Here's how Wasteland 1's firearm balance actually works in practice:

Note that I am going to pretend the Red Ryder rifle doesn't exist, as it is only possible to get it via a glitch.

First, a few things about Wasteland 1 that, I believe, differ from how Wasteland 2 works:
1. Skills improve through use. For weapon skills, if you attack an enemy whose AC is higher than your weapon skill level, there is a chance your weapon skill will gain a level. Raising a skill with skill points is possible, but the cost doubles each level until the game starts treating it as -1.
2. You can attack with a firearm that has no ammunition. Doing this acts like a melee attack, except that accuracy and damage are based off the corresponding firearm skill, and the damage increase per skill level is smaller than for proper melee weapons.
3. When you set a semi-automatic weapon to full automatic mode, you get a bonus to hit equal to the number of shots fired. For instance, if you have 30 shots in your weapon, you get +30 to hit when going full auto; that's the equivalent of 30 skill levels! (Normally, don't expect your weapon skill levels to ever exceed 7 or 8.)

With that said, here is how it works out:

Clip Pistol: You start with these, and ammunition is plentiful. However, at this early stage in the game, it turns out that ranged attacks are not worth using; enemies don't have dangerous ranged attacks (yet!) and you do much more damage in melee combat without even using any ammo! In fact, if you put 2 points in Brawling at the start (a reasonable choice even though it wastes 2 skill points in the long run because you get more skill points than you really need in this game, and in exchange you get to start with 2 melee attacks per round), you might be better off using the Clip Pistol as a melee weapon than shooting it!

Rifle: Stronger than Pistols (5d6 instead of 4d6), and might actually be better against high AC enemies than SMGs, but still limited to single shots. Again, you are still usually better off going into melee combat instead of shooting single shots from rifles.

SMG: First automatic weapon. There is more than enough ammunition available to go full auto all the time (except against small groups of weak enemies), and doing so allows you to quickly kill larger groups of enemies. However, the full auto attack bonus makes the skill level pointless (you hit well enough without the skill), and the 4d6 damage isn't enough to make it useful against high AC enemies (defense applies to every hit in this game), and the skill will therefore not have much of a chance to grow high.

Assault Rifle: Best of Rifles and SMGs. Since they use the same ammunition of Rifles, they make Rifles obsolete. You now get automatic fire at 6d6 damage per shot. Clearly better than the previous categories, but again, you can go full auto all the time and get good accuracy regardless of your skill level. On the other hand, if you invest one level in the skill, it does have a chance to grow to a reasonable level. Might be worth using late game due to ammo availability, but the problem is that they don't work well against robots with high AC and high CON.

Energy Weapons: Not available at all until later, and ammo is less common, but much more powerful and varied. Work well when fighting hgh AC enemies. There are trade-offs within this category; the Meson cannon does more damage (19d6) per hit (making it useful against high AC targets), but gets only 10 shots (making full auto less effective). Definitely worth investing in, even though they are only usable late in the game. Also, the Laser pistol works well only as a practice weapon; assault rifles are better for real combat.

The first issue at hand is that if guns in every game had to act like their real life counterparts, every nonimaginary gun in every videogame would behave the same. Secondly, by saying "why not give it more love and care" you are assuming that designers ever wanted that kind of realism in the first place. The criticism for Hitman makes sense because those weapon models could easily be replaced with different weapon models. But for W2's weapons to act like their real world counterparts would mean to completely redesign how the combat plays - adding alt ammo would encroach on roles of other weapons, increasing weapon range would make melee completely unviable and if you can't properly use the shotgun's firing cone - that's on you, I found it very handy on more than one occasion. I'm repeating myself now, but that's wanting the game to be something it never intended to be in the first place.

The topic is treated more than just abstract design, gun goes BANG, enemy bleeds, that's really all you need to make guns at least seem like guns from afar. Other than that interesting abstract mechanics > realism.

I'm not a fan of strictly tiered weapons myself and would have preferred these guns to be sidegrades instead of upgrades, or at least for the gap between them to be a lot smaller. I would also not be opposed to lowering the amount of weapon skills. As it stands tho, the current system Wasteland 2 is a fun videogame mechanic. If I was constantly bored with it I would also demand realism to at least make it more immersive - as it stands tho, I enjoy the abstract game mechanics and I enjoy how are they presented. It's a shame that you don't, but the combat system was clearly not designed for you. Oh, I'd also like to point out that in reality, some guns actually are significantly better than others.

