Gun statistics in GURPS
Christopher J Hooker
have always struck me as somewhat unbalanced. Rifles all seem to do FAR MORE
damage than any other type of weapon (pistols, shotguns, submachineguns). For
example, each bullet from an M16 (which has a really small caliber) does more
damage (5d) than a hit from a 12 gauge shotgun (4d) or a Thompson .45
submachinegun (3d, if I'm remembering properly). Could those of you out there
who are more knowledgable about this subject shed some light for me on whether
this is realistic, and if so, why rifles are so much more damaging than anything
else? Or if it's not realistic, what the stats should be? Thanks a lot.
Chris Hooker
cjho...@mit.edu
Chris Young
>damage than any other type of weapon (pistols, shotguns, submachineguns). For
>example, each bullet from an M16 (which has a really small caliber) does more
>damage (5d)
Well I'm not an expert on guns, but I know that the reason a M16 does so much
damage even though it has a small caliber is because it travels *way* fast and
when it hits something, it begins to tumble and the bullet *shreds* in the
target. This transfer all the motion of the bullet in to the target.
Chris
Ray Cochener
: >Rifles all seem to do FAR MORE
New question: in-betweeners only take 1 point of damage from
bullets (GURPs VooDoo) So would a shotgun do 1/2 damage, 1 point of
damage, or full damage? (After all, there are a *lot* of bullets in a
single shot)
--
To Give Pleasure is to beget pleasure.
To beget pleasure is to recieve pleasure.
May joy be your eternal cycle of ecstacy.
Silveroak
Nick Scholtz
> : Well I'm not an expert on guns, but I know that the reason a M16 does so much
> : damage even though it has a small caliber is because it travels *way* fast and
> : when it hits something, it begins to tumble and the bullet *shreds* in the
> : target. This transfer all the motion of the bullet in to the target.
>
> New question: in-betweeners only take 1 point of damage from
> bullets (GURPs VooDoo) So would a shotgun do 1/2 damage, 1 point of
> damage, or full damage? (After all, there are a *lot* of bullets in a
> single shot)
Considering that it allready says that you roll the damage for shotgun
attacks as several separate 1d attacks wrt D.R. I would suggest that you
say they can do a maximum of 1 point per die of damage.
Gary Anderson
> New question: in-betweeners only take 1 point of damage from
> bullets (GURPs VooDoo) So would a shotgun do 1/2 damage, 1 point of
> damage, or full damage? (After all, there are a *lot* of bullets in a
> single shot)
>
>
Just off the top of my head, without looking at shot damage, I would be
tempted to rule that a shotgun firing a slug would do the one point.
Anything powerfull enough to shed most of the damage from a slug of this
power would probably take no damage from a single piece of shot.
Therefore they would take no damage from shot (0 x n = 0) and 1 point
from a slug.
Just a thought
Gary
marc
>FAR MORE damage than any other type of weapon (pistols, shotguns,
>submachineguns). For example, each bullet from an M16 (which has a really
>or a Thompson .45 submachinegun (3d, if I'm remembering properly). Could
>those of you out there who are more knowledgable about this subject shed some
>light for me on whether this is realistic, and if so, why rifles are so much
>more damaging than anything else? Or if it's not realistic, what the stats
>should be? Thanks a lot.
>Chris Hooker
>cjho...@mit.edu
I do a fair amount of target shooting so I might be able to help
here. Rifles do more damage basically becuase the projectile is traveling
much faster. An M16 bullet (.223 cal cartridge) travels at better than
3500 feet/sec, versus the Thompson .45 submachinegun bullet (.45 cal
cartridge) which runs aproximatly 600-700 feet/sec. Since kinetic energy is
proportional to velocity squared you can see why a rifle will do more
GURPS damage. GURPS damage is an abstact number representing the
ability to penetrate armour and CAUSE BODILY HARM. The point is a rifle
penetrates farther. There is also auxilary damage associated with the
generally higher velocities involved with rifles, but the technical/physical
reasons would take far too long to type and are beyond the scope of this
newsgroup.
THE DISCLAIMER: I generally shoot an M-14 in competition now so I am
not entirely sure about the exact velocities of
the .223 and .45 but I'm sure they're close enough
to get the point across.
Harold Carmer
: Chris Young (bo...@rmii.com) wrote:
: : >Rifles all seem to do FAR MORE
: : >damage than any other type of weapon (pistols, shotguns, submachineguns). For
: : >example, each bullet from an M16 (which has a really small caliber) does more
: : >damage (5d)
: : Well I'm not an expert on guns, but I know that the reason a M16 does so much
: : damage even though it has a small caliber is because it travels *way* fast and
: : when it hits something, it begins to tumble and the bullet *shreds* in the
: : target. This transfer all the motion of the bullet in to the target.
: New question: in-betweeners only take 1 point of damage from
: bullets (GURPs VooDoo) So would a shotgun do 1/2 damage, 1 point of
: damage, or full damage? (After all, there are a *lot* of bullets in a
: single shot)
: --
: To Give Pleasure is to beget pleasure.
: To beget pleasure is to recieve pleasure.
: May joy be your eternal cycle of ecstacy.
: Silveroak
Maybe one point for every pellet - after all, some pellets are the size
of a 32 cal. bullet!
Brian E. Gross
> New question: in-betweeners only take 1 point of damage from
>bullets (GURPs VooDoo) So would a shotgun do 1/2 damage, 1 point of
>damage, or full damage? (After all, there are a *lot* of bullets in a
>single shot)
Actually, Voodoo states that solid bullets do only 1 point *per die* of damage they
would normally do. Hollow-points do 2 points per die. Plus .40+ caliber bullets
are multiplied by 1.5.
Therefore, for buckshot, I think you could interpret this two ways. Just go with the
1 point per die or consider the effect of buckshot to be more like a hollow-point and
go for 2 points per die. Each pellet is less than .40 caliber, so don't multiple by 1.5
in either case.
Now *my* question. Voodoo states that bullets and impaling weapons only get the
base 1pt. per die effect since they have too small of a cross-section to affect the
amorphous body (no vitals) of an In-Betweener. At what cross-section does normal
damage return? If I thrust with the end of my Bo it will do normal Crushing/Thrust
damage. If I shoot with my 12ga. (.75 caliber=3/4 inch diameter=same as the cross-section
of my Bo) and use slugs, do I do normal damage?
My guess would be YES. To kind of map this out I would propose the following:
0 - .199 caliber = 1 point for every 2 dice damage (essentially "needles")
20 - .399 caliber = 1 point for every die
40 - .599 caliber = 2 points for every die
.60+ caliber = normal damage
This gives shotguns with slugs the hitting power I think they actually have and
makes most Black Powder weapons properly effective -- even if reload time is
poor.
What do you think?
Brian Gross
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>About the only mistake I notice are the values for a 12 gauge shotgun. Of
>course, you can load a 12 ga. with a bazillion different loads, but given
>a typical anti-personel load of 00 or #1 Buckshot or slugs, at the ranges
>intended for their use (oh, say 15 yards for the buck, out to 50 or 75
>yards for Foster type slugs [these are rough values off the top of my
>head, and NOT MAX ranges]) a 12 ga. would probably be AT LEAST as
>damaging as a full power rifle (ie, .308, .30-06).
It is, with a slug (double base damage).
With shot, well, it's actually better against unarmored targets. Remember that
shot damage is counted separately for each die. Therefore, a shotgun blast
will usually do full rolled damage while a rifle shot will only do HT due to
blow-through rules.
...Which I think is a bit problematic in GURPS. It doesn't really matter if you
shoot someone with a .223 or .308 or .600Nitro or .50BMG -- he'll take
HT damage anyway.
--
Maxxon (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi)
I finally made a .sig file.
Andrew T Piskorski
Christopher J Hooker <cjho...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>Hi there. I'm far from an expert on firearms, but the gun stats in GURPS basic
>damage than any other type of weapon (pistols, shotguns, submachineguns). For
>example, each bullet from an M16 (which has a really small caliber) does more
>submachinegun (3d, if I'm remembering properly). Could those of you out there
Terminal ballistics is a VERY complicated and much argued over subject,
but that said, the damage values from GURPS Basic Set tables are
pretty self-consistent.
