Hmm... This is of course all just speculation until the original poster responds, but it occurs to me that the mechanical targets in their setting might be stuffed full of sensitive electronics and mechanical parts, with only limited redundancy. This would mean that concussive damage (as from an explosion) or highly-penetrative damage (as from a laser or armour-piercing bullet) is more likely to damage something important, and thus produce a debilitating wound, than in a non-mechanical target.

As to plasma, indeed, the high temperature would seem like a problem for biological targets--but then, one might expect it to be a problem for the weapon-wielder, too. That said, I think--and I speak very much as a layman, so take my thoughts here with a fair bit of salt--that it's possible to produce a relatively-cool plasma, which might be useful as a specifically anti-electronic weapon.

Well the point of having energy-weapons be anti-robot is mostly gameplay-related. So you should collect different weapons for different situations.

As understood from my first post, the game is not at all suitable for details such as having target movement effect penetration (that might be realistic though im not very familiar with science-fiction weapons). Neither will there be different damage classes for different energy weapons.

Yeah robots work sort of like armoured but with a twist (mainly regards to energy, fire and explosives). Fire = anti-organic, Explosion = anti-robot.

But some game do use energy-weapons as anti-robot, so i hope the concept doesnt seem TOO unintuitive?

And what about the other stuff? The numbers and how i divide melee weapons between normal and piercing?

Well the point of having energy-weapons be anti-robot is mostly gameplay-related. So you should collect different weapons for different situations.

As understood from my first post, the game is not at all suitable for details such as having target movement effect penetration (that might be realistic though im not very familiar with science-fiction weapons). Neither will there be different damage classes for different energy weapons.

Yeah robots work sort of like armoured but with a twist (mainly regards to energy, fire and explosives). Fire = anti-organic, Explosion = anti-robot.

But some game do use energy-weapons as anti-robot, so i hope the concept doesnt seem TOO unintuitive?

And what about the other stuff? The numbers and how i divide melee weapons between normal and piercing?

Okay, in this case its kinda "anything goes"... you can always come up with "explanations" if something is not really how stuff works in real life.

I see Thaumaturges point, if we are talking about CHEAP entertainment class electronics devices, true, not much stuff will be redundant (which is why many of the cheap electronic devices like USB Stick will certainly die within years, while you could theoretically build one that will keep going for decades)...

Depending on what the backstory is behind your robots, that might actually make (some) sense... entertainment robots built for home use for example instead of military robots (which should be tough as nails, the difference should be even greater than between average john doe and an elite soldier).

Well, yeah, most games treat the term "energy weapon" as another word for "weair magical device we cannot explain ouselves", and then find sciency sounding names to make people believe this is still "science fiction" when it has basically become "fantasy in space" long ago.

About 5% of Star Wars is Science Fiction... the Rest is all fantasy.... those lasers and light sabers and even their space craft physics? All made up for maximum cinematic impact, not based in science at all. "Lasers" where just all the rage and really science-fiction in the seventies, that is why george lucas called his weird beam weapons lasers.

Star Wars and George Lucas never did take the time to try to come up with explanations, they clearly didn't have sciencists and technicians as consultants when they created the first 3 movies, and they didn't care about it in the meantime.

Now, I am NOT a particular fan of mixing fact with fiction WITHOUT giving audiences a particular hint about which is fact and which is fiction... which is why I DO like mixing science-fiction and magic (never been troubled by the force at all), but I highly dislike when something called like something from the real world doesn't work like it does in the real world (in case of Star Wars "Lasers", light moving way slower than lightspeed, a laserbeam being visible even without dust particles in the air, or making a sound when the beam zips by).

But that is me and my Nerd rage. I personally would call a weapon that is basically "future tech so advanced I don't understand it myself" by a name that isn't recognizable to other "raging nerds" like me that might pick your game apart because your laser do not follow normal laws of physics. Calling it a "death ray" or "particle beam" allows you to come up with your own "physics" that do satisfy the needs of your game design without having players bicker about you bending the laws of physic. It is, after all, incredibly advanced future tech... which is indistinguable from magic... and we all know that magic is used as a "deus ex machina" very often to explain stuff in games that just has to work the way it does for gameplay reasons.

Apart from that naming issue, your energy weapons can basically do whatever you want them to do. As soon as you abandon realworld examples (which there are not many really built ones anyway of besides lasers and maybe some microwave based weapons), your imagination is the only limitation.

About your close combat attack types, sound about right to me... piercing doing more damage to organic creatures could model how they have a bigger tendency to suffer from bloodloss.

I am still not 100% onboard about mechanical creatures taking more damage from explosions... but again, you could come up with some explanations....

e.g: The robots are old rust-buckets that haven't been properly maintained for years, and cannot maintain themselves. They will keep going until their nuclear core malfunctions or their frame collapses under its own weight after taking enough damage from rust and the weather, but they have become more fragile than some of the mutants running around.

While they still don't bleed when cut and don't care much about heat, their shells and frames have become quite fragile and will collapse quickly when blown up with explosives.

If you frame the backstory correctly, almost anything is explainable somehow. You CAN imitate star wars in not even trying to explain things, if you are ready to face some nerd rage and people calling you out on it (George Lucas reply was simply "The Star Wars Universe follows different laws of physics" )

There is a gaming logic to explosives being better than bullets to robots.

Robots are often lumped together with vehicles or tanks in games (when it comes to damage/armour classes). I know a "grenade" (which should be a typical frag grenade most of the time) is very different than a anti-tank warhead fired from a RPG-kinda weapon, but they often fill the same role in games.

