Some thoughts on GURPS firearms and firearm combat
Terence this is stupid stuff
I am new to io.com and I hope that I am not out of line in asking about GURPS
gun combat on this newsgroup. I play GURPS fantasy regulary and just LOVE
the combat system. Recently I have had the urge to play in a more modern
genre and have run into some problems with GURPS and gun combat. My first
example is a .45 colt pistol fired at a stationary man-sized target from a
braced position.
Assume the firing character has a skill of 15 (13 skill level and +2 for
IQ over 12). Lets say he aims for 4 seconds and braces the gun. The ACC of
the .45 is +2, the aiming gives him a +3, and the bracing gives him a +1 for
a total bonus of +6.
Checking the range chart we find that he can hit the target with a roll of 15
or less at 20 yards, and a roll of 12 at 70 yards, and a roll of 10 at 150 yards.
It seems to me that the 20 yard range is realistic, but the preceeding rolls
and ranges are UNREALISTIC. I have fired 45 autos and a hit at 150 yards
would be a phenomonal-amazing-once-in-a-blue-moon kinda thing.
Now for example #2.
Lets assume our character is shooting an M-16 at the same man sized target.
He aims for 4 seconds and braces the gun on a shooting bench. The ACC of the
M-16 is 12 and he gets +4 for bracing and aiming for a total bonus of +16.
Checking the range chart we see that our character has his base skill to hit
this target at 1000 yards! Anyone who shoots rifles knows that a 500 yard
shot with a hunting rifle and scope is a very difficult shot -even from a
rest, but if you follow the GURPS rules some guy with a open-sight rifle can hit at
1000 yards, no problem!
The problem seems to be the generic range chart.. I think an easy fix for
this would be some additional charts for rifles, pistols, tank guns, or what
ever kind of ranged weapon you can come up with to add realistic
difficultes to combat with modern and ultra modern weapons and still keep it
simple and playable.
So, anyone else have an opinion?
- Tere who is busily working on range charts..
te...@pentagon.io.com
Douglas L. Vandenburgh
: Now for example #2.
: Lets assume our character is shooting an M-16 at the same man sized target.
: He aims for 4 seconds and braces the gun on a shooting bench. The ACC of
: the
: M-16 is 12 and he gets +4 for bracing and aiming for a
: total bonus of +16. Checking the range chart we see that
: our character has his base skill to hit
: this target at 1000 yards! Anyone who shoots rifles knows that a 500 yard
: shot with a hunting rifle and scope is a very difficult shot -even from a
: rest, but if you follow the GURPSrules some guy with a opensight rifle
: can hit at
: 1000 yards, no problem!
A 500 yard shot at a man size target is not hard at all. I don't know
many shooters who would miss firing a scoped rifle from a rest, and many
Dog targets can attest to the fact that it's quite easy to plink holes in
a man sized target from 500 yards with an M-16A2. I don't know anyone
who would consider a 500 yard shot 'very difficult' when shooting from
a bench at a man sized target with a scoped hunting rifle.
- Doug
Mookus
in GURPS...before I got into target shooting (a few months ago),
everything seemed to work fine...but now that "I know better", I think
some revamping is in order.
just my .02
Mookus Boone, King of the Cyber Frontier
JoelX W Lovell
> example is a .45 colt pistol fired at a stationary man-sized target from
a
> braced position.
>
> Assume the firing character has a skill of 15 (13 skill level and +2 for
> IQ over 12). Lets say he aims for 4 seconds and braces the gun. The ACC
of
> the .45 is +2, the aiming gives him a +3, and the bracing gives him a +1
for
> a total bonus of +6.
>
> Checking the range chart we find that he can hit the target with a roll
of 15
> or less at 20 yards, and a roll of 12 at 70 yards, and a roll of 10 at
150 yards.
>
> It seems to me that the 20 yard range is realistic, but the preceeding
rolls
> and ranges are UNREALISTIC. I have fired 45 autos and a hit at 150 yards
> would be a phenomonal-amazing-once-in-a-blue-moon kinda thing.
first realize that there is a big difference between the .45 auto and the
Colt .45 single action revolver. Single action revolvers are going to be
more accurate (generally speaking) than a double action revolver or a
standard automatic. The Colt .45 revolver, when cocked, has a light
trigger action, and a 150 yard shot while carefully aiming and braced at a
man sized target would not be unrealistic to someone who has had the degree
of training that a skill of 15 indicates. Apparently, there are no
modifiers for a moving target either in your example. People routinely
hunt with single action revolvers, and a 150 yard shot at a man sized
target (while braced at that) is not (in my opinion) not unrealistic at all.
I shoot competively, and have had proffesional training in the Marine Corps
and in civilian life from experts. While in the USMC I qualified as an
Expert with the rifle and the .45 auto time and again. In civilian life I
have on occasion won small local combat tournaments and rifle matches. I
would consider my skill level to be such that I could shoot any firearm
with a great deal of proficiency, but I know many people who can make me
green with envy on how much better they can hit targets.
>
> Now for example #2.
> Lets assume our character is shooting an M-16 at the same man sized
target.
> He aims for 4 seconds and braces the gun on a shooting bench. The ACC of
the
> M-16 is 12 and he gets +4 for bracing and aiming for a total bonus of +16.
> Checking the range chart we see that our character has his base skill to
hit
> this target at 1000 yards! Anyone who shoots rifles knows that a 500
yard
> shot with a hunting rifle and scope is a very difficult shot -even from a
> rest, but if you follow the GURPS rules some guy with a open-sight rifle
can hit at
> 1000 yards, no problem!
Again, with a little training, long range shooting is not only possible,
but relatively easy to learn. Especially braced on a bench, at a man sized
target that isn't moving. The NRA runs High Power long range matches and
you are required to use military rifles with iron sights (such as an old M-
1 or M-7) and fire at 1000 yards. When I was in the USMC they had just
switched over to the M165-A2, and changed the ranges for qualification. The
long range (with iron sights) was 600 meters (meters, not yards, add about
a 100 feet to 600 yards). In boot camp, my first exposure to shooting a
rifle at any real range, and I was hitting the target 9 times out of 10
after only two weeks of training.
(I qualified as Expert, along with a handful of others in the Platoon of
about 60 people. I don't think the GURPS rules are that far out of line.
>
>
> So, anyone else have an opinion?
I hope my opinion was what you were looking for, I don't want to sound
flamish or anything. If I did have a gripe about the GURPS rules for
firearm combat, it would be the following...
Needs consistancy for damage with a given cartridge. A 9mm out of a
Browning Hi Power is going to be roughly the same as a 9mm out of an UZI.
Neither will do as much trauma as a .45 round. (In my opinion, based on all
kinds of sources)
Needs a way to allow for the same results that a competition shooter could
attain as far as rate of fire... for instance, your average IPSC shooter
gets to a point where, using a .45 auto, can fire 8 rounds in less than 2
seconds at a 6" plate 25 feet away. Can GURPS mechanics simulate this?
C delphi
Command for small arms combat. Quick and accurate, it easily
lends itself to GURPS, using the same 3-18 basic range of
stats.
Well worth the $15 they are asking for it.
Jim
Terence this is stupid stuff
Hi there Doug,
I know what you mean! Infact one of my best friends and gaming partners assures
me that the ranges are accurate. He is convinced that he can "plink" targets with
a .45 colt at 150 yards, so rather than fight about it we agreee to disagree. As
for your shooting, I was not saying that it could not be done. I have an AR-18o
assault rifle and I find that .223 gets wierd beyond about 300 yards. But if you
can hit a dog at 500 yards, who am I to say you cannot. I will just say what I
say to my friend... I will believe it when I see it.
-- Tere
Ismo Peltonen
Terence this is stupid stuff (ter...@pentagon.io.com) wrote:
[about firing at man-sized target @ 150yds with .45 revolver]
I have no idea about how hard it is. Never shot with any firearm.
Anyway, remember that this assumes perfect conditions, stationary
target 2yds diameter, enough time to aim, bracing bonus, and all that.
Comparing to normal combat shooting in game, I'd say it's WILDLY
different: in our games at least normal pistol shooting is without
aiming, most often snap shots, fired wildly at about 5-10 yds, all three
bullets a turn giving recoil penalties on top of all others, target
partially covered and possibly moving, with oneself moving (dropping to
cover) and so on.
> Now for example #2.
> Lets assume our character is shooting an M-16 at the same man sized
> target. He aims for 4 seconds and braces the gun on a shooting bench.
> The ACC of the M-16 is 12 and he gets +4 for bracing and aiming for a
> total bonus of +16. Checking the range chart we see that our character
> has his base skill to hit this target at 1000 yards! Anyone who shoots
> rifles knows that a 500 yard shot with a hunting rifle and scope is a
> very difficult shot -even from a rest, but if you follow the GURPS rules
> some guy with a open-sight rifle can hit at 1000 yards, no problem!
Again, I don't know how hard it is to hit a 2yds diameter stationary
target at 500 yds, but using GURPS rules, M16 has a 1/2 Dmg range of 500
yds, ie. over that range no accuracy or aim bonuses are gotten, so to
hit @1000yds is quite hard indeed (-14 range, +1 brace, total of -13 to
skill if perfect conditions and stationary 2yds diameter target).
> The problem seems to be the generic range chart.. I think an easy fix
> for this would be some additional charts for rifles, pistols, tank guns,
> or what ever kind of ranged weapon you can come up with to add realistic
> difficultes to combat with modern and ultra modern weapons and still
> keep it simple and playable.
> So, anyone else have an opinion?
I think the range chart works quite well and is good also in that that
it's easy to memorize (-6 for every range multiplication by 10). The
half damage range most often takes care of long shots getting far off,
and the normal case in game is NOT 'perfect conditions'. Accuracy,
recoil, range/speed, bad footing, and so on have to be taken into
account unless sniping in perfect conditions.
And, if a character wants to kill someone and gets to snipe at him in
perfect conditions (no penalties but range, all bonuses that are
possible), remember tha he's taking a vital or head/brain shot to kill
(if he's not, I'll call him a fool: he'd better take at least vitals
shot if he wants to kill.. I'd prefer Barret model 90 from ~1200 yds to
vitals, using x50 optical scope.. 13d (ie. full HT), *3 for vitals, *1.5
for caliber, total of 4.5*HT, ie. instant death for any character with
HT less than 15. After shooting, I'd prefer teleporting).
> - Tere who is busily working on range charts..
> te...@pentagon.io.com
--
Elandal (aka Ismo Peltonen) ## snail Hanuripolku 5B15
Home (UUCP) Ismo.P...@tower.nullnet.fi ## mail 00420 Helsinki
Univ (inet) Ismo.P...@Helsinki.FI ## Finland
Errare humanum est.. ## phone +358-0-5042609
Terence this is stupid stuff
Opps! my example was supposed to be a .45 automatic. Yes, I agree with
you completely that revolvers can hit out to 150 yards asnd not be devine
intervention. But I highly suspect that they cannot hit out to 500 yards
with out some sort of devine intervention.. Example #3 the colt python
fired by an expert NRA marxman.. skill level 17. who only aims and does
not brace..
So he hits with 16 at 45 yards (realistic)
15 at 70 yards (this is 95% chance to hit)
14 at 100 yards
13 at 150 ( a loooong way as you pointed out)
12 at 200 (starting to stretch things abit)
11 at 300 still only a 62 % chance to hit.
10 at 450 yards. In my opinion this is not a
shot that you could really expect to make no matter
how good you were..
9 at 500 yards. *shakes head*
8 at 1000 yards .. (this guy IS good).
Ok so if he braces he increases his skill by 1 at ALL ranges.. My point being
that while a character can shoot an excelent weapon such as the colt
python out to 150 meters.. his to hit number should be around 12 to 13
which it is.. But as you go FURTHER it quits making sence. THats what I
was trying to point out. :)
Ok ok :) I was wrong about the 500 yard thing !! :),
if you look at the values to hit vs ranges you will see what I was
getting at
so our guy has a 15 to hit at 1000 yards
a 14 at 1500 yards
a 13 at 2000 yards
a 12 at 3000
a 11 at 3800 yards which is as far as we can go as our bullet ran
out of gas.
How many NRA guys can make 3000 yard open site shots with an M-16A2??
I am sorry that I used the long range numbers in my first example :) I
was trying to show the progression and all I seemed to have failed.
And I find the weapons ranges AMAZINGLY unrealistic.
>> So, anyone else have an opinion?
>I hope my opinion was what you were looking for, I don't want to sound
>flamish or anything. If I did have a gripe about the GURPS rules for
>firearm combat, it would be the following...
Not at all!! I really want to hear what people think.. Thanks for
responding in such an intelligent and clear manor...
>Needs consistancy for damage with a given cartridge. A 9mm out of a
>Browning Hi Power is going to be roughly the same as a 9mm out of an UZI.
>Neither will do as much trauma as a .45 round. (In my opinion, based on all
>kinds of sources)
Interestingly enough.. I like the damage rules.. But I agree, Why does an
uzi bullet do more damage than a glock round??. the .45 does cutting
damage (damage x 1.5 ) so even though the 2d of the .45 auto is less
than the 2+2 of the 9mm pistol it tends to be about the same as the 9mm
with an average roll and more on a high roll..
>Needs a way to allow for the same results that a competition shooter could
>attain as far as rate of fire... for instance, your average IPSC shooter
>gets to a point where, using a .45 auto, can fire 8 rounds in less than 2
>seconds at a 6" plate 25 feet away. Can GURPS mechanics simulate this?
Hummm I will have to think about this one...
