[SUGGESTION]Power of weapon function of distance

[LeBashar]

I wonder if it will be possible to make the power of battlescape weapon reduced or increased by the distance ? Why ? because it could be make at last a real difference between close combat weapon and orher, and not only by their accuracy or TU consumption.

It should be interesting to have for example pistol which have more power at short range than rifle, then make short range weapon preferable in UFO or town assault, and rifle or other long range weapon better for outdoor missions. Something like a precision rifle could have a huge damage malus to be used point-blank, this could be made a real counterpart to good accuracy and big power : without that, this kind of weapon often become overpowered because there is no real reason to use others.
And this is realistic, a high power rifle used point-blank will litteraly pass through target, and not make big wound if the bullet don't hit something vital, while in long range, the bullet should have loss enough energy to explode or rest in the target's body, resulting more injury. An vice versa, because it is not the accuracy the greatest problem of a shotgun at long range, it is the fact the munition lost quickly all his wounding power.

EDIT : I just see there is already such feature, so my question is "Is the maxrange, aimrange dropoff etc. would work with any ruleset ? (and the option distance accuracy of course) ?"

[Solarius Scorch]

I think distances in OpenXCom are too small to really matter for most firearms.

However, some degree of dissipation could be interesting for energy weapons to play with.

[LeBashar]

In fact I have realized the options don't make what I want because they only act on accuracy.

Solariaus I agree but it seem the ingame distance are "compressed" because a man with a rifle, unable to hit someone at 10 meters... oO"
All maps would be too huge if there were reaalistic distances.

Anyway, having this parameters could make us able to make real difference between weapons, even if theses will be little exaggeratted. And it could allow to make somes fun thing with futuristic weapon : plasma could have huge power but quick dissipation where laser could have nearly no dissipation but less power. (or vice versa)

[moriarty]

Solariaus I agree but it seem the ingame distance are "compressed" because a man with a rifle, unable to hit someone at 10 meters... oO"

I always assumed that the accuracies and hit chances factor in the movement of the target (and the shooter). you can't see it, because it's turn-based, but of course they are moving all the time. Then again, the to-hit chances are the same if the soldier is trying to shoot a tree after not moving for a full turn, so yeah, it's not truly realistic

[Solarius Scorch]

Solariaus I agree but it seem the ingame distance are "compressed" because a man with a rifle, unable to hit someone at 10 meters... oO"
All maps would be too huge if there were reaalistic distances.

Well, it's a valid argument.
Whatever the case, I would like to play with this flag.

[LeBashar]

There is also the line of sight : I assume one square ingame should be like one meter by one. And soldiers have a line of sight of... 20 meters ? And many battle square aren't more than 100x100 m which is very small in realistic terms, but already big ingame.

So I always think distance ingame are compressed for gameplay (and initial core programation) reasons.

In the opposite radius blast of explosives don't seem to be so reduced which make weird things : a rookie as very much chance to throw a grenade at the right place (at nearly 10 m) than to hit it with is rifle. Huges explosives have a radius blast nearly egal to the light of sight. etc.

So if we assume the range and accuracy of weapons are reduced for match the small square map, the idea their damages should do the same seem not to be ridiculous

Moriarty, what you say make me think of another improvement : because the game has already a way to know if something have moved or not (used by the motion scanner), it should be possible to make an option which use it an give :
- less accuracy if you try to shot something which has moved
- less accuracy if you have moved in this turn, before trying to shot
- no penalty accuracy if you are immobile and firing on an immobile target.
This could be solve the last lack in the game about accuracy and make some realistic improvement like chose to fire on the wall behind a moving alien, with explosive ammo, and have more chance to success than trying to shot alien directly.

[moriarty]

I think that makes sense... if this is implemented correctly, it could increase the tactical depth - think true sniper tactics, with stationary snipers that actually have higher accuracy because they are not moving...

[Solarius Scorch]

There is also the line of sight : I assume one square ingame should be like one meter by one. And soldiers have a line of sight of... 20 meters ? And many battle square aren't more than 100x100 m which is very small in realistic terms, but already big ingame.

Actually, most maps are 40x40 or 50x50. Only X-Com Base and Mars Final Assault are 60x60. So it's not even 100x100 m.

So I always think distance ingame are compressed for gameplay (and initial core programation) reasons.

Yes, precisely.

