Call of Duty: Ghosts Space campaign level

[Bioman222]

If you haven't, check out the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o26zidAn3Is

So, lets discuss the space segment of it! Let us savage space geeks tear it limb from limb and feast upon its unrealisticness!

Ok, that was a bit overboard, but, anyways, what do you guys think? Realistic? Unrealistic? How Unrealistic? Why?

EDIT: The space bit is 0:04 to 0:34

Edited September 26, 2013 by Bioman222

[Dispatcher]

Well, the spacesuits needed to be space camo: black with stars painted on them. OK, space suited soldiers wielding gunpowder weapons really seems absurd. Hit the wrong thing and the mission might be compromised.

[Manifest]

shoot out around a space station worth billions with army trainees or astronauts who for some reason have guns.

ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ

Activision pls

[Deathsoul097]

1 - Shooting in space would send you spiralling off into the distance

2 - Gunpowder based weapons do not work in a vacuum, they require air for the combustion process

3 - Rods from the Gods are fired retrograde, not down.

4 - Where the hell is any of the worlds nations going to get the money to send a large military strike team to space

5 - Why would you ever want to have an EVA firefight in space, especially without any visible means of manouvering other than clinging to space junk

6 - Why would you have a firefight next to one of the most expensive pieces of hardware ever created

Just the first few discrepancies in a very long list.

[Dynamo]

Ooh, let me join in!

1. Traditional scopes + Spacesuit helmet do not work. Whatever genius thought this one up should try to hold the sight up to a helmet visor. So none of them can aim very well, most likely.

2. Astronauts are typically holding onto a surface at one point or another to stay in place, and who shoots an assault rifle 1 handed?

3. -0.12 into the trailer: Explosions in space aren't the same as on earth. Fires are globular, and explosions would cause depressurization, so not too many fireballs anyway. *cough* Michael Bay *cough*

4. -0.19: Who puts astronaut commandos into a milk carton like that? Cargo bays aren't built to house personnel, so why bother with creating the cargo bay adaptor when all you'd be able to do is use it as a 'space bus'?

5. Astronauts have to be trained for months, if not years, before going into space once. You can't expect any old protagonist to put the suit on and be familiar with the procedures and mechanics of spaceflight that would be required to maneuver, much less fight, in space.

6. -0.22: The "Odin" platform has no reason to fire its thrusters toward earth. It's only launching one rod, not deorbiting the satellite.

6.5: Oh, and getting the Delta-V to slow the rods so that they would drop right down onto the city would be entirely redundant. The whole concept lies in using the immense speed from falling from orbit to create a shockwave from impact using only energy.

7. -0.55 ... they left us open to full-scale invasion." The video appeared to show the rods targeting civilian targets to me, not carriers or military assets. Besides, when the cost per pound of orbiting material runs at about $10,000, we can't haul enough of these 37t 20ft/1ft tungsten slugs (according to USAF's Project Odin) into orbit to cause enough damage to cripple the US military without incurring serious cost. If we can assume that the 1 "Odin" satellite was the only station carrying rods, then it would be very unlikely that it alone could cause that kind of damage. Anyone else interested in footing a $750mil bill per rod just to orbit it?

KSP is all about space, so other than that, i'll refrain. Sorry to all the COD fans, but the space segment kinda turns me off. I can accept that they're trying to push a new frontier of gameplay, but there's a reason as to why space warfare has been limited to sci-fi. Space is the first place our where species has ever declared total peace. At the height of the Cold War, the two biggest rivals of the world that were threatening each other with nuclear arms signed a treaty promising never to weaponize space (well, strategically, anyway). I personally think that they're tainting the serenity and peace behind space exploration by carrying an FPS into orbit, and ruining the credibility for the world's space programs.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Dynamo

[Awaras]

2 - Gunpowder based weapons do not work in a vacuum, they require air for the combustion process

Nope, gunpowder (and other gun propellants, pretty sure gunpowder itself is not used in modern military-grade weapons) contains within itself both the fuel and the oxidizer needed for combustion. That is why you can fire guns underwater and, yes, probably in space too... Just how do you think air could get inside the sealed bullet casing in the milliseconds of time the combustion is taking place?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Awaras

[llamatoes]

I think you guys are looking too much into things.

