Talk:Realistic Equivalents - Revision history

Morgan525: /* Missiles */

2014-02-22T03:01:02Z

Missiles

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:01, 22 February 2014
Line 76:		Line 76:

	So I think a better answer would be that the Avalanche is the ultra long range AIM-54 Phoenix, and the Stingray is the AIM-120. But honestly I suspect the developers just took the operating ranges at face value and didn't think about the problems of tail chasing super fast UFOs.		So I think a better answer would be that the Avalanche is the ultra long range AIM-54 Phoenix, and the Stingray is the AIM-120. But honestly I suspect the developers just took the operating ranges at face value and didn't think about the problems of tail chasing super fast UFOs.

	''Looking at the design of the Avalanche and reading the unused flavor text (still present in the DAT file), I think the avalanche is a combination of the AIM-54 Phoenix and the AAM-N-10 Eagle. The range of the avalanche is closer to the chase range of the Phoenix but the design (double fins along the length) is closer to the Eagle. Also, the Eagle was supposed to have a nuclear warhead option. [[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525\|talk]])''		''Looking at the design of the Avalanche and reading the unused flavor text (still present in the DAT file), I think the avalanche is a combination of the AIM-54 Phoenix and the AAM-N-10 Eagle. The range of the avalanche is closer to the chase range of the Phoenix but the design (double fins along the length) is closer to the Eagle. Also, the Eagle was supposed to have a nuclear warhead option. [[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525\|talk]])''

Morgan525: /* Missiles */

2014-02-22T03:00:16Z

Missiles

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 22 February 2014
Line 76:		Line 76:

	So I think a better answer would be that the Avalanche is the ultra long range AIM-54 Phoenix, and the Stingray is the AIM-120. But honestly I suspect the developers just took the operating ranges at face value and didn't think about the problems of tail chasing super fast UFOs.		So I think a better answer would be that the Avalanche is the ultra long range AIM-54 Phoenix, and the Stingray is the AIM-120. But honestly I suspect the developers just took the operating ranges at face value and didn't think about the problems of tail chasing super fast UFOs.
			''Looking at the design of the Avalanche and reading the unused flavor text (still present in the DAT file), I think the avalanche is a combination of the AIM-54 Phoenix and the AAM-N-10 Eagle. The range of the avalanche is closer to the chase range of the Phoenix but the design (double fins along the length) is closer to the Eagle. Also, the Eagle was supposed to have a nuclear warhead option. [[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525\|talk]])''

	By the way, the cost of an AIM-120 in 1999 was about $386,000. For an AIM-7 it was $125,000. Actually very close to the ''ratio'' of Avalanche $9,000 :: $3,000 Stingray. Raising the price of these missiles to realistic levels would go a long way to making the Cannon more useful (since its ammo price would not change, see below)! It might even breathe some life into the Stingray. And encourage people not to always mount dual missile launchers.		By the way, the cost of an AIM-120 in 1999 was about $386,000. For an AIM-7 it was $125,000. Actually very close to the ''ratio'' of Avalanche $9,000 :: $3,000 Stingray. Raising the price of these missiles to realistic levels would go a long way to making the Cannon more useful (since its ammo price would not change, see below)! It might even breathe some life into the Stingray. And encourage people not to always mount dual missile launchers.

BenWaters: /* Pistol and Rifle */

2013-09-02T19:51:21Z

Pistol and Rifle

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 2 September 2013
Line 27:		Line 27:
	: Those actually MIGHT be NATO rounds in those rifles... bloody clips cost $200... in 1999 pre-inflation prices. OUCH!		: Those actually MIGHT be NATO rounds in those rifles... bloody clips cost $200... in 1999 pre-inflation prices. OUCH!
	:[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 16:06, 31 March 2009 (EDT)		:[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 16:06, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

			For the Rifle, the magazine size is that of a 7.62, although that wouldn't explain the lousy hitting power (as Spike pointed out).
			A 5.56mm is the most likely, but the mag size is rather unusually small. As above, an M4 would probably work (except the mag size), and it almost looks like a tricked-out M4.
			The pistol is certainly a Mk23 SOCOM.
			--[[User:BenWaters\|BenWaters]] 15:51, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

	=== Autocannon and Heavy Cannon ===		=== Autocannon and Heavy Cannon ===

Off the Rails: /* Elerium */ line breaks

2013-08-31T15:16:11Z

Elerium: line breaks

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 31 August 2013
Line 97:		Line 97:
	One step closer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23849334		One step closer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23849334