Thanks alot
-- Tere
Douglas L. Vandenburgh
: I know what you mean! Infact one of my best friends and gaming partners assures
: me that the ranges are accurate. He is convinced that he can "plink" targets with
: a .45 colt at 150 yards, so rather than fight about it we agreee to disagree. As
: for your shooting, I was not saying that it could not be done. I have an AR-18o
: assault rifle and I find that .223 gets wierd beyond about 300 yards. But if you
: can hit a dog at 500 yards, who am I to say you cannot. I will just say what I
: say to my friend... I will believe it when I see it.
Actually, I was referring to the type of target, not actually shooting
at dogs. :) However, now that I think about it, I think Dog targets are
the head and shoulders ones used for the 200/300 rapid fire. Anyone
remember what the mansized target for the 500 prone is?
However, I do tend to disagree about how squirrelly a 5.56 mm gets at
range. It's fairly easy to shoot for 50 on the 500 prone, if you're
using the A2. In fact, I always hated shooting the B-mod course instead
of KD 'cause those last 10 shots were so easy.
- Doug
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> In article <terence....@pentagon.io.com>
> Terence this is stupid stuff (ter...@pentagon.io.com) wrote:
>
> [about firing at man-sized target @ 150yds with .45 revolver]
>
> I have no idea about how hard it is. Never shot with any firearm.
>
> Anyway, remember that this assumes perfect conditions, stationary
> target 2yds diameter, enough time to aim, bracing bonus, and all that.
> Comparing to normal combat shooting in game, I'd say it's WILDLY
> different: in our games at least normal pistol shooting is without
> aiming, most often snap shots, fired wildly at about 5-10 yds, all three
> bullets a turn giving recoil penalties on top of all others, target
> partially covered and possibly moving, with oneself moving (dropping to
> cover) and so on.
Well, it also assumed pretty low skill, 15. This costs typical PCs 1 or
2 points -- consequently they usually have enough skill "overhead" to
counter the first minuses. You deleted the example, but for example a
skill increase of +4 will *totally* eliminate the need to brace and take
max aim in the above example. I know you're not going to tell me you've
never seen a PC with Guns-19 or better.
The problem lies in what is possible at all, regardless of skill. I have
yet to see a RPG that reasonably calculates inherent accuracy.
Most combat autopistols have a group size of 2"-4" diameter at 25
yards. That means even if clamp down the gun in a vise, different shots
will strike withing that distance of each other (i.e. NOT in the same
spot). Xmas eve is not a time to do math, but you can calculate what
that group size means at 150 yards. Is it linear progression? Jeez, I
should be sleeping...
Anyway, that's the hit area given ultraperfect conditions, with
absolutely *no* influence on the shooter's part -- any miniscule mistake
the shooter makes just makes it worse.
Thus with every weapon, there's a range after which hitting a given
sized target becomes guesswork instead of skill. 1/2 Damage tries to
emulate this, but is not totally successful.
However, my *real* gripe is that movement at longer ranges has very
little or no meaning when calculating the hit possibilities. Let's take
the previous example. I'm too tired to look it up now, but the target
could be moving something like 49 yards/sec without affecting to-hit
chances the slightest bit.
HAH!
The more mathematically inclined can calculate the amount of lead needed
when sighting a target that fast at that range, and by how much a
certain error in lead would deviate the shot. Given that the shooter
even knows the exact speed at all.
However, it is certainly quite possible to hit, say, oil drums with
revolvers at 600 yards, given a skilled shooter and some time to
prepare. Not all shots will hit, but a big enough percentage of them
will to diffrentiate it from mere critical hits.
This is another gripe: The perfect shot with a handgun takes only 4
seconds of preparation.
> Again, I don't know how hard it is to hit a 2yds diameter stationary
> target at 500 yds, but using GURPS rules, M16 has a 1/2 Dmg range of 500
> yds, ie. over that range no accuracy or aim bonuses are gotten, so to
> hit @1000yds is quite hard indeed (-14 range, +1 brace, total of -13 to
> skill if perfect conditions and stationary 2yds diameter target).
Do you have any idea what that 2yd target looks like over iron sights at
1000 yards?
This, on the other hand, is a problem of human limitations. Iron sights
are just too coarse for shots at that range, excellent snipers
*accustomed* to iron sights barred.
It's a bit like trying to measure a length of two inches with a yard
long stick.
> I think the range chart works quite well and is good also in that that
> it's easy to memorize (-6 for every range multiplication by 10). The
> half damage range most often takes care of long shots getting far off,
> and the normal case in game is NOT 'perfect conditions'. Accuracy,
> recoil, range/speed, bad footing, and so on have to be taken into
> account unless sniping in perfect conditions.
The range chart's function is to describe how small a target the real
target equals at a given range. This function is totally independent
from weapon used, and works quite nicely. It's the other rules and
modifiers a total realism fanatic finds lacking.
Another problem is that GMs are afraid to hand out subjective penalties
like buck fever mentioned in High Tech.
> And, if a character wants to kill someone and gets to snipe at him in
> perfect conditions (no penalties but range, all bonuses that are
> possible), remember tha he's taking a vital or head/brain shot to kill
> (if he's not, I'll call him a fool: he'd better take at least vitals
> shot if he wants to kill.. I'd prefer Barret model 90 from ~1200 yds to
> vitals, using x50 optical scope.. 13d (ie. full HT), *3 for vitals, *1.5
> for caliber, total of 4.5*HT, ie. instant death for any character with
> HT less than 15. After shooting, I'd prefer teleporting).
Hmmm... if I didn't have to stand in a speaker's box or something
similar, I'd feel pretty safe against you. I doubt you could ever
re-train your sights on me if I even maintained a walking pace. Also,
it takes quite some time for the .50cal slug to travel that distance.
You'd have to have a pretty large tube for that x50 to even see far
enough ahead of me to take lead on aim.
Another gripe: Added magnification does not endlessly increase accuracy.
Besides, the Barret is not really that *accurate* a gun. Tacking a high
magnification scope on it does not change this basic fact one little
bit. (It has one helluva flat shooting range, though). I'd bet my money
on a Lapua .338 Magnum any day, or a variety of other rifle calibers.
Besides, your example is wrong. According to High Tech 2nd. ed. a
vitals shot has an absolute max damage of 3xHT. Blowthrough is the LAST
step of damage calculation. Thus, it is impossible to get a guaranteed
one-shot kill against anything if you don't hit the brain or use
weapons that bypass blow-through rules. One might argue how realistic
this is, but that's the rule, and it's also one of the reasons why the
Barret is not such a good sniper rifle after all.
--------
max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
Voice +358 0 8092681 | is just an ordinary pig.
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
Joel Lovell
> I know what you mean! Infact one of my best friends and gaming partners assures
> me that the ranges are accurate. He is convinced that he can "plink" targets with
> a .45 colt at 150 yards, so rather than fight about it we agreee to disagree. As
> for your shooting, I was not saying that it could not be done. I have an AR-18o
> assault rifle and I find that .223 gets wierd beyond about 300 yards. But if you
> can hit a dog at 500 yards, who am I to say you cannot. I will just say what I
> say to my friend... I will believe it when I see it.
>
> -- Tere
>
Well, you should believe it. Just because you personally haven't had the training to
shoot a those kind of ranges doesn't mean it isn't possible.
The USMC had us firing iron sight M16-A2's at 500 meters (a good 541 yards), at man
sized targets. Though only a handful of us qualified as expert, most were able to hit
at that range more than half of the time. This after only two weeks of training!
The M16-A2 is identical to the AR-15A2 with the exception of being able to select
fire to a three round burst. The Colt, Olympia Arms, or Eagle Arms clone of this
rifle comes in a variety of match configurations which are routinely used in 1000 yard
matches - with iron sights. The NRA has a national match (which I've participated in)
where one classification of shooters requires a military rifle with iron sights.
People usually use surplus M7's or M1 rifles. I know that with my cheapy Savage
Arms 7mm Mag, with a Tasco scope, (a $289 special from Payless) I can hit the vital
zones of a metal silhouette target at 660 yards from a standing position.
As far as the handguns, give a good handgunner a .45 Colt Single action revolver in
the earlier mentioned example, brace from a bench, that person could very well be
trained well enough to hit a man sized target at 150 yards. A .45 auto would not
likely be able to be accurate enough at that range.
There is a lot of variables in long range rifle shooting. At a thousand yards, ignoring
wind, you have to know the characteristics of the ammo you are shooting. You have
to literally shoot between beats of your heart. The temperature of the barrel and
whether the barrel is free floating or not comes into play.
I think the key problem with the games, is they don't take into consideration
that shooting at targets at a range is scads different from shooting at real people
during less than perfect conditions, and with the targets shooting back, or charging
at the shooter, or whatever. It takes a special kind of training to be able to shoot
well in real firefights. The games also don't take into consideration such variables
as Tachpsychia, ExCorporation, Fight or Flight reflex, etc. In the above example of
GURPS, perhaps an advantage would be appropriate to allow such skill to translate
into real combat effectiveness. Or maybe a modification to skill based on coolness
under fire.
What do you folks think?
Joel Lovell
Joel Lovell
>
> if you look at the values to hit vs ranges you will see what I was
> getting at
>
> so our guy has a 15 to hit at 1000 yards
> a 14 at 1500 yards
> a 13 at 2000 yards
> a 12 at 3000
> a 11 at 3800 yards which is as far as we can go as our bullet ran
> out of gas.
>
First, I'd like to apologize for the second posting! I thought, after reading
it over, that it came on a little strong. I also had thought my
first one (which you have responded to) had bounced. Now I see that I have
been blasting with both barrels....
Second, NOW I GET IT! :)
I see your point. I think the game simply needs a MAX range (Doesn't
hero have this) for various weapons. You could even simplify this
by category, maybe something like:
snub nose pistols: 25 yards
small pistols 40 yards
medium pistols 50 yards
large pistols 75 yards
carbines 600 yards
long rifles 1000 yards
this is overly simplistic, I know. Maybe just double or triple the
range penalties beyond this range...
nice posting with ya.
Ken Farmer
: : I know what you mean! Infact one of my best friends and gaming partners assures
: : me that the ranges are accurate. He is convinced that he can "plink" targets with
: : a .45 colt at 150 yards, so rather than fight about it we agreee to disagree. As
: : for your shooting, I was not saying that it could not be done. I have an AR-18o
: : assault rifle and I find that .223 gets wierd beyond about 300 yards. But if you
: : can hit a dog at 500 yards, who am I to say you cannot. I will just say what I
: : say to my friend... I will believe it when I see it.
: Actually, I was referring to the type of target, not actually shooting
: at dogs. :) However, now that I think about it, I think Dog targets are
: the head and shoulders ones used for the 200/300 rapid fire. Anyone
: remember what the mansized target for the 500 prone is?
When I was in the Marine Corps we used standing man-shaped targets, I
forget their names.
: However, I do tend to disagree about how squirrelly a 5.56 mm gets at
: range. It's fairly easy to shoot for 50 on the 500 prone, if you're
: using the A2. In fact, I always hated shooting the B-mod course instead
: of KD 'cause those last 10 shots were so easy.
I agree with you on this one. We regularly qualified at 500 yards,
firing prone and not rapid-fire, I shot expert and could get almost
everyone in. I liked the A1 more than the A2 because it was three inches
shorter and seemed easier to squeeze into a sitting position with. Then
again, I liked the round handguards of the A2 more than the triangular
ones of the A1. One other thing about 500 yards - wind becomes a
considerably greater threat to accuracy. If you don't have the luxury of
getting to plink away and get your windage right it could be a really
tough shot. Oh yeah, one last thing. Taking a hit at 500 yards would
beat the hell out of taking a hit at 100 yards. I'm not sure about this,
but I would get a heavy leather jacket could save your life.
--
Ken Farmer
kfa...@mcimail.com
bo...@angus.mi.org
Manitou Springs, CO
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Opps! my example was supposed to be a .45 automatic. Yes, I agree with
> you completely that revolvers can hit out to 150 yards asnd not be devine
> intervention. But I highly suspect that they cannot hit out to 500 yards
> with out some sort of devine intervention.. Example #3 the colt python
> fired by an expert NRA marxman.. skill level 17. who only aims and does
> not brace..
> So he hits with 16 at 45 yards (realistic)
> 15 at 70 yards (this is 95% chance to hit)
> 14 at 100 yards
> 13 at 150 ( a loooong way as you pointed out)
> 12 at 200 (starting to stretch things abit)
> 11 at 300 still only a 62 % chance to hit.
> 10 at 450 yards. In my opinion this is not a
> shot that you could really expect to make no matter
> how good you were..
> 9 at 500 yards. *shakes head*
> 8 at 1000 yards .. (this guy IS good).
> Ok so if he braces he increases his skill by 1 at ALL ranges.. My point being
> that while a character can shoot an excelent weapon such as the colt
> python out to 150 meters.. his to hit number should be around 12 to 13
> which it is.. But as you go FURTHER it quits making sence. THats what I
> was trying to point out. :)
And:
> Ok ok :) I was wrong about the 500 yard thing !! :),
>
> if you look at the values to hit vs ranges you will see what I was
> getting at
>
> so our guy has a 15 to hit at 1000 yards
> a 14 at 1500 yards
> a 13 at 2000 yards
> a 12 at 3000
> a 11 at 3800 yards which is as far as we can go as our bullet ran
> out of gas.
>
> How many NRA guys can make 3000 yard open site shots with an M-16A2??
> I am sorry that I used the long range numbers in my first example :) I
> was trying to show the progression and all I seemed to have failed.
> And I find the weapons ranges AMAZINGLY unrealistic.
You forget to count in 1/2D range in all cases. Remember it totally
voids Acc bonus.
> Interestingly enough.. I like the damage rules.. But I agree, Why does an
> uzi bullet do more damage than a glock round??. the .45 does cutting
> damage (damage x 1.5 ) so even though the 2d of the .45 auto is less
> than the 2+2 of the 9mm pistol it tends to be about the same as the 9mm
> with an average roll and more on a high roll..