I agree that the trailer was as unfeasible as it is possible to be, but this meant as Micheal-Bay lowest common Denominator target, so making it as explosive and bombastic as possible is their goal. (What does the average Frat bro/moron know about orbital mechanics). Its a bit like getting cross with a cat for lying on someones head while they sleep, or Armageddon for being ridiculously inaccurate, although when I was watching the trailer I was going through my head all the things wrong with science in the trailer.

EDIT: And the Rods from God is only about as powerful as a tactical nuke. Unnamed insurgents du jour would be better off stealing tactical nuclear weapons, which is slightly less bombastic but much more cost-effective.

Edited September 26, 2013 by llamatoes

[Bioman222]

5. Astronauts have to be trained for months, if not years, before going into space once. You can't expect any old protagonist to put the suit on and be familiar with the procedures and mechanics of spaceflight that would be required to maneuver, much less fight, in space.

They could be space marines that were trained in space flight and combat. Just saying.

[Canopus]

Reminds me of Shattered Horizon and the final battle in Moonraker. I kinda like the design of the Shuttle you see in the first seconds of the trailer. It looks like a big manned version of the X-37 except that it has SSME's so its probably launched sidemounted on a External fuel tank like the STS.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Canopus

[DisarmingBaton5]

Hmm

1. Who sends up any old soldier without years of training? Useless passenger in the place of valuable crew?

2. The recoil from a gun would be enough thrust to propel you away from cover. Add that to balancing CoT and CoM and you have problems

3. Untethered EVA is only yet possible with the MMU, which is a lot larger than that

3b. Good luck getting any acceptable amount of fuel in the backpack

4. Explosions should be much smaller and brief

5. Would those guns operate in a vacuum?

6. Why did the ODIN platform fire thrusters?

7. Why did the ODIN platform launch downwards?

8. Winged shuttles are a bad idea and needlessly expensive, we have learned that already.

9. Are those... photovoltaics? On the interior of the station?

10. You need a LOT of thrust to deorbit that quickly.

That's all I can think of. I'd rather play Kerbal Space Program.

[Canopus]

Maybe that weapons platform fires its thrusters to counter act recoil or to change its orbit to target an area out of the DeltaV capability of the weapons itself?

3. Untethered EVA is only yet possible with the MMU, which is a lot larger than that

Thats not really true i think atleast that todays EVA's are made tethered only for safety purposes and that the suit is basically self-contained. They even have an emergency thruster pack called SAFER. Its much smaller than the MMU but has less DV i think.

[Dispatcher]

Recoilless weapons. That said, its still not a good idea to shoot up a station that could be used for your own objectives.

[SGT_RIZZO300]

Since there is air in the cartridge the bullets would fire (that's why guns work underwater) however there would not be a muzzle flash.

Also an explosion on a ship would destroy the whole ship since it would eat up all of the oxygen in the ship as well as the tanks of nearby soldiers.

[Wormhol3]

1. Fireballs

2. Automatic Weapons in space

3. the impact, debris, and stuff would puncture your suit.

4. Stopping without any RCS or anything

5. BURNING DOWN DOES NOT GET YOU TO THE PLANET FASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tom1499]

I thought we all knew about the whole 'Guns in space thing' Activision. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. Jeez. Aside from the Bazillion other things (Wait bazillion is a word?) that are wrong... Square nozzles on the MMU's? Really.

[briansun1]

let's see what's wrong... everthing on that note I find it funny that were only talking about this because were all space sim gaming people

[Canopus]

I thought we all knew about the whole 'Guns in space thing' Activision. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. Jeez. Aside from the Bazillion other things (Wait bazillion is a word?) that are wrong... Square nozzles on the MMU's? Really.

Why should guns in space not work? the only problem is recoil.

[Bioman222]

5. BURNING DOWN DOES NOT GET YOU TO THE PLANET FASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, it is faster but less efficent. If you see Scott Manley's quick rendevouz video he burns straight down the leave orbit.

[minerman30]

Actually, guns do work in space, as gunpowder contains its own oxidizer.

But everything else is wrong.

