Well, I think we should go with the SAS takedown reports. 2 to 4 rounds and your deadmeat Sucka! (read using MR. T voice) /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But what determines balance? What specifically defines that? The weapons should be based on realism, period. (i.e. the SAS takedown reports, or whatever the hell other stats you can conjure up, to help accurately represent the highest level of realism obtainable)
Basically, all the MP5s and any other weapons with close relative power, or with exceeding power, should be pretty damned effective with 2 to 4 round bursts. The m9, in that case, should only take around 4 directly hit rounds to down the target. And if that doesn't kill the target, it should pretty much f*ck the poor SOB up to a good level of incapacitation. Hell, after the first two direct hits, I'd expect some serious injury to take place. Kevlar would decrease the likelyhood of death or severe injury, of course. Also, and this is very important as well as obvious...it should heavily depend on hit location.
What I'm saying is, does it matter how powerful the weapon is on paper, when almost all of those present in this game are capable of sending a round through your heart, or am I wrong about this? Obviously when Kevlar is introduced into the equation, armor piercing rounds should be more effective. Oh, and don't forget, when Mr. T is introduced into the equation, everything becomes more effective. /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif
[This message has been edited by Mr. T (edited 04-09-2000).]