The current state of ammunition

Game Talk The Drawing Board
1

Some ammunition in cata has nonsensical stats, strange descriptions and even stranger applications. An example is the damage difference between 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO. There is only 4 difference (40 vs 44), yet the 7.62 NATO round has disadvantages to compensate for a larger difference. These stats are also unrealistic.

Another point is the labeling and description of ammunition. In my opinion it should be assumed to be FMJ unless stated otherwise, especially for standard military rounds. Some ammunition types also have strange descriptions. These are only minor problems.

My last problem is specifically about the 8x40mm round. It is used in pistols, revolvers, SMGs, assault rifles, battle rifles, LMGs and HMGs. For this to be accurate it would have to simultaneously fit at least four mutually exclusive ammunition categories.

Proposed solutions:
Damage and recoil should be derived from muzzle energy. Penetration, range and accuracy may remain arbitrary.
Change names and descriptions of some ammunition.
Create more ammunition types for use by Rivtech weapons.

I could implement this if it is approved.

2

I’m not seeing what kind of heavy disadvantages tthe 7.62 exactly has? First off, the real world chose the 5.56, apparently because its lighter, more accurate and has way lower recoil, which is shown in the stats of both ingame. The 7.62 hits a bit harder, that’s true, but it’s not a lot more effective than the 5.56, and it’s not a viable option for anything with burst or automatic fire due to the high recoil and weight.
In all, the stats feel >right< to me, could you be more precise?

What descriptions are strange? Examples! Also, why should be assume everything is FMJ? BEcause it’s the standard round for the military? I don’t live in america, but I’m pretty sure you can get all kinds of ammo in the right shop, especially with the backstory CDDA gives us (Everyone is allowed to own a gun and so on, wasn’t it? Or am I mixing it up now?)

The 8x40 was made by Rivtech, a futuristic manufacturer which does not exist today. A bullet of this size doesn’t even exist today, If I am to believe google.
In any case, point is, All the guns that use 8x40 are also from Rivtech, and I don’t really see a problem with them constructing different types of guns that use the same ammo? There are several other bullets nowadays which can be used in different types of guns if I recall correctly, why couldn’t someone in the future, where we have new super-alloys and stuff, also make a single bullet which can be used for all kidns of guns?

3
I'm not seeing what kind of heavy disadvantages tthe 7.62 exactly has? First off, the real world chose the 5.56, apparently because its lighter, more accurate and has way lower recoil, which is shown in the stats of both ingame. The 7.62 hits a bit harder, that's true, but it's not a lot more effective than the 5.56, and it's not a viable option for anything with burst or automatic fire due to the high recoil and weight. In all, the stats feel >right< to me, could you be more precise?
The only disadvantages 7.62 NATO has over 5.56 NATO are higher weight and recoil. 5.56 has larger magazines, lower recoil, lower weight and is easier to obtain in large quantities leaving little reason to use 7.62 in any situation. It is also unrealistic to have such a small difference.

Re realistic stats look at the damage difference between .45 ACP (32) and 5.56 NATO (40). Ingame these rounds have similar performance at close range. A typical handgun round should not have comparable stopping power to an intermediate cartridge, especially when there is such a large difference in muzzle energy (SS109 has 1767J, 185gr .45 has 614J).

What descriptions are strange? Examples!
Minor inaccuracies mostly. In the description for 5.56 shattering should be called fragmentation, no country I can think of regularly uses battle rifles so 7.62 should not claim to be "the standard military rifle round" when it has not been such for 50 years. There are likely more inaccuracies in other ammunition descriptions.
Also, why should be assume everything is FMJ? BEcause it's the standard round for the military? I don't live in america, but I'm pretty sure you can get all kinds of ammo in the right shop, especially with the backstory CDDA gives us (Everyone is allowed to own a gun and so on, wasn't it? Or am I mixing it up now?)
FMJ rounds are by far the most common type with JHP coming second. Other types are rare for one reason or another, at least in 2015.
The 8x40 was made by Rivtech, a futuristic manufacturer which does not exist today. A bullet of this size doesn't even exist today, If I am to believe google. In any case, point is, All the guns that use 8x40 are also from Rivtech, and I don't really see a problem with them constructing different types of guns that use the same ammo? There are several other bullets nowadays which can be used in different types of guns if I recall correctly, why couldn't someone in the future, where we have new super-alloys and stuff, also make a single bullet which can be used for all kidns of guns?
It is absolutely possible for different weapons to use the same round, that is not the point. Pistols and SMGs use pistol rounds (eg 9mm), assault rifles and LMGs use intermediate cartridges (eg 5.56 NATO), battle rifles use full size rifle cartridges (eg 7.62 NATO) and HMGs use significantly more powerful ammunition (eg .50 BMG). No ammunition can fit all these categories at once. For example if 8x40mm is a pistol round it is inaccurate to call the RM88 a battle rifle.
4

