NeoTerran Bolts

[Mob of Blondes]

I think they fucked up the "person" size in the computer, then scaled everything instead of just the person as that requires no further tweaking. Don't try to play games about current weapons having versions in green or pink. From what I know, ZBrush is not exactly friendly to this kind of use. Bad workflow if assets can change without notice or proper references are not there, imagine working in separate things that later have to fit... they will not if the "link" was not immutable. It's the equivalent lesson about proper skeleton and musculature you have to learn when doing putty work, start wrong, end wrong or a nightmare to fix.


Pistols, backpacks, rifles... what more? They all look pretty much like what you get from scaling up/down 3D models. The sad part is the impact on conversions.

Let's hope it's just teething problems.

[Hypna]

I hadn't noticed that the bolts' legs are literally cut and paste from model to model. That makes sense for weapons and equipment. Legs, not so much. Hopefully CB picks up on the best practices for these new computer modeled minis quickly. I was thinking that, overall, computer modeled minis would be quicker and cheaper to produce and offer greater precision. Why waste that new freedom with lazy design?

But, like MoB said, hopefully it's just mastering a new process and they'll be back on top shortly.

[McNamara]

Most boxed minis share the same body and legs. Usually its 2 bodies and 4 different arms/weapons. Its actually always been that way since they made boxes of 4.

[Hypna]

Most boxed minis share the same body and legs. Usually its 2 bodies and 4 different arms/weapons. Its actually always been that way since they made boxes of 4.

Ahhh boo. I hadn't ever noticed that. Hmpf. Still, it would be nice if they mixed it up a bit... I guess...

[ToadChild]

If appropriate to the unit, they'll often (but not always) have some sort of accessory that varies. Daturazi have 4 distinct loincloths, Reverend Moiras and Morlocks have unique cloaks, etc.

The Yaogat box set actually has 4 distinct bodies, although the differences are pretty small. The head is part of the main body, but some have their visors up or down, and the Combi + Grenades guy actually has Grenades on his belt.

[Section9]

Pistols, backpacks, rifles... what more? They all look pretty much like what you get from scaling up/down 3D models. The sad part is the impact on conversions.

Exactly.

Let's hope it's just teething problems.

This really better be teething problems, because your issued gear is supposed to be the stuff that DOES NOT CHANGE size with person. Well, body armor changes, but a 3liter canteen is the same size regardless of who is carrying the dang thing! Same thing with weapons (for the most part) and backpacks, etc.

[Quaade]

Well, it is official lore that all armour and munitions manufacturers always make a female version of the stuff they are pedling ^^

[Mob of Blondes]

Modern armies are doing male and female clothes and armour, after years of dressing the females like poor clowns and saying it was fine. Very uncomfortable, and even unsafe. Not a thing of pretty or not but survability.

And there are have been multiple sizes for a longer time, too. Before that, as you had to bring your own... no excuse.

But things don't go so far as to give you different pistols or grenades. Or heel height.

[Section9]

Modern armies are doing male and female clothes and armour, after years of dressing the females like poor clowns and saying it was fine. Very uncomfortable, and even unsafe. Not a thing of pretty or not but survability.

Yes, uniforms and armor, boots, etc are all made-to-fit, usually with male/female differences in shape/cut.

And there are have been multiple sizes for a longer time, too. Before that, as you had to bring your own... no excuse.

But things don't go so far as to give you different pistols or grenades. Or heel height.

Issue items like magazine pouches, water bottles, and grenades are all the same size, no matter the bulk of the person carrying them. For that matter, firearms change size in a different way than personal armor does. Barrels stay the same thickness, magazines keep the same dimensions. Handguards and buttstock might be shorter, but almost never thinner. The receiver (aka working bits) is the same size across all the different platforms, from carbine/SMG to Marksman Rifle.

Pistols keep the same grip and trigger guard dimensions, only the length of barrel in front of the trigger guard gets shorter and the number of fingers you use to hold onto the grip changes as the pistol gets smaller. Model-wise, you just cut down the barrel length and grip length, all the other dimensions stay the same.

[Mob of Blondes]

Pardon, who gets a pistol, model whatever, chopped instead of uncut? It sounds like nonsense. Are we talking about shoe size (normal) vs gun size (rare if not impossible), or shoe model (rare in per unit basis) vs gun model (common if there is a support weapon)?

[Todd]

I didn't know female soldiers being issued smaller versions of weapons was a real thing. I'm curious, if the weapon functions the same (i.e.- doesn't sacrifice effectiveness), why wouldn't the men be issued those versions as well? Other than maybe the grip size, it seems like having a smaller lighter weapon would be nice regardless of what gender you are.

Comparing the male bolt weapon to the female bolt weapon, I'm guessing they wouldn't even accommodate the same ammo/magazines. Wouldn't that be logistically backwards, as you'd be required to supply boy and girl versions of ammo to your troops?

