Ammo (again)

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:47 pm

This may have been posted before or something, but not much aside from pathwork is going on here, so oh well. This probably belongs in the Fallout 3 section, but I figured since it has to do with the first 2 Fallouts, I should put it here.

I was thinking last night about one of the common arguments, pieces of evidence, whatever about why Ammo is so common in the wasteland. Generally the argument (pro side) is based on the idea that organizations, such as the Brotherhood of Steel, are readily producing ammo in the wasteland. Well I guess lets propose this idea is true for a moment (And this is where the thought came up), wouldn't it make more sense for them to only produce one type of ammo, such as 10mm and then everygun they make is chambered to that type of ammo (Since we can also guess they're making firearms) instead of the brotherhood making a very large variety of bullets for a variety of differant guns that they may not even have or may not have in large amounts.

I suppose at this point we should discuss or something.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:32 pm

Yup.

One proposal found in the FO3 forums was to have only two/three/four/five kinds of ammo, with generalized names.

In other words, things like:
- pistol ammo
- rifle ammo
- machinegun ammo
- rockets
- laser ammo

for example. Generalized names, tons of guns making use of them. Don't know if it's such a good idea, but at least it's an idea for sure.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:36 pm

Well, that's the thing. While the BOS may control the flow of bullets to the wasteland, they don't control all the guns. Not everyone has 10mm chambered weapons. And since there are other people making bullets (Miles and Smitty rechambering rounds and the gun runners), the BOS can't really control the market that way.

Besides, a gun nut like you should know that really wouldn't work at all. How do you chamber a shotgun for 10mm hollowpoint? Abundancy aside, ammo is fine as is.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 6:52 am

Question: Why the hell would they be giving all their ammo out to random idiots?

MurPHy · Post by **MurPHy** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 7:40 am

In the hopes that the idiots would shoot themselves maybe?

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:35 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:Question: Why the hell would they be giving all their ammo out to random idiots?

The BOS and Gun Runners trade weapons and ammo for food, water and other supplies. Miles and Smitty probably mostly make ammo for guards in Adytum, but I think they also trade some.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:46 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:Question: Why the hell would they be giving all their ammo out to random idiots?

If you talk to Maxson in Fallout1, he would explain it rather clearly.

Burnov · Post by **Burnov** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:28 am

Although you make a valid point about the variety and quantity of ammunition.

I think really it comes down to the developers suspending reality so giving your character a small arms skill isn't totally pointless.

The luger broomhandle pistol you get from gizmo has fairly rare ammo doesn't it though?

As far as I'm concerned. If I don't get damage realism. I don't want realism of any other kind.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:48 am

Damage realism? There's never been a game in the history of games that had realistic damage.

Example: Assume you're playing a game, and you get shot in the leg with a gun, and you lose 10% of your life. Then you get shot 8 more times in the chest. One more shot and you're dead, but in the meantime you're free to run and jump like normal.

Kotario · Post by **Kotario** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:59 pm

Well, there are some, such as Rainbow Six which get relatively close to realistic damage. Won't say that it's completely realistic though, but it does get close.

But, back on topic, damage realism isn't really the point. How would a super mutant, with all the genetic changes, react to a gunshot wound? The entire system has a different purpose than to emulate reality.

Burnov · Post by **Burnov** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:40 pm

Damage realism? There's never been a game in the history of games that had realistic damage.

Example: Assume you're playing a game, and you get shot in the leg with a gun, and you lose 10% of your life. Then you get shot 8 more times in the chest. One more shot and you're dead, but in the meantime you're free to run and jump like normal.

Obviously you've not played Operation Flashpoint. Which has come as close as any game I think ever has. Unless you're talking about the boring and unpleasant ordeal of blood loss. But I can take it or leave it. I'm talking about damage scale and the effects of severe trauma.

All I know is in OFP and with a modified Jagged Alliance 2. I can cripple or incap and then enjoy a nice leisurely execution of my choosing. Which is what I enjoy most.

It's a long way before you'll see a game that has a perfect damage realism model, but that doesn't mean games can't have realistic damage. Usually the most vocal opponents are quake 3 players who nitpick on minor irrelevancies.

Furthermore. To put a finer point on the issue. When I mean realistic damage perhaps I should say sensible damage to any vital point.

Shooting someone in the head should either incapacitate or kill them.

I'm sorry. You get shot in the face. You're not in any condition to do anything afterwards. Usually some moron will come up with some obscure incident in which someone was on drugs or miraculously survived but 99% of the time a speeding projectile will cause severe trauma and shock resulting in at the very least an opportunity to pull of a coup de grace with a sledgehammer whilst the victim is stunned. Either psychologically or physically. I want to have the ability to take advantage and/or make an opponent incapable of fighting back.

Personally I'd enjoy that a lot more.

I had to modify the damage scale of JA2 to accomodate more realistic damage. It was just silly shooting people in the face and them still being able to run about... albeit bleeding.

jetbaby · Post by **jetbaby** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:33 am

I think it has to do with the fact that we're dealing with America. If you were to count every bullet of every caliber in every store, home, bunker, base, etc all across the country, you'd probably easily be in the billions (trillions?). Now. Kill off 90% of all human life. Now wipe out maybe half that ammo. Now you have a small amount of people. Now you have an absurd amount of ammunition.

fallout ranger · Post by **fallout ranger** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:36 am

try tom clancy games, or SOCOM on PS2, three shots, dead, one shot, sluggish.

jetbaby · Post by **jetbaby** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:40 am

What the fuck are you talking about?

bwoodring · Post by **bwoodring** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:40 am

jetbaby wrote:What the fuck are you talking about?

They're just hi-jacking this thread to belabor the realistic damage argument *again*. For some reason, they forget that they're playing a frigging RPG and seem to think this is Jagged Alliance 3: Post Nuclear.

Realistic weapons/damage wouldn't work in the Fallout gaming system. If they had realistic damage, most of the small guns would do very similar damage (the 5.56 rifles would all do the same damage, the shotguns would all do the same damage etc.) with very little variability. This, of course, would suck balls for an RPG, which depends on a constant stream of weapon upgrades.

If you want realistic guns and realistic damage, you should play a tactical warfare simulation like JA2: Wildfire. Then, all you'll have to bitch about is the puny radius on grenade explosions.