European nations have tazers propelled nets and mace too its not like we don't get riots Oh and to kj white the US don't wanna kill everyone, standard rounds are only meant to injure people even in wartime.

I want to lead the Russian army into battle with "Reqiem of dream remix" musix playing in our background

quote:

Originally posted by Jimjemael_796:
European nations have tazers propelled nets and mace too its not like we don't get riots Oh and to kj white the US don't wanna kill everyone, standard rounds are only meant to injure people even in wartime.

Your comment makes me glad to see that not all Europeans thinks that the US WANTS to kill people. We're all for non-lethal weapons if it can get the job done.

Jimjemael_796 don't forget to check the sticky post, they have some new Q&A's!

Non lethal weapons are fine and dandy for conflicts and skirmishes, but does it really have much to say in total war where its a either us or them scenario?

quote:

Originally posted by myrsnipe:
Non lethal weapons are fine and dandy for conflicts and skirmishes, but does it really have much to say in total war where its a either us or them scenario?

I read this weird book once were this disgraced commander got put back into service cuz he was like a perfect killin machine. He would encourage his men to show the retreating enemy their fellow soldiers gettin killed.

quote:

Originally posted by myrsnipe:
Non lethal weapons are fine and dandy for conflicts and skirmishes, but does it really have much to say in total war where its a either us or them scenario?

Depends on the scenario, I would think mostly no, however if the enemy were to use human shields or it's an environmentally sensitive area then, yes, break out the non-lethals.

The US is working on a weapon called PAW to ensure that if they did have to take out a WMD facility that the destruction of let's say the chemical or bio agents would result in the atomization of those elements WITHOUT dispersing those elements into the environment and preventing collateral damage to both civilians and the terrain.

Lets put it in a new light shall we? We know Endwar is a total war scenario, and its a game to boot. I'm 100% sure of that there isnt any civilians on the battleground. Most gamers would propably don't care and kill the enemy anyways. Is there some destinct advantage in this game to using non lethal weapons? Like a sound weapon imobilizing an entire platoon of infantry? Or will it be like deciding to use riot guns with rubber pellets and water hoses :P

well, theoreticly there are civilians, but they are locked on their houses, praying NOT to get a 120mm round through the window xD

though it would be interesting, and way more realistic to fight an enemy, and at the same time care for inocent lives (especialy when you are battling in your own soil...) some civilian protection bonus would be cool, like better support from the people, therefore easier to reconquer lost terrain..

all speculation, and i honestly believe that there wont be civilians, and i'm 99.999999999% sure that they wont be roaming arround..

quote:

Originally posted by myrsnipe:
Lets put it in a new light shall we? We know Endwar is a total war scenario, and its a game to boot. I'm 100% sure of that there isnt any civilians on the battleground. Most gamers would propably don't care and kill the enemy anyways. Is there some destinct advantage in this game to using non lethal weapons? Like a sound weapon imobilizing an entire platoon of infantry? Or will it be like deciding to use riot guns with rubber pellets and water hoses :P

Well I think we'd all agree that insurgencies involve indigenous civilians, and it appears that insurgencies are modeled in the game! See this answer in this post (see the response to the 3rd question:

When will a side be defeated? When their capitol is taken, or when they have been completely eliminated from the map? And what will players be able to do between the time their side is eliminated and when one of the other two sides achieves victory?

"No side is eliminated until one side acheives victory. To win you have to capture all the capitals and hold over 60% of the map. If a side is eliminated they can always try and relaunch themselves into the war via insurgencies in their faction capital."

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8911019745/m/6181047695

Oh and Non-lethals, yes I would LOVE to see acoustic weapons that immobilize enemy troops. It's been confirmed that the Active Denial system is in the game, this weapon is like a heat ray. "The European Enforcers, for example, have those scary High Powered Microwave weapons that heat the water molecules in the enemies' skin and thus cause them an overwhelming burning sensation and incapacitating pain. Creepy… Even creepier knowing that this type of weapon is actually in development in a US Air Force research lab for riot control duty in Iraq." - http://ps3.ign.com/articles/791/791070p1.html

i like the idea of the insurgency thing kind of takes me back to the loyal french troops when france fell in ww2 to germany and vichy french, and the loyal troops took refuge in the uk. i think i got it right XD

quote:

Originally posted by KJ_White:
i like the idea of the insurgency thing kind of takes me back to the loyal french troops when france fell in ww2 to germany and vichy french, and the loyal troops took refuge in the uk. i think i got it right XD

Ye I agree being from europe (just as an example) I'd get pretty hyped up by the idea of taking back your homeland from russia or the U.S it gives u a real hatred for invaders

quote:

Originally posted by atacms:

quote:

Originally posted by TaSniper:
well, it's far too small to be considered a riot shield. It's deffinatly a shield thing of some sort. Maybe it has something to do with the EU's forte in microwave weapons and non-lethal tactics? It really doesn't look like he needs a shield with all the armor he's already wearing. So maybe it is some sort of technical device that just kinda looks like a shield. I guess we shall see at some point in time.

