Marine (continued)

Soldiers and Marines are issued bayonets with their M-16s. They are hardly archaic

 

sharp objects may not be as useful as a gun, but they're still useful

 

As I've said before, they're pretty much issued as a last resort, for if you ever end up alone going up against the enemy face-to-face and you can't fire your rifle for some reason.  They don't actually issue it for you to use it.

 

I am pretty sure that if the zealots or zerglings reach your marines it WILL be their last resort for the marines to use the bayonet because they are going to die soon after.

Also an enemy being a foot away generally makes it at least more difficult to fire the weapon.

 

In the M16's case, there is no situation that I can think of that it would be better to resort to the bayonet over firing the rifle.  If the rifle can be fired, it should be.  Point blank is still a blade's length farther away from your enemy.  And firing an M16 requires you to squeeze the trigger, using the attached bayonet require a much greater range of motion and physical effort.

The same reasoning goes into why I believe firing the gauss rifle would always be better than using a bayonet.  But that is fruitless debate because to much of it is up to personal interpretation of SC lore, so I don't want to go back into that mess.

But in real life, no, there is no situation where it's better to use the bayonet.  Detaching the bayonet to use as a combat knife perhaps, but not a bayonet.  Counter terrorist tactics in urban settings require SMGs, not comat knive or bayonets, which is why SMGs are "tactical" weapons.  You swap out the rifle for a shorter weapon that you can hug to your body if need be, and you "spray" the enemy.  A spray of bullets from a firearm that is equal to or less than your body width is infinitely more effective than any thrusting or slashing motion.

 

At the end of the day though a hole is a hole. Doesn't matter if it was made by a bullet or a knife as lng as you enemy is dead or incapacitated.

 

If that was the only enemy you were facing. Most likely there would be much more enemies, and the method of killing is almost as important as the actual result. If you try to kill it with a bayonet, it takes much longer than you would with, to take Remy's example, an SMG. That small amount of time can be the difference between life and death. You could be attacked by another enemy while you were trying to stab something to death, but if you shot that thing to death, you would have had time to prepare for the other enemy.

 

Modern soldiers in the US Armed Forces are not issued bayonets. They are issued combat knives which can be fitted as bayonets, but for the most part are not used.

Also, in the World Wars soldiers were commonly issued bayonets. It's a joke among veterans that they were more useful for opening cans than for actually fighting. They often used their trench spade instead.

Big difference. I agree with Remy wholly on the point and would rather the Bayonet disappear. Just let the ranged attack to all the work, just like in SC1. The Marine needs no improvement.

And please don't let me see this discussion on explosive weaponry for the Marine. I think I've made my opinion pretty clear that the reaper is the best current unit suited for anti-infantry purposes. The Marine is basically perfect. They're increasing its HP to improve its usefulness late-game, but otherwise the unit is just about spot-on with the addition of medics.

 

No they are issued bayonets but they are basically just combat knives with a pair of rings on them to keep them on the rifle.

Really the discussion here is moot because chances are the bayonets and shields don't actually do anything and are purely visual anyway. The shield does not seem to make sense anyway as you generally can't control a weapon accurately with one hand and even if you can it will still be three times more accurate in two. And with it on the side you would have to turn sideways which is also bad for firing your weapon. While the could stab with the bayonet I can';t see the upgrades being more than just a visual indicator though I am not sure if you need to have a visual indicator. There isn't one for ability upgrades

 

The knives are fitted so as to be used as Bayonets, but they are primarily kept in the boot holster of the soldier. Not on the weapon (it's dangerous to carry like that).

"FIX BAYONETS! ADVANCE!" etc...

 

To step away from everything discussed, I would like to express might personal opinion on the point that Jon might be dead smack on the money on that one. The marine might quite possibly be prefect for the timing being. Never thought I'd ever publicly say that about a non-Zerg unit.

 

I never said there was anything wrong with the marine. I like it as it is I just think the Terrans mightbe lacking a low level counter to th zealpt and zergling. it is hard to tell how effective the reapers will be against those units but one thing we canbe sure of is since they are bough in groups they might be a little difficult to obtain that early in the game when you have a weak economy

 

Just to throw my opinion into this debate. Yous guys are disscussing the use of bayonets in mordern terms where you have smaller numbers of people fighting and everyone has guns. In starcraft have the units a marine will engage are going to try and charge him and get into melee range. In a situation like the bayonet could be used like a spear against a charging mounted warrior in medieval times. (which is what that would most closely resemble). This would be only amplified if marines fought similar to what we were shown in the cinematic becuase they would line up and end forming a ginat spike wall so it would harder to flank them. Also these bayonets would probally be enormous and VERY sharp becuase the marines are wearing power armor so they could effectively wield bigger weapons and the baynets where probally built useing techniques we probally couldnt do with out level of technology.

 

In real life Bayonets may be useless but in Real Life we don´t have oversized bugy impaling themselves on them when trying to eat your face. Don´t you think the Marine in the Broodwar opening would have liked a Bayonet?

Also I´m convinced that in the game it is just a visual change anyway.

 

The only reason the Marine in that cinematic would have wanted a bayonet was because he was out of ammunition. StarCraft Marines don't run out of ammunition. Therefore, they don't need bayonets.

I just don't think this whole thing is necessary. Melee animations are fine, but it doesn't matter in the first place. You can't alter the Marine's attack speed or damage count when it's fighting melee, so it's not like it really matters.

But overall I think it's best to just keep the ranged attack at all times for the Marine. This idea is a juxtaposition to the Hydralisk, which has huge claws that it apparently never uses. That is a case where the melee attack animation should be different from the ranged attack as that is a natural ability the Hydralisk should already have. Don't forget that it would still have the same "attack" and the speed and damage would not be altered.

 

if bullets are so useful, why must the marine fire a spray of bullets to compare to a single ling attack?

as i said, i think bayonet should be able to do 8 damage at the price of range. it worked for DoW, and the power suit should make it a damned powerful stab.

 

Can we just all shut up about the bayonet topic? It is getting us nowhere

 

@ Hillzagold , Why? I've argued a lot before that you cannot change the attack of a ranged unit once it comes into melee combat with another unit. That's just plain unfair.

You can change the attack animation, etc., but you cannot change the damage rate or attack speed. You're effectively making the unit have two different traits depending on what unit it eventually faces.

Against Zealots it would get that extra damage in before the Zealot closes, and then the front rank of Marines would do increased damage. How is that fair? I don't want to exponent on why this is so, etc... I could find the older post, I suppose...

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=606.msg47176#msg47176

It's not as comprehensive an argument as I had thought, but the general idea is in here.

... this is another thread that I'm about to give up on...

 

Joneagle im not sure of what you meant by cannot (whether you mean should or physicly cant) but i do know for a fact that the WC3 map editor had every unit with the possiblity of having to attacks so i dont think it would be much of strech to assume that it can be done. As for whether it should be done, you do make a good point about the fairness section what if blizzard just changed the damage and attack speed but kept the average damage done? For instance very few people are going to swing a sword faster than a machine gun but with the power armor a marine is wearing swinging a good sized baynet would probally do more damage that one of there bullets.

The real argument/disscussion about this topic is whether it should be done. I personally like the idea of marines wielding bayonets because it adds a new dynamic to the game aand as i always as long as an idea starts off being reasonable the numbers can be balanced.

 

I'm saying that a ranged unit cannot have a melee attack that is different from its ranged damage or attack speed, period. It affects balance in a strange way, especially in relation to armor, etc.

Giving it an increase melee attack will reduce the effectiveness of melee units that are designed to counter the Marine, thereby partially eliminating its weakness as a ranged unit.