"Can Players salavage dropped enemy weaponry?"

I know this is a staple trait of modern games, one particular RTS I'm thinking of has so far had this of a feature of every level I've played. But it's simply not realistic.

Soldiers are usually not cross-trained to use their opponents weaponry. Special forces may be, insurgents usually don't have much of a choice but to use whatever they can get their hands on.

But generally, soldiers are trained to use their issued weapons.

Machine guns and rifles are fairly easy to work out[2]. Take a field gun, and it's a mass of handles and complicated bits -- which handle is the elevation and which is the recoil absorber tension adjustment? Which shells are which? Does a blue band mean smoke or HE?

There are weapons which are self documenting -- Panzerfaust being an example. They have the usage instructions printed on the side because they were *expressly* designed to be used by people they didn't have time to train. But the instructions are in German...


Within a squad it's pretty normal to be trained to use other people's weapons. A rifleman may very well have a basic training in using the SAW or the squads anti-tank weapons, for example. But firstly, they won't be experts at tasks like cleaning the thing or clearing blockages.

Secondly, even this cross-training takes time. Particularly in wartime, even this is an expense which gets sacrificed. For other reasons (below) the average soldier's need to be able to fire not only his own side's weapons, but also his enemy's are small enough to be one of those things you just don't need to do.

Another factor is ammunition. If the RTS I have in mind is the only source, one could easily suspect that US Parachute Infantry carry more German ammunition than American.

Weapons, particularly heavy weapons such as MG, anti-tank, mortar etc, tend to use up ammunition at quite astounding rates. On foot, a mortar crew might only be carrying a dozen rounds -- they're HEAVY.

A WW2 German PanzerGrenadier unit[3] has a lot of MG ammunition -- well upwards of a dozen belts. However, again, typically this is spread across the unit. Each man will carry one of the belts, those in forward roles will leave theirs with the weapon at the same time as they strip to their assault load. Those in the rear may keep it with them, so the MG can move less encumbered.

If you don't have the rest of the unit -- and certainly if you don't have the support vehicles -- then you don't have very much ammunition for the weapon.

Thirdly, weapons aren't actually all that robust. The German army in WW2[1] made extensive use of captured equipment. It is worthwhile noting, however, that the equipment wasn't taken in battle. They used British universal carriers and lorries, Czech tanks, French guns. The British kit was captured when the men were evacuated at Dunkirk, the tanks and guns when the countries surrendered. They weren't, in general, wrenched from the hands of dying men.

For a weapon to be in combat and to be taken as a battle-prize is very rare in modern conflict. Largely this is a result of the way that casualties are inflicted. Artillery (both large-tube and mortar) constitute a large proportion of casualties and weapons whose owners have been killed by artillery fire are unserviceable.

It really doesn't take much to stop weapons (other than AK47s) being able to shoot. The actual users have to take special care to keep actions clear; picking them up after they've been used and then thrown about is likely to find them in no state to be safe.


It's reasonable to be able to pick up your own side's weapons some of the time -- many systems are nowadays designed to use the same ammunition, exactly so they will interoperate.

Picking up weapons from the opposition and being able to use them in any sensible way is unlikely and has no place in a decent simulation.






[1] It's an era I've got a background in and makes nice examples.

[2] Although, as a counter example, imagine it is the late 1980s and an enemy soldier picks up an early model British L85 rifle. He may be able to shoot the first round. He's unlikely to know that the weapon has an idiosyncrasy that it won't actually load the next round properly unless you reach over and whack the cocking handle. Modifications did later fix this, but the point here is that without having gone to the British Army training courses, the enemy soldier will be holding a jammed weapon, not a usable automatic assault rifle, even though the basic anatomy of it is familiar.

[3] Dismounted, obviously.

Well then as far as realism goes the options sound like:

1. No salavaging, at all(kinda bland)

2.Players could train a solider in each individual weapon of both enemy and ally and then if they've trained for a particular weapon they could pick it up in battle.(would be real, but annoying if the game supported a large amount of weaponary of the same class,Ex: 7 SMG's, training required for each)

3.Players could train a solider in each Type of weapon(SMG, Sniper Rifles, Heavy MG's) and then be able to use all weapons of that type.(slightly less real, but less cumbersome on the player)

4.Throw all hell to the wind and let them spray and pray as they please with whatever shiny object they find(It is what they are used to, and entertaining)

Personally I'd prefer 3 for a large selection of weapons, and 2 for a smaller amount. Also you could mix the training based on ally or enemy weaponry. What do you guys thinks?

But I guess this also brings up
1. Weapon Selection
2. Gun Maintenance, Yes/No(It'd be interesting to have to do minigames to clear jams, but it'd be annoying to spend a long time cleaning my virtual guns)

Re: Gun Maintenance

I think that could be one of the passive skills that the soldier gets in basic training. When the player is playing the training session (one that the player must pass to play infantry), clearing jams is one of the minigames that the player must complete. The time it takes for the player to clear the jams becomes the time the soldier will take to clear a jam during a fight.

The player could subsequently replay that minigame alone as practice, and do a trial run to get a better time. A trial is different from a practice in that whatever time you get during the trial will be the time the soldier will take to clear a jam thereafter. While there is no pressure during a practice, there is pressure during a trial, because the player could mess up and get a really bad time (in that case the player would logically do it again). So doing the trial many times doesn't guarantee that the time will improve.

A player that checks out a base soldier can also do skill trials to upgrade that soldier. Doing so will benefit the player and all other players that may play that soldier later. If the player gives the base soldier a worse time, the player loses credit to that soldier. Another player that improves its time can get that credit.


Re: Training for weapon type vs specific model

I would say let a soldier train for each model. And a soldier must be holding the actual weapon to be trained. So if your team picks up a new weapon, you get a situation where the entire team pass it around to train to use it. For some cases, training could be done by the soldier itself. The training again follows the Practice/Trial format, the time it takes the player to fire the weapon becomes the delay between the player clicks on the mouse and the actual firing of the weapon.


The concept of the total value of a soldier

Suppose the super soldier with all skills upgraded is worth 1000 credits. When the player completes basic training for that soldier, the soldier gets a value pertaining to the levels of its overall skill set. Such soldier may be worth 10 credits. This value is low because the soldier can also be trained to use additional weapons and vehicles. When a player checks out a soldier, part of the deposit covers the value of the soldier.

What to simulate

When we say simulating a war, what are the important aspects to simulate?

I think:

1) The sense of loss that is not trivial
2) Fighting under limited supplies, use what you have
3) The sense of cooperation, having an assigned role and being part of a team
4) Fighting not knowing when the enemy will come
5) Fighting not knowing the appearance of the enemy
6) Fighting not knowing the quantity and strength of the enemy
7) Fighting not knowing when the battle will end


I think the first three are fairly covered. What about 4 and 5? Are they important?
What aspects are important to you?

not sure if you guys would consider it relevant but i heard a saying...

A good general studies tactics, a great general studies logistics [ie keeping troops supplied etc]

:P

Re:

That totally relevant, and a good soldier studies something.

A player playing a soldier is definitely not thinking in the same terms as a player playing a general. The credits that the player with a general is using is going to be astronomical and every risk he takes depends on the performance of so many other players that he has no direct control. His can approve supplies for a base, but he cannot directly control how the leaders at the base will use the supply, or how the soldiers will fight with the equipment on the field.



[Edited by - Wai on July 16, 2010 3:34:02 PM]

I say when it comes to war "Shoot-em in the nuts"!