Duck and Cover

Here's an idea. A small single shot rocet pistol. It shoot very small rockets with a small explosive tip. The rockets would have to be like 2-3 inches and would load from the top rear of the gun. Now that I think about it, it'd kind of be like an explosive flare gun. But that wouldn't be any fun.

OnTheBounce wrote: Good show, Dan. Most people don't have the guts to admit when they're wrong.

OTB

HA! I'm never wrong!

spyder07 wrote:Here's an idea. A small single shot rocet pistol. It shoot very small rockets with a small explosive tip. The rockets would have to be like 2-3 inches and would load from the top rear of the gun. Now that I think about it, it'd kind of be like an explosive flare gun. But that wouldn't be any fun.

Something the FO universe could use is...[drumroll]...Gyrojet weapons, which are just what you're talking about. They were all the rage in the '50, w/quite a few people convinced that they would replace conventional projectile weapons...as soon as all of the bugs were worked out. Basically they fired mini-rockets (ca. 13mm), which had very poor accuracy at close range. Here are some photos:





A good game balance issue would be to have them do medium amounts of Explosive damage as opposed to ridiculous amounts of Normal damage like the gauss weapons.

Dan wrote:Therefor i'm wrong and youre right and all that...

Dan wrote:HA! I'm never wrong!

I see. I guess you're just confused then. :mrgreen:

OTB

OnTheBounce wrote:

Dan wrote:Therefor i'm wrong and youre right and all that...

Dan wrote:HA! I'm never wrong!

I see. I guess you're just confused then. :mrgreen:

OTB

No, just kidding actually.

The mini-rockets could be nice.

As long as theyr'e not too powerfull and they don't make too much splash damage.

Dan wrote:No, just kidding actually.

As was I, Dan. As was I.

Dan wrote:The mini-rockets could be nice. As long as theyr'e not too powerfull and they don't make too much splash damage.

I was thinking that they didn't do any splash damage at all. It would be like shooting someone w/an explosive bullet, with all damage occuring to the target and not an area.

OTB

Those weapons were useless, though. They were too inaccurate for use at any decent range and at close range they traveled too slow to be useful. In fact, you could put your finger on the barrel and keep the rocket from coming out of the gun.

Doyle wrote:Those weapons were useless, though. They were too inaccurate for use at any decent range and at close range they traveled too slow to be useful. In fact, you could put your finger on the barrel and keep the rocket from coming out of the gun.

The Fallout ones can be better.

I suppose they could.

I never knew anything about that. I think that the rockets are to small though. That's why in my idea the gun was only a single shot because the rockets were larger.

Here's another idea. Deranger pistols. You know the single shot ones. They could be a sinlge use gun that would cause a critical at close range.

What would explain why it is more likely to cause criticals at short range? There has to be some reality involved.

Lynxer wrote:What would explain why it is more likely to cause criticals at short range? There has to be some reality involved.

Maybe the projectile loses velocity too fast, thus making a critical hit in long range harder to score.

Lynxer wrote:What would explain why it is more likely to cause criticals at short range? There has to be some reality involved.

Perhaps it could be due to surprise. If an enemy "knows" that you are unarmed, and you pull a small-sized but large-bore pistol out of nowhere...

Dan wrote:Maybe the projectile loses velocity too fast, thus making a critical hit in long range harder to score.

A bullet will typically lose it's horizontal speed when it hits something or the ground. Wind sheer is mostly neglected when it comes to them because they're tiny, streamlined, fired low to the ground(since most people are standing on the ground when they fire them), and moving really fast.

It's like the old question, which will hit the ground first? A bullet that's fired from a gun at four feet off the ground or one that's dropped from four feet off the ground. Most people would claim that the one that's dropped will hit first. However, both the fired bullet and the dropped bullet will hit at the same time because the accelleration due to gravity is the same for both of them.

So really, I'm not sure why someone would suggest a bullet fired at close range would do more damage than one fired at long range unless it's a gameplay device that's not designed to mirror reality.

Saint_Proverbius wrote:

Dan wrote:Maybe the projectile loses velocity too fast, thus making a critical hit in long range harder to score.

A bullet will typically lose it's horizontal speed when it hits something or the ground. Wind sheer is mostly neglected when it comes to them because they're tiny, streamlined, fired low to the ground(since most people are standing on the ground when they fire them), and moving really fast.

It's like the old question, which will hit the ground first? A bullet that's fired from a gun at four feet off the ground or one that's dropped from four feet off the ground. Most people would claim that the one that's dropped will hit first. However, both the fired bullet and the dropped bullet will hit at the same time because the accelleration due to gravity is the same for both of them.

So really, I'm not sure why someone would suggest a bullet fired at close range would do more damage than one fired at long range unless it's a gameplay device that's not designed to mirror reality.

Your'e right, horizontal speed wouldn't be affected by gravity.
But because were talking about mini-rockets (that won't be tiny) shouldn't the air friction slow the bullet down?

Dan wrote:But because were talking about mini-rockets (that won't be tiny) shouldn't the air friction slow the bullet down?

But they are tiny. We're only talking about rockets w/a diamter of 13-15mm here, which puts them in the same league as large bullets.

When it comes to velocity, you're better off being hit at 10m than 100m w/a gyrojet weapon because the muzzle velocity is ridiculously low, as opposed to firearms where MV is the quickest rate at which a bullet will be moving. IMHO, something like Gyrojet weapons should use the "Long Only" range category that was in FoT. (Then again, so should Grenade Launchers, but I digress...)

If you're talking games vs. reality the idea of a critical hit being more likely at close range is best used to reward weapons w/a very short range. Who wants to use a weapon w/insanely short range unless there is some advantage to it? (Death animations count as an advantage when it comes to Flamers, in addition to the fact that most armor types protect only very poorly against Fire-based damage. )

OTB

Very good point, OTB, which is a beloved design idea by game devs, in rewarding melee and short-ranged folks with more powerful means since they are taking more of a risk.

I think the bullet slowing down was talking about Deringer pistols rather than the mini-rocket launchers. The only reason Deringers would be more effective at close range is because they would simply be too inaccurate. However, I don't think Deringers fit the retro feel of the game anyway.

About the rocket launchers: The more I think about them the more I think these would be a good hi-tech addition to the Fallout universe. They would have to be very limited in supply -- maybe a couple at a research facility or something -- to account for the previous exclusion, though.

I like the Gyrojet idea as well. In the retrofuture, advances in propellant and stabilization could reduce the short-range ineffectiveness and vulnerability to crosswinds shortly after firing.

The rockets need not be explosive since they are high-velocity. IIRC, the original ones weren't. Of course, explosive, AP, incendiary, etc. rockets are still possible...

Gyrojet BBS: http://pub80.ezboard.com/bmbassociatesgyrojetpage
Warning: Heaps o' popups.

http://www.hwth.com/guns/MBA_Gyrojet.htm

http://oldguns.net/cgi-bin/f2f/f2f.pl?h ... &a4_97.htm
(scroll down)

do you think that every weapon from FO1 and FO2 will be in FO3?
because it would be odd if they left out a bunch, unless the engine they use would make it too time consuming to re-create all of them

They should leave out all the real-world weapons from FO2. There's simply no reason to include them.