[Mob of Blondes]

The bolt case is completly wrong, they are different things due to falling into 3d dogmas (in this case, "digital is always better and easier, no need to pay attention, it will magically work" kind of thing).

And I have serious doubts armies issue different weapons, other than changes in grips or so. So far I have heard about crew getting smaller weapons, for example, but that is a task related change, not a sex change. And the big girl gets the same thing than the tiny guy, no up to X cm you get this, beyond you get that.

I think Section9 is talking about shared plataforms.

[Errhile]

I didn't know female soldiers being issued smaller versions of weapons was a real thing. I'm curious, if the weapon functions the same (i.e.- doesn't sacrifice effectiveness), why wouldn't the men be issued those versions as well? Other than maybe the grip size, it seems like having a smaller lighter weapon would be nice regardless of what gender you are.

Lighter weapon means more recoil felt, given the same cartrige. More recoil = less accuracy.
Also, smaller weapons (we're talking main individual weapons, i.e. modern rifle / combirifle equivalents, usually labelled "carbines", as submachinegun does imply a handgun caliber round is used rather than assault rifle's intermediate cartrige) tend to have shorter barrels, equaling less satisfactory performance at longer ranges (both in terms of accuracy and penetration of a target / the ability do disable an opponent). Basically, you tend to be given a short-barelled carbine if because of your role in a fighting unit you are unlikely to use it (but you still need a gun jusdt in case). They are also way more compact, so easier to manage in confined spaces of combat vehicles.
Typical examples of soldiers being issued scaled-down, "carbine" versions of a rifle include:
- drivers / combat vehicle crew (their role is to drive a tank / APC / whatever and / or shoot it's big guns. They need the carbines in case the vehicle is disabled nad they need to bail out).
- artillery crews. They shoot their big guns / mortars / howitzers / rocket launchers, but just in case they are given small arms.
- support personnel (cooks, quartermasters and so on). Same reason - their main task is to do somethingelse than shooting with their rifles, so they get smaller, lighter and more manageable firearms.
- in infantry, if you lug around a big piece of kit (like a grenade launcher / rocket launcher / RPG, or in some armies, a manpack radio), again, you get a carbine to defend yourself.

Comparing the male bolt weapon to the female bolt weapon, I'm guessing they wouldn't even accommodate the same ammo/magazines. Wouldn't that be logistically backwards, as you'd be required to supply boy and girl versions of ammo to your troops?

Indeed it would. Most armies find it a total headache to be forced to supply many different rounds to every infantry squad. Around my time, our basic mechanized infantry squad used 3 different catriges for thier 9 / 11 members: there were handgun rounds for RPG gunner's submachinegun (the two extra men were the vehicle's driver and gunner, they had SMGs too), rifle rounds for the squad's machinegun (and the vehicle's machinegun, too... plus platoon's 3rd squad contained a designated marksman who used precision-made variant of this ammo), and intermediate rounds for the other 7 guys' rifles. Swapping all the SMGs for carbine variants of the basic rifle basically cut that headache by 1/3
They'd happily cut the machinegun's round out, too (swap the beast for a smaller machinegun, firing the same ammo as main rifle), but so far they're having tough luck about that.
And we haven't yet got to big oomph stuff yet - hand grenades, rifle grenades (if used) or grenades for underbarrel grenade launchers (think light GL in Infinity), missiles for the RPG, ammo for the squad's vehicle's main gun...
Yep, logistics is a massive headache

Note about carbine magazines - one of the major pro points for issuing carbine variants in a squad is that they are made to use the same magazine (not only rounds) as the basic rifle. So you can borrow magazines from your squad mates if you're low on ammo (especially if the buddy in question doesn't need it any more, because he had been hit... sad but that's the reality). It seems pretty common to have smaller capacity magazines issued along with the carbine (nowadays, typical rifle magaizne is 30 rounds, carbine editions are often given 20 round ones), but the only difference is that they're shorter - they are jsut as wide and thick as standard ones, and in fact are interchangeable with them (which is the whole point).

[chromedog]

I was in logistics, and we got to keep the L1A1 SLR (7.62x51 semi-auto rifle, similar in look to the FN-FAL - but without full auto) we were issued with - but we were way, way, way REMFs.

[Errhile]

Yup, that were the days where carabine editions weren't too popular, so you either had a full-sized rifle, or a SMG. No idea what SMG was issued (and to whom) in Oz back in your days...

[chromedog]

No idea. infantry got the SLR until the Steyr came in. Tankers got other pdw, though at that point - but we had no armour near us (had a few 113s, but the ASLAV was still a gleam in the eye of some future poli ). We did handle a few Sterling SMGs - but I don't know what their "official" load was.

