[Suggestion] New Magnums/Revolvers plus allow Rifles and Allow an Organize shop System

That's funny... for a 120mm AP projectile I got 5,700,000J, not 12,000,000J. Did you take the weight of the entire shell or just the projectile in your calculations?

If your solution is correct, then the ratio I listed above would be even smaller!

Heh. What can I say? We still use an assault rifle that is essentially (apart from some bells and whistles) a design that is over half a century old. It was enough trouble when we had to upgrade from 105mm cannon... and now you're telling us that we need to upgrade our tanks again?!? I swear these tanks go through cannons faster than my kid goes through shoes!

As for the 152mm cannons... maybe they just had a bunch of old ISU-152's lying around and nothing better to use them for?

We're getting WW2 guns to be part of our alien arsenal?

What are those Earthlings up to, now?

I actually went and dug up some data on muzzle velocities and projectile weights for a more detailed graph. I only included weapons which had a set caliber measurement according to official PS2 lore. Some of the lore gave both caliber and cartridge length (like the KSR-35 and the RAMS .50M). Others simply gave a caliber so I picked the closest cartridge in terms of function (the 20mm Basilisk is based on a 20x139 autocannon).

One interesting thing is that I always thought that the TR's top-tier sniper rifle was closer to a .50 BMG round, but it turns out that the cartridge it fires is much shorter (75mm instead of 138mm). This brought it closer to a .500 Nitro Express round (93mm OAL).

Anyhow, first is what things would look like if they were balanced around the Prowler's 120mm AP cannon:



The equivalent IRL weapons are listed right above the PS2 weapon. Purple bars being the in-game damage amounts and pink being the adjusted amounts. We can see that many things are toned down, including the Lightning's 100mm cannon (it was always weird why the Prowler's equally-long 120mm cannons did less damage).

The same if Basilisks were the standard:



I had to get rid of the values for the purple in-game damage amounts because it was getting crowded. So the numbers on the graph are only the adjusted amounts.

And finally the game as balanced by the NS-357 revolver damage:



Which would result in a 120mm Prowler AP shell doing over 2 million points of damage!
Hehe.

Anyhow yes. Infantry should suck. Vehicles should rule. Yadda yadda yadda.

I don't think real like proportions would be that important. Just keep the guns in the right order. small arms<HMG<20mm etc. Don't need the super difference of real life guns. As I said in my graph I just put kobalt (HMG) at the level of .50 BASR and scaled up everything else the same. Although I would like to rearrange the order. Basilisk<vortek -> vortek<basilisk

But the thing is that it's not that simple.

For instance, the RAMS .50M actually fires a much weaker round than the Kobalt. Given that the RAMS .50M fires a 12.7x75 round, that puts it much closer to a.500 Nitro Express cartridge (13x76) than the .50BMG round that the Kobalt should fire (12.7x99).

To put that into perspective, #4 in the picture below would be similar in size to what the RAMS .50M fires, just a bit thinner. #11, on the other hand, is what the Kobalt would fire. #11 is visibly much larger than #4.



That is to say, not all 12.7mm/.50 caliber bullets and cartridges are the same. You can have:
.50AE- 12.7x33, pistol round
.500SW- 12.7x41, revolver round
.500 Nitro Express- 13x76, rifle round
.50 Beowulf- 12.7x42, semi-automatic rifle round
.50BMG- 12.7x99, heavy machinegun round
12.7x108- 12.7x108 (duh), Russian heavy machinegun round

So what I guess I'm saying is that you really do have to differentiate for things to make sense.

Very well. Let's put Kobalt at 900 damage then.

With those 3 people using it in total this wont be gamebreaking, think harder

Again, not that simple.

The difference between the two cartridges is much more significant. The .500 Nitro Express cartridge is much weaker than a .50BMG cartridge. This is what things would look like if the RAMS .50M still did 700 damage per shot:



We see that the Kobalt is already up to over 1,600 damage per shot... over double the damage of the RAMS .50M.

One interesting aspect about "normalizing" weapon damage is that (apart from counting explosive effects) you can now implement a better armour system than the simple percentage reduction we have now. Instead, armour will function more like armour and stop or reduce damage through a threshold system.

Say that we set infantry armour to 200. I think that's a fair number based on the above graph given how modern day Level IV plates would be effective slightly below the 7mm Rifle mark.

You shoot at someone in their armoured area with a NS-357 revolver. Because the damage (here about 88) is less than 200, that shot fails to penetrate the armour so instead bounces harmlessly off. You do the same with a NS-44 and it also fails to penetrate. Infantry should be more or less immune to things that fail to penetrate armour (apart from bruising and such).

Somewhere above that (not pictured in the chart) would be assault rifle and battle rifle rounds. These would do some damage to armoured soldiers, though rarely enough to be lethal. This is because most modern body armours can take multiple assault rifle or battle rifle hits (though the soldier would potentially be injured as a result).

And then you get to the KSR-35. Sure the armour reduces the effectiveness by 200, but 192 damage still carries through. This is applied to the player, and is a more significant amount of damage (3HK). The same applies to the RAMS .50M (pretty much needing a 2HK for bodyshots).

On the other hand we would see that infantry armour would only reduce the Kobalt's damage to 1,400 or so... enough so that a single body shot is still lethal. Which makes sense, because Level IV plates are in no way rated to stop .50BMG rounds. Those would slice up infantry like butter.

Now this means that aiming is more critical... because of course not all parts of the infantry are armoured. The head, for example, would probably be a weak point where even small, harmless sidearms would have significant effect (when combined with a headshot multiplier).

It also means that infantry are much more vulnerable to vehicle-mounted Kobalt LMGs and Basilisk HMGs... or things like Walkers and Skyguards. Which is a good thing, because seeing infantry shrug off 20mm Basilisk rounds that can pierce tank armour is atrocious. In turn, this would greatly improve the vehicle game, as adding a Kobalt-mounted Sunderer would be death to most infantry, requiring that tanks be brought in to deal with that Sunderer!

any TR "revolver" cannot happen - its its not belt-fed, we dont want it