[quote=“SteelBlueWolf, post:1, topic:9969”]Proposed solutions:
Damage and recoil should be derived from muzzle energy. Penetration, range and accuracy may remain arbitrary.
Change names and descriptions of some ammunition.
Create more ammunition types for use by Rivtech weapons.[/quote]
I don’t see what the benefit of merging damage and recoil would be, certain guns are going to be better at absorbing or otherwise managing recoil than others, so there isn’t a simple relationship between the two. For example, take a SMG and a pistol that fire the same ammo, I’d expect the smg to stay on target much better (which is what ‘recoil’ is measuring) and have a slightly higher muzzle velocity. Likewise at a smaller scale I’d expect some pistols to be better at handling the recoil from the same round than others via heavier build and/or better design. The best way to handle this I can see is having seperate damage and recoil numbers, let me know if you have a different idea for handling this concept.

I’ll readily buy that the numbers aren’t representative though, feel free to suggest some adjustments and they’re quite likely to go in, especially if they’re backed by a clear rationale like muzzle energy. (You mentioned pistols getting weaker and rifles getting stronger, it’s hard to argue against that if you know a thing about how they work)

Bringing the ammunition descriptions more in line with standard usage would be welcome.

Part of the raison d’etre for the rivtech weapons is their flexibility with respect to ammunition. While I understand that the guns don’t all meet the criteria implied by their names, I also would totally believe a company would call them whatever they think would sell more units.

Also a request if you know where to find this kind of information, I’d love for the spawn rates of various guns to be more representative, especially the ones found in homes and gun stores. Even if you just have some links to some raw numbers it would be much appreciated.

5

For guns yeah, damage and recoil should stay separate. Now if it was merged for AMMO that would be acceptable.

As for the Rivtech gun, well…most of the Rivtech items are weird in general, so it seems to be intentional.

I still say ammo type overlap is the big thing we’re missing. owo

6
I don't see what the benefit of merging damage and recoil would be, certain guns are going to be better at absorbing or otherwise managing recoil than others, so there isn't a simple relationship between the two. For example, take a SMG and a pistol that fire the same ammo, I'd expect the smg to stay on target much better (which is what 'recoil' is measuring) and have a slightly higher muzzle velocity. Likewise at a smaller scale I'd expect some pistols to be better at handling the recoil from the same round than others via heavier build and/or better design. The best way to handle this I can see is having separate damage and recoil numbers, let me know if you have a different idea for handling this concept.
I am also against merging damage and recoil, that would oversimplify their relationship. My reasons for deriving recoil solely from muzzle energy are Newton's third law and simplicity. Factors like barrel length and weight are reflected in the weapon's stats separate from those of the ammunition.

I will look into the current recoil system and work out calculations to derive it from muzzle energy.

I'll readily buy that the numbers aren't representative though, feel free to suggest some adjustments and they're quite likely to go in, especially if they're backed by a clear rationale like muzzle energy. (You mentioned pistols getting weaker and rifles getting stronger, it's hard to argue against that if you know a thing about how they work)
The square root of a round's muzzle energy (Ek=1/2mv[sup]2[/sup]) appears to give reasonable and realistic results for a damage value. The only problem I have run into is finding/calculating the muzzle velocity of a round in specific conditions. Should this prove impossible I will use other tested values for muzzle energy.

It should be noted that energy is not the only factor in stopping power (ie damage). A bullet’s terminal ballistics also affect this. If this is to be reflected ingame I believe the values used will have to be arbitrary.

Part of the raison d'etre for the rivtech weapons is their flexibility with respect to ammunition. While I understand that the guns don't all meet the criteria implied by their names, I also would totally believe a company would call them whatever they think would sell more units.
I think it could mislead the player into using an inferior weapon for a situation. I am unsure of how to fix that problem.
Also a request if you know where to find this kind of information, I'd love for the spawn rates of various guns to be more representative, especially the ones found in homes and gun stores. Even if you just have some links to some raw numbers it would be much appreciated.
I don't know a lot about the US firearm market but sales figures should be available. I'll look.
7

[quote=“SteelBlueWolf, post:6, topic:9969”]Factors like barrel length and weight are reflected in the weapon’s stats separate from those of the ammunition.