[Hero of Man]

Lighter weapon means more recoil felt, given the same cartrige. More recoil = less accuracy.
Also, smaller weapons (we're talking main individual weapons, i.e. modern rifle / combirifle equivalents, usually labelled "carbines", as submachinegun does imply a handgun caliber round is used rather than assault rifle's intermediate cartrige) tend to have shorter barrels, equaling less satisfactory performance at longer ranges (both in terms of accuracy and penetration of a target / the ability do disable an opponent). Basically, you tend to be given a short-barelled carbine if because of your role in a fighting unit you are unlikely to use it (but you still need a gun jusdt in case). They are also way more compact, so easier to manage in confined spaces of combat vehicles.
Typical examples of soldiers being issued scaled-down, "carbine" versions of a rifle include:
- drivers / combat vehicle crew (their role is to drive a tank / APC / whatever and / or shoot it's big guns. They need the carbines in case the vehicle is disabled nad they need to bail out).
- artillery crews. They shoot their big guns / mortars / howitzers / rocket launchers, but just in case they are given small arms.
- support personnel (cooks, quartermasters and so on). Same reason - their main task is to do somethingelse than shooting with their rifles, so they get smaller, lighter and more manageable firearms.
- in infantry, if you lug around a big piece of kit (like a grenade launcher / rocket launcher / RPG, or in some armies, a manpack radio), again, you get a carbine to defend yourself.

We had pretty much the opposite situation in the US Army, actually; frontline grunts were first up for M4 Carbines, where as the REMFs and transportation units were stuck with the aging M16A2. There are a lot of advantages to a rifle compared to a carbine, but the for house to house fighting, the carbine is a superior platform; lighter weight/smaller profile, can mount the same attachments, and recoil from 5.56 is negligible.

I don't think I've met anyone in my time who wanted to heft a 'musket'(M16 variants) around, and I got lots of longing looks from the other REMFs on my last deployment for having an M4(OKARNG really spoiled us). For any situation where the better long range accuracy of the M16 would be entirely necessary, I'm assured that the Designated Marksman(usually with a scoped M14), the Machine Gunner, or in many situations, a crew served weapon would handle it.

Just my and my Dad's experiences.

[ToadChild]

From what I understand the US's primary rifles have been steadily shrinking in size and power since WW2, when they were using the M1 Garand based on their needs in real-world scenarios. Most wars these days don't involves standing on open fields and firing at long ranges.

[Section9]

From what I understand the US's primary rifles have been steadily shrinking in size and power since WW2, when they were using the M1 Garand based on their needs in real-world scenarios. Most wars these days don't involves standing on open fields and firing at long ranges.

There's not a very significant difference between the M1 Garand and the M14 in terms of ammo punch. Yes, there is a little bit more oomph in the Garand's .30-06 than there is in the M14's .308. The M14 is a bit smaller, I think it's a bit lighter, and it takes 20-round magazines. Neither the Browning Automatic Rifle nor the M14A1/M15 were controllable on full-auto. Too much oomph in the ammo, not enough weight in the weapon.

The M16 is essentially the modern update of the WW2-vintage M1 Carbine, even though only REMFs got M1 Carbines in WW2. Light-weight and controllable on full auto, because you really don't need a half-mile rifle when the longest-range infantry firefight in all of WW2 was 300 yards. So the M16 went with a much smaller, lighter, more controllable, and shorter ranged round.

Then the US went into Afghanistan. It's amazing how a lack of large trees lets you see farther, and shoot farther. Now, an AK47 or AK74 still only shoots ~300m with any accuracy, but the Soviets included a Designated Marksman in each platoon with a machine-gun caliber, scoped rifle. They left a lot of those behind in Afghanistan, and the Afghans are not exactly slouches in making more rifles. So now the US (and allies) was largely packing 300m rifles, and a small number of Afghans had 800+m rifles. This started a push to first put one or two M14s back into the squad, or a 7.62mm caliber M16-like rifle like the Brits did.

On a more general level, the US has had a lot of complaints about the lack of incapacitation of an M16 wound. It will poke holes in a European (or American, to be honest) and convince him to lay down and let someone else fight for him. It will not convince a Somali or Afghan high on whatever to go down and stay down without precision shot placement. This lead to the development of a whole mess of new calibers that are the same overall length as the 5.56 cartridge. Some went back to the big 7.62mm bullet, but the more interesting calibers went to a bullet between the 5.56 and 7.62. There was a lot of research and development involved in these. A 6.5mm has excellent accuracy (long bullet for the weight, plus the small diameter minimizes wind drift), while a 7mm bullet has the better terminal effects (but is usually a bit slower for a more arched flight path). If you split the difference between accuracy and impact, you get the 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge, which can use the same bullets as a .270 hunting rifle, as long as you go for the lighter ones. The more accuracy-focused cartridge is the 6.5mm Grendel, which actually started life as the 7.62x39mm AK47 round, but was 'blown out' to increase powder capacity with straighter case walls and a sharper shoulder, and ended up with a power level roughly that of the WW2-vintage 6.5mm Carcano or Arisaka rifles. The 6.5mm 'starts slow to end fast', and actually carries more energy than a 7.62mm NATO round outside 500m range to about 1200m. There are a couple different 7.62mm calibers out there, as well, but one is designed for subsonic use with a suppressor and very heavy bullets and the other is nigh-impossible to find commercial ammo for.

