Units with stupid weapon choices

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Dragar

+3 from their beserk

And the second attack has effectively +2 since your target is at -2 to defend per attack[1].

-Max

[1] It's actually more complicated than that, because if your first hit killed the unit you're not really at +2 for the second attack because your new target doesn't have the penalty. On the other hand, if you're swarming a large enemy 3:1, the third guy will have a net effective +5/+7 to hit (+10/+10 -5 for weapon length) vs. +4 if everybody was using only a single sword.

[Adept]

The glaive is a travesty. It should be fixed. The low damage of a spear is very strange as well.

[Gregstrom]

...and of course various bodies still consider large rocks to be a potential major threat to continued human existence. Now that's obsolescence!

[Humakty]

Well, I didn't knew the USA army was well known for it's assault rifle. Rather giant bombers/cannons/missiles. M16 is rather obsolete nowadays, but weren't there a new rifle for USA army on the works ?

[Agema]

Basic gun designs are usually good for decades with small upgrades. The current US one is better than the still-capable AK-47 (although much more expensive). I think often nations chuck money at new weapon designs not because they're obsolete per se, but as backdoor subsidising for home industry now that it's mostly illegal under world trade rules to just give companies money.

[Humakty]

The AK 47 is impending replacement in the russian army at least (by the AKR 74 I think), and it seemed to me the USA had similar plans regarding their good ol' gun. And it would be usefull indeed, as having a gun with less recoil, more precision, more power, more fiability is always good for the inevitable infantry clash that tend to happen during wars. (I mean serious ones, not police operations in already crushed territories)

Not that it won't make some money to various people, but I think those guys do make more money producing their one shot missiles (which have a limited 'lifetime', how practical).

[Agema]

AK-74s have been standard issue since the 1970s, although they are adaptations of the AK-47 and most people would probably assume they are AK-47s. There's a new one coming out soon from Russia I believe, but it's another adaptation of the current gun rather than a whole new design.

[P3D]

The biggest problem with current service rifles is that armies have some reluctance to switch from 5.56/5.45 to a slightly heavier bullet that'd give some punch against body armor. Although against unarmored insurgents that do not know the concept of cover it won't matter much.

[Wrana]

Yes, AK-47 was already replaced in Soviet times. Actually, twice. And yes, the problem of caliber is an interesting one. It's not only an armor penetration problem - small calibers are somewhat lacking in stopping power and lighter bullet is easier affected by atmospheric conditions. On the other hand, less weight and more flat traectory... I'm not sure, but the actual solution may be some intermediate caliber. Of course, there are many reasons to not changing it!

[DakaSha]

well this thread went down the ****ter