This said, how exactly is this relevant toward a discussion of alien super materials that are presumably better than either?

Full body suits are not used because they weigh so much they make an infantryman useless in their role, not because of any hit chance calculus. Never mind that if an artillery shell goes off near you and you aren't in cover, it's a freaking miracle if nothing hits you, not 'not that high'.

That is literally the same thing I said. Like word for word. You just rephrased it.

I have nothing against failsafes. But I got the impression you wanted more of a scripted, possibly branching string of missions. E.g. one mission to capture a RD ganger, another mission to get one from another gang in exchange for killing ROUS if you failed, a third to find an outpost from the ganger and start getting a Lad, etc. Which would be a completely different game.

No. That would go against the grain of the game really.

I mean sure, it would be fun to play a game like that. Once. But that's it. And that's not really the point of XCOM, the game that keeps on giving 19 years since it was first sold.

Also, having both the system that rewards captures and another that allows you to bypass it completely seems kinda redundant. IMO, it'd be better to decide which one to go with rather than try to ride two horses at once. We already have people ignoring a lot of cultist research because cataloging every shiv and baseball bat is kinda tedious, so it's not as if there are no alternatives right now.

Thing is, it's very easy to screw your self over simply by having bad luck with enemy spawns right now. Too much depends on capturing the right enemies alive and doing so quickly. Having an alternative way that triggers if the game detects the player is too far behind as a sort of safety net would make sense.

Indeed, you can screw your self over with bad luck even if you capture them all alive simply by rolling badly on the research table. I had that happen to me with alien engineers once. I kept rolling UFO descriptions instead of alien tech.

Think of it like rubber banding in a racing game. Sure it might look like a redundant and even unfair system but if it didn't exist the race would be decided in the first lap making the rest unfun. And in an ideal scenario where you aren't screwing up you should newer see it in action.

Finally, that would also reduce the randomness of the factions turning up in a particular game, which Solarius seems big on; and it'd be hard to indicate 'we are wooing a Councilman, he'll stop playing with us if we fail these missions' in the UI. Or 'we have 19 relations points with the Discordians, do 6 more missions against the Syndicate to progress the relationship'.

What you say makes sense if I interpret it as coming from your interpretation of my text which implied an event chain. And in that context I would agree that this is a bad idea. Good thing I am not. So we agree.

[Juku121]

What is a swing with intent to cut if not a chop?

You don't 'chop' with a sword. You slice. Like cutting bread.

That's the thing though, armor/hide penetration is really the only way  sword or any melee weapon really can get "better" than steel.

Well, a razor-sharp sword that doesn't nick or break as easily would be pretty good. You can't really have a steel sword that's both used regularly and extremely sharp.

If the super-alloy can be made without having to be flexible as not to break (steel swords are quite 'springy'), that'd also be something.

Now, if you could make a sword that goes through armor than yes, that would be very useful. But I am unconvinced that the limitation there is materials as opposed to the strength of the user.

Something like an indestructible estoc, perhaps. But that's not about cutting any more.

And yet the physics don't actually change.

That's a meaningless distinction. The circumstances under which the physics are applied are different, even if not greatly, and so we make these distinctions as toy models to use for said circumstances. For an extreme example, physics don't change from galactic to subatomic scale, either. A given particle still follows the same physics, yet we still have relativity and quatum theory as two very different fields and there's no theory of quantum gravity despite a lot of trying.

That is a good point actually. Is the "alien alloys" one material or several? And if the later is the case are they related and how?

My headcanon is that there are several, one of which is the UFO hull material, and they probably share the 'electromagnetic-moldable' trait. Beyond that, who knows? It's space magic!

Yes, but that is as you say not deflection. It's just putting more material in front of the target through basic geometry.

Even a long composite rod will change direction a little - so technically a deflection. And a less modern round might actually deflect. It's more of a semantics game what exactly you want to call it.

Actually no, it worked against melee weapons as well. Curved surfaces on medieval armor could and would deflect blows from weapons, especially edged weapons.