Actually, the Brawling skill is so broken in Wasteland 1 that it's better than guns in almost all situations throughout the entire game ;). You really only need guns for those rare enemies where Brawl doesn't work (Assault Rifle for some robots in the Vegas Sewers, and Energy Weapon for some robots in Cochise).

I have done playthroughs using only guns (no brawling) though. A few additions to your notes:

1) Clip Pistol: I do find myself running short on ammo near the start of the game (because I was not using Brawling)

2) SMG: Another reason for the limited usefulness of this skill is that you only have use of this skill for a short period of time, you'll probably start finding Assault Rifles shortly after SMGs appear. So it's a useful skill for only one or two characters only.

Do you have any comments about Demolitions (explosives and grenades) and AT Weapons? I don't use them very often, but In my experience:

Demolitions: Explosives and Grenades seem to work very well before you get automatic weapons, however supply is limited.

AT Weapons: At low levels they are rather lame, explosives and grenades are much better. RPG7 is useful against certain enemies (eg Scorpitron and Warroid Mk3), but overall of very limited usefulness.

I haven't used those weapon types much, to be honest.

Demolitions: The problem is that, before you get automatic weapons, the enemies you fight are not that threatening.

AT Weapons: There is one trait of these weapons that makes them *very* useful in certain circumstances; they *ignore* defense. This becomes quite handy in the Guardian Citadel, which is filled with enemies with high AC and low CON. Even weak AT weapons stand a chance of killing the enemies here in one hit. Plus, the skill levels up faster than other weapons. Just don't use them against animals (low AC and high CON). With that said, I find that some of the AT weapons sell for large amount of money, so it may be best to sell some of them and use the money to buy armor and chainsaws.

It's interesting how enemy stats are handled; humans have low CON but may have high AC if wearing armor, animals have high con but low AC, and robots have high CON and high AC.

The actual problem I ran into with Brawling is that, in the time it takes to get to the enemy, you take siginificant damage. As a result, it is often better to shoot the enemies from a distance rather than advance and take damage before you can start to attack. Also, there are only 2 Proton Axes in the game, so the other two characters will be much weaker in melee. (Although, the Meson Cannon comes close in melee damage, but then you need to be good at 2 different skills (Energy Weapon for damage, Brawling for number of attacks) to use that weapon to its fullest melee potential. Also, you can't use it as a melee weapon if it still has ammo in it.)

As a side note: the Spear has an interesting use. When using consumable weapons, your skill is more likely to increase than if you were using a firearm, which in turn gives a better chance of a skill level up than using melee attacks. Therefore, by throwing a spear at an enemy with high AC, you have a good chance of improving your Brawling skill, much better than if you went into melee range.

Let's hug, brother! /grin

My point exactly. If you implement something, implement it well, because you already spending your resources on it, so why implementing it wrong way? I mean 2015 (okay, even 2014), there are vast swaths of information available at reach of mouse's click (okay, few keystrokes as well). Majority of info could be found without removing your butt from that soft leathery seat (or hard plastic, depending on your employee, I guess).

This is especially true if you implement something real or realistically looking. One may criticize Bungie for copy-pasting US military ranks into their Halo (at least first two - PCMR and all that), but it is logical and does not raises questions how, why, and what the hell, like, say, Mass Effect system does.
Narration, suspense of disbelief, and immersion are very gentle matters and it is very easy to rip them, spoiling important part of fun for some people. In my point of view, correct armament, geography, logical narration, and various other "unimportant" things are signs of high quality of product, regardless of artistic integrity.

I concur (seriously, your post worth being quoted entirely). I do not require realism either, what I want is believability of world shown. That's where conflict on opinion between me and Fenixp, apparently is. Suum cuique.