I actually expect the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) light machine gun to use either 6.5mm or 6.8mm bullets, whenever that gets deployed. If I was going to equip my own national-level military, I'd use M16s or M4s, along with the Spanish AMELI squad automatic weapon, all chambered in 6.5mm Grendel. OK, I lied, I'd prefer to use the Israeli Tavor rifle, but it's 3x more than an M16. I'm not sure I'd have any machineguns in the old 7.62mm NATO caliber at all, and operate kinda like the Germans did in WW2: squad MGs use the same ammo as the basic soldier's rifle.[/firearms nerd]

But yeah, militaries HATE complicating their logistics any more than they absolutely MUST. Ladies might get a smaller pistol (usually of the same caliber), but an M16 is lightweight. As long as you don't hang all that tacticool crap off it, anyway. They might be better off with the carbine, if the lady in question is particularly small, but it still shoots the same ammo as all the guy's weapons.

The lady Bolt's weapon is a serious screwup, where some dipstick quickly rescaled the entire model when they should have rescaled the body alone. The backpack really should be the same size as all the guys, but I'm more willing to let that slide. It's called 'private purchase' when a trooper buys commercial gear instead of getting some piece of junk from the quartermaster. But you can't private-purchase rifles unless you're a hot-shot special ops type.

[Mistake Not]

It's nice that in the next 175 years of progress nothing will change at all about how we humans manufacture things.
Everything you know to be true today will be literally true in the far future.

/sarcasm

I mean, sure, it's kind of a screwup. I'm not all that into contemporary gun tech though so.. no disbelief to suspend here I guess.

[Guarda de Assalto]

You don't have to be a gun tech to notice that the (identical) weapons and stowage are in two separate scales. If it doesn't bother you fine, but no need to be flippant.

[ToadChild]

I do enjoy the occasional rants by serious modern-day firearm nerds.

[Lord Sessadore]

I do enjoy the occasional rants by serious modern-day firearm nerds.

Ditto. All I know about firearms is from target shooting with .22's and shotguns ... Which bears very little similarity to military firearms and their applications, I'm sure.

[tdc]

You have no idea how many times I keep seeing this thread pop up and think "oooo new bolt information!!"

Such teases!!!

[Guarda de Assalto]

Bolts will continue to be mediocre until we can all crack open N3 lol.

[tdc]

Since the bear is coming out, I had hoped to see the rules before the pre order in case I wanted more...

Vain hope perhaps...

[Errhile]

I'd guess a Speculative Fire-capable, parabolic weapon using AP Mines for ammunition..

[Harlekin]

Bolts will continue to be mediocre until we can all crack open N3 lol.

For Paradiso and ITS, Bolts will continue to be mediocre until they get MOV4-4 - it's a shame, but it's as easiy as that.
Of course, you can win with 4-2 specialists without Infiltration or Advanced Deployment - but it's quite hard to do so...

[Zen79]

I'd guess a Speculative Fire-capable, parabolic weapon using AP Mines for ammunition..

I guess they are equal to Fast Pandas, except for being mines instead of repeaters.

[Claudius Sol]

Bolts will continue to be mediocre until we can all crack open N3 lol.

For Paradiso and ITS, Bolts will continue to be mediocre until they get MOV4-4 - it's a shame, but it's as easiy as that.
Of course, you can win with 4-2 specialists without Infiltration or Advanced Deployment - but it's quite hard to do so...

Wildcats and Sekban seem to do just fine in ITS and Paradiso... I don't think the 4-2 is such a problem. Maybe more difficult, sure, but plenty more sturdy and threatening.

The problem for Bolts is the WIP12.

It's always been PanO's problem. The 5% drop in probability to capture objectives tips the scales in favor of other armies/specialists. Bipandra's WIP13, while not spectacular, is one of the cheaper specialists available for the WIP. Fusiliers are also pretty cheap if you wanted to fill out Bipandra's fire team. Bolts, being moderately expensive, take away one of PanO's advantages, if deployed as a fire team: points and SWC usage. If you're spending your points and SWC on the bolts, you're sorely missing out on a lot of PanO's more dangerous toys. Some other armies (Corregidor and QK) aren't as bothered by the SWC and points soak.