In the opposite radius blast of explosives don't seem to be so reduced which make weird things : a rookie as very much chance to throw a grenade at the right place (at nearly 10 m) than to hit it with is rifle. Huges explosives have a radius blast nearly egal to the light of sight. etc.

However, explosive power drops quickly with distance from the centre. Unless it's very powerful like a Blaster Bomb, because their explosive range is artificially decreased.

Moriarty, what you say make me think of another improvement : because the game has already a way to know if something have moved or not (used by the motion scanner), it should be possible to make an option which use it an give :
- less accuracy if you try to shot something which has moved
- less accuracy if you have moved in this turn, before trying to shot
- no penalty accuracy if you are immobile and firing on an immobile target.

This is how it was done in Xenonauts and I kind of dislike this system. It strengthens the alienation of the game mechanics from the in-game reality, since after all the action takes place in real time, it's only represented by turns. There's no substantial difference between doing two things in the same turn and doing them in separate turns, since in reality they were still done one after the other; there's no "break" to allow enemies to move. Therefore, if you get penalty for moving and then shooting, then why not for moving, ending the turn, and shooting at the beginning of your next turn?

[moriarty]

This is how it was done in Xenonauts and I kind of dislike this system. It strengthens the alienation of the game mechanics from the in-game reality, since after all the action takes place in real time, it's only represented by turns. There's no substantial difference between doing two things in the same turn and doing them in separate turns, since in reality they were still done one after the other; there's no "break" to allow enemies to move. Therefore, if you get penalty for moving and then shooting, then why not for moving, ending the turn, and shooting at the beginning of your next turn?

True... also, I guess this is kind of represented in the increased TU cost for "aimed" shots - the time it takes to aim

It might make sense to also tie accuracy to energy - exhausted soldiers have trouble aiming, due to muscle fatigue and accelerated heartrate & breathing. That would transfer into consecutive turns, as well as taking into account heavy equipment. What do you think?

[Solarius Scorch]

It might make sense to also tie accuracy to energy - exhausted soldiers have trouble aiming, due to muscle fatigue and accelerated heartrate & breathing. That would transfer into consecutive turns, as well as taking into account heavy equipment. What do you think?

Hmm... maybe if the bar is extremely low, like 0-3 (no movement possible). Otherwise I think it would be superfluous and would make the game more tedious without making it more tactical. And it would probably make storm assaults even less desirable than they are now.

[LeBashar]

Therefore, if you get penalty for moving and then shooting, then why not for moving, ending the turn, and shooting at the beginning of your next turn?

Because we must have some base of choice. It is just a trick for the simulation : because it is turn based, we said "if you shoot after begun to move, it is like if you shot in moving".
Which can be seem weird if you kneel before shot 

Or else, we can make an accuracy bonus to the reaction fire, because it is the only which we are really sure the soldier who made it was in waiting for shoting.

But we can still keep the accuracy bonus for shot something immobile.

[Solarius Scorch]

Because we must have some base of choice. It is just a trick for the simulation : because it is turn based, we said "if you shoot after begun to move, it is like if you shot in moving".

Well, I still find it harmful to the immersion. It's making the game more game-y. I do appreciate the tactical value of this, but I think it's being outweighed by the arbitrariness. Sorry.

Or else, we can make an accuracy bonus to the reaction fire, because it is the only which we are really sure the soldier who made it was in waiting for shoting.

This is not always so, but I can accept this simplification.

[LeBashar]

I don't know what game-y mean 

[Solarius Scorch]

I don't know what game-y mean 

It describes a game feature that emphasizes the fact that it's a game, not real life. Often is a result of some sort of convention in a gaming genre rather than an attempt to simulate real processes/events. Sometimes is a decision to enhance gameplay value at the cost of believability.

It is not a bad thing in itself, but in a tactical game like X-Com, it's rather glaring. In a more abstract game, like for example Final Fantasy, it wouldn't be a problem, since this game's mechanics aren't supposed to simulate anything we know from real life. But here it is, because it's a tactical warfare simulator and it's one of X-Com's strongest points.

[volutar]

[Necroposting]
There was an idea of LASER weapon working underwater (in hybrid-type of game), but with distance/damage penalty.
It's physically correct, that laser underwater is scattered really quickly, and can be used only as short-range or even melee distance weapon.
During and after TFTD underwater "special" type environment be implemented, it is possible to make weapon acting differently. Maybe two sections for each weapon/ammo. Like with units (with _UNDERWATER suffix).
Toghether, this power/distance thing could be really useful for that kind of thing.