About the only mistake I notice are the values for a 12 gauge shotgun. Of
course, you can load a 12 ga. with a bazillion different loads, but given
a typical anti-personel load of 00 or #1 Buckshot or slugs, at the ranges
intended for their use (oh, say 15 yards for the buck, out to 50 or 75
yards for Foster type slugs [these are rough values off the top of my
head, and NOT MAX ranges]) a 12 ga. would probably be AT LEAST as
damaging as a full power rifle (ie, .308, .30-06). Much less penetrative
of course, but probably more damaging. Playing with DMG and Damage
Modifiers could give that effect. And a 1/2 D range of 25 yards is
probably too much, but then ALL the 1/2 D ranges seem to far to me, but
I'm just guessing at that one. Actually, I'd suspect that damage is
non-linear with respect to range, reaching a VERY high peak at contact
(where your insides basically get blown out by muzzle gasses) and
descending from there. Terminal effect is NOT directly relateable to
either momentum or kinetic energy, but penetration of hard barriers (which
is more or less what the GURPS DMG value indicates, I think) probably is,
so you could dig out some charts and figure it that way.
The damage from a Thompson is right on - think about it - damage for a .45
ACP pistol (M1911) is given as 2D. The much longer barrel of the Thompson
should give you some extra velocity, so 2D+1 seems reasonable. Remember
that's for ONE SHOT. One would hope that if you drop the hammer on
somebody at 5 yards with your Thompson, that you'd hit him more than
once...
--
--
Andrew Piskorski
a...@kepler.unh.edu
Katzbalger
if you
>>shoot someone with a .223 or .308 or .600Nitro or .50BMG -- he'll take
>>HT damage anyway.
My answer to this problem is to increase blow-through limits by the
projectile size modifier; i.e. a 50BMG should be able to do 15pts, rather
than 10, to a HT10 human before blow-through.
To the original poster:
Firearm damages in GURPS are basically a measure of penetration against
armor. Centerfire rifle rounds are vastly better at this because they
concentrate much more energy on a smaller cross-section.
For anyone who wants to go elbow deep into the subject, I highly reccomend
BTRCs Guns, Guns, Guns.
Kat Zbalger
Katzbalger
"Lawful Good is an oxymoron"
Gareth Owen
Katzbalger <katzb...@aol.com> wrote:
:>>>...Which I think is a bit problematic in GURPS. It doesn't really matter
:>if you
:>>>shoot someone with a .223 or .308 or .600Nitro or .50BMG -- he'll take
:>>>HT damage anyway.
:>
:>My answer to this problem is to increase blow-through limits by the
:>projectile size modifier; i.e. a 50BMG should be able to do 15pts, rather
:>than 10, to a HT10 human before blow-through.
I'd be inclined to apply the blow through limit before multiplying by the
projectile size mod (or any other penetrating damage mods for that matter)
It's effect is the same (OK, I'm being pedantic), but it seems a slightly
more elegant approach.
GLO
--
Gareth Owen | Mail: glo...@gwent.nhs.gov.uk
Sytems Administrator | Phone: (UK) 0495 765021
Gwent Health Authority | "Reboot it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"
Ray Cochener
: Actually, Voodoo states that solid bullets do only 1 point *per die* of damage they
: would normally do. Hollow-points do 2 points per die. Plus .40+ caliber bullets
: are multiplied by 1.5.
: Therefore, for buckshot, I think you could interpret this two ways. Just go with the
: 1 point per die or consider the effect of buckshot to be more like a hollow-point and
: go for 2 points per die. Each pellet is less than .40 caliber, so don't multiple by 1.5
: in either case.
: 0 - .199 caliber = 1 point for every 2 dice damage (essentially "needles")
: 20 - .399 caliber = 1 point for every die
: 40 - .599 caliber = 2 points for every die
: .60+ caliber = normal damage
: This gives shotguns with slugs the hitting power I think they actually have and
: makes most Black Powder weapons properly effective -- even if reload time is
: poor.
: What do you think?
I think somebody needs to consider cross section in regards to
shot- unlike normal bullets they don't impact in a simgle place, and the
total amount of damage would be devestating- It would seem to me that the
average piece of buckshot may or may not do 1 point of damage to a normal
person, but the combined effect should shred the mid-section of an
in-betweener as effectively as it would shred the mid-section of a normal
person.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>I'd be inclined to apply the blow through limit before multiplying by the
>projectile size mod (or any other penetrating damage mods for that matter)
>It's effect is the same (OK, I'm being pedantic), but it seems a slightly
>more elegant approach.
It still doesn't make a difference until you move to monster rounds like .50BMG
Here in Finland, the law forbids you to hunt elk with a .223 since it's
regarded as too weak a round. .308 is the practical minimum allowed. Now, I
don't recall elk statistics in GURPS, but
.223 does 5d, which is 17.5 points on the average.
.308 does 7d, which is 24.5 points on the average.
Since normal bullet blowthrough is HT, this means that these rounds are
practically equal on the *average*, until your target has HT 18+.
Now, how many animals have HT18 (not HP)? Not many, if any at all.
Therefore, it makes no GURPS sense to forbid hunting elk with a .223.
Katzbalger
>>regarded as too weak a round. .308 is the practical minimum allowed.
Now, I
>>don't recall elk statistics in GURPS, but
>>
>>.223 does 5d, which is 17.5 points on the average.
>>.308 does 7d, which is 24.5 points on the average.
>>
>>Since normal bullet blowthrough is HT, this means that these rounds are
>>practically equal on the *average*, until your target has HT 18+
I also use a .7 damage modifier for .223 caliber cartridges after it
penetrates armor, so that .223 Rem will do 12.25 points on the average in
my system. I divide the projectile diameter by .308 to find the size
modifier I use for any bullet-type projectile. This modifies blow-through
upwards for all rounds, but downwards only for subsonic projectiles.
To Gareth: Yep, your way is more elegant. I'll probably start doing it
that way. BTW, in my system hollowpoint modifiers and such do not increase
blow-through limits, only bullet size.
Kat Zbalger
David Locke
>In article <40q9ac$c...@helpnet.hq.gha.nhs.uk> glo...@gwent.nhs.gov.uk (Gareth Owen) writes:
>>I'd be inclined to apply the blow through limit before multiplying by the
>>projectile size mod (or any other penetrating damage mods for that matter)
>>It's effect is the same (OK, I'm being pedantic), but it seems a slightly
>>more elegant approach.
>It still doesn't make a difference until you move to monster rounds like .50BMG
>Here in Finland, the law forbids you to hunt elk with a .223 since it's
>regarded as too weak a round. .308 is the practical minimum allowed. Now, I
>don't recall elk statistics in GURPS, but
>.223 does 5d, which is 17.5 points on the average.
>.308 does 7d, which is 24.5 points on the average.
>Since normal bullet blowthrough is HT, this means that these rounds are
>practically equal on the *average*, until your target has HT 18+.
>Now, how many animals have HT18 (not HP)? Not many, if any at all.
>Therefore, it makes no GURPS sense to forbid hunting elk with a .223.
>--
>Maxxon (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi)
>I finally made a .sig file.
I would think that An elk would have a hit point value of over 20,
making a hit with a .223 insufficient to kill with a single shot and
leading to the possibility of a wounded elk running around. A .308
would have sufficient power to bring one down with a single shot. Mind
you, we are talking about hit points and not health, Which are
seperate for animals. A squirel might have a health of 12, but only 1
hit point.
Locke
lo...@nmia.com
John L. Freiler
: My answer to this problem is to increase blow-through limits by the
: projectile size modifier; i.e. a 50BMG should be able to do 15pts, rather
: than 10, to a HT10 human before blow-through.
modifier for large rounds (10mm and up?) The final damage modifier is
applied after blowthrough is taken into account. Note that armor
piercing round have a .5 damage multiplier and would only do 5 points to
a HT10 human before blow through.
FWIW I also reccoment BTRC's Guns, Guns, Guns for anyone interested in
the subject.
John
Gareth Owen
Katzbalger <katzb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>To Gareth: Yep, your way is more elegant. I'll probably start doing it
>that way. BTW, in my system hollowpoint modifiers and such do not increase
>blow-through limits, only bullet size.
>
Personally, I'd apply round type modifiers as well before blow-through,
hollow points have a wide short wound path and are much less likely to
blow through, while armour piercing rounds are virtually designed to
blow through.
Gareth
Gerrit Bigalski
>The damage from a Thompson is right on - think about it - damage for a .45
>ACP pistol (M1911) is given as 2D. The much longer barrel of the Thompson
>should give you some extra velocity, so 2D+1 seems reasonable.
velocity? Accuracy, ok, but velocity? Isn't a long barrel more likely
to *reduce* velocity a very, very little bit due to friction?