The second reason is actually why maces, picks, war hammers and the like were popular for fighting against armor. They would bite in and dent the armor hurting the person inside even if they did not penetrate. Where as a sword with its large surface area was likely to slide off.

Something tough enough to deflect will just no-sell the edge part of the weapon. If the other guy is in full harness, you don't try to cut the armour. You just bash him with your sword and pray if you have nothing better.

I suppose they did deflect some weapons, but the primary weapon that got deflected would be a spear or other stabbing implement. Which is incidentally quite similar to an arrow.

And people did use swords against plate. Just not for cutting, rather as giant metal bludgeons (and the tip vs gaps, but that's a different matter).

And depending on your price point, industrial capability and desired protection level one can be better than the other.

So, can you provide an example of a steel plate that has a ceramic equivalent that's unquestionably worse at the actual protection part, discarding durability, price, availability, etc?

This said, how exactly is this relevant toward a discussion of alien super materials that are presumably better than either?

A suit made of super-Titanium alloy still has the fragmentation, 'rings like a bell' and 'might ricochet into my arm' issues, compared to regular ceramics.

That is literally the same thing I said. Like word for word. You just rephrased it.

What did you mean by this, then?

But not that high in absolute terms.

And you literally said:

Modern armies have quite literally decided that the odds of getting hit ...

I said no, that's not the main reason for abandoning full body armour. That is still that infantrymen are loaded down like mules, and giving them full body armour and expecting them to do infantry things is physically impossible. That lighter body armour actually works well enough is a separate matter.

Thing is, it's very easy to screw your self over simply by having bad luck with enemy spawns right now.

As I said, I personally don't mind failsafes, but Solarius seems kinda attached to the idea that what you get is random. I mean, he puts in explicit punishments for falling behind, even if you've never seen anyone from a particular cult!

What you say makes sense if I interpret it as coming from your interpretation of my text which implied an event chain. And in that context I would agree that this is a bad idea. Good thing I am not. So we agree.

Well, how would it work, then? How do you imagine 'cozying up to Councilman Third Gnome of Zürich' would work mechanically?

[PPQ]

You don't 'chop' with a sword. You slice. Like cutting bread.

On the contrary. Depending on the design of sword it can be used to cut, slice, stab or chop either exclusively or as one of its option. You will no more slice with something like a fashion than you will with a rapier.

Well, a razor-sharp sword that doesn't nick or break as easily would be pretty good. You can't really have a steel sword that's both used regularly and extremely sharp.

Sharpness is however as we have already established mostly irrelevant beyond a certain point. Unlike what science fiction would have you believe a you need an edge just sharp enough for the job but critically durable enough in its construction that it wont easily dull or chip. Which is why swords are not built like razor blades.

If the super-alloy can be made without having to be flexible as not to break (steel swords are quite 'springy'), that'd also be something.
Something like an indestructible estoc, perhaps. But that's not about cutting any more.

Firstly not all steel swords are springy. Deferentially hardened blades like the katana are in fact quite hard and will bend and stay bent instead of bouncing back. So are bronze weapons, obsidian blades etc. Springiness is just one way to ensure your blade has the resilience required to survive being repeatedly hit into things.

That's a meaningless distinction. The circumstances under which the physics are applied are different, even if not greatly, and so we make these distinctions as toy models to use for said circumstances. For an extreme example, physics don't change from galactic to subatomic scale, either. A given particle still follows the same physics, yet we still have relativity and quatum theory as two very different fields and there's no theory of quantum gravity despite a lot of trying.

Actually that is not quite true. The laws which govern the behavior of large objects do in fact not apply directly to quantum particles. I would go into this further but frankly I know just enough abut the subject to understand how little I actually know.

In our case however all the same principals apply. It's just momentum transfer over a period of time between two objects with Newtons laws defining how each will behave.

My headcanon is that there are several, one of which is the UFO hull material, and they probably share the 'electromagnetic-moldable' trait. Beyond that, who knows? It's space magic!
Even a long composite rod will change direction a little - so technically a deflection. And a less modern round might actually deflect.