	''"The element is highly radioactive and exists for less than a second before decaying into lighter atoms.		''"The element is highly radioactive and exists for less than a second before decaying into lighter atoms. First proposed by Russian scientists in 2004, the super-heavy element has yet to be verified by the governing body of chemistry and physics."'' [[User:Off the Rails\|Off the Rails]] 11:15, 31 August 2013 (EDT)

	First proposed by Russian scientists in 2004, the super-heavy element has yet to be verified by the governing body of chemistry and physics."'' [[User:Off the Rails\|Off the Rails]] 11:15, 31 August 2013 (EDT)

Off the Rails: /* Elerium */ new section

2013-08-31T15:15:39Z

Elerium: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:15, 31 August 2013
Line 92:		Line 92:
	#Appearance - Does it resemble the in-game graphics?		#Appearance - Does it resemble the in-game graphics?
	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 04:41, 14 May 2010 (EDT)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 04:41, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

			== Elerium ==

			One step closer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23849334

			''"The element is highly radioactive and exists for less than a second before decaying into lighter atoms.

			First proposed by Russian scientists in 2004, the super-heavy element has yet to be verified by the governing body of chemistry and physics."'' [[User:Off the Rails\|Off the Rails]] 11:15, 31 August 2013 (EDT)

Vivanter: /* Battlescape Equipment */

2012-08-19T15:47:25Z

Battlescape Equipment

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 19 August 2012
Line 53:		Line 53:

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 18:02, 22 February 2010 (EST)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 18:02, 22 February 2010 (EST)

			=== Hovertanks ===

			Though naturally they are based around alien technology, particularly the cyberdisk, I can't help but notice some similarities between the hovertank and the [http://www.retronaut.co/2011/01/the-avrocar/ avrocar]. Flying disk weapons are hardly a new concept in scifi, but the similarities are pretty striking. They were tested in 1961 and considered unfit for use, but maybe that was just some early branch of the XCOM high command squirreling them away.

			[[User:Vivanter\|Vivanter]] 11:46, 19 August 2012 (EST)

	== Aircraft Weapons ==		== Aircraft Weapons ==

Max Power at 05:53, 21 May 2010

2010-05-21T05:53:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 21 May 2010
Line 36:		Line 36:

	: I agree the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_XM109 XM109] is a good fit. 5 round magazine (maybe 6 rounds with 'one in the chamber'?), excellent AP, variable ammo since it's compatible with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM307 XM307] ammo. So AP, HE, HEDP, HEAT and HE-I rounds are a given, and pure incendiary rounds are theoretically possible if alternative 25 x 59mm rounds were used. It particularly fits because the Heavy Cannon AP is arguably the best starting sniper weapon, and of course the XM109 is an up-chambered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82 Barrett M82] heavy (.50 cal) sniper rifle. The only difficulty with the XM109 is how realistic it is to have that weapon operational in 1999. Certainly the M82-class weapons were popular with Special Forces in the 1990s. The M82 article (just referenced) says an early version of the XM109, was in the final [http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Infantry-Weapons/Objective-Sniper-Weapon-OSW-United-States.html OSW] trials in 2002, and the OSW project started in 1993 - so it's possible that secret limited field use of prototypes could've been happening in 1999, especially if they were found to be one of the few human weapons effective against the more difficult alien races. Potentially the Heavy Cannon could be based off the 1987 M82A2 bullpup configuration, which is closer in appearance to the XCom graphics. There is also mention of a rare 12-rd mag for the M82, vs 10 rds normally, so a rare 6-rd mag for the 25mm version is a possibility.		: I agree the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_XM109 XM109] is a good fit. 5 round magazine (maybe 6 rounds with 'one in the chamber'?), excellent AP, variable ammo since it's compatible with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM307 XM307] ammo. So AP, HE, HEDP, HEAT and HE-I rounds are a given, and pure incendiary rounds are theoretically possible if alternative 25 x 59mm rounds were used. It particularly fits because the Heavy Cannon AP is arguably the best starting sniper weapon, and of course the XM109 is an up-chambered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82 Barrett M82] heavy (.50 cal) sniper rifle. The only difficulty with the XM109 is how realistic it is to have that weapon operational in 1999. Certainly the M82-class weapons were popular with Special Forces in the 1990s. The M82 article (just referenced) says an early version of the XM109, was in the final [http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Infantry-Weapons/Objective-Sniper-Weapon-OSW-United-States.html OSW] trials in 2002, and the OSW project started in 1993 - so it's possible that secret limited field use of prototypes could've been happening in 1999, especially if they were found to be one of the few human weapons effective against the more difficult alien races. Potentially the Heavy Cannon could be based off the 1987 M82A2 bullpup configuration, which is closer in appearance to the XCom graphics. There is also mention of a rare 12-rd mag for the M82, vs 10 rds normally, so a rare 6-rd mag for the 25mm version is a possibility.