Or is it something about a longer barrel making more use of the
explosion energy?
Gerrit (never shot a gun ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's make phyiscs ignore us and fly around a little bit.
Dr Kromm
>Um - maybe silly question, but - why should a longer barrel increase
>velocity? Accuracy, ok, but velocity? Isn't a long barrel more likely
>to *reduce* velocity a very, very little bit due to friction?
>Or is it something about a longer barrel making more use of the
>explosion energy?
Basically, yes. The burning propellant produces hot gases which
propel the bullet as they expand. If the barrel is quite short, then the
gases may not cool and expand fully before the projectile has left the
barrel, meaning that the full energy of the propellant is not used to
accelerate the bullet (the gases escape behind the bullet). This means
that if a powerful round is fired from a short-barrelled firearm, then
it will not be as deadly as if it had been fired from a longer-barrelled
weapon that is matched to the ammo.
This is why 9mmP rounds inflict 2d+2 damage when fired from a
pistol in GURPS, but 3d-1 (effectively +1 damage) when fired from a
longer-barrelled SMG, and why the .45 round does 2d when fired from an
Colt M1911A1 but 2d+1 when fired from a Thompson.
-Kromm
Brian Bunin
> a...@kepler.unh.edu (Andrew T Piskorski) wrote:
> >The damage from a Thompson is right on - think about it - damage for a .45
> >ACP pistol (M1911) is given as 2D. The much longer barrel of the Thompson
> >should give you some extra velocity, so 2D+1 seems reasonable.
> Um - maybe silly question, but - why should a longer barrel increase
> velocity? Accuracy, ok, but velocity? Isn't a long barrel more likely
> to *reduce* velocity a very, very little bit due to friction?
> Or is it something about a longer barrel making more use of the
> explosion energy?
A longer barrel increases velocity because the exploding gases get to
push the bullet that much longer. Once the Bullet leaves the barrel, it is
no longer accelerating
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>I would think that An elk would have a hit point value of over 20,
>making a hit with a .223 insufficient to kill with a single shot and
>leading to the possibility of a wounded elk running around. A .308
>would have sufficient power to bring one down with a single shot.
In real life yes. In GURPS, no.
>Mind
>you, we are talking about hit points and not health, Which are
>seperate for animals. A squirel might have a health of 12, but only 1
>hit point.
We are talking about BLOW-THROUGH, which gives no special meaning
to hit points. Maybe Kromm can shed some light on how this is supposed to be,
but the way blow-through is now written, you just can't inflict over HT (NOT
HP) damage with a bullet on a torso hit.
You could have a critter with HT 1 and HP 10000. Let's call it the Superbug.
Since one bullet can only do HT damage, each bullet will do 1 point and you
need to hit the Superbug with 10000 bullets to even knock it out.
Oh, you say this is not so? Let's see what happens if it's the other way
around. Take two characters, one with HT 10 and one with HT 10/20. Both are
shot with a powerful enough gun in the heart (vitals).
HT 10 character takes blow-through, that is 3xHP, 30 points. Down at -20, he
needs to take 3 death checks.
HT 10/20 character also takes blow-through, that is 3xHP, 60 points. Down at
-40, he needs to take FIVE death checks.
Thus, if blow-through is calculated from hit points, having extra hit points
makes you EASIER to kill!!! Now this is ridiculous if anything is.
My conclusion is that extra hit points and blow-through of damage do not work
too well together and this is possibly an area of GURPS that needs revision
FAST.
Gareth Owen
which the gas is expanding so little that friction has a greater
effect and the round starts to slow down again.
I guess that for most common cartridges this optimum length would
be impractically long.
GLO
Gareth Owen
Mikko Kurki-Suonio <kurk...@stat.fi> wrote:
:>In article <41ce8v$b...@helpnet.hq.gha.nhs.uk> glo...@gwent.nhs.gov.uk (Gareth Owen) writes:
:>
:>>Additionally, I guess there is an optimum barrel length, beyond
:>>which the gas is expanding so little that friction has a greater
:>>effect and the round starts to slow down again.
:>Quite correct.
:>
:>>I guess that for most common cartridges this optimum length would
:>>be impractically long.
:>
:>Wrong. For pistols, this is often true, but for shoulderarms it is quite
:>feasible to use the optimum barrel length.
I sit corrected, but it was just a guess. That's quite interesting, but
a little surprising as the cartridges used by shoulder arms are more powerful
than pistol cartridges, generally. Unless you're referring to SMG's?
Gareth Owen
David A. Kennedy <aj...@rgfn.epcc.edu> wrote:
>Don't forget the rifling in the barrels (the twists inside the bore).
>They make the difference between a gun (w/o) and a rifle(w/).
>These grooves impart a lateral spin on the bullet, increasing the range,
>as well as the velocity, to a certain maximum, depending on the size and
>weight of the round.
How does the rifling increase range and speed?
They should just increase accuracy, and hence effective range, but the
velocity should be unaffected or even decreased as the rifling causes
extra friction.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>I sit corrected, but it was just a guess. That's quite interesting, but
>a little surprising as the cartridges used by shoulder arms are more powerful
>than pistol cartridges, generally. Unless you're referring to SMG's?
Keep in mind that .22LR is THE most common cartridge, used all over the world
in huge quantities.
SMGs give a good example of the same round at different barrel lengths, but
comparing between pistol and rifle rounds one must keep in mind that a
typical pistol barrel is 4" while a typical assault rifle barrel is around 20"
long. Thus a rifle has five or more times the length but only 2-3 times the
powder volume.
Many other factors contribute to this, but the bottom line is that optimum
barrel length (power-wise) for rifle rounds is probably somewhere in the
24"-36" region. Long, but not impossibly so.
Longer for black powder weapons, since black powder burns slower.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>How does the rifling increase range and speed?
It doesn't.
>They should just increase accuracy, and hence effective range, but the
>velocity should be unaffected or even decreased as the rifling causes
>extra friction.
You are correct. Rifling is just extra friction if you have other methods to
stabilize the projectile. That's why modern tank cannons are smoothbore.
Marc C Allain
>Gerrit Bigalski (big...@uni-muenster.de) wrote:
>> a...@kepler.unh.edu (Andrew T Piskorski) wrote:
>> Um - maybe silly question, but - why should a longer barrel increase
>> velocity? Accuracy, ok, but velocity? Isn't a long barrel more likely
>> to *reduce* velocity a very, very little bit due to friction?
>
>They make the difference between a gun (w/o) and a rifle(w/).
>These grooves impart a lateral spin on the bullet, increasing the range,
>as well as the velocity, to a certain maximum, depending on the size and
>weight of the round.
>
while increasing accuracy.
No, actually, it just makes the bullet travel in a straighter line.
Accuracy is easier but still depends on the person.
--
Patchmaker is Marc C. Allain m...@christa.unh.edu
Check out my homepage at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
and find out about the First Church of Mad Scientist.
Jaeger
On Wed, 23 Aug 1995, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Longer for black powder weapons, since black powder burns slower.
Powder burn rates is another reason for the longer barrel in most
shoulder fired weapons. Rounds intended for pistols take into account
the shorter barrel length and use hotter/faster burning powders, while
rifle rounds are designed with slower burning powders to take advantage
of the longer barrels. That is not to say that there are not exceptions
in both normal production and with many handloaders.
wrj
Bad spellers of the world untie.
Gerrit Bigalski
>You are correct. Rifling is just extra friction if you have other methods to
>stabilize the projectile. That's why modern tank cannons are smoothbore.
AFAIK the US Army's most modern tanks have rifled cannons (but I don't
really know.)
Gerrit
Scott D. Orr
(Gerrit Bigalski) writes:
>
>>AFAIK the US Army's most modern tanks have rifled cannons (but I
don't
>really know.)
>
armor-piercing shells, which are fin-stablized, the shells have to be
specially modified so that they don't spin in the barrel.
Scott Orr
Amelia A Lewis
: >How does the rifling increase range and speed?
: It doesn't.
: >They should just increase accuracy, and hence effective range, but the
: >velocity should be unaffected or even decreased as the rifling causes
: >extra friction.
: You are correct. Rifling is just extra friction if you have other methods to
: stabilize the projectile. That's why modern tank cannons are smoothbore.