That's another thing. What does "moldable" mean in this context?
Does it mean the material(s) can be deformed by directed magnetic fields?
Does it mean their properties change when exposed to a magnetic field making them more ductile and thus easier to shape much like steel or plastics react to heat?
Is it something else entirely?

Just the thought of having a magnetic semiconductor alone makes me tingle.

It's more of a semantics game what exactly you want to call it.
Something tough enough to deflect will just no-sell the edge part of the weapon. If the other guy is in full harness, you don't try to cut the armour. You just bash him with your sword and pray if you have nothing better.

Not really. If you took a medieval helmet and just replaced it with a strait box made from the same materials you could probably put a rather big dent into it by smashing it with a sword. Not so much with the actual helmet shape. And doubly so if the target is moving in a way that exploits these shapes to ensure deflection.

But I do feel we have digressed to the point of really getting off topic.

I suppose they did deflect some weapons, but the primary weapon that got deflected would be a spear or other stabbing implement. Which is incidentally quite similar to an arrow.

And anything else swung at them that wouldn't bite in. A halberd or such for example.

And people did use swords against plate. Just not for cutting, rather as giant metal bludgeons (and the tip vs gaps, but that's a different matter).

You can also grab it by the blade and use the guard as a hammer. Or to hook and bind the opponent to knock him down. Or any number of other things.

But how does that invalidate the fact that the geometry of the armor plays a part in its defensive properties?

So, can you provide an example of a steel plate that has a ceramic equivalent that's unquestionably worse at the actual protection part, discarding durability, price, availability, etc?

For a start protection against what? Protection against cuts vs small caliber projectiles vs large caliber projectiles vs energy weapons (or shaped charges) vs large blunt objects...
Ceramics will for example provide inferior protection against large heavy objects like a mace but massively superior protection against shaped charges.

Also, what are the other parameters? Or rather what is the equalizing factor here?
Are we talking per unit of volume or per unit of weight for instance? Steel will provide better to kinetic impact per unit of weight than ceramics but not per unit of volume for example. But steel will be massively inferior in its resistance to shaped charges and similar weapons.

And it goes on.

Also, you can't just dismiss price and durability either. Because a piece of armor that breaks if you wear it is going to be rather useless. And equally if price is no issue you can just use battleship grade face hardened plate armor that is going to be just awesome. Or pure titanium. Or pure wolfram or depleted uranium if you don't mind the weight. That's what tanks do.

Armor is complicated.

A suit made of super-Titanium alloy still has the fragmentation, 'rings like a bell' and 'might ricochet into my arm' issues, compared to regular ceramics.
What did you mean by this, then?

Does it? We do not in fact know the material properties of this alien material(s). It could have a very high surface hardness or it might be very plastic and absorb the damage that way. The only thing we know for sure is:
1. It must have a relative low density if it is useful as aircraft material. Less than steel and closer to aluminium or titanium.
2. It must have greater surface hardness than steel and ceramics given that it absorbs kinetic impacts better.
3. It must be less brittle than either for the same hardness. Otherwise it would chip and break when hit by forces steel or ceramics of equal vent hardness would stop.
4. It must be more temperature resistant and have a higher melting point. Or alternatively have a much better heat conductivity. Either would explain why it absorbs energy weapons better.
5. It reacts with magnetic fields in some way that make it easier to work when under their influence.

But that's it. We can draw some conclusions but not enough that we can determine with any degree of certainty what the actual material properties of it or its behavior overall. But there is certainly no reason to assume it would fragment or spall to any significant degree or indeed that it will not.

And you literally said:I said no, that's not the main reason for abandoning full body armour. That is still that infantrymen are loaded down like mules, and giving them full body armour and expecting them to do infantry things is physically impossible. That lighter body armour actually works well enough is a separate matter.