The Uzi has a longer barrel. Besides, the mean damage for 2+2 is 9
points, and for 3-1 its 9.5 points -- not that much of a difference really.
The .45 gets a x1.5 wounding modifier that the 9mm does not. Thus,
against an unarmored target, the mean damage is 7 * 1.5 = 10.5.
Ismo Peltonen
Mikko Kurki-Suonio (max...@swob.nullnet.fi) wrote:
> ela...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
[...]
> Well, it also assumed pretty low skill, 15. This costs typical PCs 1 or
> 2 points -- consequently they usually have enough skill "overhead" to
> counter the first minuses. You deleted the example, but for example a
> skill increase of +4 will *totally* eliminate the need to brace and take
> max aim in the above example. I know you're not going to tell me you've
> never seen a PC with Guns-19 or better.
+4 to skill will eliminate the need to aim more than one second and
brace. It still won't eliminate the need to aim one second, which is +3
or so more.
And I'd never deny having seen skill 19 characters - nor even higher
skills. I think the max skill I've seen was 23-25 in cyberpunk, using
Weapon Link bonuses in an arm-mounted weapon.
With that skill (and the 1800 yds 1/2D range of Launch Pistol) it
becomes possible to take shots to very long ranges with still having
good chances to hit, but then again, that 1800yds 1/2D is for a TL8
gun and so it assumes that Gyroc shots are very, very stable.
> The problem lies in what is possible at all, regardless of skill. I have
> yet to see a RPG that reasonably calculates inherent accuracy.
> Most combat autopistols have a group size of 2"-4" diameter at 25
> yards. That means even if clamp down the gun in a vise, different shots
> will strike withing that distance of each other (i.e. NOT in the same
> spot). Xmas eve is not a time to do math, but you can calculate what
> that group size means at 150 yards. Is it linear progression? Jeez, I
> should be sleeping...
If the progression is linear, the groups size is 12-24" @150yds. Still
within target size limitations (2yds diameter).
> Anyway, that's the hit area given ultraperfect conditions, with
> absolutely *no* influence on the shooter's part -- any miniscule mistake
> the shooter makes just makes it worse.
> Thus with every weapon, there's a range after which hitting a given
> sized target becomes guesswork instead of skill. 1/2 Damage tries to
> emulate this, but is not totally successful.
Shouldn't that guesswork be part of what the skill represents? A high
skill means that one is very good at shooting, approximating the range,
wind speed (if possible, ie. if there is anything that would be affected
by wind between the shooter and the target), knowing the shots to use,
and such things?
> However, my *real* gripe is that movement at longer ranges has very
> little or no meaning when calculating the hit possibilities. Let's take
> the previous example. I'm too tired to look it up now, but the target
> could be moving something like 49 yards/sec without affecting to-hit
> chances the slightest bit.
The easy way to change range/speed mods would be to calculate them
independently and adding them together (ie. if the target is @220yds,
moving @6yds/s, it totals -12 for range and -3 for speed, or -15 total).
As it is, I don't know how realistic THAT would be, but if it's better,
use it.
All together, I still haven't seen a system that (within limitations of
playability) would simulate firearms better. I've HEARD of games like
Phoenix Command or something like that which are realistic, but when I
heard things like 1/100th a second, I decided it can't be quite
playable (fast enough for play, in this case).
[...]
> However, it is certainly quite possible to hit, say, oil drums with
> revolvers at 600 yards, given a skilled shooter and some time to
> prepare. Not all shots will hit, but a big enough percentage of them
> will to diffrentiate it from mere critical hits.
> This is another gripe: The perfect shot with a handgun takes only 4
> seconds of preparation.
Then, tell me how is it in real life (how long does a perfect shot IN
FIELD take to prepare, and how does that differ from a perfect shot AT
RANGE), and I'll try to modify GURPS combat system to take those
differences into account. AND, how to simulate the differences of shots
in all (self-loaded, mass manufactured, does loading use Guns skill or
is it Sports: shooting or perhaps Mechanics or Engineering skill, how
hard it is, and how hard it is to do WELL), and so on.
Of course I could begin shooting myself and then use the first hand
information for parts, but I don't have the time, money, or interest in
that, so I'll rather rely on the others' experiences (which seem wildly
different, especially when we have a GM and two players who all have
guns and think themselves experts of the field (and a player who
doesn't), and the characters are in a situation where it's important to
get a shot right, with one try).
> > Again, I don't know how hard it is to hit a 2yds diameter stationary
> > target at 500 yds, but using GURPS rules, M16 has a 1/2 Dmg range of 500
> > yds, ie. over that range no accuracy or aim bonuses are gotten, so to
> > hit @1000yds is quite hard indeed (-14 range, +1 brace, total of -13 to
> > skill if perfect conditions and stationary 2yds diameter target).
> Do you have any idea what that 2yd target looks like over iron sights at
> 1000 yards?
Probably quite small. As I've said, I have no first hand experience. I
think physics would dictate that it looks about 1/5th of what it looks
like from ~30 yds, and I can't say what it looks from ~30 yds.
> This, on the other hand, is a problem of human limitations. Iron sights
> are just too coarse for shots at that range, excellent snipers
> *accustomed* to iron sights barred.
> It's a bit like trying to measure a length of two inches with a yard
> long stick.
OK, what does it take to qualify a character as an `excellent sniper
*accustomed* to iron sights' ? A Guns: Rifle skill @18 with familiarity
to iron sights (takes some was it 50-100 hours to get a familiarity for
a new speciality within skill limits)?
According to Special Ops, Delta force requires the skill Guns: Sniper
Rifle @ 18, but as there is no such skill in High Tech 2nd ed (which I
think should be thought as the best GURPS reference for firearms there
is, as it's the latest), I'd instead use Guns: Rifles with familiarity
for Sniper rifles. Anyone with FIRST HAND experience would tell how
different a sniper rifle is from other rifles (remember that assault
rifles are under Guns: Light Automatic in HT 2nd ed when firing at auto,
so it's not even the same skill anymore)? Should it be a familiarity or
a different skill, or should Sniping require several skills of which
just one was Guns: Rifles (the others being meteorology (to get good
guesses of wind speed, humidity, and whatever else is needed), Loading
(to get good shots, not some mass manufactured less than perfect ones),
and something else)?
> > I think the range chart works quite well and is good also in that that
> > it's easy to memorize (-6 for every range multiplication by 10). The
> > half damage range most often takes care of long shots getting far off,
> > and the normal case in game is NOT 'perfect conditions'. Accuracy,
> > recoil, range/speed, bad footing, and so on have to be taken into
> > account unless sniping in perfect conditions.
> The range chart's function is to describe how small a target the real
> target equals at a given range. This function is totally independent
> from weapon used, and works quite nicely. It's the other rules and
> modifiers a total realism fanatic finds lacking.
So those have to be modified to suit the reality lawyers ideals, too.
They could be made into optional `ultra realistic rules' in next version
of GURPS HT :-)
Again, I'm ready to try modeling the rules if I get enough information
on which to base the modifications.
> Another problem is that GMs are afraid to hand out subjective penalties
> like buck fever mentioned in High Tech.
HT 2nd ed. I don't even have it, just once checked the rules from a
friend's copy and used them for some time until I forgot them after not
GMing anything with firearms in it for some time.
> > And, if a character wants to kill someone and gets to snipe at him in
> > perfect conditions (no penalties but range, all bonuses that are
> > possible), remember tha he's taking a vital or head/brain shot to kill
> > (if he's not, I'll call him a fool: he'd better take at least vitals
> > shot if he wants to kill.. I'd prefer Barret model 90 from ~1200 yds to
> > vitals, using x50 optical scope.. 13d (ie. full HT), *3 for vitals, *1.5
> > for caliber, total of 4.5*HT, ie. instant death for any character with
> > HT less than 15. After shooting, I'd prefer teleporting).
> Hmmm... if I didn't have to stand in a speaker's box or something
> similar, I'd feel pretty safe against you. I doubt you could ever
> re-train your sights on me if I even maintained a walking pace.
Of course the character who'd try that would have to have quite high
Guns: Rifles skill, and thus would have lots better chance at keeping
the sights at the target than I would. Then again, I pictured a
speaker's box when I thought about sniping, as I don't know a thing
about it. I have to rely on the few films I've seen where I think
sniping has been shown from fairly realistic viewpoint and GURPS rules
about it.
> Also,
> it takes quite some time for the .50cal slug to travel that distance.
How fast is it? If I assume 400yds/s we get a nice 3 seconds. Anyway,
is it more or less than sound? If less, significantly less (to give time
to react)? I wouldn't assume it to be quite slow, as if it were, it'd be
pointless.
> You'd have to have a pretty large tube for that x50 to even see far
> enough ahead of me to take lead on aim.
> Another gripe: Added magnification does not endlessly increase accuracy.
I thought x50 is about the most that is used, which is why I named that
number. Say x30 if that's better, or x8 (although that sounds quite
little to me), and I think that's about +5 or +6 to accuracy in GURPS
terms (if I remember it right, every doubling of magnification adds +1
to accuracy, and there is no given limit in that although there should
be some rule about really high magnifications).
I know that with x8 to x10 magnification (using binoculars or camera -
used both quite a lot, although I prefer 200mm objective to those 500+mm
objectives - I'm not professional and IMHO larger than 200mm is quite
awkard to use) it's EASY to keep track of quite fast-moving birds and
get shots of them, so I'd assume it'd be EASY to track a walking human
(moving @ 1/10th or less of the speed at which the bird flies) with
x20-x30 magnification, and if one was good at it and trained for it,
even higher magnification wouldn't prove that much of a problem.
> Besides, the Barret is not really that *accurate* a gun.
I must again say that the reference I used was GURPS HT 1st ed where
they give Barret a 1/2D range of 2200 yds and accuracy of +16, which
both are best values they give for any rifle in the book, and thus I'd
think it was quite accurate for long ranges indeed. If I'm wrong, I'm
sorry, and I'd tell the GM that my character (who, to do something like
trying to snipe someone would probably have to be a professional) would
know better and thus would choose a better rifle for the job, and then
would ask the GM what rifle and what other equipment would my character,
a professional, choose.
IF the GM has information he can provide to me in terms I can understand
and give it appropriate modifiers and ranges and whatnot (compared to
the most accurate rifle in GURPS HT 1st ed - ie. better 1/2D range,
better accuracy, or some special rule, or whatever), then the character
chooses that. If the GM just says that `Barret isn't accuracte' and
leaves it at that, not modifying the values given for Barret and/or not
giving better values for some other rifle, then I can't see the point in
changing my choice - the GM left Barret as the best rifle.
> Tacking a high
> magnification scope on it does not change this basic fact one little
> bit. (It has one helluva flat shooting range, though). I'd bet my money
> on a Lapua .338 Magnum any day, or a variety of other rifle calibers.
Can You give GURPS stats for it, or would You, in the scenario I
mentioned above, just use it as a plot device / GM fiat / deific
intervention?
And, doesn't flat trajection mean inherent accuracy and thus long 1/2D
range? The accuracy given is enough to cancel 1000yds of range penalty,
and the +4 more for 3 more seconds of aiming and bracing are enough to
raise for 1500yds and take vitals - at normal skill (18+ for a
professional in this case, as is required from Delta Force snipers in
Special Ops.. I do use that for reference lacking any other).
> Besides, your example is wrong. According to High Tech 2nd. ed. a
> vitals shot has an absolute max damage of 3xHT. Blowthrough is the LAST
> step of damage calculation.
I have always though bullet size and type (AP/HP/std/HE/APEX/etc) are
modifiers that are counted still after max blow through. Otherwise,
what's the point for HP ammo for anything that does more than 3d damage?
I though it was meant to be used against unarmored targets (as it
doesn't punch through armor anyway), and if a gun does more than 3d
damage, it does full HT against normal humans most probably anyway, so
what's the point in HP anymore?
OK, I checked Basic and HT 1st ed for references, and saw nothing about
bullet size/type modifiers and blow through, so I have to assume You're
right.
> Thus, it is impossible to get a guaranteed
> one-shot kill against anything if you don't hit the brain or use
> weapons that bypass blow-through rules. One might argue how realistic
> this is, but that's the rule, and it's also one of the reasons why the
> Barret is not such a good sniper rifle after all.
True. Whatever the rules say about this, I'll still apply bullet
size/type modifier to blow through multiplier, as it strikes me quite
wrong that HP .45 @ vitals does no more (or not significantly more)
damage than 9mmP FMJ @ vitals ((2d+1 * 2.5) * 3 ~= (20 => 10) * 3 = 30;
2d+2 * 3 = 9 * 3 = 27). The first will be 5, the second 4, death checks,
ie. chances are (1/2)^5 ~ 3% against (1/2)^4 ~ 6% to survive.
If You decide to bring up the issue of HT 14, I'll bring up rifles with
5d+ damage to cover that, too. If You'll bring up HT 15+ issue, I'll say
it's a problem (probability of survival with HT 16 and total damage of
95 points (=> -79 < -HT*5) is (51/52)^12 ~ 79%, with the next point of
damage causing automatic death).
> max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
> Voice +358 0 8092681 | is just an ordinary pig.
> Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
> SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
--
C delphi
>All together, I still haven't seen a system that (within limitations of
>playability) would simulate firearms better. I've HEARD of games like
>Phoenix Command or something like that which are realistic, but when I
>heard things like 1/100th a second, I decided it can't be quite
>playable (fast enough for play, in this case).
(I am talking about Phoenix Command.) It addresses all of the questions people
are bringing up here. It runs very quickly and accurately. But I know how it
looks, when I first got it I thought it would be unplayable, from the looks of
it.