Fallout New Vegas represents game with well thought over world in many aspects, including arsenal, despite all its flaws, mostly coming from inherited engine, such as "animation" and "ballistics". Or lack thereof - all bullets were flying by static cone, apparently. Which is kinda strange, given that Oblivion engine showed relatively realistic arc trajectory for arrows. Guess engine limitations.
Regarding armaments, I also think that for the most part (minus advanced AR-15 types (carbine and marksman rifle, IIRC) and some Fallout 3-inherited guns that a bit too off) system works fine. Take lever guns and older revolvers, for example. Right they are, given the fall of industry, we will again return to era of "wild west" of relatively primitive firearms, and guns (and ammo) of that era are quite fitting for general manufacturing capabilities. Modern CNC machines (operated by punched tape, not current generation due to different timelines) require extensive maintenance, which is probably will be unavailable. Therefore no too intricate gun designs, oil crisis means no polymers (that's why I don't really get those AR-15 family members, though NCR service rifle uses wood, which is replenish-able material, for handguard and buttstock.
So no polymers, no overly complicated guns. Maybe even old smoke powder ones will make their return for less equipped societies (Pillars of Eternity shows that theoretically that could be doable and still funny and entertaining to play). Relatively more "modern" looking guns could be represented by WW1/2 era guns, something like STEN or Grease Gun, but probably something different, not requiring extensive milling, as power may not be available, therefore Thompson SMG is out of the question, IIRC it was quite difficult and expensive to manufacture even for US industry.
Existing blossoming multitude of cartridges, including exotic ones, will probably die out and people will return to few proven, yet universal ones (again, revolver and lever guns). Though, of course, FNV's revolvers reloading animation is pretty hilarious (same as one of first Medal of Honor addons (Spearhead?) Nagant reload animation) - who would remove spent cases first? Yes, FNV is not perfect, 1911's rate of fire was very questionable - for a gun with that trigger travel, mass and cartridge it's hard to suspect all guns had extremely heavy trigger pull. Besides, for a properly trained courier trigger job shouldn't be a problem. But thankfully, cases like those are minority.

In Wasteland 2 we see quite a few those "ersatz" guns (even less so in DC, at least for me for now, IIRC I saw only one rust bucket and one, maybe two SVEN), but read a lot about "rechambering", even if it pointless - why maim Ma Deuce, "rechambering" it for 5.56mm if M1919 (A6 with buttstock for LMG) for .30-06 would do as first heavy gun, since they didn't wanted to add Lewis or use BAR (as entry-level gun)? Why rechamber M14 for 5.56mm when there is Mini-14? Ruger hatred much? M14 could, and, IMHO, should have been a step up (maybe step down in terms of raw damage, depending on gun powder inside, after all, .30-06 simply longer than 7.62x51mm) from M1 - almost same gun, but with bigger mag. But not for 5.56mm, makes no sense, there's aplenty various guns designed for that calibre. Rechambering would make sense for guns using bullets of relatively same calibre, but different case, such as Russian AK or SVD 7.62x39 or 7.62x54R respectively vs 7.62x51. Yes, there are some Yugoslavian AK initially made for NATO 7.62, there is Galil, there are some civilian versions of carbines for those calibres, as well as there is version of SVD for rimless cartridges, but that's slightly different case, as those guns were made this way, not reworked in some workshop on already existing sample.

