X-Mod thread

[Volcano Man]

Yes, I agree with Jeff that the "status" of weapons is not just "wear and tear" like many think it is (although it does often represent that with the poorest quality weapons -- like Chauchat), it is mainly modeling ammunition consumption. In SB:FWW field guns have X reliability, simply because it is assumed they have plenty enough ammo to last through one relatively short SB scenario. Other than that, continuous fire of small arms would deplete ammunition to the point that fire will lessen, suppressing fire will slack off to a minimum, and that is where your status comes in.

Since lethality values came up in the conversation -- in regards to modern titles, my issue is when the titles move into the present and the M-16 stays the same lethality as it does in Vietnam. I can see that on the surface of it it might seem like it makes sense that it would, being the same rifle after all, but the problem with that is that these weapons now have various attachments like AN-PEQ lasers, M68 red dot or ACOG sights, floating barrel, hand grips for better stability, etc (I have used all of these things as an MOS 11B). These things have combined to create significant combat multipliers to the aged M4/M16 to the degree that lethality can/should be double or more the lethality that it was in the 1960s, because of greatly increased accuracy, because you are more lethal than using the decked out M4 than using the old "M16 musket" with iron sites. This is where consistency becomes a bad thing. I am a slave to uniformity myself (thanks to the military), so I am often guilty of not deviating from the path.

Anyway, just saying, something to keep in mind in the present day titles going forward. Assuming that Modern War was balanced off the standard M16 lethality values then the effect should be minimal in that title -- i.e. this is not a complaint about that game! -- but going forward it would be nice to see modern "bling'd out weapons" become more lethal in a 1:1 comparison. :)

Just my two cents...