Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527
I'm also fairly happy with UT as written compared to previous versions. The main reason is that I like the toned down weapon damage. Previous versions of UT/UT2 had weapons that were basically unusable in games unless you want a "one-hit, one-kill" style of game. It's just not fun and it's just really not gameable. It may be "realistic" and it could work if one was playing GURPS: The Sci-Fi Tactical Minis Game, but for RPGs? I prefer 4th Edition UT with weapons that are far less likely to instantly eradicate PC lifeforms.
Besides, once you tack on the benefits of UT (ETC or caseless ammo), I think even the current crop of UT slugthrowers competes fine with HT stuff.
One other thing: higher tech doesn't necessarily mean "more lethal." After all, weapon damage has gone down from TL6 to TL8. The standard 5.56mm NATO round is far less "lethal" and way less powerful than the older 7.62mm NATO and American .30 caliber rounds from WW2.
Lasers have Recoil 1, high RoF autofire. Blasters have a (5) armor divisor. Plasma weapons do insane damage. Antimatter particle beams do lots of nasty things.
I guess I just don't see the superiority of TL7-8 weapons...and I think it's a bit of a strawman to use some of the crazy ammo types in HT. They simply aren't widespread. How many APFSDU rounds are made for AK-47s? None, as far as I know. THe vast majority of military bullets are simple FMJ--fancy ammo is expensive.
What I'm saying is that IF there was a revised UT weapon table supplement, I wouldn't want to see a vast increase in weapon damage just for the sake of making UT "more powerful" than HT...
|
The problem with UT weapons isn't really that their damage is so low. It's that there are options to make the slugthrowers way too powerful, compared to the Gauss weapons. Also, they don't make use of a lot of features of the HT weapons.