True and not-true. Non-stabilized smoothbore rounds are generally
symmetrical in all three dimensions (i.e., spheroidal). Stabilized rounds
are generally asymmetrical in one dimension (conoidal and
'bullet-shaped'). An unstabilized (i.e. finless) conoidal or otherwise
asymmetric bullet fired from otherwise equivalent rifle and gun has
*both* greater range and greater accuracy from the rifle; fired from a
smoothbore gun it has a tendency to tumble longitudinally which greatly
decreases range (it decreases accuracy *more*, but that's not the
point). The smoothbore will still get more punch for a part of its
journey, though, until atmospheric friction reduces speed (that is,
muzzle velocity is greater, and for the early part of its flight, kinetic
energy will be greater).
Not that this really matters, because smoothbore rounds are generally
3d-symmetrical, or fin-stabilized.
--
Amy A. Lewis
ale...@email.unc.edu "The female of the species is more deadly
than the male." --Rudyard Kipling.
Gareth Owen
The German Leopard I and Americn M1 use smoothbore 120mm guns
The Soviet T-80U uses a smoothbore 125mm gun
(the calibers quoted above may be out by 5mm, but the T-80U is
definitely right, I did a GURPS vehicle design for it last night :-)
Jaeger
Both the M-1A2 and the Leopard II use the 120mm smoothbore main gun.
wrj
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>Not that this really matters, because smoothbore rounds are generally
>3d-symmetrical, or fin-stabilized.
Or a shotgun slug. Rifled slug-guns have better accuracy, but not much more
usable range.
We are falling into the dodgy realm of definitions. Sure, if you take a bullet
design optimised for rifling and shoot it through a smoothbore, it's going to
tumble like hell. But if we're talking about same power (powder) behind the
same mass, with projectile shape optimized for the barrel, smoothbore
wins out.
David A. Kennedy
> In article <1995Aug22....@rgfn.epcc.edu>,
> David A. Kennedy <aj...@rgfn.epcc.edu> wrote:
> >They make the difference between a gun (w/o) and a rifle(w/).
> >These grooves impart a lateral spin on the bullet, increasing the range,
> >as well as the velocity, to a certain maximum, depending on the size and
> >weight of the round.
> How does the rifling increase range and speed?
> They should just increase accuracy, and hence effective range, but the
> velocity should be unaffected or even decreased as the rifling causes
> extra friction.
OOPS! did I say the rifling did that?
I meant the barrel length, up to a point.
When the round is fired, the expanding gases caused by the exploding
powder propel the round forward. as the gases move to a 1:1 ratio w/ the
external air pressure, the round accelerates.
If the barrel is too long, the internal pressure gets to the point where
there is no more thrust (and if the barrel is WAY too long, some drag
from the vacuum)
Ted
David P. Summers
Kurki-Suonio) wrote:
[On taking down on Elk with a 0.38]
> We are talking about BLOW-THROUGH, which gives no special meaning
> to hit points. Maybe Kromm can shed some light on how this is supposed to be,
> but the way blow-through is now written, you just can't inflict over HT (NOT
> HP) damage with a bullet on a torso hit.
If you want to kill an Elk you have to hit a vital organ (vitals hit). This
will max out at 3xHT and force two death rolls.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>If you want to kill an Elk you have to hit a vital organ (vitals hit). This
>will max out at 3xHT and force two death rolls.
Well,
a) It doens't really answer our dilemma about a .223 being deemed too weak
for elk hunting in real life, while it is functionally equal to more powerful
rounds in GURPS.
b) If you want to kill ANYTHING with one shot, you have to aim for the head,
brain or vitals. It's the GURPS way...
Dr Kromm
>The smallest damamge I can see for a 0.22 rifle is 5d. ge
The .22LR round is anemic in the extreme, and 3 or 4 rounds can be
fired one-handed from a target pistol, such as the Ruger T-512, without
significant loss of accuracy. It would be generous to give a .22 pistol
1d or 1d+1 damage and a .22 rifle 1d+1 or 1d+2 damage. I would say that
5d is right out of the question. OTOH, 5d to 5d+1 for .223Rem, a.k.a.
5.56 x 45mm NATO, is right on the mark. However, while people have been
know to confuse .223Rem with .22LR because of the similarity in calibre,
they are definitely different rounds! The .22 is a low-powered round
suitable for varmint hunting; the .223 is a high-powered military round.
-Kromm
-------------------o-----------------------------o----------------------
Sean M. Punch | E-mail | 4122 rue Rivard
(a.k.a. Dr Kromm) | kr...@io.com | Montreal, Quebec
-------------------o pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca | Canada H2L 4H9
GURPS Line Editor | WWW | Home: (514) 288-9600
and Net Guru o http://www.io.com/~kromm o Work: (514) 288-9615
Gareth Owen
David P. Summers <Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov> wrote:
>
>You aren't going to kill an Elk hitting it in shoulder (not right
>away anyways).
Actually, the ideal place to hit an Elk is the base of the neck, quite close
to the shoulder. If you get it right it makes a solid "thunk!" noise as the
spine breaks. If it makes a splashing noise you've hit the throat area
and the wound will not be immediately fatal.
David P. Summers
(Gareth Owen) wrote:
> Actually, the ideal place to hit an Elk is the base of the neck, quite close
> to the shoulder. If you get it right it makes a solid "thunk!" noise as the
> spine breaks. If it makes a splashing noise you've hit the throat area
> and the wound will not be immediately fatal.
The point I was trying to make is that a hit into muscle won't kill an
Elk. I agree that if you go through the shoulder/neck to a vital area
(like the spine) you can kill it.
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any position on any of this do you
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.Gov
David P. Summers
Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) wrote:
> a) It doens't really answer our dilemma about a .223 being deemed too weak
> for elk hunting in real life, while it is functionally equal to more powerful
> rounds in GURPS.
The smallest damamge I can see for a 0.22 rifle is 5d. This will average
17.5 points of damage and force two death rolls in a vitals shot to
anything with 17 hit points or less. It will force one death roll for
anything with 26 hit point or less.
Then you have bleeding after that...
> b) If you want to kill ANYTHING with one shot, you have to aim for the head,
> brain or vitals. It's the GURPS way...
You aren't going to kill an Elk hitting it in shoulder (not right
away anyways).
Gareth Owen
David P. Summers <Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>The point I was trying to make is that a hit into muscle won't kill an
>Elk. I agree that if you go through the shoulder/neck to a vital area
>(like the spine) you can kill it.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to pick holes, I was just reminded of that
bit of info and thought I'd share it, bit of a tangent really. Yes, a
muscle hit won't kill an Elk.
GLO
(like your hostname, by the way)
Stephan Schulz
David A. Kennedy <aj...@rgfn.epcc.edu> wrote:
>Gareth Owen (glo...@gwent.nhs.gov.uk) wrote:
>> In article <1995Aug22....@rgfn.epcc.edu>,
>> David A. Kennedy <aj...@rgfn.epcc.edu> wrote:
>> >Don't forget the rifling in the barrels (the twists inside the bore).
>> >They make the difference between a gun (w/o) and a rifle(w/).
>> >These grooves impart a lateral spin on the bullet, increasing the range,
>> >as well as the velocity, to a certain maximum, depending on the size and
>> >weight of the round.
>
>> How does the rifling increase range and speed?
>
>> They should just increase accuracy, and hence effective range, but the
>> velocity should be unaffected or even decreased as the rifling causes
>> extra friction.
>
>OOPS! did I say the rifling did that?
>I meant the barrel length, up to a point.
Actually, the rifling also tends to increase the range of the gun, at
least with modern ammunition. Non-Spinning rounds start to tumble
quite fast in the air, thereby greatly increasing friction (and
loosing accuracy). Rounds from a rifled gun, on the other hand, spin
along their length axis and do not tumble. Thus, they encounter less
air resistance and can fly further.
Stephan
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as sch...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bunin
> In article <Summers-2808...@arclan-ara-gw-2.arc.nasa.gov>
Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov (David P. Summers) writes:
>
> >If you want to kill an Elk you have to hit a vital organ (vitals hit). This
> >will max out at 3xHT and force two death rolls.
>
> Well,
>
> a) It doens't really answer our dilemma about a .223 being deemed too weak
> for elk hunting in real life, while it is functionally equal to more powerful
> rounds in GURPS.
>
> b) If you want to kill ANYTHING with one shot, you have to aim for the head,
> brain or vitals. It's the GURPS way...
>
>
>
> --
> Maxxon (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi)
> I finally made a .sig file.