TA Sniper, you and I are both on the same wavelength. The front of the "shield" has what looks like a rectangular shaped electronic device. It's just a guess obviously on my part, but I get the impression that it's a minuature handheld version of the LRAD, an acoustic non-lethal weapon that directs sonic energy in a very focused and tight beam.

quote:

Originally posted by QuidProKuo:
Also, regarding the "ballistic shield", very sharp eyes fellas, I'm very impressed. Yes, it is more than just a shield. You guys are on the right track.

-QPK

I thought I'd reiterate my earlier point on non-lethals, as you can see the "shield" that the EF has is REALLY a US tech. Oh well, we know that the devs had to do this for BALANCING so that the EF wouldn't be left out of all the cool toys.

See here:

"SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., May 12, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), a market leader in advanced electronic control devices, today announced the TASER(r) Shield Conversion Kit featuring the TASER REPEL Laminate Film Technology(tm). The announcement was made at the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization (OLETC) Mock Prison Riot(r) on the grounds of the former West Virginia Penitentiary in Moundsville, WV.

The TASER Shield Conversion Kit features a peel and stick perforated TASER REPEL Laminate Film, power supply and necessary conversion equipment. This laminate becomes electrified providing a powerful deterrent to protect officers and keep suspects or rioters at bay. The shield can be compatible with the TASER Controlled Digital Power Magazine (CDPM) system which was announced earlier this month.

It is anticipated that this unique system will be available in the fourth quarter 2008."

http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=142464

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/pretty-soon-cop.html#more

You forgot the new Tank Buster Chemical LASER in the works for the C-130. I was about to bring up the Marine's LASER weapon that could intercept anything from missiles to mortar rounds but you already brought that up.

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
You forgot the new Tank Buster Chemical LASER in the works for the C-130. I was about to bring up the Marine's LASER weapon that could intercept anything from missiles to mortar rounds but you already brought that up.

I may have posted that in the miltary tech thread already, if not then yeah, you're right.

I do have to differ though in that I don't think the Advanced Tactical Laser will have the power yet to destroy a tank or even a lightly armored vehicle. It will be able to blind its sensors, make it dumb by damaging its electronics and perhaps immobilize it by aiming its laser at the engine, but I doubt it could punch through several inches of armor. And if it could it's not efficient due to the amount of "dwell time" that the tank would require to be "lased" to the point of puncturing through the armor.

I don't really know alot about this kind of stuff but is it possible money has something to do with it.

We know oil prices are going to be extremely high in the future (and are now) with most countries importing from Russia and others, I would imagine America would be in the same situation as the rest of the world so they could possibly have cut back the fairly large military budget and cancelled projects like DE and non lethal weapons. While EF which is a coalition of 20+ countries would be able to put more money into projects like the ones America has or in that scenario had.

Like I said I don't really know alot about this and I'm just guessing, but if you think about it, it's a likely scenario.

Does it really nother you that much. I understand where your coming from and I dont want to rant on you but it is a game after all. Not everything can be mimed after real life. if that was the case this game would be based on a war with China instead of Russians and the Americans and Europeans would be close allies...

quote:

Originally posted by DukeCanada:
Does it really nother you that much. I understand where your coming from and I dont want to rant on you but it is a game after all. Not everything can be mimed after real life. if that was the case this game would be based on a war with China instead of Russians and the Americans and Europeans would be close allies...

To be honest it bugs me a just a bit, not that much. I'm just using this thread so that others can know of the weapons tech that's out there and IF the devs are so inclined they can choose to base it more on real world situations. But I do know that balance is what drives them.

That being said, if more than a few technologies that are known to be US would go to other factions, then YES it would start to bug me more.

Why? Because despite the cool tech and MASSIVE US budget that dwarfs all other countries combined, there ARE several niche areas that other factions have advantages in, but it just requires more homework on the part of the devs.

I understand and completely agree with you. For example look at the terrorist cells in the middle east. They are not technologically advanced yet they still have the capacity to hurt the most powerful army in the world.

If more then a few devices were taken from America I would also be angry. Even though I am EF I do cherish the fact that there is a sense of realism in the game and I dont really want to disturb that "sense".

Anyways I think the Devs are doing well. They even tell us what techs are in and not in the game. I think that deserves some props

Endwar is in the future, you're talking about the present. No one knows what can happen in the future and until you have a time machine that can prove otherwise, that's our specialty.

about how DE and NL weapons are integrated into the gameplay - they probably will count as a need to evac the people or they will be captured, and having to go evac someone is alot more risky than if htey were just killed out right