I was VERY WRONG! Try it, you'll like. (If you do wish to run it in 1/100 sec
blocks, you can, get the 1st ed. rules supplement, there is a paragraph there
on how to do so. It was included as a JOKE. But it does work.)
Jim
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> I see your point. I think the game simply needs a MAX range (Doesn't
> hero have this) for various weapons. You could even simplify this
> by category, maybe something like:
>
> snub nose pistols: 25 yards
> small pistols 40 yards
> medium pistols 50 yards
> large pistols 75 yards
> carbines 600 yards
> long rifles 1000 yards
>
> this is overly simplistic, I know. Maybe just double or triple the
> range penalties beyond this range...
GURPS already has MAX range and 1/2 Damaga ranges.
MAX range is how far the bullet will go, period.
1/2 Dam range is how far you can expect to hit with aimed fire, more or
less. However, because it also halves damage, it's somewhat too long
for snub pistols and autopistols with nonfixed barrel.
--------
Bill Oliver
Joel Lovell <jwlo...@ibeam.jf.intel.com> wrote:
>ter...@pentagon.io.com (Terence this is stupid stuff) wrote:
>> I know what you mean! Infact one of my best friends and gaming partners assures
>> me that the ranges are accurate. He is convinced that he can "plink" targets with
>> a .45 colt at 150 yards, so rather than fight about it we agreee to disagree. As
>> for your shooting, I was not saying that it could not be done. I have an AR-18o
>> assault rifle and I find that .223 gets wierd beyond about 300 yards. But if you
>> can hit a dog at 500 yards, who am I to say you cannot. I will just say what I
>> say to my friend... I will believe it when I see it.
>>
>> -- Tere
>>
>
>Well, you should believe it. Just because you personally haven't had the training to
>shoot a those kind of ranges doesn't mean it isn't possible.
>
>
>The USMC had us firing iron sight M16-A2's at 500 meters (a good 541 yards), at man
>... I can hit the vital
>
>As far as the handguns, give a good handgunner a .45 Colt Single action revolver in
>the earlier mentioned example, brace from a bench, that person could very well be
>trained well enough to hit a man sized target at 150 yards. A .45 auto would not
>likely be able to be accurate enough at that range.
>
I think the problem is not that he doesn't believe that it isn't *possible*,
with enough skill, to shoot extremely well at long range, but that this
isn't something that your mediocre person with average training can do.
Just as you can give a great example of tremendous shooting by a skilled person
after good training, I can present myself as a great example of lousy
shooting by an inept person after extensive training. I failed qualifying
with the 9mm three times barely made it on the fourth, and did almost
as badly with the M16.
Finally, after *lots* of effort from my Armorer, I am minimally competent
in a number of weapons, and my Senior Chief doesn't roll his eyes when I
walk onto the the range. Happily, that's pretty much good enough for
Medical Corps.
The question is whether the rules for the "average" user should reflect
my learning curve or yours.
billo
Terence this is stupid stuff
>With that skill (and the 1800 yds 1/2D range of Launch Pistol) it
>becomes possible to take shots to very long ranges with still having
>good chances to hit, but then again, that 1800yds 1/2D is for a TL8
>gun and so it assumes that Gyroc shots are very, very stable.
Reguardless of stabilization, unless there is some exotic targeting
going on, making a 1800 yard shot would still be amazing, even with a launch
pistol. the problem is that the target (a man sized one) would be so tiny that
the slightest error on the shooters part would be magnified tremendously on the
targets end of the ballistic trajectory. Vision enhancement would make it more
plausable and since it is gyro stablized you could say that a high-tech gyro
stabilized pistol, with a combat heads up display (or somthing like that)
could make a 1800 yard shot plausable, but the rules do not reflect that.. The
best of pistols would be no better than a TL-7 rifle without some ULTRA tech
targeting enhancements. (IMHO)
.... if you are actually designing this stuff you should go pace
1800 yards out. You might be amazed how far that actually is.. a car is kinda
small at that range :)
>> The problem lies in what is possible at all, regardless of skill. I have
>> yet to see a RPG that reasonably calculates inherent accuracy.
The old Delta force game by Task Force games had a great gun combat system, but
was way to incomplete to be of any use as an RPG aid in gurps. :(
(but had some GREAT ideas that could be used)
>If the progression is linear, the groups size is 12-24" @150yds. Still
>within target size limitations (2yds diameter).
Bullets tend to hold fairly tight patterns then suddenly go nutso.. chaos at work.
This sudden "ramdomness" occurs after a certain point and grows in magnitude
quickly. A really good example of this type of chaos is the smoke rising off a
cigarette.. If you look at a burning cigarette you will notice that the smoke
comes off the tip very linearly at first then at a point becomes very chaotic.
A bullet will fly in basicly parobalic path, the first part of the flight is
somewhat flat, but as gravity begins to pull the thing to earth it rapidly drops.
That is why High velocity rounds are so accurate at long ranges they cover alot
of ground before the drop from gravity needs to be taken into account. Air drag
imparts tiny errors in the bullets path so as it goes further these errors build
and suddenly you are WAY off target. IE you notice that the bullet hits to the left,
so you adjust to the right, the next shot then hits further to the left.. Hummmm
Chaos wins ! another one :) No matter how skilled you are you cannot put a bullet
in the exact same spot as the previous one.. Fortunatly (or unfortunatly
depending on your point of view) this error is not really a factor except at
long, and to a lesser extent medium ranges. SO the skill of the shooter is
simply the ability to reduce the error introduced by the SHOOTER and TARGET
to a minimum.
BUT every gun has a limitation... No matter what the shooters skill is.
>Shouldn't that guesswork be part of what the skill represents? A high
>skill means that one is very good at shooting, approximating the range,
>wind speed (if possible, ie. if there is anything that would be affected
>by wind between the shooter and the target), knowing the shots to use,
>and such things?
yep :).
>Of course I could begin shooting myself and then use the first hand
>information for parts, but I don't have the time, money, or interest in
>that, so I'll rather rely on the others' experiences (which seem wildly
>different, especially when we have a GM and two players who all have
>guns and think themselves experts of the field (and a player who
>doesn't), and the characters are in a situation where it's important to
>get a shot right, with one try).
If you design the rules you should at least do research! I have a friend who
thinks he can shoot a colt .45 Automatic at 150 yards and hit a paintcan(His gun
broke in a firefight so he was using his .45 and when I told him he could not
shoot the bad guy from 200 yards away, no matter what the rules said. He
then informed me of his prowess with a .45 auto) . I know from experience that he
cannot :) My experience is that peoples egos make shots that thier guns cannot :).
If you want people like me to take your game seriously you should probably try
to get some facts straight though!
>OK, what does it take to qualify a character as an `excellent sniper
>*accustomed* to iron sights' ? A Guns: Rifle skill @18 with familiarity
>to iron sights (takes some was it 50-100 hours to get a familiarity for
>a new speciality within skill limits)?
Suppose I get a guy with an average dex and no gun skill at all. I give
him a .45 auto and put my life-sized card board silloute of Sadaam Hussein
6 feet (2 yards away) from him. For the sake of argument lets assume his average
IQ of 10 allows him to grasp the concept of pointing the muzzle and pulling the
trigger.. I have him empty the clip SLOWFIRE into old Sadamm .. Gee He misses
every shot!! Why ?? How?? was this the guy from Pulp Fiction??? nope ..
His default is Dx-4 for a 6, there is zero range modifiers, but he gets a -4
for being below the SS of 10 for a .45 ACP. Wow !! a 2 to hit a cardboard
dummy at 6 feet! this guy could empty several clips before finally "holeing"
old Sadaam.. I feel so bad I let him aim.. (just for a second tho) so now
he can hit with a wopping 8!! Hell I could walk infront of him without breaking
a sweat - as long as he was pointin the gun at me that is :).
I know I know .. a unexperienced shooter , ect, ect... But it IS only
6 feet :). The moral of the story is never hand a gun to the npc and say "cover
em"
My MAJOR beef with gurps fireams is that it seems soley based on skill..
A guy with no gun skill cannot hit a target 6 feet away, and yet a guy with
an expert skill (skill 21 say) can plink cans at 300 yards with a .32 acp.
Guns do not work that way, and GURPS (for all its wonderfulness) does not (IN MY
OPPINION I MEAN :) ) model the strengths and limitations of firearms very well at all.
>Of course the character who'd try that would have to have quite high
>Guns: Rifles skill, and thus would have lots better chance at keeping
>the sights at the target than I would. Then again, I pictured a
>speaker's box when I thought about sniping, as I don't know a thing
>about it. I have to rely on the few films I've seen where I think
>sniping has been shown from fairly realistic viewpoint and GURPS rules
>about it.
Hummmmmm movie realisim != realisim realisim. If thats not true, my character
wants an arnie swartzenegger armored bush (the bushes from commando) ! :)
Guns were poplular because (even the early ones) were very predictable
in range, and it was easy to train someone to use them. Nothing has changed
except the ranges are greater and the weapons are much more reliable.
there shoul be base to hit numbers for short medium and long range no matter
WHAT your skill is. So say My friend from the above example can shoot a burgler
without becoming a firearms expert. This will also put limitations on the 300
yard .32 acp shots. I suggest you get ahold of the old Task force games "Delta
Force" rules, they are very realistic and PLAYABLE :) check it out ;)
>And, doesn't flat trajection mean inherent accuracy and thus long 1/2D
>range? The accuracy given is enough to cancel 1000yds of range penalty,
>and the +4 more for 3 more seconds of aiming and bracing are enough to
>raise for 1500yds and take vitals - at normal skill (18+ for a
>professional in this case, as is required from Delta Force snipers in
>Special Ops.. I do use that for reference lacking any other).
Yea, but I find the system TOO simple. Lots of loopholes for sneaky players
to blast yer favorite badguys before they even know what heppened! :)
PS I hope I do not sound flamatory, I do not mean to. I am just trying
to demonstrate my thoughts on the subject :)
thanks
-- Tere
Ken Farmer
: >With that skill (and the 1800 yds 1/2D range of Launch Pistol) it
: >becomes possible to take shots to very long ranges with still having
: >good chances to hit, but then again, that 1800yds 1/2D is for a TL8
: >gun and so it assumes that Gyroc shots are very, very stable.
: Reguardless of stabilization, unless there is some exotic targeting
: going on, making a 1800 yard shot would still be amazing, even with a launch
: pistol. the problem is that the target (a man sized one) would be so tiny that
: the slightest error on the shooters part would be magnified tremendously on the
: targets end of the ballistic trajectory. Vision enhancement would make it more
: plausable and since it is gyro stablized you could say that a high-tech gyro
: stabilized pistol, with a combat heads up display (or somthing like that)
: could make a 1800 yard shot plausable, but the rules do not reflect that.. The
: best of pistols would be no better than a TL-7 rifle without some ULTRA tech
: targeting enhancements. (IMHO)
Don't forget there are other factors involved besides distance, and
weapon specifics.
Consider target movement. A target at 50 yards (good
range for a pistol) moving slowly is no big problem. But a target moving
at 1800 yards is a big problem. The projectile takes so long to reach
the target that it may miss because the target stepped out of the way!
Now the sniper has to 'lead' the target - and that involves a whole new
set of factors - and a lot of randomness that no amount of skill will
reduce. The sniper just doesn't know the exact movement pattern of the
target - he can guess, he may have a good chance to know - but not 100%.
Additionally, consider visual factors: Is it hazy? How is the glare?
What about sunlight, is it getting dim? Doesn't matter much at 50-150
yards. It'll kill you at 1800 yards.
Consider the wind. You can't see it very well. You can look at trees,
flags, branches, etc, but you can't very well predict what the wind will
be by the time your project travels 1800 yards. Also, the wind has an
increasingly large affect upon a projectile as it slows down: as your
.223 gets to 1800 yards it is extremely suceptible to the wind. If it is a
still day fine, but if there are gusts you are just rolling the dice and
hoping to get lucky. Now if we're talking a real expert, constant light
wind he may have a chance to get an 1800 yard shot to target on the first
try. But it is a bad risk if that first shot is important.
Consider the lethality of a shot at 1800 yards. The projectile will be
traveling far more slowly at that range than at 100 yards. If you're
trying to kill someone you're going to need something with more mass &
velocity than a .223 will carry at that range. I don't believe you will
be able to rely upon a head shot so you are going to want something
heafty in order to destroy the vital organs.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> In article <B34uXc...@swob.nullnet.fi>
> +4 to skill will eliminate the need to aim more than one second and
> brace. It still won't eliminate the need to aim one second, which is +3
> or so more.
So what? 1 sec. aim is the normal mode for GURPS firefights at >20yds.
ranges in my experience.
What this means is that a fairly normal PC can snap off these shots in
combat with considerable chance of success, when a real life expert
pistol shot would be hard pressed to score in ideal conditions --
doesn't sound very realistic to me.
> And I'd never deny having seen skill 19 characters - nor even higher
> skills. I think the max skill I've seen was 23-25 in cyberpunk, using
> Weapon Link bonuses in an arm-mounted weapon.
>
> With that skill (and the 1800 yds 1/2D range of Launch Pistol) it
> becomes possible to take shots to very long ranges with still having
> good chances to hit, but then again, that 1800yds 1/2D is for a TL8
> gun and so it assumes that Gyroc shots are very, very stable.
IMHO, it only shows how GURPS breaks down at inflated skill levels.
Personally I'm not so sure the IQ bonus for Guns is such a good idea
after all.
[Group size]
> If the progression is linear, the groups size is 12-24" @150yds. Still
> within target size limitations (2yds diameter).