I could of course (if i want to complicate things down the road:)

frag grenade = normal damage (strong vs unarmoured weak vs rest)

some other grenade (what type?) = piercing damage (strong vs armoured)

emp grenade = only strong vs robots.

Yeah this can go on forever... :)

There is a gaming logic to explosives being better than bullets to robots.

Robots are often lumped together with vehicles or tanks in games (when it comes to damage/armour classes). I know a "grenade" (which should be a typical frag grenade most of the time) is very different than a anti-tank warhead fired from a RPG-kinda weapon, but they often fill the same role in games.

I could of course (if i want to complicate things down the road:)

frag grenade = normal damage (strong vs unarmoured weak vs rest)

some other grenade (what type?) = piercing damage (strong vs armoured)

emp grenade = only strong vs robots.

Yeah this can go on forever...

Well, realistically seen, there IS some merit to lumping HEAT Projectiles (which is the antitank warhead used by RPGs) together with High Explosive Warheads.

Many modern RPG HEAT warheads do allow you some kind of dual purpose use by making it possible to use the warhead as HEAT warhead (thus a strongly focused explosion that will melt the copper and thus create the molten metal stream, but almost zero explosive effect), or as a makeshift explosive warhead (by triggering the explosives at a different time AFAIK)... The explosion is not as strong as with a HE Warhead, and there is not as much fragmentation as with a Fragmentation warhead (like what is commonly used in Hand grenades), but it is still enough to level brick walls, so this dual purpose HEAT warhead is most probably the best realworld equivalent to your "explosive" warhead.

Highly effective against armour and vehicles, not so effective against spread out infantry (where the lower explosive payload will make it less effective).

Of course, lumping together armoured and unarmoured vehicles is just as right or wrong as lumping together armoured or unarmoured organic targets. shooting a human in "power armour" vs an unarmoured human with a .5 inch bullet has the same difference in effectivity as shooting an armoured battleship or an oil tanker with a 16" HE shell...

Both the power armoured human as well as the battleship will get their paint chipped, and might get injured lightly (the human might be blown off his feet even though the armour will not be penetrated, the battleship might get some superstructure damage even though no vital systems will be harmed)... as for the others examples, its game over.

But, as said, such inconistencies with reality could be completly ignored if you don't care about it, or could be explained if you do care but still want to go forward with your design.

Consider that even if the projectile doesnt penetrate it can still have a significant effect on the target -- maybe not a fatal hit , but its being converted to blunt force against part of the body - bruising, concussion, wind knocked out of you, knocked over, damage to any equipment being carried, etc...

Normal guns
or
Peircing guns (revolvers, assault rifles, rifles, machineguns)

seems contrived - arbitrary.

no offense, but do you just make this stuff up?

Armor piercing bullets for various types of guns:

as you can see, its not so much the type of gun as the bullet being fired. until you get into large weapons (like a standard .50 cal round) vs personal body armor.

if you're going to make it simplistic, at least try to make it believable.

the whole pistols vs revolvers thing might be enough for me to dismiss the game as "worse than casual", and thus not worthy of my time. and that's _before_ i put on my hard core gamer hat.

hmm point taken. But you wouldnt play halflife or fallout etc simply becouse they have too unrealistic weapon behaviour? Id say your hardcore hat is already on then.

Remember, this is NOT a military simulation game. Again, it has zombies, hitech wepaons, robots and loot chests. I do want some overlap with reality when possible and NOT conflicting with gameplay.

Choice of weapon type to use against a certain type of enemy/monster is an important gameplay concept.

Why rifles (even with intermidate rounds) are more "piercing" than smgs or pistol (standing in for typical 9mm pistol) i hope is not completly arbitrary. As for the specific case of revolver i know its a bit of a stretch (so are zombies). But "revolver" are often used as slow-firing, low capacity, non-long range weapons in games, but with a distinct advantage = high damage/armour penetration per bullet. Otherwise they become to similar to pistols, so why have both?

If revolvers are your main concern i think ill just do it anyway:)

Weapon classes (rifle, pistol, revolver, crossbow) will represent a weapon ARCHETYPE. As such their characteristics are exaggerated. I would say this is very common in games (but NOT in simulations of course).

Why rifles (even with intermidate rounds) are more "piercing" than smgs or pistol (standing in for typical 9mm pistol) i hope is not completly arbitrary. As for the specific case of revolver i know its a bit of a stretch (so are zombies). But "revolver" are often used as slow-firing, low capacity, non-long range weapons in games, but with a distinct advantage = high damage/armour penetration per bullet. Otherwise they become to similar to pistols, so why have both?



If revolvers are your main concern i think ill just do it anyway:)

Weapon classes (rifle, pistol, revolver, crossbow) will represent a weapon ARCHETYPE. As such their characteristics are exaggerated. I would say this is very common in games (but NOT in simulations of course).

I would go with what you see in the majority of other similar games.

Unless you're purposefully trying to be obtuse, your players will thank you that your weapons behave the way they expect them to behave. e.g. "i picked up a .357 magnum, this gun is good for short range stopping power against unarmoured people and standard zombies".

Revolvers are a simpler mechanism and generally can be easier to maintain in working order and less susceptible to environmental factors like dirt.

For a "Craphouse World" game scenario they are also easier to make at lower crafting standards (the very first ones didnt even have cartridges - you loaded them with ball and cap and powder etc...)

Oh and for pistols vs rifle - pistol is handier in close/tight situations (something rare for game mechanics to differentiate) as well as easier to conceal/carry