Having powerful M14 would allow you either keep it till endgame, if you like7.62x51mm, as gamewise, difference between it, G3 and FN FAL will be minimal, or downscale for 5.56mm for other gun, if you prefer mobility and higher rate of fire. With all due respect, FN FAL, FAMAS, HK G3, 33, and especially G41, do not make much sense. Yeah, some of them could've been imported (though I don't know a single owner of FAMAS, for example), some made on "kits", but chances finding them in relatively large numbers in small area looks odd. Not that I'm a "hardcore patriot" of American firearms, but they would simply made more sense, while other guns, in very low numbers (single pieces) could've been added as Curio and Relic, so to speak, for flavouring, or offering slightly better or somewhere unique stats, for example.
We can criticize Jagged Alliance 2 for offering little differences between guns, but that's the point - similar guns are similar, and within ingame mechanics their stats should be the same. You want to use M40 for your custom ranger whose ancestor been serving in USMC? Do that. Want to use M24 by descendant of an Army Veteran? Go ahead. Rem700 for a ranger from hunter dynasty? Ditto. As it was in JA2, where you could equip your team according to your taste and still have playable team, and enjoyable experience till very end. C7 would not be outdated by FN FAL (even if by stats it will), because gameplay wise both allowed you to do two aimed shots or two bursts and deal relatively same amount of damage, sufficient enough to kill or incapacitate the target. That difference of 3 points of damage between them basically wasn't there. And that's fine, that's the approach I like - pick what you want and have fun. Even throwing knifes were pretty much usable for entire duration of game. Of course I wouldn't recommend using them against local cats, bugs, and tanks, but bipedal featherless furless creatures with flat nails were more than appropriate targets. Surely, for nighttime, mostly, due to range limitations, as were pistols, SMGs, and some carbines, but we had an option. In Wasteland 2 - not so much. We can't even fire beyond range with accuracy penalties. In JA2 more than once those risky shots were lucky (especially if made by Ira;)), and saved the day. In Wasteland 2 (and Deux Ex Human Revolution, which I generally like very much) bullets simply refuse to fly beyond certain distance. They what, have labour union?
Games are about entertainment and having fun, not enforcing your artificial, needless limitations on player in the name of so called artistic integrity (what is that anyway, "I'm an artist and I see it this way"?). Don't make overpowered weapons, make them believable and enjoyable. Making characters jerking off in the corner because enemies are outside of their reach isn't really fun. Brother Thomas was nice addition to a team, but because of his focus on SMGs his participation in firefights was highly limited.

IMHO best solution is to add 2 metres of range per skillpoint for any "shooting" skill. This way we will have 20 bonus metres, moving all "short handed" guns into 30+ metres range, which is fine for the most part. Remove short barrel (makes little sense, as it may worsen guns automatics functionality due to insufficient gas pressure for cycling), rename long barrel into "match barrel", add collimator (a.k.a. red dot) "sight" that would not give much of reach, but would reduce 1AP per shot with bonus accuracy on shorter ranges, add really high power scope for extensive accuracy, bonus damage, and critical chance (maybe even range bonus, but with current visibility range there may be problems with this), but for +1AP per shot (to imitate longer target acquisition times), and we're good to go. This way you'll have either short-to-mid range sights for quick follow-up body shots (or, if your ranger is post-apocalyptic Jerry Miculek - potshots), sights for long range/high precision job at expense of time, and something in between, with milder bonuses, but no penalties either.

... and you screw over melee users, rendering them completely useless. Mechanics in the game work the way they do for a reason, game designers tend to put a lot of time and thought into them. If you have issues with characters not being in range, do not underestimate pre-combat positioning of the squad - it makes all the difference.

Anyway, the point you have raised about high-tech weapons not only being used and functional but also being very widespread is an excellent one - that's a detail which could be changed just by replacing models and names and would somewhat add to authenticity.

And what my reply is supposed to convey is that I am buying this approach. I'd gladly look for other games you suggested, only there are none to be found. I love Deus Ex, but in HR the way the limit guns range made me laugh - I tried relatively long range (100+ metres) shooting with open sights, I know it's doable, and I know you don't need to aim a way too high (true for those guns I used). If I want to have my Jensen to be expert handgun marksman, I can't - if you pixel farther from enemy, you would not be able to hit him at all.
Surely, there is ArmA, I love that series, play it regularly, but I want something "tactical" (you can call it "isometric"), not first person. As much as I love GoG, replaying old games not really helping - I played JA2 so much I remember enemy patrol routes and positions in some sectors :D.

Yes and no. Some guns do look an upgrades of another, Desert Eagle looks like an 10mm pistol substitute, combat shotgun - for ordinary shotgun, to an extent sniper rifle for hunting rifle (yet it uses more AP per shot), but some are unique, or at least have different tradeoff - laser goes for range, while plasma goes for punch, assault rifle is two-handed weapons while SMG is one-handed (and there is trait giving bonus accuracy for latter, and penalty for former).
A bit less so in case of Fallout 2, you correct there.