Well, since you base your calculation on the *largest* possible target,
let's take a counterexample:
Size is almost always (I know the execption, and it does not apply to
this example) rounded UP. Also, the target length is used for modifier,
if length is not more than 6 times greater than width. Thus, minimum
size for a "man-sized" target is 1 yard +1 inch tall, 1/6 of that wide
= 37" x 7" rounded up. It covers an area of 259 square inches, as
opposed to your 2yd diameter circle, which covers roughly 4070 square
inches.
I'm not in the mood for integrals, so I'll round the following example
UP, to give your side the benefit of doubt.
If the shooter aims at the exact center of this minimum size board (37"
x 7"), let's say a portion 12"x7" (84 square inches) at the minimum,
24"x7" (168 square inches) at the maximum of the variation circle lies
on target. Given that a circle of 12" diameter covers roughly 113
square inches and 24" diameter one roughly 452 square inches, the hit
percentages become:
12" variation: 84/113 = 74%
24" variation: 168/452 = 37%
In the given situation, it is simply *impossible* to hit better, no
matter how skilled you are.
> Shouldn't that guesswork be part of what the skill represents? A high
> skill means that one is very good at shooting, approximating the range,
> wind speed (if possible, ie. if there is anything that would be affected
> by wind between the shooter and the target), knowing the shots to use,
> and such things?
Yes, but we are talking about *random, unpredictable* fluctuations.
Do you think there should be a skill to guess the numbers in a lottery?
> The easy way to change range/speed mods would be to calculate them
> independently and adding them together (ie. if the target is @220yds,
> moving @6yds/s, it totals -12 for range and -3 for speed, or -15 total).
> As it is, I don't know how realistic THAT would be, but if it's better,
> use it.
That, OTOH, does not take into account that the same target speed at a
longer range has less effect on aim.
> All together, I still haven't seen a system that (within limitations of
> playability) would simulate firearms better. I've HEARD of games like
> Phoenix Command or something like that which are realistic, but when I
> heard things like 1/100th a second, I decided it can't be quite
> playable (fast enough for play, in this case).
Well, neither have I, but that doesn't mean GURPS is the perfect
realism/playability compromise possible.
> > This is another gripe: The perfect shot with a handgun takes only 4
> > seconds of preparation.
>
> Then, tell me how is it in real life (how long does a perfect shot IN
> FIELD take to prepare, and how does that differ from a perfect shot AT
> RANGE), and I'll try to modify GURPS combat system to take those
> differences into account.
Well, it depends on what definitions you use for field conditions. UIT
shooters have, I recall, something like 6 minutes to get off 5 shots.
Some would like still more time, even under the extremely controlled
conditions they have.
Depends a lot on shooter skill. I'd say tens of seconds to minutes, if
you include assuming the most comfortable shooting position possible
etc.
Maybe this is the problem: GURPS uses an arbitrary set of "field
conditions" as a base for calculations. In game this means little,
since the rules are most likely used under some sort of field
conditions, but it does hinder comparisons with real life.
> AND, how to simulate the differences of shots
> in all (self-loaded, mass manufactured, does loading use Guns skill or
> is it Sports: shooting or perhaps Mechanics or Engineering skill, how
> hard it is, and how hard it is to do WELL), and so on.
All ammo batches have variations. How much? Depends on a lot of things.
As a rough estimate, mass produced self-loaded ammo has the most,
factory loads second and carefully manufactured self-loads the least
variation, shot to shot.
I'd say it's a separate hobby skill defaulting from armoury(guns). It's
relatively easy, but takes patience and there's always a trade-off
between quality and quantity produced, given a set time.
> Of course I could begin shooting myself and then use the first hand
> information for parts, but I don't have the time, money, or interest in
> that, so I'll rather rely on the others' experiences (which seem wildly
> different, especially when we have a GM and two players who all have
> guns and think themselves experts of the field (and a player who
> doesn't), and the characters are in a situation where it's important to
> get a shot right, with one try).
Everybody considers themselves an expert in some field, don't they?
Well, IMHO, this is one of the great things about Usenet -- you can
reach many experts (and "experts") worldwide to give you an opinion.
However, in most cases it's just that, an opinion. Like this post is my
opinion.
> OK, what does it take to qualify a character as an éexcellent sniper
> *accustomed* to iron sights' ? A Guns: Rifle skill @18 with familiarity
> to iron sights (takes some was it 50-100 hours to get a familiarity for
> a new speciality within skill limits)?
In my opinion? I'd probably settle for familiarity with iron sight long
range shooting.
Now, no disrespect to anyone who actually does 1000yd rifle matches
(I'm hard pressed to find a 300yd range), but the last time I checked
my AR-15 didn't have sights adjustable to 1000yds. Neither do most of
modern military rifles either, in my knowledge.
Thus, if you want to shoot 1000yds. you have to sight in the rifle for
that range, am I not right? I don't think that's very feasible under
any kind of field conditions, maybe excepting prepared sniping
positions with a dedicated weapon.
Thus, taking a 1000yd. shot under field conditions becomes
approximating how much you have to aim high -- all while the front post
is probably covering the entire target in your view.
> According to Special Ops, Delta force requires the skill Guns: Sniper
> Rifle @ 18, but as there is no such skill in High Tech 2nd ed (which I
> think should be thought as the best GURPS reference for firearms there
> is, as it's the latest), I'd instead use Guns: Rifles with familiarity
> for Sniper rifles.
GURPS Special Ops also lists the "Thrown weapon (Grenade)" skill, when
other books explicitly say such a skill does not exist. I wouldn't
place my money on how "canon" Special Ops rules are.
I'd agree with your interpretation, but I have to admit long range
rifle shooting is not my field of expertise.
> Anyone with FIRST HAND experience would tell how
> different a sniper rifle is from other rifles (remember that assault
> rifles are under Guns: Light Automatic in HT 2nd ed when firing at auto,
> so it's not even the same skill anymore)?
We are talking about single shots here, IMHO.
> Should it be a familiarity or
> a different skill, or should Sniping require several skills of which
> just one was Guns: Rifles (the others being meteorology (to get good
> guesses of wind speed, humidity, and whatever else is needed), Loading
> (to get good shots, not some mass manufactured less than perfect ones),
> and something else)?
Lots of IMHO here:
Since most sniper rifles are simply selected military rifles with an
optical scope tacked on, the question becomes whether shooting iron
sights is a different skill from shooting scoped guns. I'd settle for
familiarity.
> > Another problem is that GMs are afraid to hand out subjective penalties
> > like buck fever mentioned in High Tech.
>
> HT 2nd ed. I don't even have it, just once checked the rules from a
> friend's copy and used them for some time until I forgot them after not
> GMing anything with firearms in it for some time.
Well, they just mean that psychological factors affect shooting skill.
The problem is that most GMs don't like to confront their players with
subjective penalties concerning the character's psyche. I can see it
easily leading to arguments when the player does not agree that 100
gunmen shooting at Johnny Heroic is not a distraction worth -X.
[Sniping me]
> Of course the character who'd try that would have to have quite high
> Guns: Rifles skill, and thus would have lots better chance at keeping
> the sights at the target than I would.
Well, no matter what your skill is, if I move out of the sight picture,
you're pretty much guessing where I went.
> > Also,
> > it takes quite some time for the .50cal slug to travel that distance.
>
> How fast is it? If I assume 400yds/s we get a nice 3 seconds.
Muzzle velocity roughly 1000yds/sec (no, I don't have any sources at
hand), dropping off from there. Flight time at 1200 yds. maybe 1.5-2.0
sec.
> Anyway,
> is it more or less than sound? If less, significantly less (to give time
> to react)? I wouldn't assume it to be quite slow, as if it were, it'd be
> pointless.
Practically all modern rounds are supersonic. It's not really a dodge
I'm talking about, but rather a random variation in my position you can
not predict by any means, given sufficiently random turns for me.
> > Another gripe: Added magnification does not endlessly increase accuracy.
>
> I thought x50 is about the most that is used, which is why I named that
> number. Say x30 if that's better, or x8 (although that sounds quite
> little to me), and I think that's about +5 or +6 to accuracy in GURPS
> terms (if I remember it right, every doubling of magnification adds +1
> to accuracy, and there is no given limit in that although there should
> be some rule about really high magnifications).
Hmmm... well, the problem is similar to trying to look at your feet
with binoculars -- there is such a thing as too much magnification.
There should be at limit based on range, similar to the rule used for
laser sights.
> I know that with x8 to x10 magnification (using binoculars or camera -
> used both quite a lot, although I prefer 200mm objective to those 500+mm
> objectives - I'm not professional and IMHO larger than 200mm is quite
> awkard to use) it's EASY to keep track of quite fast-moving birds and
> get shots of them, so I'd assume it'd be EASY to track a walking human
> (moving @ 1/10th or less of the speed at which the bird flies) with
> x20-x30 magnification, and if one was good at it and trained for it,
> even higher magnification wouldn't prove that much of a problem.
I'm no camera buff, but I'd say these long range objectives look a lot
thicker to me than most rifle scopes. Optical sights have the added
problem of trying to keep the sighting plane as close to the barrel as
possible.
> > Besides, the Barret is not really that *accurate* a gun.
>
> I must again say that the reference I used was GURPS HT 1st ed where
> they give Barret a 1/2D range of 2200 yds and accuracy of +16, which
> both are best values they give for any rifle in the book, and thus I'd
> think it was quite accurate for long ranges indeed.
Sorry, I thought we were talking in Real Life(tm) terms here. I'd have
to agree that the Barret really is the super rifle, given the stats it
has.
However, check the submachine gun section of your HT for another
example. Given those stats, there is no good reason to switch a WWII
era subgun for a modern Uzi -- yet real life armies made the change
gladly.
> If I'm wrong, I'm
> sorry, and I'd tell the GM that my character (who, to do something like
> trying to snipe someone would probably have to be a professional) would
> know better and thus would choose a better rifle for the job, and then
> would ask the GM what rifle and what other equipment would my character,
> a professional, choose.
GURPS is wrong in this respect, IMHO. You are ofcourse right to base
your choices on game material given.
> Can You give GURPS stats for it,
Well, I could extrapolate. But rather, I'd downgrade Barret stats to
reasonable levels (Acc mostly).
Aha, but it *is* corrected in 2nd. ed. HT. The given Acc 16 is *with*
x8 scope figured in. I suppose this is how they always meant it to be,
but forgot to mention in 1st ed. This still makes an overrated Acc +13,
the same as HK PSG1, a special sniper rifle with x6 scope. However,
this makes the PSG's Acc without the scope only +11, no different from
a number of standard battle rifles.
==> Conclusion: High Tech weapon tables and rules are seriously flawed.
The entire book is filled with rather accurate background info, but
absolutely no actual rules to implement them.
Has it occurred to you that HT does not have a *single* civilian rifle
designed in this century?
See Special Ops for sniper rifles, though they do not mention if scope
is included in Acc given.
> or would You, in the scenario I
> mentioned above, just use it as a plot device / GM fiat / deific
> intervention?
Depends on who is shooting the thing. My personal order of preference
is drama first, realism second and rules last.
> And, doesn't flat trajection mean inherent accuracy and thus long 1/2D
> range? The accuracy given is enough to cancel 1000yds of range penalty,
> and the +4 more for 3 more seconds of aiming and bracing are enough to
> raise for 1500yds and take vitals - at normal skill (18+ for a
> professional in this case, as is required from Delta Force snipers in
> Special Ops.. I do use that for reference lacking any other).
Nope. Flat trajectory *does* make range estimation a less important
skill, but it is not really connected to accuracy as per se. You might
say it's easier to shoot, but not really more accurate.
I have no problem with the high 1/2D range, it's the Acc I oppose.
I realize this is hard for non-shooters to understand and I can't
give an instant GURPS solution to the problem either.
This is about group size again.
True accuracy is how small a group your weapon shoots.
Ease of shooting is the how hard it is to center that group on target.
Optical scopes etc. help centering the group, but do nothing about true
accuracy (unlike in GURPS rules, where you can take any crap gun with
Acc 0, tack a xBazillion scope on it and have a result just as accurate
as any other rifle).
In most cases these two are similar enough to be called Acc, but in
extreme cases like long range shooting they should be separated.
> I have always though bullet size and type (AP/HP/std/HE/APEX/etc) are
> modifiers that are counted still after max blow through. Otherwise,
> what's the point for HP ammo for anything that does more than 3d damage?
> I though it was meant to be used against unarmored targets (as it
> doesn't punch through armor anyway), and if a gun does more than 3d
> damage, it does full HT against normal humans most probably anyway, so
> what's the point in HP anymore?
To guard against those low rolls :-)
Just to note, APEX *explosive* damage is separate and not affected by
blowthrough.
Realistically, maybe the blowthrough rules are a bit flawed. But the
truth may also be that hollowpoints in rifles (i.e. >3d base damage)
are superfluous against human-sized targets. Armies of the world make
do pretty fine with FMJ (i.e. std) ammo.
If you want to add extra nastiness to HP, you could say they cause more
bleeding and/or more shock, but those would be difficult rules to
implement.
> OK, I checked Basic and HT 1st ed for references, and saw nothing about
> bullet size/type modifiers and blow through, so I have to assume You're
> right.
This is IMHO the most screwed up section of 1st ed. High Tech. 2nd ed
is better, but still a bit lacking in the blowthrough interpretation.
> True. Whatever the rules say about this, I'll still apply bullet
> size/type modifier to blow through multiplier, as it strikes me quite
> wrong that HP .45 @ vitals does no more (or not significantly more)
> damage than 9mmP FMJ @ vitals ((2d+1 * 2.5) * 3 ü= (20 => 10) * 3 = 30;
> 2d+2 * 3 = 9 * 3 = 27). The first will be 5, the second 4, death checks,
> ie. chances are (1/2) 3% against (1/2) 6% to survive.