You do realize that full body armor was abandoned centuries ago and not last week? Back than anyone who could afford to own and wear it could also afford to have a wagon train to carry his things. But they still gave it up because they believed the protection provided was no longer a good tradeoff given the amount of things that could go through it. This in turn lead to a period of semi armored fighting that lasted up until really WW1 as body armor evolved from the full harness to just a helmet and cuirass.

Also, there are a great number of examples of people who could afford full plate armor even in the day when it was undoubtedly at its prime still choosing to wear less because they thought the odds of getting hit in the unprotected part was small enough for the benefits of not having it to be worth it. King Richard of England being a prime example of such a calculation being wrong with lethal effects.

Of course, this is ignoring the common footman who could newer really afford full armor anyway. But that's beside the point.

As I said, I personally don't mind failsafes, but Solarius seems kinda attached to the idea that what you get is random. I mean, he puts in explicit punishments for falling behind, even if you've never seen anyone from a particular cult!
Well, how would it work, then? How do you imagine 'cozying up to Councilman Third Gnome of Zürich' would work mechanically?

Literally a one shot random event with a bit of lore to replace the current method of catching up which is buying land surveys and praying you roll a good result.

Though honestly I'd settle for just more of the random meaningless popups from your advisors to add more lore to the world. Like the one where the interrogator lady talks about the maid academy. That one was pure gold.

[Juku121]

Spoiler" Weapons and armour OT":

But I do feel we have digressed to the point of really getting off topic.

Yeah.

On the contrary. Depending on the design of sword it can be used to cut, slice, stab or chop either exclusively or as one of its option. You will no more slice with something like a fashion than you will with a rapier.

We were not talking about thrusting swords, were we?

And you do slice with a falchion, just like with any other edged sword. The edge remains in contact after the initial impact, if briefly, and cuts as the blade passes through. Try to chop a water bottle like with an axe and it just goes flying. People did not do that (well, we know little about what they actually did with their falchions, but it's considered unlikely), modern bohurt guys who chop/smash each other with their dull falchion-like implements do.

Sharpness is however as we have already established mostly irrelevant beyond a certain point. Unlike what science fiction would have you believe a you need an edge just sharp enough for the job but critically durable enough in its construction that it wont easily dull or chip. Which is why swords are not built like razor blades.

We have established that sharpness in a weapon made of steel doesn't matter beyond a certain point vs armour. Sharpness very much matters in slicing (that is, shearing) the meatbag under that armour. And if that sharpness did not come at the cost of being brittle (like when the sword is made of indestructible space magic alloy ), the reduced contact area is still a benefit to armour penetration. Would have to be a kinda thin blade, though.

Firstly not all steel swords are springy. Deferentially hardened blades like the katana... bronze weapons, obsidian blades ...

Obsidian and bronze break and shatter, katanas bend. They are both inferiour solutions that were implemented because their makers lacked either ironworking or quality iron.

Not having to worry about any of that because your sword just takes the abuse and smiles would definitely make it a 'better' sword.

Actually that is not quite true. The laws which govern the behavior of large objects do in fact not apply directly to quantum particles.

That is because they are not laws but rather models. Ones that have evolved quite a bit over time. Them not applying is a limitation of the models, not some universal fact that quantum effects happen in some completely separate reality from the macroscopic.

In our case however all the same principals apply. It's just momentum transfer over a period of time between two objects with Newtons laws defining how each will behave.

The period of time is quite different, human-powered weapons also have acceleration on top of KE, and someone pushing a sword or spear tip into you or slicing you up is not momentum transfer. A mace strike would be a mostly pure momentum transfer.

I don't know why you want to oversimplify this while going "Armor is complicated."

What does "moldable" mean in this context?
Does it mean the material(s) can be deformed by directed magnetic fields?

I would imagine this.

Just the thought of having a magnetic semiconductor alone makes me tingle.

Well, since the 'molding' is quite vague, perhaps the alloys need not be (strongly) magnetic themselves. I mean, I'm not a magnet but they can still perform MRI on me.

