Sorry, I get frustrated easily when hard science gets ignored in favor of statistical empirical data that can’t be backed up with factual data. It’s like talking to Climate Change Deniers.
I think I Might have been the one to actually lose sight of the conversation. I thought it had shifted at some point to people in power armor getting shredded by mines, not simply in quad layers of the best end-game combat armor.
Re: Point 2, I can think of a dispersion system off the top of my head that would redirection explosive gases off to the side of the point of detonation. With a sufficient thickness boot of a material with a high tolerance against plastic deformation, and most importantly, the suit weighing enough to counter-act the VoD’s shockwave, you could vent the explosion to the area around you. Downside, in a minefield, you’d trigger any mines in a 4x4~ tile radius from the blast pressure.Unless the suit also had some kind of cooling mechanism in the boot, your foot would probably also get pretty hot pretty quick since essentially what I’m seeing in my head turns part of the boot into a muzzle.
Re: Point 3. Unless we’re talking decommissioned ordnance, (pre-operation desert storm), the modern anti-tank mine is magnetically fuzed. You can jump up and down on it and it isn’t going to detonate. Step on it with power armor on the other hand, and well… 25 pounds of semtex is going to pretty much ruin your day.
Since the mines aren’t particularly dangerous to you when they detonate at a distance, this sounds like a feature
Totally, I’m not even saying the wearer would escape unscathed, just not mortally wounded.
I was being sloppy, yes that’s the case, you don’t have to worry about these unless you ARE in a vehicle or power armor.
Interestingly, if mines are limited to those allowed by modern US doctrine (which I think cuts out blast-type AP mines as well), there’s limited threat to power armor wearers, as all of the mines are scatterable, so in addition to having to step over the thing to trigger it, they’re not exactly inconspicuous… ok double-checked, they ARE pretty damn small, only a 6cm x 12cm cylinder, but in game terms you will still always spot that.
On the other hand, all it takes is hand-emplacement to make it deadly to PA users.
I may have missed some options, but it looks like everything outside of FASCAM and a few weird one-offs is currently deprecated, even though we still have stocks of some of them.
Speaking of in-game things, I’m currently working on implementing the M67/M72 in the game, the unlimbered version used by spec ops that acts like a grenade would be AMAZING for getting a small horde off your tail. Meanwhile I’m overhauling how shrapnel works entirely, as a cloud of shrapnel rather than a handful of projectiles (it’s literally a handful in most cases, it’s pretty silly). This changes how a grenade like the M61/M67, or an improvised explosive would work in the game as well.
The M61 probably, I don’t know which one (or even if it’s one of those two) is standard issue. I’m not saying I’m going to add frag grenades, I’m changing how they work.
Ah okay that’s what I was wondering. I didn’t know if you implied you were adding a new grenade or not. (My presumption is that typically infantry carry frag grenades)
So being a unfamiliar with those, I did so. According to wikipedia, the M67 is either a frag grenade or an early recoilless rifle. The only entry I can find for M72 is the lightweight antitank weapon which has been in the game for years. I take it you’re adding this unlimbered version, whatever that means?
My bad, the names overlap for some bizarre reason (and the version issued to special forces (the “unlimbered version” I was referencing) has a different name than the version deployed via artillery), I’m talking about this:
Smoke, signal, frag, concussion, and high explosive depending on your role in your squad.
Edit: flashbangs are also standard issue, especially to special operators or designated breachers.
would like to mention that the ‘heating’ issue of a power armor’s foot getting hot from a landmine would be fixed by a micro-lattice of super conductors. the thermal dissipation CBM uses that with active cooling to make you immune to fire, the power armor could just have it act a heat-evening system that the normal climate control then dissipate.
Since you’re backpedaling on the insults, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t consider “Climate Change Denier” an insult. Which would be strange, but I’m nothing if not generous.
In any case I don’t know why you act like statistics and physics are opposed to each other. If your physics calculations don’t match the statistics there could be either an error in the statistic methodology or your variable isolation. They’re complimentary, not opposed, and inconsistency in either could mean that either or both methodologies were incomplete. Generally physics has problems answering most questions that start with “how likely”, after all. The universe is deterministic, so if your calculations account for all relevant variables you should always get the same answer. Games use RNG to abstract those unaccounted for variables. Statistics only answers “how likely”, but it’s still only as good as what you control for. “How many people injured by a mine die” is a different question from “how many people who step on a mine die”, as Kevin pointed out.
There are statistics, you just disagreed with how robust the methodology was. I don’t have the full paper since it’s behind a paywall so I don’t know if the researchers controlled for the cases you took issue with. But I think there’s a strong argument that fragmentation mines aren’t as immediately lethal as suggested, considering that international law classifies them as an indiscriminate weapon that prioritizes maiming over killing, and what statistics we do have corroborates that.
@kevin.granade
Speaking of variables I just had a thought. Disarming traps should include taking proper precautions, so some amount of reduced damage from traps when one does go off when disarming it would be appropriate, I think. Scaling with trapping skill.
Isn’t the pre-Cataclysm US government kind of incompetent/corrupt? I’d assume a good portion of military restrictions goes out the window in the event of zombie attack, so it’s possible they’d dip into stocks off mines that aren’t part of current tactics. You can probably come up with a reasonable lore justification for having them or not either way. Maybe survivors set up IEDs as well, who probably aren’t too concerned with blowing someone up by accident at this point.
It’s not that physics and statistics are opposed, it’s good physics and bad statistics that are in opposition.
The statistics available don’t support either side, but you keep claiming they do via sheer repetition.
If we had access to stastical data that supported lethality rate for a single victim triggering a blast-type ap mine being significantly lower than 1, I would be a bit surprised and concede the issue, but we have no such data.
Its not that I don’t agree with the methodology, none of the statistics you’ve presented (or that I’ve been able to find) actually cover the scenario we’re discussing. No one in the mine casualty reporting area cares what kind of mine it was, or whether the casualty triggered the device or not, and they just don’t have access to some of the other data like people killed by a mine when alone.
Everything I know about blast mines tells me that if you step one one while you’re alone you’re dead, and if anything, triggering one while trying to disarm it is worse unless you’re wearing some very specialized gear.
Sorry I was unclear about this, that was intended as a VERY hypothetical “if”, I have no intention of restricting the kinds of mines or other ordinance to just what is typical for the modern US armed forces.