It's your game and your call. I won't argue with that.
Personally I'd say that the difference on the average roll really is
not that much.
Remember, people whose lives depend on those shots incapacitating the
attacker can not rely on average performance. If they happen to "roll
low damage", they may be really dead without the extra multiplier for
HP bullets.
> If You decide to bring up the issue of HT 14, I'll bring up rifles with
> 5d+ damage to cover that, too. If You'll bring up HT 15+ issue, I'll say
> it's a problem (probability of survival with HT 16 and total damage of
> 95 points (=> -79 < -HT*5) is (51/52) 79%, with the next point of
> damage causing automatic death).
No, I won't. Personally I see nothing wrong with high HT, especially
since such cases have been documented in real life. And given that
bleeding has penalties for damage taken and that a HT roll is required
each second to remain conscious, high HT is really good only for that
last "Burst of Glory" unless you have very good backup. However, very
good backup means pretty good survival chances for characters with less
spectacular HT scores too...
--------
Terence this is stupid stuff
When I refered to "targeting system" I was refering to an integrated firecontrol
system kind-of-like what you might see on a modern day Main battle tank.
SO I assume this tl-8 heads up display (a helmet or somthing) would have
a ballistic computer(that adjusts for windage and predictable target movment)
,laser - or some other type of ranging, and most certainly
vision and light enhancement devices. Now with this GEE-WIZ technology you could
argue and I would agree thata character with some type of advanced firecontrol
system could actually HAVE a chance to hit at 1800 yards (assuming TL 8 stuff is
really good).
What I was trying to point out is that WITHOUT any supercomputer aid, a marksman
with a TL 8 pistol is far to accurate for my tastes. A few
people have pointed out that my examples "assume perfect conditions" well.. if
the shot is improbable under perfect conditions imagine how frustrated I become
when I see a character make a impossible shots under ADVERSE conditions with
ease.
>Consider the lethality of a shot at 1800 yards. The projectile will be
>traveling far more slowly at that range than at 100 yards. If you're
>trying to kill someone you're going to need something with more mass &
>velocity than a .223 will carry at that range. I don't believe you will
>be able to rely upon a head shot so you are going to want something
>heafty in order to destroy the vital organs.
It seems to me that even though a bullet is not considered effective,
it can be very DEADLY at up to 2.5 miles away..
The more mass the bullet/projectile has the more this is true.. odviously
Being hit by a brick thrown by someone would hurt much more than a .22 bullet
hucked at ya at the same speed. But do not kid yourself .. Depending on the
gun, bullets are still moving awfully fast at 3000 + yards.
-- tere
ter...@pentagon.io.com
Taki Kogoma
<3dsi6v$m...@news.mic.ucla.edu> in rec.games.frp.misc:
>max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:
>>GURPS Special Ops also lists the "Thrown weapon (Grenade)" skill, when
>>other books explicitly say such a skill does not exist. I wouldn't
>>place my money on how "canon" Special Ops rules are.
>
>knives and the like; I thought additional specialized throwing skills were an
>obvious extension to the way "Throwing" vs. "Throwing XXXXX" skills worked.
Yeah. Call it P/E (Default to Sport: Baseball - 3 ;-)
>>However, check the submachine gun section of your HT for another
>>example. Given those stats, there is no good reason to switch a WWII
>>era subgun for a modern Uzi -- yet real life armies made the change
>>gladly.
>
>Don't know the stats off the top of my head, but what IS the real reason real
>life armies made the change, just out of curiosity?
Modern SMGs are a) lighter (important to the poor grunt who has to lug
it around) b) more mechanically reliable and c) marginally more accurate
than their WW2 counterparts. They also have slightly higher RoFs.
Unfortunately, the selectin in HT is rather limited and I don't want to
bother hunting down Janes to compare a WW2 issue Sten vs. the comparable
Sterling just now. Still, the H&K MP5 family holds an advantage over
just about every SMG in use during WW2. (Lighter than the Thompson or
MP40, more reliable than the Sten, etc.)
Also, the Assault Rifle has taken the place of SMGs in military
doctrine except for Special Operaions Forces which tend to have rather
unique requirements.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk - qu...@unm.edu | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk
Ken Farmer
Granted, but I believe that a .223 round is more suseptible to wind than
a 120mm round is at a mile. Your targeting computer is not going to be
able to determine how gusts of wind behave unless you're in a very large
open area, and it will not be able to predict the exact movements of an
unaware target that is walking around.
: What I was trying to point out is that WITHOUT any supercomputer aid, a marksman
: with a TL 8 pistol is far to accurate for my tastes. A few
: people have pointed out that my examples "assume perfect conditions" well.. if
: the shot is improbable under perfect conditions imagine how frustrated I become
: when I see a character make a impossible shots under ADVERSE conditions with
: ease.
Right!
: >Consider the lethality of a shot at 1800 yards. The projectile will be
: >traveling far more slowly at that range than at 100 yards. If you're
: >trying to kill someone you're going to need something with more mass &
: >velocity than a .223 will carry at that range. I don't believe you will
: >be able to rely upon a head shot so you are going to want something
: >heafty in order to destroy the vital organs.
: It seems to me that even though a bullet is not considered effective,
: it can be very DEADLY at up to 2.5 miles away..
: The more mass the bullet/projectile has the more this is true.. odviously
: Being hit by a brick thrown by someone would hurt much more than a .22 bullet
: hucked at ya at the same speed. But do not kid yourself .. Depending on the
: gun, bullets are still moving awfully fast at 3000 + yards.
I agree with you completely. A bullet can be lethal at 3000 yards. But
it is very likely not going to be. And depending on what is being fired,
it could be very deadly. A 20mm or 50 cal round is going to be deadly at
that range. A 5.56 mm is not going to be deadly. It will be harmful.
It could kill, but probably won't.
What is the intent of the sniper?
Certainly not to kill someone - since his chance is poor and he probably
won't get another good shot. To annoy them? Ok, that would work. To
give them a message? Sure. To wound, harrass, and possibly kill
someone? Sure, that could work too. But if this is some paid assassin
trying to wipe out a dignitary, vp, etc he sure isn't going to waste an
opportunity on a shot like that.
Great Cthulhu
>Now, no disrespect to anyone who actually does 1000yd rifle matches
>(I'm hard pressed to find a 300yd range), but the last time I checked
>my AR-15 didn't have sights adjustable to 1000yds. Neither do most of
>modern military rifles either, in my knowledge.
Probably because such shooting is against modern military doctrine, if I
recall. It's an interesting point nevertheless. Perhaps we need to separate
the 1/2 Damage point from the Accuracy loss point? That extra degree of
freedom might just fix a lot of the problems being discussed in this thread,
at least somewhat.
>GURPS Special Ops also lists the "Thrown weapon (Grenade)" skill, when
>other books explicitly say such a skill does not exist. I wouldn't
>place my money on how "canon" Special Ops rules are.
Hm. IMHO, there SHOULD be a "Thrown weapon (Grenade)" skill, just like for
knives and the like; I thought additional specialized throwing skills were an
obvious extension to the way "Throwing" vs. "Throwing XXXXX" skills worked.
>However, check the submachine gun section of your HT for another
>example. Given those stats, there is no good reason to switch a WWII
>era subgun for a modern Uzi -- yet real life armies made the change
>gladly.
Don't know the stats off the top of my head, but what IS the real reason real
life armies made the change, just out of curiosity?
>This is about group size again.
>True accuracy is how small a group your weapon shoots.
>Ease of shooting is the how hard it is to center that group on target.
>Optical scopes etc. help centering the group, but do nothing about true
>accuracy (unlike in GURPS rules, where you can take any crap gun with
>Acc 0, tack a xBazillion scope on it and have a result just as accurate
>as any other rifle).
Okay, I'm starting to see the problem here. You're right; a good, realistic
simulation would take this into account. I think the only way to make
something like that playable, however, would be something akin to what I've
heard is used in Millenium's End or something like that: target silhouettes
with overlays. Someday I've got to try to get hold of that....
>Realistically, maybe the blowthrough rules are a bit flawed. But the
>truth may also be that hollowpoints in rifles (i.e. >3d base damage)
>are superfluous against human-sized targets. Armies of the world make
>do pretty fine with FMJ (i.e. std) ammo.
I suspect that might be due to this little thing called the Geneva Convention
(aren't hollowpoints forbidden under it?), plus the fact that the objective of
rifle fire in military use is to suppress and WOUND, not kill; it's actually
more effective in many ways to wound enemy soldiers than to kill them unless
the enemy just lets wounded men die, in which case it's equivalent anyway.
1/2 B^)
>ela...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
>> True. Whatever the rules say about this, I'll still apply bullet
>> size/type modifier to blow through multiplier, as it strikes me quite
>> wrong that HP .45 @ vitals does no more (or not significantly more)
>> damage than 9mmP FMJ @ vitals ((2d+1 * 2.5) * 3 |= (20 => 10) * 3 = 30;
>> 2d+2 * 3 = 9 * 3 = 27). The first will be 5, the second 4, death checks,
>> ie. chances are (1/2) 3% against (1/2) 6% to survive.
>It's your game and your call. I won't argue with that.
I've got to agree here. A bigger diameter "blow-through" hole should do more
damage; this is something I've always disliked about the blow-through rule as
written in GURPS.
--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"Hell has our phone number." - DEC "I'll bet it does!" - Me
GS d-(+) H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v C++ UH++(++++) P--- L- 3- E N++ K W--- M+ V--
po- Y+ t+ 5- j R++ G+('') tv b+++ !D B--- e++>++++ u+ h---(*) f r+++ n- y+++
Terence this is stupid stuff
>Granted, but I believe that a .223 round is more suseptible to wind than
>a 120mm round is at a mile. Your targeting computer is not going to be
>able to determine how gusts of wind behave unless you're in a very large
>open area, and it will not be able to predict the exact movements of an
>unaware target that is walking around.
Oh yea of course :) .223 is very limited that way . .. I was refering to a gee-wiz
gyro-stabilized launch pistol :) It is a gyroc round and is quite spectacular
in terms of damage and range in gurps ULTRA-TECH..
>What is the intent of the sniper?
>Certainly not to kill someone - since his chance is poor and he probably
>won't get another good shot. To annoy them? Ok, that would work. To
>give them a message? Sure. To wound, harrass, and possibly kill
>someone? Sure, that could work too. But if this is some paid assassin
>trying to wipe out a dignitary, vp, etc he sure isn't going to waste an
>opportunity on a shot like that.
Why the purpose of the sniper is to give a character with a BIG skill level and a handgun
the chance to how his buddies how easy it is to blast a sniping NPC with a
1000 yard pistol shot !!
-- Tere ;)
ter...@io.com
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. It runs in 2 second blocks, cut into .5 chunks if necess
> (I am talking about Phoenix Command.) It addresses all of the questions peopl
> are bringing up here. It runs very quickly and accurately. But I know how it
> looks, when I first got it I thought it would be unplayable, from the looks o
> it.
> I was VERY WRONG! Try it, you'll like. (If you do wish to run it in 1/100 sec
> blocks, you can, get the 1st ed. rules supplement, there is a paragraph there
> on how to do so. It was included as a JOKE. But it does work.)
Well, I only have the 1st ed, but it had seriously too many tables.
I mean, if you dropped a piece of equipment (or threw a grenade), you
had to check through 3 or 4 tables to get your new action number...
Full-auto rules were also a bit fuzzy, at least in 1st ed.
Joel Lovell
> Now, no disrespect to anyone who actually does 1000yd rifle matches
> (I'm hard pressed to find a 300yd range), but the last time I checked
> my AR-15 didn't have sights adjustable to 1000yds. Neither do most of
> modern military rifles either, in my knowledge.
meters (not yards) the six foot white square, with the man sized
silhouette was pratically so tiny that the sights covered it. The only
way to tell if you hit was when the target was lowered down into the
butts and a persom put a marker disk and raised the target back up.
Then they raised a stick with a large metal disk - red on one side,
which was used to indicated whether it was high, or low, or missed. If
a miss, you got Maggies drawers, it was waved back and forth. It wasn't
easy. As far as 1000 yard matches, I wouldn't use an AR15 unless it
was a match grade Olympia arms HBar chambered for .308, using a special
iron sight with range settings and windage adjustments so that you could
shoot at the very long ranges. These are the signts you would find on
the really older military rifles like the M7 or M1.
>
> Thus, if you want to shoot 1000yds. you have to sight in the rifle for
> that range, am I not right? I don't think that's very feasible under
> any kind of field conditions, maybe excepting prepared sniping
> positions with a dedicated weapon.
Not completely true. If you are familiar enough with your rifle, and you
are good enough, you can make adjustments for field conditions on the
fly. Marine Corps snipers in World War Two, Korea, and Vietnam can attest
to that. In fact, the WWII "devil dogs" got their nick name by the Germans
in the battle for Belleau Woods for their long range deadly sniper fire.
Those shots were over a 1000 yards. The sniper in vietnam would have
to "dope in" his rifle with a specific batch of ammo. When that batch
of ammor was used up, he would have to do it again. The temperature
changes would not be severe enough to have that much impact. The heat
of the barrel could affect the shot, the physical condition of the
shooter would affect it too. The rifles have to be specially made for
military sniping. The Remington Model 700 with scope by H&H precision is
an extremely accurate sniper rifle, which costs (last I checked) about
$4500. Bout the best I can get out of my cheapy Savage 7mm mag is 600
yard shots with a scope. If I could improve the Scope and the barrel
to match grade and free float it (barrel doesn't touch stock) I could
probably use it for 900 yard shots. The military sniper is EXTREMELY
effective in the field. Most shots were not at the 1000 yard range
though. They were skilled at getting in as close as they could.