			::Regarding the realism of the xm109. The 25mm grenade was already in development for the OICW project in the 1980s, I think. The xm25 has already been accepted onto the wiki page. It's a stretch, for sure, but a system like that is the only real analogue I can think of. It's more 'heavy cannon' like than a multiple grenade launcher system in that those systems are not heavy and are not cannon-like. The behaviour of a cannon or high velocity grenade firing rifle is more apt.

	: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25 XM25] would be a really nice match for the Heavy Cannon, especially the weight, appearance, and thermobaric rounds. But as it only entered prototype trials in 2005, and has a lot of advanced technology the Heavy Cannon seems to lack, I think that we must reluctantly rule that out. And it does not qualify as the Auto Cannon, as it is semiautomatic with only a 6rd magazine. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 20:01, 11 May 2010 (EDT)		: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25 XM25] would be a really nice match for the Heavy Cannon, especially the weight, appearance, and thermobaric rounds. But as it only entered prototype trials in 2005, and has a lot of advanced technology the Heavy Cannon seems to lack, I think that we must reluctantly rule that out. And it does not qualify as the Auto Cannon, as it is semiautomatic with only a 6rd magazine. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 20:01, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Spike: New section: Criteria

2010-05-14T08:41:00Z

New section: Criteria

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:41, 14 May 2010
Line 73:		Line 73:

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:32, 20 February 2010 (EST)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:32, 20 February 2010 (EST)

			== Criteria ==


			X-Com is a very heavily stylized game and I don't think that one ought to limit their imagination to what the weapons look like. Quite frankly, some of their weapons concepts are ridiculous (however well they work stylistically). [[User:Max Power]]
			:Agreed. My criteria for this article, Realistic Equivalents, in roughly ranked order, are:
			#Functionality - does it match the capabilities? If there are minor differences, are these plausible as customisations?
			#Chronology - Did it exist in 1999, preferably in production, but even as a possible secret prototype ?
			#Deployment - Was it in use in 1999 by regular military forces or special forces, particularly of Funding Nations?
			#Appearance - Does it resemble the in-game graphics?
			[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 04:41, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

Spike: /* Autocannon and Heavy Cannon */ moving comment

2010-05-14T08:26:50Z

Autocannon and Heavy Cannon: moving comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:26, 14 May 2010
Line 38:		Line 38:

	: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25 XM25] would be a really nice match for the Heavy Cannon, especially the weight, appearance, and thermobaric rounds. But as it only entered prototype trials in 2005, and has a lot of advanced technology the Heavy Cannon seems to lack, I think that we must reluctantly rule that out. And it does not qualify as the Auto Cannon, as it is semiautomatic with only a 6rd magazine. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 20:01, 11 May 2010 (EDT)		: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25 XM25] would be a really nice match for the Heavy Cannon, especially the weight, appearance, and thermobaric rounds. But as it only entered prototype trials in 2005, and has a lot of advanced technology the Heavy Cannon seems to lack, I think that we must reluctantly rule that out. And it does not qualify as the Auto Cannon, as it is semiautomatic with only a 6rd magazine. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 20:01, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
	:: X-Com is a very heavily stylized game and I don't think that one ought to limit their imagination to what the weapons look like. Quite frankly, some of their weapons concepts are ridiculous (however well they work stylistically).

	=== Rocket Launcher ===		=== Rocket Launcher ===

Max Power at 05:09, 14 May 2010

2010-05-14T05:09:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:09, 14 May 2010
Line 38:		Line 38:

	: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25 XM25] would be a really nice match for the Heavy Cannon, especially the weight, appearance, and thermobaric rounds. But as it only entered prototype trials in 2005, and has a lot of advanced technology the Heavy Cannon seems to lack, I think that we must reluctantly rule that out. And it does not qualify as the Auto Cannon, as it is semiautomatic with only a 6rd magazine. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 20:01, 11 May 2010 (EDT)		: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25 XM25] would be a really nice match for the Heavy Cannon, especially the weight, appearance, and thermobaric rounds. But as it only entered prototype trials in 2005, and has a lot of advanced technology the Heavy Cannon seems to lack, I think that we must reluctantly rule that out. And it does not qualify as the Auto Cannon, as it is semiautomatic with only a 6rd magazine. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 20:01, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
			:: X-Com is a very heavily stylized game and I don't think that one ought to limit their imagination to what the weapons look like. Quite frankly, some of their weapons concepts are ridiculous (however well they work stylistically).

	=== Rocket Launcher ===		=== Rocket Launcher ===