Loophole Master said:
Gimp said:
Acid is capable of killing people and disabling machinery. As far as I know, that's what the sulfur throwers will be capable of doing in Dust Tactics. Just because we haven't found a way to use acid as an effective offensive weapon, it doesn't mean the pararel Dust universe haven't either. We haven't found a way to use lasers as effective offensive weapons, but the Dust guys have.
You might not like the idea of sulfur weapons, and that's totally fine. I didn't like the inclusion of the apes initially. But I think at this point it's unfair to say a simple sulfur thrower is the one thing that throws Dust into the realm of ridiculous fantasy.
It is an alternate world, where things are obviously different, but it is also a world where things work the same.
Lasers I have no problem with, as that's simply taking physical constraints and adding sufficient power to make the laser combat effective.
Acid can kill people, and it can disable machinery. That I have no issue with.
The problems I have with the concept of weaponized acid are that it would be ridiculously dangerous to the unit when a flamethrower would be capable of the same things for less risk, the quantities required for effective combat capability would be enormous, the time required for it to eat through armor would be extreme for combat purposes, and so flamethrowers would be capable of the same kind of effects far more easily and at less risk to friendly forces. Why would they bother?
Lasers in Tactics follow logical constraints based on possibilities inherent in lasers. Acid as a weaponised agent misses the mark significantly based on the physical constraints of acid. You can't make acid react as other than acid. It has specific properties, and consumes itself during the specific chemical reactions of the acid if it is used against something it can react with. 'Alien' blood eating throgh anything was fine for the movie; but even there they acknowledged both time and reaction mechanics. They only pushed and cheated reality by not specifying what acid was being used to allow such a reaction.
The end result is simply that they added acid sprayers simply to give the SSU something different, when there was no reason to do so, and their chosen replacement was rather ludicrous. Why can't the SSU use flamethrowers when the other countries do, and if acid sprayers are somehow more capable, why aren't the other countries using them as well?
Every country in WW2 used similar weapon concepts. The Allies and SSU don't have acces to Vril blood to make zombies or enhance apes, and may have moral objections to using them, but effective weapon systems using the same principles were being used by all sides.
The Germans developed the panzerfaust, and the Allies and Soviets didn't, because they had similar weapons and an overwhelming advantage in their number of tanks. They were happy to use them if they captured them, but they didn't really need them.
The Germans developed the StG44 as the first assault rifle ahead of the others, but they were working on similar concepts. The same can be said for jets, rockets, or just about anything else. Anything that was fielded had similar designs from the other side.
Acid sprayers, if they could come up with a reasonable explanation for them, would be dealt with the same way. If they were better than flamethrowers, the other countries would use them. If they were not as effective, which everything about the science of acids suggests, the SSU wouldn't bother with them.