>
> > Should it be a familiarity or
> > a different skill, or should Sniping require several skills of which
> > just one was Guns: Rifles (the others being meteorology (to get good
> > guesses of wind speed, humidity, and whatever else is needed), Loading
> > (to get good shots, not some mass manufactured less than perfect ones),
> > and something else)?
For GURPS, I'd say just a professional skill. A lot of it would not
be just one skill, but several actions. Getting the rifle "doped in"
and then getting to an optimal sniping position. Then relaxing for
the shot, (prep, aim, bracing, etc). By the way, the movie SNIPER
with Tom Berenger was, in my opinion, a pathetic representation of
Snipers...
>
> Since most sniper rifles are simply selected military rifles with an
> optical scope tacked on, the question becomes whether shooting iron
> sights is a different skill from shooting scoped guns. I'd settle for
> familiarity.
Marksmanship is marksmanship. The principals are all the same. Basic
familiarity with whats different about a weapon is no big deal. A lot
of people don't know about refraction problems in some cheaper grades of
scopes, but if you know about it and how to correct for it, it is minor.
>
> > > Another problem is that GMs are afraid to hand out subjective penalties
> > > like buck fever mentioned in High Tech.
sounds like a disadvantage the character would either buy or not buy. If
a GM told me I had a character with Buck Fever, I'd laugh him into the
stone age. I've never known a single person with that problem. I don't
know if its rare. I do know that if I play a character - a heroic persona,
I won't play him if he doesn't fit my concept. If I want a character with
that flaw, I'll design it into him. If I want a Steven Segal clone,
why should something so crippling be arbitrated into the picture by the GM?
>
> The problem is that most GMs don't like to confront their players with
> subjective penalties concerning the character's psyche. I can see it
> easily leading to arguments when the player does not agree that 100
> gunmen shooting at Johnny Heroic is not a distraction worth -X.
>
Great, what they need to do then is make them face the "realities" of
not paying attention to the "distraction". People tend to get tunnel
vision in combat, they focus intently on whats going to kill them (like
a gun shooting at them.) Firearms get hit a lot in shootouts. If they
fail a perception roll (with GM supplied penalties) to note flanking
opponents they'll get hit. If they don't flee from the hail of gunfire
from opponents, or take cover, they'll find that Dirty Harry (who is
given as the worst example of how to act in a gunfight in police training
circles) indeed led a charmed life. Force tactical judement on characters
by making them act intelligently. The beauty of a rpg is they'll learn
over time and only the character gets killed... :)
just a few cents worth :)
Ismo Peltonen
Terence this is stupid stuff (ter...@pentagon.io.com) wrote:
> >With that skill (and the 1800 yds 1/2D range of Launch Pistol) it
> >becomes possible to take shots to very long ranges with still having
> >good chances to hit, but then again, that 1800yds 1/2D is for a TL8
> >gun and so it assumes that Gyroc shots are very, very stable.
> Reguardless of stabilization, unless there is some exotic targeting
> going on, making a 1800 yard shot would still be amazing, even with a launch
> pistol. the problem is that the target (a man sized one) would be so tiny that
> the slightest error on the shooters part would be magnified tremendously on the
> targets end of the ballistic trajectory. Vision enhancement would make it more
> plausable and since it is gyro stablized you could say that a high-tech gyro
> stabilized pistol, with a combat heads up display (or somthing like that)
> could make a 1800 yard shot plausable, but the rules do not reflect that.. The
> best of pistols would be no better than a TL-7 rifle without some ULTRA tech
> targeting enhancements. (IMHO)
> .... if you are actually designing this stuff you should go pace
> 1800 yards out. You might be amazed how far that actually is.. a car is kinda
> small at that range :)
No, I just used GURPS Cyberpunk rules as they are. With Weapon Link,
Bionic Eyes, gyrostabilized Weapon Mount, and such things accuracy can
be brought quite high indeed. I suppose Weapon Link w/ Bionic Eyes gives
some magnification by itself, and it also gives some information
directly to the 'screen', eg. if the mounted weapon has rangefinder, it
gives range to the target, and so on.
[removed rest.. I'll get back to this in another post]
> PS I hope I do not sound flamatory, I do not mean to. I am just trying
> to demonstrate my thoughts on the subject :)
I'm not easily subdued by some flames :-)
> thanks
> -- Tere
> ter...@pentagon.io.com
Ismo Peltonen
Mikko Kurki-Suonio (max...@swob.nullnet.fi) wrote:
[most of the post removed - I'll just get to the point, ie. how could
the rules be changed to better reflect reality without sacrificing
playability too much]
> I have no problem with the high 1/2D range, it's the Acc I oppose.
> I realize this is hard for non-shooters to understand and I can't
> give an instant GURPS solution to the problem either.
> This is about group size again.
> True accuracy is how small a group your weapon shoots.
> Ease of shooting is the how hard it is to center that group on target.
> Optical scopes etc. help centering the group, but do nothing about true
> accuracy (unlike in GURPS rules, where you can take any crap gun with
> Acc 0, tack a xBazillion scope on it and have a result just as accurate
> as any other rifle).
> In most cases these two are similar enough to be called Acc, but in
> extreme cases like long range shooting they should be separated.
So, we should basically have the following things taken into account:
group size determines the maximum possible hit probability,
and nothing can change that. It's dependant on the gun and shot
used, and will gradually drop when range goes up.
1/2D range is the range at which the bullet no more strikes very
effectively, having lost lots of velocity.
Accuracy will enhance aim, and is dependant on the sights, and
nothing else.
The larger the magnification, the more likely it is to lose the
target due to movement - at long range and very high magnification
even a very small move will throw the aim to nothingness.
Skill determines the normal chance to hit, and is modified by
aiming. It also determines the chance of keeping the aim on
moving target at longer ranges with magnifying scopes.
There is always a chance that the target moves unexpectantly
and the shot misses. This goes up as the range (and thus the
time it takes for the bullet to reach the target) go up.
Is this about right? Do I get a cookie?
> max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
> Voice +358 0 8092681 | is just an ordinary pig.
> Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
> SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
--
douglas cole
As far as why a 9mm glock is listed as doing less damage than a 9mm Uzi, I can
perhaps throw a rationale on the fire for consideration.
The key is barrel length. A 9mm round might gain more time being pushed by
the propellant gases in a long barrel weapon. Thus it will emerge with a
higher velocity, going farther and doing more damage.
dhc
Chris Carroll
certified for higher velocity rounds-longer barrel also allows
use of different propellants. Bottom line: the bullet is moving
a lot faster.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> In article <J4B1Xc...@swob.nullnet.fi>
>
> So, we should basically have the following things taken into account:
>
> group size determines the maximum possible hit probability,
> and nothing can change that. It's dependant on the gun and shot
> used, and will gradually drop when range goes up.
Sounds fine, and pretty much like Phoenix Command: Every weapon has a table
called ballistic accuracy, which is the maximum to-hit chance at any given
range.
However, I'd say an extra table is not what GURPS needs -- the information
should be boiled to one (or at max 3) stat and a range dependant formula.
> 1/2D range is the range at which the bullet no more strikes very
> effectively, having lost lots of velocity.
>
> Accuracy will enhance aim, and is dependant on the sights, and
> nothing else.
>
> The larger the magnification, the more likely it is to lose the
> target due to movement - at long range and very high magnification
> even a very small move will throw the aim to nothingness.
I'd also increase SS, require bracing and require longer aim times to get
full magnification bonus. HT 1st ed. is actually better in this regard.
> Skill determines the normal chance to hit, and is modified by
> aiming. It also determines the chance of keeping the aim on
> moving target at longer ranges with magnifying scopes.
>
> There is always a chance that the target moves unexpectantly
> and the shot misses. This goes up as the range (and thus the
> time it takes for the bullet to reach the target) go up.
This gets a bit problematic. Since it is not dependant on skill, it
should either be a skill cap like ballistic accuracy, or a separate
roll. Non-conscious dodge roll, with bonus for flight time?
> Is this about right? Do I get a cookie?
Once you detail all of the above in GURPS terms, yes.
--------
Ismo Peltonen
> > In article <J4B1Xc...@swob.nullnet.fi>
> >
> > So, we should basically have the following things taken into account:
> >
> > group size determines the maximum possible hit probability,
> > and nothing can change that. It's dependant on the gun and shot
> > used, and will gradually drop when range goes up.
> Sounds fine, and pretty much like Phoenix Command: Every weapon has a table
> called ballistic accuracy, which is the maximum to-hit chance at any given
> range.
> However, I'd say an extra table is not what GURPS needs -- the information
> should be boiled to one (or at max 3) stat and a range dependant formula.
I would rather go for something easier. That is, define a breaking point
(max hit roll 10) for each gun, and then use range table so that each
range category less or more than the break point would raise or lower
the max hit roll by one.
Could this work?
> > 1/2D range is the range at which the bullet no more strikes very
> > effectively, having lost lots of velocity.
> >
> > Accuracy will enhance aim, and is dependant on the sights, and
> > nothing else.
> >
> > The larger the magnification, the more likely it is to lose the
> > target due to movement - at long range and very high magnification
> > even a very small move will throw the aim to nothingness.
> I'd also increase SS, require bracing and require longer aim times to get
> full magnification bonus. HT 1st ed. is actually better in this regard.
As SS should be based on bulk an ease of sighting, large scopes and such
should indeed increase SS. Longer aim times could be given by defining
that using magnifying sights aim bonus is gained by +1 per second aimed
up to the maximum, and bracing would be required to get any (or over
half?) aim bonus.
Is this OK?
> > Skill determines the normal chance to hit, and is modified by
> > aiming. It also determines the chance of keeping the aim on
> > moving target at longer ranges with magnifying scopes.
> >
> > There is always a chance that the target moves unexpectantly
> > and the shot misses. This goes up as the range (and thus the
> > time it takes for the bullet to reach the target) go up.
> This gets a bit problematic. Since it is not dependant on skill, it
> should either be a skill cap like ballistic accuracy, or a separate
> roll. Non-conscious dodge roll, with bonus for flight time?
Possibly something like that, although I'd make it heavily dependant on
the movement of target in general - a target speaking in a box can't
move much, while a target who's walking in open space has quite high
maximum mobility.
Perhaps target's movement speed + flight time in beginning seconds ?
> > Is this about right? Do I get a cookie?
> Once you detail all of the above in GURPS terms, yes.
Slowly, I'm trying to do it step by step, getting expert opinions
between the steps :-)
> max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
> Voice +358 0 8092681 | is just an ordinary pig.
> Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
> SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
--
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Probably because such shooting is against modern military doctrine, if I
> recall.
Well, yes, that's the main reason. But it does hinder those who actually
want to shoot at that kind of ranges.
> It's an interesting point nevertheless. Perhaps we need to separate
> the 1/2 Damage point from the Accuracy loss point? That extra degree of
> freedom might just fix a lot of the problems being discussed in this thread,
> at least somewhat.
That might be enough, but I'd rather have the maximum hit chance cap at
given ranges.
> Hm. IMHO, there SHOULD be a "Thrown weapon (Grenade)" skill, just like for
> knives and the like; I thought additional specialized throwing skills were an
> obvious extension to the way "Throwing" vs. "Throwing XXXXX" skills worked.
Well, the problem is that anyone skilled at throwing a hand grenade
would *also* logically be skilled at throwing a baseball (in fact, the
Finnish variation of baseball was *invented* to improve grenade throwing
skills among the youth), a rock or any about fist-sized roundish object.
Add the fact that throwing(hand grenade) should also cover "potato
smasher" style grenades, and the number of objects throwable with this
skill goes through the roof -- hammers, chicken legs, you name it.
Starts to sound pretty much like general throwing, doesn't it?
An acceptable compromise might be a new skill called "Throw anything
that doesn't have to hit point first (P/A)".
> Don't know the stats off the top of my head, but what IS the real reason real
> life armies made the change, just out of curiosity?
Modern subguns are more *compact*. They are weapons for confined spaces
and for officers, drivers and the like, who would find it awkward to to
lug around a full-sized rifle.
> I suspect that might be due to this little thing called the Geneva Convention
> (aren't hollowpoints forbidden under it?)
Yeah, but the russians didn't seem to care about it the last time they
came here with rifles. Yet they had FMJ and the occasional explosive bullets.
> plus the fact that the objective o
> rifle fire in military use is to suppress and WOUND, not kill; it's actually
> more effective in many ways to wound enemy soldiers than to kill them unless
> the enemy just lets wounded men die, in which case it's equivalent anyway.
This is the high level doctrine theory. In the field, men want their
opponents they stay down -- a wounded man can still shoot.
However, FMJ rounds are "nicer" -- either they kill you pretty outright
or they leave a cleaner wound (usually, there are exceptions).
> I've got to agree here. A bigger diameter "blow-through" hole should do more
> damage; this is something I've always disliked about the blow-through rule as
> written in GURPS.
From realism standpoint? The less auto-kill weapons, the more realism.
Men have been documented to survive just about anything.
Don't get this wrong, I'm not advocating returning to AD&D hit points.
Simply that predictable automatic kills are no more realistic than
automatic, predictable non-kills (hit point style).
--------
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Not completely true. If you are familiar enough with your rifle, and you
> are good enough, you can make adjustments for field conditions on the
> fly. Marine Corps snipers in World War Two, Korea, and Vietnam can attest
> to that. In fact, the WWII "devil dogs" got their nick name by the Germans
> in the battle for Belleau Woods for their long range deadly sniper fire.
> Those shots were over a 1000 yards.
But they were using M1s and the likes, which do have sights adjustable
to extended ranges, weren't they?
The boers of South Africa also scared the shit out of the Brits with
their long range accuracy, but that says very little of what kind of
shots you can expect with a M16 or AK47.