I will look into the current recoil system and work out calculations to derive it from muzzle energy.[/quote]
I feel like I’m missing something here, guns do have a weight, but they do not have a barrel length stat, likewise they do not have a stat indicating how they are held, for example you’d expect a 12 gague fired using a stock to handle recoil better than one with a pistol grip, but there is currently no way to distinguish between the two. It is MUCH simpler to just declare the characteristics of the guns we care about (recoil, modifications to muzzle energy, accuracy, etc) than to declare secondary characteristics like barrel length and derive the primary statistics from them.

If by “specific conditions” you mean things like humidity, air pressure, etc, I think you’re looking into it a bit too deeply, take a look at the magnitude of these changes, and if it doesn’t significantly impact player-visible outcomes, there’s no good reason to have it modeled.

Situations like this are one of the reasons we mostly stick with arbitrary stats, it’s not reasonable to have everything modeled, and in fact you frequently end up with just as many arbitrary values as if you didn’t model the characteristics of anything, but you also have a lot of extra complexity and hard to read stats for your trouble.

[quote=“SteelBlueWolf, post:6, topic:9969”]

Part of the raison d’etre for the rivtech weapons is their flexibility with respect to ammunition. While I understand that the guns don’t all meet the criteria implied by their names, I also would totally believe a company would call them whatever they think would sell more units.

I think it could mislead the player into using an inferior weapon for a situation. I am unsure of how to fix that problem.[/quote]
That has nothing to do with the fact that the line of guns uses a shared ammunition, it’s possible renaming a few things would be in order to avoid actively misleading the player, but it’s nonsensical to say you cannot have a full line of guns with shared ammunition because it might be “misleading”.

8
I feel like I'm missing something here, guns do have a weight, but they do not have a barrel length stat, likewise they do not have a stat indicating how they are held, for example you'd expect a 12 gague fired using a stock to handle recoil better than one with a pistol grip, but there is currently no way to distinguish between the two. It is MUCH simpler to just declare the characteristics of the guns we care about (recoil, modifications to muzzle energy, accuracy, etc) than to declare secondary characteristics like barrel length and derive the primary statistics from them.
That is what I meant. Stats like damage, dispersion and recoil reflect factors like barrel length, weight and construction. I was talking about the recoil stat of the ammunition, related to it's energy rather than the recoil stat of the gun itself.
If by "specific conditions" you mean things like humidity, air pressure, etc, I think you're looking into it a bit too deeply
I mainly meant barrel length. For some rounds it is an important factor (5.56 NATO 14.5" vs 20" barrel) and the measurements I am using to derive damage from are not entirely consistent on such things. This should not have a noticeable impact on balance so like you said it is not worth considering.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the line of guns uses a shared ammunition, it's possible renaming a few things would be in order to avoid actively misleading the player, but it's nonsensical to say you cannot have a full line of guns with shared ammunition because it might be "misleading".
It is related and I did not say it is impossible for rivtech weapons to use the same ammunition. My point is that a player who doesn't look too closely could assume that an HMG has higher damage than an assault rifle when in reality all rivtech weapons have similar performance due to shared ammunition. Changes to names and descriptions would rectify this.
9

So isn’t that what I said, that maybe damage and recoil sound be merged at the ammo level, while keeping them separate at the weapon level? XP

10

[quote=“SteelBlueWolf, post:8, topic:9969”]

I feel like I’m missing something here, guns do have a weight, but they do not have a barrel length stat, likewise they do not have a stat indicating how they are held, for example you’d expect a 12 gague fired using a stock to handle recoil better than one with a pistol grip, but there is currently no way to distinguish between the two. It is MUCH simpler to just declare the characteristics of the guns we care about (recoil, modifications to muzzle energy, accuracy, etc) than to declare secondary characteristics like barrel length and derive the primary statistics from them.

That is what I meant. Stats like damage, dispersion and recoil reflect factors like barrel length, weight and construction. I was talking about the recoil stat of the ammunition, related to it’s energy rather than the recoil stat of the gun itself.[/quote]
I think I understand where you’re coming from, merge damage and recoil in the ammo, but leave them separate in guns. That sounds reasonable.