.223 kills by massive trauma. The bullet is spin stabilized. When it hits
something, it becomes unbalanced, and basically buzsaws its way around
inside.
This makes for a useless dead Elk. Larger bullets are slower, but weigh
more, thus convey about the same energy, without so much damage to the
meat.
A .223 will take out an Elk. It's just useless for hunting, where the
object is not just to kill it, but get something eatable.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>.223 kills by massive trauma.
>The bullet is spin stabilized.
I have news for you: All rifle bullets are.
>When it hits
>something, it becomes unbalanced, and basically buzsaws its way around
>inside.
The factual proof of this happening consistently is rather shallow.
Yes, it does happen. Yes, it is said the round was designed for this
effect. But consistent proof is shallow.
High-velocity rounds kill by hydrostatic shock and temporary cavity effects
mostly.
>This makes for a useless dead Elk. Larger bullets are slower, but weigh
>more, thus convey about the same energy, without so much damage to the
>meat.
The Finnish law does NOT consider possible damage to the meat -- that's the
hunter's problem. But it does consider wounded animals running around.
>A .223 will take out an Elk. It's just useless for hunting, where the
>object is not just to kill it, but get something eatable.
Nope. A .223 *can* take out an elk, but it is *not* regarded as a sure enough
thing to be allowed by law.
.223 is NOT forbidden by law because the law says ".223 is forbidden". It
is forbidden because it quite simply doesn't have enough energy. 7.62x39mm
is also forbidden, even though it has comparable energy and a heavier bullet.
.308 which is allowed has both more mass and more energy than a .223.
BUT, to get back to the original problem, because of BLOW-THROUGH rules,
.223, .308 and .50BMG are functionally equivalent in GURPS Elk Hunt.
In fact, ANY GUN that can dish out Elk HT (15? 16?) damage on the average
is functionally equivalent.
Now, before someone gets back at me (again) about blow-through being
calculated from Hit Points, I'd like to quote Fantasy Folk, p.18, under
extra hit points (added emphasis by me):
"...All rolls versus HT, Contests of HT, resistances, *calculation* of
unconsciousness and survival rolls, and *anything* else regarding
HT would be made against the individual's first HT value. Only damage
is subtracted from the second value."
If there is a more recent ruling that supercedes this, I'd like to hear it.
I agree that this is a BAD rule. But that's the way the rule is written.
That's the whole point of this discussion -- a bad rule and how to
correct it.
But still, the original problem is with the BLOW-THROUGH rules. I only
wrote the elk example to illustrate the point. The problem with blow-through
rules is, IMHO, that it makes absolutely no sense in GURPS to use
a more powerful weapon, even though in real life it does. Once you get
past the "does HT damage on average roll" point, ALL weapon damages (below
15d) are functionally equivalent.
To make it clear: This particular problem (blow-through) has nothing to do
with extra hit points or elks in particular. Extra hit points have problems
too, but that's another issue.
Peter VonKleinsmid
Or <Mikko.Kurki-Suo...@stat.fi>
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Distribution:
: Now, before someone gets back at me (again) about blow-through being
: calculated from Hit Points, I'd like to quote Fantasy Folk, p.18, under
: extra hit points (added emphasis by me):
: "...All rolls versus HT, Contests of HT, resistances, *calculation* of
: unconsciousness and survival rolls, and *anything* else regarding
: HT would be made against the individual's first HT value. Only damage
: is subtracted from the second value."
Well I'd like to say that I think GURPS Fantasy Folk is an extremely poor
book to choose as a source for technical improvements to the GURPS
system. If anyone wants I'll could come up with probably innumerable
examples of bad mechanics. I missed the beginning of this thread, but it
sounds like you're saying that Fantasy Folk has changed the split HT
damage rules so now (for a fresh example) it takes 18 points of damage to
get a death check on a HT 17/1 rat. If that's what yer saying, then
realize that standards for publishing of new GURPS rules have seriously
declined since BS3 to the point where you can't expect any author to have
ever run a GURPS campaign that actually relied on the game mechanics, and
that most new rules found therein have to be taken as starting points
only because the mechanics fall much shorter of covering the possible
range of situations (or even the very basic ones) because they often HAVE
NOT BEEN PROOFREAD BY SOMEONE THAT HAS PLAYED THE GAME BY THE RULES AND
CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE! Take the Bill rules in Middle
Ages 1: a hooked polearm can be used to pull people off horses. The
mechanic? Quick contest of skill vs DODGE... AAAaaaagh!
In short, if Fantasy Folk reversed the split HT damage rules, that
doesn't make sense. Ignore it. And send an email to s...@io.com telling him
it's lame that was left in the book without someone intelligent who knew
and had played GURPS catching it.
Now if I've misunderstood what you were saying... never mind. :)
: If there is a more recent ruling that supercedes this, I'd like to hear it.
: I agree that this is a BAD rule. But that's the way the rule is written.
: That's the whole point of this discussion -- a bad rule and how to
: correct it.
: But still, the original problem is with the BLOW-THROUGH rules. I only
: wrote the elk example to illustrate the point. The problem with blow-through
: rules is, IMHO, that it makes absolutely no sense in GURPS to use
: a more powerful weapon, even though in real life it does. Once you get
: past the "does HT damage on average roll" point, ALL weapon damages (below
: 15d) are functionally equivalent.
: To make it clear: This particular problem (blow-through) has nothing to do
: with extra hit points or elks in particular. Extra hit points have problems
: too, but that's another issue.
Well the thing about Fantasy Folk has everything to do with extra hit points.
About blow-through, you're very right that there are problems there. It
seems clear to me that blow through would be different for different
sizes and types of impaling and piercing weapons. Being run through with
a greatsword or halberd is probably a lot worse than being run through
the same place with a crossbow bolt. I was going to use arrow or 1mm clay
pick as examples but they have max damage ratings. The bullet size
multipliers in HIGH TECH could also multiply the blow-through threshold,
as a start. But a related problem is why is blow through always at HT?
And why do you have to specifically aim at the vitals to hit them? Aiming
for the torso and penetrating it seems pretty likely to hit something
vital, at least for eventual death if not for the instant death you get
with a death check. On the other hand, people can be penetrated without
being wounded for full HT. And there shouldn't be some guns that can't do
>HT, and some guns that always do. It should be different depending on
where you get hit. And where you get hit is a much smoother and wider
range than torso = HT, or aim for the vitals (Can't get 'em accidentally)
= 3 x HT.
PvK
Christian Rickwardt
I think the main reason behind high bullet damage
with big guns is that Gurps does not make a difference
between wounding capability and penetration of a round.
Using DR and HT, both is handled from the basic damage
a bullet does. Thus, weapons with a high penetration value
end up doing enormous amounts of basic damage (say 13d).
But realistically there is not much of a difference if your
arm is hit by a M16 round, or that of a MG - it is going to
be useless and heavily damaged in any case. That is what
the blow-through rules provide for.
On the other hand - and that disturbs me much more - the
high basic damage needed to simulate powerful rounds with
high penetration values mean that these weapons *always*
reach the blow-through limit and it is absolutely impossible
to receive a minor non-incapacitating wound from such a hit.
The only way to simulate flesh wounds (say 1 HT) is to use
the 'Character-Points as Fate Points' rule - something I
thoroughly dislike.
Anybody found a solution to that one ?
Happy elk hunting ....
Christian
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>Well I'd like to say that I think GURPS Fantasy Folk is an extremely poor
>book to choose as a source for technical improvements to the GURPS
>system.
It still has the best, no make that best defined, description of extra hit
points I'm aware of.
>If anyone wants I'll could come up with probably innumerable
>examples of bad mechanics. I missed the beginning of this thread, but it
>sounds like you're saying that Fantasy Folk has changed the split HT
>damage rules so now (for a fresh example) it takes 18 points of damage to
>get a death check on a HT 17/1 rat.
Well, yes. And yes, I agree it's a VERY STUPID RULE. But it IS the best
definition for extra hit points. The old split HT rules were very unclear on
*several* issues, like crippling, knockdown etc. FF definition at least
makes things clear.
>Take the Bill rules in Middle
>Ages 1: a hooked polearm can be used to pull people off horses. The
>mechanic? Quick contest of skill vs DODGE... AAAaaaagh!
Actually, not THAT bad. It still takes a ST contest to actually pull someone
off their horse. But a variation of disarming rules would have been more
appropriate.