Not really. If you took a medieval helmet and just replaced it with a strait box made from the same materials you could probably put a rather big dent into it by smashing it with a sword. Not so much with the actual helmet shape. And doubly so if the target is moving in a way that exploits these shapes to ensure deflection.

Not really what? I did say try to smash him, did I not? Even if said smashing was not terribly likely to be effective.

I also thought we were discussing body armour. Helmets can indeed deflect blows since your head is round and you can basically build an extra cone on top of it. Body armour doesn't really have anywhere to deflect to. The best you get is that the blade turns in your hand. Which is a sort of deflection, I'll agree to that.

And armoured combat is not boxing. You didn't bob and weave, trying to catch a blow on your Hounskull. Just avoiding getting hit head-on and hitting the other fella was enough to keep you occupied. Armour was insurance in case you failed.

But how does that invalidate the fact that the geometry of the armor plays a part in its defensive properties?

It invalidates the notion of the armour frequently deflecting said big swords used to smash it in.

For a start protection against what?

Ceramics will for example provide inferior protection against large heavy objects like a mace but massively superior protection against shaped charges.

Lets say against three M855 rounds. That seems like a primary worry for a soldier in body armour. People wearing plate carriers aren't too concerned about being bashed with a mace or being hit with an RPG and surviving.

And I kinda doubt that the guy inside the steel-plated armour instead of ceramics thinks the same about being maced, as opposed to the plate itself.

Also, what are the other parameters? Or rather what is the equalizing factor here?

Same mobility, at least short-term. Say, two hours. Can be worn without it coming apart for one year before the encounter with M855. When I mentioned durability, I was thinking more about how many rounds a plate can take rather than wear and tear.

And equally if price is no issue you can just use battleship grade face hardened plate armor that is going to be just awesome. Or pure titanium. Or pure wolfram or depleted uranium if you don't mind the weight.

That's the point. Weight is the single most important factor in this whole infantry armour thing.

But okay, one of the armours can't cost more than five times the other.

Does it? We do not in fact know the material properties of this alien material(s). It could ... be very plastic and absorb the damage that way.

Then it's not super-Titanium, is it? Let me quote the beginning of this tangent:

I imagine that one of the alloys is uber-Titanium. There might be others with different properties, ones more suited for AP projectiles, body armour...

You were the one promoting uber-Titanium and steel as better than or equivalent to ceramics, or at least making a passable effort to appear to be doing so.

But there is certainly no reason to assume it would fragment or spall to any significant degree or indeed that it will not.

It's the enemy bullets that fragment, not the armour.

You do realize that full body armor was abandoned centuries ago and not last week?
...

What does any of this have to do with my point that it's not the odds of getting hit, it's the weight that drives the decision?

Knights gave up their armour because it was no longer worth it. The Vieille Garde could have worn full gothic plate if they wanted to, it would just have made a rather small difference. Modern armies could deck their soldiers out in EOD gear if they wanted and it would work. About as well as plate armour did in its heyday, anyway. They just wouldn't be able to do what infantry needs to do on the modern battlefield, unlike the full harness cuirassiers doing their thing.

Back than anyone who could afford to own and wear it could also afford to have a wagon train to carry his things.

Soldiers ride in vehicles today. It's just that they can't rely on the vehicle being there all the time. Modern battlefield and logistics have changed so much almost none of the logic from 1300 or 1800 applies any more.

Literally a one shot random event...

But that isn't really what this seemed to be:

Council member ... has provided us with the location of the manor ... we can win him over to our side ... Get enough of those...

That literally sounds like a recurring mission where you accumulate points somewhat similar to the bounty/prize system in Piratez. Which is as kludgy as anything.

[PPQ]

But that isn't really what this seemed to be:That literally sounds like a recurring mission where you accumulate points somewhat similar to the bounty/prize system in Piratez. Which is as kludgy as anything.

Honestly I do not know nor particularly care what you presumed my words to have meant. I provided an explanation that is quite detailed indeed.

