Analysis of the HPR Case File - CPT Devereaux

[Vispainius]

CLASSIFIED

Heavy Pulse Rifle Field Testing Report: USS Almayer

Tested Operations: 6

Known Constants: 10 Heavy Pulse Rifles.
Marine Quality (Colonials & Conscripts).

Known Variables: Quantity of Marines.
Quality, Designation and Quantity of Enemy Forces.
HPR Usage Type/Users

Results: Failure, possible success with changes suggested.

Marines handed out HPRs in varying methods.

Combat Testing Against:

• Colonial Liberation Front
• Universal Progressive Peoples Army (see incident 21/B - Level 6 Clearance Required)
• The [redacted] (see incident 21/C - Level 12A Clearance Required)
• Against [redacted] during limited scouting and gear retrieval operations involving members of onboard USCM Special Operators.

Usage Assessment:

Findings indicate PFCs and SSGTs more likely to both use properly and use, period. [redacted] agrees with prevalent standpoint that a new role should be made should HPRs go into active service. Current usage assessment indicates weapon is used improperly by vast majority of marines. Likely due to both [redacted] and [redacted]. This effects decision making for the unit. Shouldn't be an issue in other marine detachments and with training and advanced roles, shouldn't be an issue with the marines of the [redacted] despite the [redacted].

Usage Type Assessment (X indicates Failure, Y indicates Success.)
- All Usage Assessments include and account for the encounters and subsequent fail/success assessment of HPRs against [redacted] and [redacted]

• Bayonet Charges [X]*
• Frontal Assaults (Front and Center)[X]**
• FOB Defense [Y]
• Frontal Assaults (At the sides) [Y]
• Covering Fire [Y]
• Suppressing Fire [Y]
• Close Quarters Combat (CQC) [X]***
• Larger Target Destruction [Y]****
  - This includes target designations from the mysterious [redacted] and even more elusive [redacted] threat sweeping the sector.
  - Cannot destroy tanks. Please stop asking. Bill, try giving us specialist tipped rounds next time.

Notes:
*Really? We all knew the result. I'm fairly certain you just wanted to see some funny cam footage Heinz. That's very unprofessional, but you were right, it was great.

**Same as before. Note. The Friendly Fire was... perhaps Four-Round Bursts are too much? Sometimes Chen, I think you give these suggestions to see them charge to their deaths in honorable fashion. But yeah. Not with the HPR.

***I can't believe some people tried attempting this. Watching them get lit up was... I've never seen so much blood. But on a serious note, when they did get into CQC, they failed horribly. It's obvious the weapon isn't designed for it. I don't know why the hell they persist in using in as a CQC weapon, its not a damn shotgun. Its a support weapon, a fucking LMG. Goddamn spoiled marines with their Smartguns.

****This was actually chilling to watch. Very interesting seeing the results. I still can't believe these are some of the foes we face. As for the results, yeah, LMG Gunners are a major target for tanks. As are the MG positions they setup at. And the larger targets such as [redacted] and [redacted]? Some are taken down particularly easy but [redacted] have a habit of adapting and evolving to counter.

{Logging Out Captain Devereaux}

[Oatzandhoes]

>making another fucking role to take away what little freedom PFCs have

Gonna be a no from me.

[Vispainius]

its called a joke mixed with actual analysis and I think you are a little highstrung in that regard, but for real...

Its a shit gun cause PFcs don't use it right. This analysis is just a fun little IC thing.

But my actual opinions? I have done around 4-6 tests with 10 HPRs in a round. Shit ton of points. Very little gain. Disregarding the fact a loss doesn't necessarily mean the HPRs are shit, the consistent 4-6 losses + feedback of "it helped a little" and "meh" and "oh they died quick" and "They FF'd the fuck out of us" means its a shit gun to give Pfcs who won't use it for the methods I IC explain it should be used as.

More or less, has little real potential because Pfcs are too Unga and retarded to use it for its role. Specs shouldn't have it period. Engineers won't do their fuckin' job if they have one. Medics same. SGs same. SSGTs can be trusted, more then anyone to have one provided they aren't PFC level of dumb unga.

Simplified answer. No more HPR tests unless its just to make a different round

[Boersgard]

You have to give HPR's to the right people.

I use mine with QFA+AG and it works great. Not as killy as a BC Flechette shotgun, but much much better than an M41.

I'm not a big fan of the QFA+Bipod setup; the number of situations it's good are vastly outweighed by the ones where it isn't.

[Renomaki]

As a xeno and marine, I got to witness a well built HPR in action, and by god... That firerate is scary.

I myself would love to have such a weapon on FoB duty, since it is like a M56D heavy MG, but you can quickly reposition with ease instead of fumbling with tools. Defensive tactics in general would benefit from a mobile LMG.

Sadly, due to how a lot of marines don't tend to think of the bigger picture, a lot of them simply think "Bigger gun? MORE KILLY" and then they toggle the burst on that thing because burst means more hurty and they rambo out there, only to die like idiots.

Hell, BURST FIRE CULTURE is a big problem itself, since people assume that just toggling on burst and ALWAYS USING BURST is preferable to using single fire, simply because it shoots more bullets, which means more damage... Unless you miss, then that just means you burn through ammo quicker and risk making FF way deadlier if you fuck up.

I guess you could say the HPR isn't the only weapon being misued.

[Cryzone]

When I manage to get my hands on a HPR, I usually go QF + VG, with a bipod in satchel, just in case.
The firerate, accuracy and damage are good. It can kill xenos very fast when used correctly.

[Sargeantmuffinman]

It's a defensive weapon, not really that great for offensive use other than holding down an area. Assuming it's not withing boiler range.

[Vispainius]

I wish I could hand them out to marines I choose, but � 20-25 minutes of pre-drop + REQ who typically just throws em to first come first serve...

Nothing is wrong with burstfire. I've been doing it forever, the issue is WHEN TO. If you are in the backlines or just holding off enemies...single fire... in the front? Burstfire.
Only issue with burstfire is how much ammo you carry. Take AT LEAST 280 rounds of ammo aka like 7 mags.
When you run out, REQ needs to be on point. In fact, as CO, I'd advocate more ammo usage but also require more ammo drops (think entire crates filled with just ammo bags.)

HPR can afford to do both on burstfire� issue is people use it like a stereotypical M41A w/Bayonet, Suppressor/EB, RDS. A charge focused gun...

Points wise, if I spend my Defcon points to get more REQ points, it's fine for an easy 4 HPR crates before points look scary low. But... I think my next test will just be a shit ton of points to go to metal, sandbags, and plasteel for a larger then normal FOB.

So yeah. Largest issue with the gun from a IC and OOC POV is that it's not being used in the optimal positions of combat. It's being used in the same way it's like when a Smartgunner is on the front line in front of the PFCs...

[R O R S]

In my opinion, HPRs should be issued to

- SSGTs
- LTs
- Or just make another role, i dont care if it is just a glorified PFC, but a role that uses the HPR and has a slightly better armor, just to fill in the gap of "who should use it"
- Just put an Rank lock on it, only SSGT and above that can use it

[ColonelCorazon]

I like to ask each squad individually to send me a PFC when I'm an RO with HPRs because then I get a player who is at least paying attention. I'll tell them how to use it as well before handing it off unless I'm pretty sure they should already know. With the 200 point Defcon bonus I'm starting to order them more often, and I typically only give them to PFCs. It can be hit or miss but I like giving more people a shot at using special equipment