I agree wholeheartedly. Several GURPS books have variant rules written
by someone who understood the background better than how GURPS
works.
>In short, if Fantasy Folk reversed the split HT damage rules, that
>doesn't make sense. Ignore it. And send an email to s...@io.com telling him
>it's lame that was left in the book without someone intelligent who knew
>and had played GURPS catching it.
He should be reading this...
>Well the thing about Fantasy Folk has everything to do with extra hit points.
Yes, but there are TWO issues here. The original one (blow-through) did not
specifically concern extra HP, but that was drawn in by an example I used.
>The bullet size
>multipliers in HIGH TECH could also multiply the blow-through threshold,
>as a start.
They could (which leads to other problems), but they DON'T. See HT 2nd ed.
examples.
>But a related problem is why is blow through always at HT?
>And why do you have to specifically aim at the vitals to hit them? Aiming
>for the torso and penetrating it seems pretty likely to hit something
>vital, at least for eventual death if not for the instant death you get
>with a death check.
Steve Jackson himself has said (Finnish RoPeCon '94) that the game works better
this way. I actually kind of agree...
Remember, the damage roll already covers this partially. The bullet leaves the
gun always at same speed. So, why does it do different damage on each hit?
Must have something to do with exact hit location.
I think this is a useful abstraction. Look at Phoenix Command to see another
system. It has static damage ratings, but a very complex hit location table to
determine final damage. Very cumbersome, even though PC only deals with
humans...
>On the other hand, people can be penetrated without
>being wounded for full HT.
Blow-through and torso penetration are not really related. Blow-through is
how much damage one attack can cause. Penetration is about how much DR
a body provides someone ELSE. See HT 2nd ed. for complete rules on that.
>And there shouldn't be some guns that can't do HT, and some guns
>that always do.
Yep, that's the heart of the problem. In real life, you can get a glancing
blow even with a 16 inch cannon. In GURPS, it's impossible.
Bill Seurer
|> But still, the original problem is with the BLOW-THROUGH rules. I only
|> wrote the elk example to illustrate the point. The problem with blow-through
|> rules is, IMHO, that it makes absolutely no sense in GURPS to use
|> a more powerful weapon, even though in real life it does. Once you get
|> past the "does HT damage on average roll" point, ALL weapon damages (below
|> 15d) are functionally equivalent.
Yeah. The basic problem is that the blow-through rules are a
simplification. A higher power rifle will cause worse wounds SOMETIMES
for various reasons but is it worth the added complexity? Some people
will say "yes!" (and probably use all the optional armor piercing rules
too) and others will say "no!". Is there a relatively simple way to
model this?
--
- Bill Seurer ID Tools and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
David P. Summers
rick...@melchior.physik.uni-mainz.de (Christian Rickwardt) wrote:
> On the other hand - and that disturbs me much more - the
> high basic damage needed to simulate powerful rounds with
> high penetration values mean that these weapons *always*
> reach the blow-through limit and it is absolutely impossible
> to receive a minor non-incapacitating wound from such a hit.
> The only way to simulate flesh wounds (say 1 HT) is to use
> the 'Character-Points as Fate Points' rule - something I
> thoroughly dislike.
It was suggested by someone that all damage include a -1 for
each dice. Thus your damage might be 6d-6, making it possible
to do one point of damage.
Chris Doherty
sk...@eskimo.com (Peter VonKleinsmid) wrote:
>Or <Mikko.Kurki-Suo...@stat.fi>
>Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
>MUAHAHA! Thou darest to defend the Bill rules in MA1????
>I quote:
>
>A bill has an overall length of about 6 feet and weighs about 8 pounds;
>use the stats for the glaive on p.B207. The hook on the blade can be used
>to tug an opponent off balance, or off his horse. Use a Quick Contest
>between the weapon skill of the billman and his opponent's Dodge to see
>if the hook engages; a contest of ST to see who pulls whom. The hook is a
>sharpened blade; it cuts as it is pulling. Damage is cutting damage as if
>it were a thrust; the attack is a sort of thrust in reverse.
>
>Look at all that prose, and hardly any of it makes any sense!
Um, maybe it's just me, but I didn't have a problem understanding it myself.
Let's see:
Gee, it
>would've been terrible to actually make a full line in a weapon table
>somewhere for this weapon. Points of confusion:
>1) What is "tugging off balance"? Are we supposed to use the result on
>the Critical Miss table as a definition for "off balance"?
Why not? Sounds good to me.
Can you tug
>someone who is lying down "off balance"?
That's a silly question. I certainly don't think so, as someone lying down isn't
doing much balancing.
>2) This is the only instance I have seen anywhere of a contest of skill
>versus a defense. Do they mean it?
No. It was a protracted publishing joke at our expense.
Do you include PD?
Sure. The harder and smoother the armor, the less there is for the hook to catch
on.
WHY is the mechanic
>different? The effect is that someone with a good polearm skill gets a
>kind of super-powerful feint & attack for nothing (this attack does
>damage as well as it's undefined pulling effect).
Why is this odd?
>3) What is the meaning of "hook engages"?
That the hook has caught on something substantial and likely to survive the
stress of being pulled.
>4) What is the meaning of "who pulls whom"??? What if the defender wins?
Well, if we have a horseman and his horse weighing several hundred pounds
charging at, say, 30 mph, being hooked by a 170 pound footman with a polearm,
what do you think is going to happen to the footman? Odds are he's going to at
least be pulled off his feet, and probably dragged a fair ways if he doesn't let go.
>5) Although we are told to "use the glaive stats" it seems there should
>be another attack line, or does this pull attack happen with any
>glaive-type attack?
With any hooked weapon suitable for use like this.
What is the reach of a pull attack?
The length of the polearm.
What is the
>re-readying time after a pull attack?
As long as the polearm's hooked, it can't be used for anything else. Otherwise,
regular unready -> ready time.
Does the pull attack require a
>different grip from the regular glaive-type attacks?
No.
>6) "Damage is cutting damage as if it were a thrust"??? So, for those of
>us with the GURPS-_Literate_ disadvantage, is this "cutting thrust"
>(general thrust damage) or "cutting thrust +3" (glaive thrust)?
Does thrust+(weapon damage) cutting.
-Chris
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>Yeah. The basic problem is that the blow-through rules are a
>simplification. A higher power rifle will cause worse wounds SOMETIMES
>for various reasons but is it worth the added complexity? Some people
>will say "yes!" (and probably use all the optional armor piercing rules
>too) and others will say "no!".
I think it depends on how much combat you have.
If you think of someone getting shot with a rifle, you don't need it.
If you think of someone getting shot with a Remington 700 chambered for .30-06
shooting soft-point bullets, you may want the added complexity.
I run both kinds of games, so I'd appreciate if I had the option of using
more detailed rules.
>Is there a relatively simple way to
>model this?
How about this: Blow-through is HT + basic damage dice.
Thus, if Joe Average (HT10) gets hit by a 9mm (2d+2) pistol, he takes
blow-through at 12 points (HT +2), with a .223 (5d) it's 15 points, with
.308 (7d) it's 17 points and so on.
Yes, this will make firearms more lethal. I don't mind. As the rules currently
stand, some people think of firearms as stunners! You know, shoot once, target
only takes HT and passes out. Give some bandaging to stop bleeding and that's
it.
Still, blow-through screws people with higher HT... (they have to take more
death checks for one bullet).
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>WHY is the mechanic
>>different? The effect is that someone with a good polearm skill gets a
>>kind of super-powerful feint & attack for nothing (this attack does
>>damage as well as it's undefined pulling effect).
>Why is this odd?
Because Dodge is usually low. Think about it. This rule means you are MORE
likely to hit with a specialized hooking attack than a NORMAL attack.
Unless they meant the contest is above and beyond all normal attack rolls.
(But they certainly didn't say so).
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>The original description in Roleplayer #9 took up the whole front page and
>didn't leave me too confused.
I have that RP and it is OLD. I think it's even older than Basic 3rd ed.
Thus, while I like some facets of it, it can not be considered canon.
It was made before e.g. blow-through rules were introduced.
It needs to be re-examined and clarified if one wants to use it.
>Of course, that's not "official" and you
>seem to be mostly concerned with what the most official rule is,
At this point, yes.
>Roleplayer #9 also provides a modified schedule of death rolls for large
>creatures, and makes clear that death checks are made at negative HT
>points based on the LOWER of the two split HT values, though there are
>modifiers for creatures with "hit points" (what a loathsome term) over
>thirty.