[quote=“SteelBlueWolf, post:8, topic:9969”]

That has nothing to do with the fact that the line of guns uses a shared ammunition, it’s possible renaming a few things would be in order to avoid actively misleading the player, but it’s nonsensical to say you cannot have a full line of guns with shared ammunition because it might be “misleading”.

It is related and I did not say it is impossible for rivtech weapons to use the same ammunition. My point is that a player who doesn’t look too closely could assume that an HMG has higher damage than an assault rifle when in reality all rivtech weapons have similar performance due to shared ammunition. Changes to names and descriptions would rectify this.[/quote]
I was assuming you were still going with your original suggestion of “Create more ammunition types for use by Rivtech weapons.”, if not it seems we’re in agreement.

11
Re realistic stats look at the damage difference between .45 ACP (32) and 5.56 NATO (40). Ingame these rounds have similar performance at close range. A typical handgun round should not have comparable stopping power to an intermediate cartridge, especially when there is such a large difference in muzzle energy (SS109 has 1767J, 185gr .45 has 614J).

That damage actually makes sense. Why you might ask? Well the .45 ACP is a heavy grain round; while yes it has less velocity than the 5.56 NATO is packs more of a punch then the 5.56 in close quarters. If we also look at the shape of the rounds we got a sizable difference in the 5.56 and .45, The .45 has a broad, flat head. While the 5.56 is pointy (which is for Armor Penetration). The .45 has a much higher chance to tumble and roll in the enemy then the 5.56. So it does make sense that both the rounds have only a slight difference in damage. And that the 5.56 has MUCH better Armor Penetration that the .45 (which has none).

Just wanted to point that out.

12

Military rifle rounds are designed to tumble rapidly on impact, which transfers a very large amount of energy, so it’s comparable despite the rifle round’s greater ability to penetrate armor. I’m not sure I’d put the difference in damage potential at the same ratio as the energy difference, but the higher energy round is definitely going to have greater damage-causing potential.

13

Plus the armor pierce has a considerable effect on most targets in-game.

14

So there’s a complaint about the ammo types and wanting to narrow them down? I agree with making the descriptions a bit more concise, and standarized.

But it’s not even remotely as complex as it could be. Why? All ammo has a ‘grain’. It’s the .gr you see on the box. That is the actual physical weight of the ‘bullet/lead’. Not the gunpowder.

It’s 437.5 grains in an ounce.
What this transfers to is the sectional density for penetrating flesh. Remember the overall weight of the whole bullet, not just the nose, is the same. So if your choose a 180 over a 150 grain, you have less powder pushing. This is most often found and factored in when hunting. If your going for bigger game like bear/elk, or hunting in a thicker brush you may want a bigger grain because if want to go make sure it can go through the hide/muscle, and any small twigs/branches that may be in the way (and too small on your scope).

For the military some of the grain depends on the gun, and how it shoots. Example 240G/B ammo for the military in 7.62 NATO (same caliber as the .30-06, different cartridge) they use a 147 grain FMJ, but when it comes to bullets used for the M40 they move up to 168 and 175 grain boat tail hollowpoints.

.50 BMG rounds can have up to 750 grains. Has to be in order to also have that must distance it can travel.

Remember the 7.62 ammo, overlaps with .308 and .30-06 Those are hunting rifles, and some of the early sniper styles. Those are also where you also get the most distance weapons. The ammo is heavier and is able to travel farther. The guns are also designed for it.

Overall the damage is similar yes. For the most part, when you hit in a vital spot the flesh damage is similar when you figure in bleed, and organ/muscle failure etc.

15

I think in a few cases where the variants are important, we could add different weights, but I don’t see adding the huge variation that exists in the real ammunition market. For the most part the ballistics system isn’t precise enough to notice that kind of difference.

16

If we had to, we could always make damage more granular to allow for more variation in terminal ballistics, but I don’t think it’s really worth the hassle. XP

17

There’s no significant difference between dealing 10 HP out of a target’s 40 HP and dealing 101 HP out of a target’s 400 HP, which is the kind of thing you’d get out of making damage more granular, either way it’s just not significant enough to bother with.
If I’m wrong and adjusting bullet weight is closer to a 10% difference instead of a 1% difference, then it might be worth factoring in.

18

Hence why I figured it might not be worth adding. As it stands, tweaking damage between bullet variants by plus/minus 1 or 2 seems good and minor as it is.

19

The first PR is ready to merge whenever the merge conflicts are resolved.

20

Oh scheisse. Link me, this sounds like it could break a lot of in-progress PRs.