And no offense or anything but I have gotten tired of this conversation. It just feels like we are talking in circles with no point to be reached.

[Juku121]

Well, the semi-topical part of this started with me expressing a distaste for the fluff behind some of the arcs and the invasion in general, you proclaiming a preference for some of those and 'progressing down plot paths', and these positions getting progressively explained away until only 'more random fluff events' and 'failsafes instead of Land Surveys' remain. I imagine you can see my puzzlement in understanding how exactly all this is even related to my original point you were responding to.


As to the rest, do as you wish. If you don't enjoy it, no point in continuing.

Spoiler" More OT":

The point(s), as I've tried to make them:

• Super-Titanium body armour likely has most of the drawbacks of steel plates except weight. I'd want another, perhaps more plastic alloy for anti-ballistic purposes. I don't think you really disagree.
  
• A super-sharp near-indestructible alloy sword is better than a sufficiently sharp steel sword because the same concerns do not apply. I guess that one isn't going anywhere.
  
• Chopping with a sword so it has zero shear (i.e. not slicing) is a quite poor way of using it. Not sure.
  
• Melee damage is not purely a matter of KE transfer. That one isn't going anywhere, either.
  
• I take it back. More of what armour does against hand weapons can be seen as deflection than I said. It's just (mostly) not quite the same sort of deflection as against arrows, bullets or tank shells. So I guess we're close here.
  
• Hit/penetration concerns have nothing to do with modern armies issuing or not issuing full body armour to GI Joe. You kinda agreed, but then took off to weird tangents.
  

[Xylon666Darkstar]

 

[PPQ]

Well, the semi-topical part of this started with me expressing a distaste for the fluff behind some of the arcs and the invasion in general, you proclaiming a preference for some of those and 'progressing down plot paths', and these positions getting progressively explained away until only 'more random fluff events' and 'failsafes instead of Land Surveys' remain. I imagine you can see my puzzlement in understanding how exactly all this is even related to my original point you were responding to.

And now that this has cleared up there need be no further discussion of it.

[Solarius Scorch]

I've had a terribly busy week, so I haven't been able to do anything here.

Anyway, about the suggestion of the shrapnel profile. I'm willing to give it a chance, but the info you provided is only partial and I can't fill in the blanks and keep your vision, as I don't exactly know it. This is mostly about how tritanium shrapnel charges related to regular shrapnel charges.

Also, ArmorEffectiveness is controversial, as regular shrapnel weapons don't have it, normal explosions don't have it, blades don't have it... I don't get the concept here. But I realise it's a core part of the system.


As for the "political" thing, this is not my decision, as I had no choice. You can't have your good old war in these technological conditions, end of story.

[Juku121]

I'm willing to give it a chance, but the info you provided is only partial and I can't fill in the blanks and keep your vision, as I don't exactly know it.

What blanks are there? I mean, my proposal has the same fields and more than yours and the current damageAlter section.

My 'vision' if it can be called that is that shrapnel does more damage and wounds, but armour works better against it. I provided several breakpoints of 'better' that looked reasonable, and one can always tweak those further.

Also, ArmorEffectiveness is controversial, as regular shrapnel weapons don't have it, normal explosions don't have it, blades don't have it... I don't get the concept here.

The concept is that shrapnel fragments don't kill you immediately, like a bullet to the head does. But they riddle you with wounds that will kill you in short order if not treated, possibly even in armour. Basically the X-Com equivalent of a DoT effect.

Normal explosions work differently, that's exactly the point. Several blades do have ArmorEffectiveness (machetes, greatswords, sabers, weeb blades), as does the current Tritanium Grenade. Blades might actually want to get some more wounds to simulate the bleeding cuts at the cost of more ArmorEffectiveness nerfs. The garden pruner and kukris could use some, too.

I could definitely see a distinction being made between 'defensive' (fragmentation) and 'offensive' (HE) grenades. Even other explosives, like antipersonnel rockets vs HEAT rockets.

As for the "political" thing, this is not my decision, as I had no choice.