Yup. I liked that ruling and probably would use myself if it meant a
difference. But it's house rule at best.
>I know. It specifically says they don't. It was a suggestion for a
>starting point. Again, I'm going from the standpoint of "of course the
>rules are insufficient; what's the best way to fix them" where you seem
>to be simply arguing that the existing rules are insufficient. I agree.
We have agreement here. I was just trying to shed some light on what the rules
really are, as there seems to be some confusion about this.
One can't discuss how to change the rules until one knows what they are to
begin with.
If one accepts that some basic rules change for each setting, I give up.
It's far too much headache without considering how e.g. extra HP work in
fantasy and how they work in Supers.
>Yes. The damage roll works to provide variation for hit location only if
>it is not nullified by blow-though because the damage amount is so large.
>So the rules as is do work well for reasonably small damage values, as
>you tend to get in low-tech combat. But for monster values and high-tech
>weapons, that random factor needs to be re-introduced somehow. An example
>if not a perfect proposal would be that bullet-type damage for torso or
>generic body hits be resolved by taking max damage for the projectile,
>and multiplying by percentile dice divided by one hundred, with NO
>blow-through. Thus anything can graze, and most bullets can kill, and
>more powerful rounds are more likely to do more damage. Some of the
>actual max damage values would need to be re-calculated for
>realism-sensitive players, since the old damage values are customized to
>the d6+adds system, not to the max damage.
I'd prefer not to add percentile dice and complex calculations to the system.
Chris Doherty
Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) wrote:
>>Why is this odd?
>
>Because Dodge is usually low. Think about it. This rule means you are MORE
>likely to hit with a specialized hooking attack than a NORMAL attack.
>
>Unless they meant the contest is above and beyond all normal attack rolls.
>(But they certainly didn't say so).
If you feel that this is unusual, then requiring a normal hit roll would be a good
fix. Since I'm working out of gedankenspace here and don't have a horse and bill
handy :(, I can't claim to be right. But it seems to me that it would be easier to
hook something - anything - than to stab directly or swing, which requires a fair
amount of force to do damage, and hence less accuracy. If you're hooking (ahem)
then all you have to do is catch on to something - _then_ you start applying the
force. If you want an explanation for why you can't Parry or Block - well, I
guess you could say that the hook would catch the shield or weapon, but that's
pushing it a bit. In the interests of speed, I don't see it as an unacceptable
oversimplification
-Chris
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When in doubt, bet on a dark horse.
Scott D. Orr
(Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:
>
>In article <DEI7M...@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
CPDO...@CHEMICAL.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Doherty) writes:
>
>
>>WHY is the mechanic
>>>different? The effect is that someone with a good polearm skill gets
a
>>>kind of super-powerful feint & attack for nothing (this attack does
>>>damage as well as it's undefined pulling effect).
>
>
>Because Dodge is usually low. Think about it. This rule means you are
MORE
>likely to hit with a specialized hooking attack than a NORMAL attack.
>
>Unless they meant the contest is above and beyond all normal attack
rolls.
>(But they certainly didn't say so).
>
>
you have two win TWO (different) contests to pull the rider off his
horse -- the first one (weapon vs. Dodge) is essentially a Quick
Contest version of a normal attack, while the second is the "real"
contest.
Scott Orr
Peter VonKleinsmid
: >>WHY is the mechanic
: a
: >>>kind of super-powerful feint & attack for nothing (this attack does
: >>>damage as well as it's undefined pulling effect).
: >
: >>Why is this odd?
: >
: >Because Dodge is usually low. Think about it. This rule means you are
: MORE
: >likely to hit with a specialized hooking attack than a NORMAL attack.
: >
: >Unless they meant the contest is above and beyond all normal attack
: rolls.
: >(But they certainly didn't say so).
: >
: >
: Yes, but I think that's compensated for in this case by the fact that
: you have two win TWO (different) contests to pull the rider off his
: horse -- the first one (weapon vs. Dodge) is essentially a Quick
: Contest version of a normal attack, while the second is the "real"
: contest.
Oh geez you guys are DEFENDING THE MA1 BILL RULES!??! Pitiful. Pitiful.
;)
One thing I will say about your above comment (sorry, I forgot to follow
this thread for a bit because it was apparently on gun stats...) is that
NO, it doesn't require the second contest to do the (not clearly defined)
amount of DAMAGE, just to do the (not clearly defined) "who pulls whom"
special effect. This is the only TL3 published hand weapon I have seen
that gives you a feint-type effect on a normal attack that the defender
must resist with dodge. Is it some fancy Japanese ninja weapon? NO, IT'S
A FARM IMPLEMENT. But by these rules (unless your GM rules it does no
damage and has no effect because they aren't defined in the rules. ;) )
it's the most effective weapon for overcoming enemy defenses. Try facing
a dwarf weaponmaster twirling a bill in a campaign where the GM decides
the weapon does thrust +3 cutting (plus another two because it's a
dwarven very fine bill) and the pulling effect puts you to a prone
position if the dwarf wins a ST contest. Or a group battle where sword &
shield fighters are supported by bill-armed men-at-arms doing all-out
attacks with bills using these rules, and your men can't use their sword
or shield skills at all to protect themselves.
PvK
Chris Doherty
sk...@eskimo.com (Peter VonKleinsmid) wrote:
>Oh geez you guys are DEFENDING THE MA1 BILL RULES!??! Pitiful.
Pitiful.
>;)
Oh geez, are you actually getting THIS WORKED UP ABOUT THE FACT
THAT WE ARE? How silly.
I'm not defending the rule, I was trying to explain it to Mikko, who apparently
didn't understand it. He may have been being sarcastic, I'm not sure. There are
some problems, obviously - like the only defense being Dodge - but I never
claimed the rule was perfect. Just understandable.
>One thing I will say about your above comment (sorry, I forgot to follow
>this thread for a bit because it was apparently on gun stats...) is that
>NO, it doesn't require the second contest to do the (not clearly defined)
>amount of DAMAGE, just to do the (not clearly defined) "who pulls whom"
>special effect.
Your rules or listed? The rule is sufficiently vague that ti could be interpreted
either way.
This is the only TL3 published hand weapon I have seen
>that gives you a feint-type effect on a normal attack that the defender
>must resist with dodge. Is it some fancy Japanese ninja weapon? NO, IT'S
>A FARM IMPLEMENT.
So are the five basic kobujutsu weapons (well, except the sai). Your point?
But by these rules (unless your GM rules it does no
>damage and has no effect because they aren't defined in the rules. ;) )
>it's the most effective weapon for overcoming enemy defenses. Try facing
>a dwarf weaponmaster twirling a bill in a campaign where the GM decides
>the weapon does thrust +3 cutting (plus another two because it's a
>dwarven very fine bill) and the pulling effect puts you to a prone
>position if the dwarf wins a ST contest.
Try facing said weapon master with a several hundred pound horse under you
moving at a >35 mph gallop. Watch dwarven weponmaster make like Indy in
Raiders. (Hell, try *twirling* a 6 foot unbalanced staff around your head in
combat conditions).
And really, what does the weaponmaster have to do with anything? Or the very
fine weapon comment? You're comparing a very fine weapon in the hands of a
master to some arbitrary average weapon. Let's keep the hyperbole down a bit.
Or a group battle where sword &
>shield fighters are supported by bill-armed men-at-arms doing all-out
>attacks with bills using these rules, and your men can't use their sword
>or shield skills at all to protect themselves.
I would allow the PD of the shield to add to the Dodge (doesn't it do this
anyway? I don't play fantasy much any more), and - wait for it - there probably
should be some allowance for Parrying or Blocking the bill. But as the rule
stands - I'll say it again - I don't think it's an unacceptable simplification,
especially since bills were normally used en masse against cavalry in situations
too large to handle easily with full detail Advanced Combat.
-Chris
Peter VonKleinsmid
Chris Doherty (CPDO...@CHEMICAL.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <DEp2I...@eskimo.com>,
: sk...@eskimo.com (Peter VonKleinsmid) wrote:
: >Oh geez you guys are DEFENDING THE MA1 BILL RULES!??! Pitiful.
: Pitiful.
: >;)
: Oh geez, are you actually getting THIS WORKED UP ABOUT THE FACT
: THAT WE ARE? How silly.
Yes, it's called being sarcastic. My whole post was sarcastic. I can't
help it when faced by a rule like that one. One or two lines could have
given a well-defined explanation of the weapon but no...