[GeordieBiker]

Nope, gunpowder (and other gun propellants, pretty sure gunpowder itself is not used in modern military-grade weapons) contains within itself both the fuel and the oxidizer needed for combustion. That is why you can fire guns underwater and, yes, probably in space too... Just how do you think air could get inside the sealed bullet casing in the milliseconds of time the combustion is taking place?

Gunpowder is used in all firearms. Blackpowder was the first rendition invented by the Chinese hundreds of years ago and was used in muzzleloading rifles such as the ones used by soldiers in the American civil war.

Gunpowder does not contain any oxidizer, however the oxgen within the case is more than what is needed and the seating between the case and projectile is airtight. Hence also why guns can be fired underwater.

Guns will work in a vacuum.

And it is entirely possible to fire an automatic weapon single handed. however negotiating in the weightlessness of things, it would be easier to manipulate but harder to fire consecutive rounds due to the muzzle climb.

[jfx]

The combination of forces (vertical muzzle climb and recoil) would lead to you making backflips away from your enemy.

But hey, I've got a pretty solid DLC idea:

Add some accurate fishphysics in zero g and you're pretty much guaranteed GOTY.

[BostLabs]

I'm not going to bother with this game anymore. I've found my game that will keep me entertained for years. Plus, no screaming kids, trolls, team mates that screw around, map packs, season pass...I'm just done with it.

that combat in space? No, just no. One burst with a automatic weapon and you are tumbling wildly or hanging on to a structure, firing one handed and missing. Tracers shouldn't work in space so you won't be able to even correct your aim visually. You'd have a much better chance with a storm and board method. All combat inside, no need to fire a shot. Capture and space your enemies. The station is yours. Any enemy still outside? Secure the hatch from the inside. They will eventually run out of air.

[KASASpace]

Well, hear are the probs:

1. Burning "down"

2. explosions

3. Recoil

Possible Explanations:

1. perhaps the rods use a more advanced technology to allow for such a huge amount of D-v (Ie, high velocity plasma thusters)

2. eventually all of the particles that are "reactive" will have "reacted" so thus not all of the oxygen is burned (otherwise we'ed be dead here on Earth)

3. Perhaps, using some sort of counter thruster you can counter the recoil

and finally, guys, it's an alternate HISTORY situation, so, these things "can" happen (only stuff I mentioned)

[Seret]

Using a firearm in space would be possible, but not in the same way you'd use it on the ground. First of all, you wouldn't put it to the shoulder, you'd plant it at your centre of gravity. There are some unconventional firing positions that involve planting the butt of the weapon about where your belt buckle is. That would work in space for preventing undue rotation I would have thought. You'd need to be using tracers and walk your fire onto the target, laser dots would help too. Ideally you'd have something a bit more advanced that could put symbology up on a HUD for you, computing leads, etc.

As for recoil, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Presumably you'd be using some kind of MMU, it wouldn't be hard to get it to compensate for each shot, an attachment to the barrel that detected each shot (a la laser training systems) and sent a signal to the MMU would be easy.

[YX33A]

Yeah, that was my main issue with all the complaints about the level, Recoil issues aren't an issue if your EVA suit is linked to your firearm so that the recoil is canceled out. You wouldn't even need to put it on for CoM to do this(though it would be ideal).

Normal Tracer rounds wouldn't work, but LED ones would. Normal gunpowder based firearms wouldn't work, but an electro-chemcial one would work better, and one that uses liquid fuel would allow you to use normal rocket LFO in theory(heck, even Monopropellent would work if it was powerful enough).

I haven't seen much of the trailer or gameplay of the level, but most people are attacking the weak spots and ignoring the fact that these "weak spots" are easy to patch up with modern tech. The real issue isn't the physics of the level, or why you bring a soldier with no EVA suit training, or any of that. It's why do you have this weapon up there at all? It's not cost efficient at all, and with what we know about the MW series, is there a legitimate reason why they aren't using nuclear weapons instead of telephone poles made of wolfram? I mean, they have used chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons before, why would they obey the treaty that prevents them from weaponizing space with WMDs if they still use WMDs which are just as illegal?(according to the Geneva Convention, anyway)