Nope. My arguments come to "make it believable" and "make it fun". Fallout had many guns with ranges farther than relative range of Wasteland 2 handguns, SMGs and shotguns, yet it was perfectly fine to play "hulk smash" character type (tried and loved it, though I missed high luck and intelligence scores;)), that's been specializing on melee/hand to hand fighting style. Or you could play using .223 pistol or pair of revolvers and beat the game using them.
More importantly, Fallout depended not only on weapons, but on your character's skills. Properly skilled character will be able to use relatively weak weapons (unless badly coded) to succeed. That's my point. In Wasteland 2 for the most part my short-range specialists smoke on the water, waiting when they will be able to come closer, or enemies come closer to them. Plus, overall combat dynamic is rather slow. In Fallout you could boost up the speed, here - not so much. Therefore, all this running takes too much time. I remember final fight in Vanilla W2 - most NPCs, both enemies and allies, were simply running around. Why would I join the them? #Irun4victory
I rather shot enemies instead of pointless running.

How I'm supposed to do that if you in our Witcher discussion was promoting ignoring the media and developers? Moreover, how I'm supposed to research a game if there is no data on it yet? Have you see any data on Xenon blaster? No, new one, left by Tinker in W2DC. Data on guns from DC? I don't. And I have time to play now, so I play, sorry.


I know it's not for me, but I just couldn't pass this. Why we are arguing, if we are talking about same thing and generally is in agreement? ;)

Yes, .338 rifle will beat any .22 revolver in terms of range and power, while .22 revolver is much easier to carry. But when we compare guns for same cartridge, difference is not that big (within reason). Because guns made for cartridges and cartridges determine performance. If we compare two guns for same cartridge, with same barrel length and thickness, same twist, they will show very similar performance, in terms of accuracy, range, and energy. That's why when I see old Steyr AUG with 20in barrel have vastly different stats with M16 with barrel of same length I go all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Within game mechanics any differences between those guns would be statistically insignificant. Moreover, many differences between them will be negated by a gasket between gun and ground. If shooters cannot properly utilize all possibilities of guns, with shooter in equation, the differences became even more blurred.


Don't bring knives to a gunfight. /grin
They are already screwed by developers who put a lot of time and thought into them. Why? Assault and sniper rifles. They already dominate the battlefield because of range and power. Why wasting time running, when you can be shooting, especially if your combat initiative is high? Being able to shoot first, you can make two or maybe even three shots, and if you lucky enough, that could be minus three enemies. That's, generally, population of random encounter. And even if there are more enemies, there will be less of those who would try to kill your team.

Yeah, sure, positioning (maxed outdoor skill by the way). When enemies spawned on top of your team, or initiate combat at distance, exceeding even entry level rifles' range. Good luck sneaking upon them. It's not Fallout or JA2 where you could wait for different time, and/or have developed sneaking skill/camouflage to be able to close the distance. This game offers rather limited battlefields.
My point is to let people use any of weapon skills they want, be that rifle, shotgun, handgun, or melee. Melee could be even more lethal, to compensate need to rush forward, and shooting skills will be for those who are too lazy to walk up close and yell "fuck you" into enemy's face - bullet will get the point across.
Being able to riflebutt someone would also be nice.

Mhm. I see two options. We can either use old weapon starting from WW1 era, through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, to "modern (i.e. 1990s) time, or/and add gradation of "worn", "refurbished", "smells cosmoline" with, say, 40%, 20%, and 0% of degradation of stats. Also we can add "improvised" (STEN-alike or more primitive) guns, not for our rangers, but for opponents. In addition we can add "broken" stat, say you found rather well preserved M16, but with rupture is gas tube. So, no automatics for you, but hey, it still shoots. Or it has broken sear, so it always goes in full auto, unless shooter is qualified enough (say skill and agility are both higher than 5) to be able to make single shots, carefully pressing trigger.
Don't forget, that many parts in some guns actually have rather short lifespan, just couple thousands shots. Of course it is far more than average gun owner will shoot in his entire life, but in W2 we don't have those average owners. We don't know how really populated W2 world was and is, i.e. how frequent was the shooting since the war, so degree of wear and tear, supply of spare parts, and preciousness of "mint" condition guns are up to discussion.
Regarding types. I'd go with US Armed Forces issued guns as mainstay, plus popular civil market models. Few curio and relic guns could be added, but realistically looking, if you have one and only AUG in vicinity and you have no spare parts, no matter how hard you like that gun, you'll throw it away when it'll break, or you stow it away and switch to more popular and available model.
Regarding stats I'd went for aesthetical side. If within game mechanics extrapolation of IRL characteristics are statistically insignificant (and they are), then stop trying to add them, and let people make choices based on their preferences.