And in addition to the rule being next to meaningless, almost any
interpretation is unbalanced, and there's no need for it to be so. Just
take it from someone who _has_ played quite a bit of GURPS TL2-4 combat.
PvK
: I'm not defending the rule, I was trying to explain it to Mikko, who apparently
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>I'm not defending the rule, I was trying to explain it to Mikko, who apparently
>didn't understand it.
Thanks for the effort, but I have absolutely no trouble understanding the rule.
I was merely trying to explain why it is so damn stupid and vague.
>Your rules or listed? The rule is sufficiently vague that ti could be
>interpreted either way.
That's the whole point. The bill rules are too vague and apparently were never
playtested.
>I would allow the PD of the shield to add to the Dodge (doesn't it do this
>anyway? I don't play fantasy much any more), and - wait for it - there probably
>should be some allowance for Parrying or Blocking the bill. But as the rule
>stands - I'll say it again - I don't think it's an unacceptable simplification,
Of what? A medieval superweapon?
>especially since bills were normally used en masse against cavalry in
>situations
>too large to handle easily with full detail Advanced Combat.
In real life, yes. But as the GURPS rules stand, it suddenly becomes a
superweapon.
Let's do a little comparison.
Mr. A has a bill and skill 14.
Mr. B has a spear and skill 14.
Mr. Target has scale mail, medium shield for PD 6, and total defense scores
of Dodge 10, Parry 14, Block 14. His other stats don't really matter.
Mr. B tries to spear Mr. Target. His chance of successful attack is roughly
85%. Mr. Target will naturally take his best defense, a parry for a roughly 85%
chance of defending.
Total successful attack chance: 85% * (100% - 85%) = 12.75%
Mr. A takes a bill hooking approach and attacks: As his bill skill is higher
than Mr. Target's Dodge, he ALWAYS wins by simply rolling same or lower. This
is roughly 50%. His ACTUAL chance of winning is MUCH higher, but I'm too lazy
to do the math.
Total successful attack chance: 50% minimum.
Who pulls whom is NOT a consideration, since there will be damage
anyway. Damage is comparable (no matter how you interpret the rule),
so it doesn't really matter in the comparison either.
So, it's a sudden improvement of 37.25%, nevermind the extra effects.
What if you were allowed to take ANY defense against hooking?
Doesn't really change anything here. At equal skill/defense levels, it's still
a 50% chance.
Conclusion: Any attack that uses a contest instead of straight rolls stacks the
odds HUGELY in favor of the attacker and will result in much shorter combats.
Thus, the bill rules are unbalanced, but not exactly invincible -- there are
ways to take down bill masters even with these rules.
Cynthia Higginbotham
>In article <bunin-02099...@cyberspace.connectus.com> bu...@connectus.com (Brian Bunin) writes:
>
>>.223 kills by massive trauma.
>
>>The bullet is spin stabilized.
>
>I have news for you: All rifle bullets are.
>
>>When it hits
>>something, it becomes unbalanced, and basically buzsaws its way around
>>inside.
>
>The factual proof of this happening consistently is rather shallow.
>Yes, it does happen. Yes, it is said the round was designed for this
>effect. But consistent proof is shallow.
>
>High-velocity rounds kill by hydrostatic shock and temporary cavity effects
>mostly.
>
<wham! wham! wham! as she beats her head against the nearest
wall..>
Can we put that one in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ with a "F" tag?
Please?!?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING! REPEAT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
"HYDROSTATIC SHOCK"! People are NOT waterballoons!
223 bullets kill by perforating important bodily organs,
like the heart, brain, lungs, etc. Comprende?
The militaries of the world switched to them for two reasons:
the recoil from heavier rounds makes automatic weapons
unmanageable, and yer basic grunt can carry a lot more .223
rounds than he can carry 7.62mm rounds. BTW, some
militaries are studying the idea of going back to larger
rounds, because .223 bullets AREN'T reliable killers.
OTOH, in a war, you prefer to wound the enemy, because
it takes more guys out of action to care for a wounded
man than to bury a dead man.
You DON'T use a .223 for hunting anything bigger than
gophers because it mostly wounds big game, rather than
killing.
ARRGGH! NOT HYDROSTATIC SHOCK, OKAY?
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Lurker@The Threshold, Daemon-Daughter of Yog-Sothoth, Incarnate
Daughter of Chaos, Fatebreaker, Unmaker of Dooms, Unweaver of
Destinies, Derailer of Linearly Choreographed Scenarios, and
General PITA, aka CyHi...@aol.com
marc
While hydrostatic shock or whatever the velocity effects you are talking
about may not be the primarary factor in defining a bullets ability to cause
damage, from a purely physical standpoint it does, granted not a huge effect
espaically when considering the relative velocities concerned. To this
day their is debate within the shooting comunity about this topic. I am
not trying to start a war over this topic so please don't take offense.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
>223 bullets kill by perforating important bodily organs,
>like the heart, brain, lungs, etc. Comprende?
I can't deny that. But actually missing vitals with something as small as .223
isn't that hard. Both .223 and .22LR can penetrate a man. So, why is .223 much
deadlier? Because it's much faster.
Small fast bullets have temporary cavities much larger than permanent wound
cavities. A relatively slow round like .22LR must rely on permanent wound
channel (i.e. actually hitting something) to kill. A faster round can screw
your innards by simply passing close enough because the temporary cavity will
rupture the organs in question.
Call the effect what you like, but that's what's behind the lethality of
hi-vel rounds.
>The militaries of the world switched to them for two reasons:
>the recoil from heavier rounds makes automatic weapons
>unmanageable, and yer basic grunt can carry a lot more .223
>rounds than he can carry 7.62mm rounds.
No argument here. But they didn't switch to .22LR instead.
Why? Because while .223 was considered to have *less* killing power
(which it does not in GURPS), it was still considered to have *enough* killing
power.
>BTW, some
>militaries are studying the idea of going back to larger
>rounds, because .223 bullets AREN'T reliable killers.
>OTOH, in a war, you prefer to wound the enemy, because
>it takes more guys out of action to care for a wounded
>man than to bury a dead man.
The guys in the command bunker prefer that. The guys actually getting shot at
prefer to put the enemy down. When you're shot dead by someone you just
wounded, it's small consolidation to know he'll tie up the enemy's resources.
>You DON'T use a .223 for hunting anything bigger than
>gophers because it mostly wounds big game, rather than
>killing.
Which is what GURPS does not model too well. Incidentally this was the
initial point of the discussion.
marc
>>like the heart, brain, lungs, etc. Comprende?
>I can't deny that. But actually missing vitals with something as small as
>.223 isn't that hard. Both .223 and .22LR can penetrate a man. So, why is
>.223 much deadlier? Because it's much faster.
>Small fast bullets have temporary cavities much larger than permanent wound
>cavities. A relatively slow round like .22LR must rely on permanent wound
>channel (i.e. actually hitting something) to kill. A faster round can screw
>your innards by simply passing close enough because the temporary cavity will
> rupture the organs in question.
>Call the effect what you like, but that's what's behind the lethality of
>hi-vel rounds.
That and in GURPS damage is an absract value reresenting the ability to
penatrate armour and hurt people. The faster bullet .223 has more kinetic
energy and can penetrate more armour all other factors being equal.
>>The militaries of the world switched to them for two reasons:
>>the recoil from heavier rounds makes automatic weapons
>>unmanageable, and yer basic grunt can carry a lot more .223
>>rounds than he can carry 7.62mm rounds.
The above statement is true but their is more to it. Training the average
person, that would be drafted into the military, to shoot will take longer to
do with the "high" power rounds like the .308=7.62NATO or the 30 '06 than
smaller rounds like .223=5.56NATO. This happens because of recoil the higher
calibers are more likely to cause a flinch in the new shooter than the smaller
ones. This flinch is easy to overcome with more time and training. The flinch
causes an extreme degredation in accuracy. The military planners decided we
would not have the time or money to do this in a true national emergeny.
That's more than anyone probably wanted to know DELETE AT WILL
>No argument here. But they didn't switch to .22LR instead.
>Why? Because while .223 was considered to have *less* killing power
>(which it does not in GURPS), it was still considered to have *enough*
>killing power.
>>BTW, some
>>militaries are studying the idea of going back to larger
>>rounds, because .223 bullets AREN'T reliable killers.
I had not herd this, do you know who?