Armored enemies are a minority when considering who you fight. Civilian conservatives, security guards, prison guards, debate attackers don't pack armor.
...Most of these can all be dispatched with a handgun, there is no need to use a heavy weapon for any of these targets. When faced with targets that DO pose a threat (meaning they have assault weaponry and know how to use it) they tend to be armoured. It's just pointless. Sure, it's horrifying if in the hands of Conservative riot police, opposing a mass of civilians, but for the LCS? What use is it?
There's no such kill as overkill
. Anyway, though handguns and shotguns are useful, a shot to the torso can fail to kill (even if they are "flavor texted" this means your squad can waste more shots on them, even if they're gonna bleed to death by the end of the round) an automatic shotgun would be very helpful then. Furthermore shots to the arms & legs can fail to incapacitate the target altogether, letting a security guard put a .44 round into your head. If you were using an auto shotgun, then you may have hit multiple times, causing enough damage to at least flavor text him.
Just because one weapon is better is not an excuse to not introduce weaker ones. In any case shotguns are more accurate than pistols, making them better for inexperienced troopers.
I agree with that. Though your specifications are all off. The sawn-off should have better accuracy, and lower damage (fewer pellets hit the targets due to spread, but the spread makes it easier to hit targets).
Um... OK.... I agree with your deductions, but where did I make those specifications...
Again, this was more for novelty then a real suggestion. The fox appears to be willing to add obsolete weaponry, so I will press this point no further.
A bow is not useful for what the LCS does. A bow is hard to draw, requires a lot of skill to use, and draws attention to itself. Not that it wouldn't be funny, but it's a lot like that cross item - useless.
And yet we have the cross, no?
Perhaps, but then again you can't exactly justify stopping a SWAT raid by debating fiscal policy over automatic weapons fire. I believe that you expect too much realism out of this game (or am I expecting too little?), I personally see this game as a game where you can do crazy stuff that may be unrealistic (I think that the FOX may have the same philosophy(though probably a bit milder) seeing as he strengthened martial arts to make it possible to raise a Liberal Kung-foo group), like GTA where gangsters can drive tanks and pilot jump jets. In a nutshell I'm saying that the craziness potential is one of this game's charms.
Unless the debater has around 15 tactics, that is impossible. You cannot stopa SWAT raid without killing a large number of attackers, and a debater rarely has that much impact on the fighting in such a situation.
I was thinking waves upon waves of debaters, but that logic may be flawed. Instead lets think about it this way: If you break into a prison with 6 debaters/Musicians you can go though as many prison guards as your wish. Suffice to say, no prison break has been executed with debate and music.
Tanks do not belong in the game as LCS resources. There's good crazy, then there's stupid crazy.
I think there is room for some middle ground, how about you can acquire tanks (at great difficulty) and go on rampages with them but you have to bail out from the tank (or the tank gets blown up) after a certain period of time when heavy weapons/the air force shows up? If you are concerned about the specialty skills needed (personally I believe an abstraction to "driving" would be OK) then we can add a new "Tank" skill, that is (randomly) present in army vets, soldiers and possibly mercs (maybe they served as a tanker before becoming a hired gun?)
Obviously such a vehicle would attract monster heat every time it was used, making it only useful when you have significant sleepers in the force (probably the same with tanks)
And again, I must state that the game does not (and should not) force the player to avoid police attention. The game gives player the option to fight off SWAT, the National Guard and the air force. It is clear the game was not designed to force a player to remain "under the radar".
Vehicles don't really play that big a part in the game, and if someone saw a non-military vehicle with a mounted weapon, the national guard would blow it to smithereens. This crosses the good-stupid line.
My point was that vehicles should be more fleshed out. In any case I believe you are misunderstanding me.
I think you believe that when I say "Weapons on Jeeps" I mean the ones below
I DO NOT......
What is in my mind is a 50 cal machine gun on a low tripod at the back of the Jeep, covered with a cover when not in use.
A 50 cal:
With Bush as reference:
Cmon, you can hide that on the back of a jeep, no?
The only reason I'm suggesting jeeps for this is because they are the only vehicle we have where it is possible to fire backwards without:
a. Sticking your head out the window
b. Shooting through the rear window