Who is the shadow cultist that writes XCF for you?!


Nah, I'm resigned to the fact that XCF wants to tell a different flavour of story than what I seek in X-Com. It's still more to my taste than pretty much any other mod, even the vanilla-plus ones.

[Solarius Scorch]

What blanks are there? I mean, my proposal has the same fields and more than yours and the current damageAlter section.

I already explained it in plain words: what about non-tritanium shrapnel and how does it fit with other weapons?

My 'vision' if it can be called that is that shrapnel does more damage and wounds, but armour works better against it. I provided several breakpoints of 'better' that looked reasonable, and one can always tweak those further.

The concept is that shrapnel fragments don't kill you immediately, like a bullet to the head does. But they riddle you with wounds that will kill you in short order if not treated, possibly even in armour. Basically the X-Com equivalent of a DoT effect.

This part is clear, yes.

Normal explosions work differently, that's exactly the point. Several blades do have ArmorEffectiveness (machetes, greatswords, sabers, weeb blades), as does the current Tritanium Grenade. Blades might actually want to get some more wounds to simulate the bleeding cuts at the cost of more ArmorEffectiveness nerfs. The garden pruner and kukris could use some, too.

Yeah, let's throw out the whole mechanics for a new gimmick, why don't we.

Eh, and I thought this would lead somewhere. :/

[Juku121]

Your plain words are pretty confusing. To me, there's no real difference between Tritanium and non-Tritanium shrapnel since both work the same (and there's a grand total of one non-Tritanium shrapnel weapon in the mod). I thought this was about changing the entire underlying 'incendiary shrapnel' mechanic, not making some sort of distinction between Tritanium and not-Tritanium.

I already explained it in plain words: what about non-tritanium shrapnel and how does it fit with other weapons?

So non-Tritanium shrapnel would work the same as Tritanium shrapnel. HE and all other weapons remain as they are, you just get an option to trade armour penetration for damage, wounds and a different damage type instead of the current 'incendiary' shrapnel. I don't understand what exactly do you want here? I'm not proposing to change anything but the weapons that are covered by current shrapnel mechanics - HWP and RL rockets, Shrapnel Charges and Tritanium Grenades.

Edit: And if it proves successful, add it to some other weapons as well: melee weapons that are primarily used for slashing, and possible new 'defensive' grenades and GL/Mortar/whatever munitions.

Yeah, let's throw out the whole mechanics for a new gimmick, why don't we.

Throw out which mechanics? The one where bladed weapons are inconsistent wrt ArmorEffectiveness?

On the other hand, throwing out the current shrapnel mechanics is the entire point of this discussion.

[Solarius Scorch]

Your plain words are pretty confusing. To me, there's no real difference between Tritanium and non-Tritanium shrapnel since both work the same (and there's a grand total of one non-Tritanium shrapnel weapon in the mod). I thought this was about changing the entire underlying 'incendiary shrapnel' mechanic, not making some sort of distinction between Tritanium and not-Tritanium.

Yes, but expected tritanium to be mechanically different from non-Tritanium. Or would it only differ in power? I guess it can...

HE and all other weapons remain as they are, you just get an option to trade armour penetration for damage and wounds instead of the current 'incendiary' shrapnel. I don't understand what exactly do you want here? I'm not proposing to change anything but the weapons that are covered by current shrapnel mechanics - HWP and RL rockets, Shrapnel Charges and Tritanium Grenades.

Throw out which mechanics? The one where bladed weapons work inconsistently wrt ArmorEffectiveness?

Yes, we started veering into the direction of rebalancing other weapons. I'm not willing to do that just to justify the tritanium shrapnel.

If we only change shrapnel charges, then it's promising, but I think the modifications are too extreme - especially doubling the armour. Shrapnel is similar to weapons like throwing stars (sort of), which do not suffer much from armour (they're 1.15).

And also I'm not sure if we need a weapon profiled to kill completely unarmoured units. By the time you get there, wouldn't it feel overspecialised?