> > > > Another problem is that GMs are afraid to hand out subjective penalties
> > > > like buck fever mentioned in High Tech.
>
> sounds like a disadvantage the character would either buy or not buy. If
> a GM told me I had a character with Buck Fever, I'd laugh him into the
> stone age. I've never known a single person with that problem. I don't
> know if its rare.
Actually, it's not. Ask any sports doctor/shrink. Even top level
athletes can have serious problems like fear of winning. Sounds
ridiculous, doesn't it, but it's very true.
>I do know that if I play a character - a heroic persona,
> I won't play him if he doesn't fit my concept. If I want a character with
> that flaw, I'll design it into him. If I want a Steven Segal clone,
> why should something so crippling be arbitrated into the picture by the GM?
The basic character, IMHO, is somewhat normal human. He gets
disadvantages for facets that are below normal and has to pay for
advantages above normal.
If your Steven Segal clone was the norm, he'd have Combat Reflexes,
Toughness, High Pain Threshold etc. all by default, wouldn't he? If he
were the norm level, characters would get disadvantage points for *not*
having Combat Reflexes etc. However, this is clearly not the case in the
rules.
I'd venture as far as to say that most normal people are going to find
their skills hampered if they have to take a shot at a terrorist holding a
gun to their girlfriend/wife/best buddy.
If your character is not like that, buy Unfazeable for him.
> Great, what they need to do then is make them face the "realities" of
> not paying attention to the "distraction". People tend to get tunnel
> vision in combat, they focus intently on whats going to kill them (like
> a gun shooting at them.) Firearms get hit a lot in shootouts. If they
> fail a perception roll (with GM supplied penalties) to note flanking
> opponents they'll get hit. If they don't flee from the hail of gunfire
> from opponents, or take cover, they'll find that Dirty Harry (who is
> given as the worst example of how to act in a gunfight in police training
> circles) indeed led a charmed life. Force tactical judement on characters
> by making them act intelligently. The beauty of a rpg is they'll learn
> over time and only the character gets killed... :)
Unfortunately this either results in a lot of stiff PCs if your players
have little or no military experience, or you end up with a lot of cold
blooded killers who really didn't care that much for their
girlfriend/wife/best buddy anyway.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> As far as why a 9mm glock is listed as doing less damage than a 9mm Uzi, I ca
> perhaps throw a rationale on the fire for consideration.
>
> The key is barrel length. A 9mm round might gain more time being pushed by
> the propellant gases in a long barrel weapon. Thus it will emerge with a
> higher velocity, going farther and doing more damage.
That is a very good reason.
But people also fail to note that 2d+2 and 3d-1 are nearly same damage anyway.
2d+2 has min. 4 avg. 9 max. 14 points.
3d-1 has min. 2 avg. 9.5 max. 17 points.
Only the max damage is really any different, and it's a lot rarer than
rolling max damage on 2d+2.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> I would rather go for something easier. That is, define a breaking point
> (max hit roll 10) for each gun, and then use range table so that each
> range category less or more than the break point would raise or lower
> the max hit roll by one.
>
> Could this work?
Sounds pretty fine.
> As SS should be based on bulk an ease of sighting, large scopes and such
> should indeed increase SS. Longer aim times could be given by defining
> that using magnifying sights aim bonus is gained by +1 per second aimed
> up to the maximum, and bracing would be required to get any (or over
> half?) aim bonus.
>
> Is this OK?
I don't have to check how this correlates with 1st ed. HT, but it
sounds nice enough.
> Possibly something like that, although I'd make it heavily dependant on
> the movement of target in general - a target speaking in a box can't
> move much, while a target who's walking in open space has quite high
> maximum mobility.
>
> Perhaps target's movement speed + flight time in beginning seconds ?
Again, sounds nice, but you might want to do some actual math. Maybe
the "unpredictable movement" fire modifier could be added to the roll?
And yes, base the dodge on actual movement used, not speed.
--------
Taki Kogoma
<yeo6Xc...@swob.nullnet.fi> in rec.games.frp.misc:
>Joel Lovell <jwlo...@ibeam.jf.intel.com> writes:
>> Not completely true. If you are familiar enough with your rifle, and you
>> are good enough, you can make adjustments for field conditions on the
>> fly. Marine Corps snipers in World War Two, Korea, and Vietnam can attest
>> to that. In fact, the WWII "devil dogs" got their nick name by the Germans
>> in the battle for Belleau Woods for their long range deadly sniper fire.
>> Those shots were over a 1000 yards.
>
>But they were using M1s and the likes, which do have sights adjustable
>to extended ranges, weren't they?
Actually, the Marines at Bellau Woods were using M1903 bolt-action
rifles in WW*1*. (No Marine units were used in the ETO of WW2 except
for the Iceland occupation force.) What the Germans were impressed with
was not only the range and accuracy of the fire - they had snipers
with similar capabilities - but the sheer *volume* of on-target fire.
(Back then, the Marines put a premium on marksmanship.)
>The boers of South Africa also scared the shit out of the Brits with
>their long range accuracy, but that says very little of what kind of
>shots you can expect with a M16 or AK47.
Since the M16 and AK series of assault rifles were designed with a
maximum effective range - as per doctrine - of ~400 meters in mind...
Ismo Peltonen
> > I would rather go for something easier. That is, define a breaking point
> > (max hit roll 10) for each gun, and then use range table so that each
> > range category less or more than the break point would raise or lower
> > the max hit roll by one.
> >
> > Could this work?
> Sounds pretty fine.
OK, I'll leave this now for others to do - I have no idea where the
break point should be for what gun.
Oh yes, one more thing: shouldn't target size modifier also apply to
this cap? As it is, the larger the target, the higher the maximum
allowed deviation that still hits the target.
> > As SS should be based on bulk an ease of sighting, large scopes and such
> > should indeed increase SS. Longer aim times could be given by defining
> > that using magnifying sights aim bonus is gained by +1 per second aimed
> > up to the maximum, and bracing would be required to get any (or over
> > half?) aim bonus.
> >
> > Is this OK?
> I don't have to check how this correlates with 1st ed. HT, but it
> sounds nice enough.
So, this is set for now, too, for other parts but can one get any aim
bonus without bracing the gun when using magnifying sights?
> > Possibly something like that, although I'd make it heavily dependant on
> > the movement of target in general - a target speaking in a box can't
> > move much, while a target who's walking in open space has quite high
> > maximum mobility.
> >
> > Perhaps target's movement speed + flight time in beginning seconds ?
> Again, sounds nice, but you might want to do some actual math. Maybe
> the "unpredictable movement" fire modifier could be added to the roll?
> And yes, base the dodge on actual movement used, not speed.
"unpredictable movemet" fire modifier?
Anyway, it seems indeed that the non-conscious dodge should be at some
level, and I'd give more weight to flight time than current movement. I
counted that a non-conscious dodge would come to about 3-5 range in most
cases (1-3 yds/s movement and flight time of >1s), but to have about any
effect, it should be a little higher, so perhaps the flight time modifier
should be for half seconds rounded up (so that 1-1.5 seconds flight time
would give +3 to dodge).
Naturally, in this non-conscious dodge Combat Reflexes won't help any,
Danger sense is about the only advantage that will.
> max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
> Voice +358 0 8092681 | is just an ordinary pig.
> Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
> SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
--
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> Oh yes, one more thing: shouldn't target size modifier also apply to
> this cap? As it is, the larger the target, the higher the maximum
> allowed deviation that still hits the target.
Yep, I thought about it too, but forgot to mention.
> So, this is set for now, too, for other parts but can one get any aim
> bonus without bracing the gun when using magnifying sights?
Sure, it'll just never be quite as fast as with iron sights.
> "unpredictable movemet" fire modifier?
A -1 to -4 fire modifier for unpredictable movement. Or am I
remembering old rules again?
> Anyway, it seems indeed that the non-conscious dodge should be at some
> level, and I'd give more weight to flight time than current movement. I
> counted that a non-conscious dodge would come to about 3-5 range in most
> cases (1-3 yds/s movement and flight time of >1s), but to have about any
> effect, it should be a little higher, so perhaps the flight time modifier
> should be for half seconds rounded up (so that 1-1.5 seconds flight time
> would give +3 to dodge).
I seriously suggest you do the math. Even a couple of examples will
give you general idea of what to expect.
As flight time linearly increases the time available for target
movement, it linearly increases the maximum target displacement radius.
However, this means the actual displacement area is increased
quadratically --> So I think an extended flight time should have a
*serious* modifier to dodge. Maybe even multiply the dodge by flight
time in seconds.
--------
Ismo Peltonen
much like to hear others' opinions on them (Kromm? You SHOULD know most
GURPS rules so that You could have some idea what impact these
modifications would have).
Current proposal:
Each firearm should have a `break point' range, at which maximum hit
number is 10, ie. the group size has grown to give only 50% chance to
hit man-sized target. This number is modified by target size, and
special ammunition may also modify this.
From breakpoint on, each range category farther will lower the maximum
hit number by one, and each range category nearer will raise it by one.
Hmm.. Now that I think more of this, it might be that each range
category should modify break point by two, as otherwise it'd be
total of 12 range categories from 5+ to 17+, ie. a multiplication
by 100 of the range. With every range category modifying this
break point by two, it'll be total of six range categories, ie.
a multiplication by 10 of the range, from 5+ to 17+.
Sights used define the accuracy. Magnifying scopes give +1 per second
aimed up to the maximum accuracy, while iron sights give full aim in one
second. Still there is the +3 for additional aim time taken (+1 per
second).
A skill roll is required to get aim bonus, as it is possible for very
slight movement to throw target out of the sights, especially with
magnifying scopes.
All targets get non-conscious dodge for the reason that the target may
move unexpectedly in the time it takes for the bullet to reach the
target, so even a perfectly placed shot may miss.
This should take into account the current movement (NOT basic speed) of
the target and the flight time of the bullet. This is discussed more in
the end of the article.
Now, to my reply to Mikko's comments:
In article <e9k0Xc...@swob.nullnet.fi>
Mikko Kurki-Suonio (max...@swob.nullnet.fi) wrote:
> ela...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
> > So, this is set for now, too, for other parts but can one get any aim
> > bonus without bracing the gun when using magnifying sights?
> Sure, it'll just never be quite as fast as with iron sights.
But, can one get full accuracies from a magnifying scope without
bracing, or just some bonus not full? And still at +1 per second?
> > "unpredictable movemet" fire modifier?
> A -1 to -4 fire modifier for unpredictable movement. Or am I
> remembering old rules again?
With a quick scan through Basic: Ranged Combat section, Ref Screen
modifiers, and HT 1st ed, I didn't find it.
> > Anyway, it seems indeed that the non-conscious dodge should be at some
> > level, and I'd give more weight to flight time than current movement. I
> > counted that a non-conscious dodge would come to about 3-5 range in most
> > cases (1-3 yds/s movement and flight time of >1s), but to have about any
> > effect, it should be a little higher, so perhaps the flight time modifier
> > should be for half seconds rounded up (so that 1-1.5 seconds flight time
> > would give +3 to dodge).
> I seriously suggest you do the math. Even a couple of examples will
> give you general idea of what to expect.
> As flight time linearly increases the time available for target
> movement, it linearly increases the maximum target displacement radius.
> However, this means the actual displacement area is increased
> quadratically --> So I think an extended flight time should have a
> *serious* modifier to dodge. Maybe even multiply the dodge by flight
> time in seconds.
OK, I understand that fully well from the physics point of view. So,
perhaps half-seconds of flight time rounded up TIMES current movement in
yds/s (rounded up) ? That'd yield figures like 3*1 = 3 for someone
speaking in a box 3*2 = 6 for normal walking man, 3*3 = 9 for someone
jogging, and so on (from 1<1.5 seconds flight time, which, I think, is
about the range we're talking about, when with ranges of 1-1.5km and
supersonic shots with muzzle velocity of ~1000m/s).
Now, if this seems TOO much, let's go back to seconds instead of
half-seconds. It'd give 2, 4, and 6, modified by predictability of
movement, for the three examples in the above paragraph.
This scale is very coarse and thus there should be modifiers I can't
think of just now, other than that there should be some rating of
predictability of movement ranging from 0 to 2, which could be added to
non-conscious dodge.
Basically, the predictability of movement is mostly a defined by general
quickness and liveliness of the target and how well the sniper has
studied the target's movement patterns. Say, a young, lively person whom
the sniper hasn't had chance to study well enough (and I mean now
following his normal life quite a lot to get a hang of how he walks,
stands, smokes, how he keeps his hands and waves them, turns his head
around to eye his surroundings, and so on) would be non-predictable (2),
while an elder person who stands quite still, moves quite slowly and
carefully, lets his gaze wander slowly, and has been studied well by the
sniper, would be predictable (0).
The predicatbility of movement -scale should be kept fairly small so
that it's easier for the GM to asses the modifier.
Also, it is to be noted that eg. someone standing in a car, waving to
crowds, turning around, etc. should not have his current move counted as
that of the car (even if it's moving, say, at move 5+), as the movement
of the car is very predictable while the movement of the person in it is
not as predictable (say, -1). What is a good compromise? Perhaps
counting vehicular movement as very predictable, say, count as half its
speed rounded up (ie. a vehicle that is moving @ 10mph = move 5 gives a
move 3 for non-conscious dodge) and the movement of the person in it is
rated from predictable (0) to non-predictable (2) and applied after
multiplication. This'd give 3*3 = 9, quite probably +1 to it, for a
total of 10. That's a 50% chance, ie. VERY much! One had better have
more than one sniper, with both shooting more than once (two shots in
two seconds time two persons = 4 shots, giving actually a chance for the
bodyguards to react after the first shots).
> max...@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) | A pig who doesn't fly
> Voice +358 0 8092681 | is just an ordinary pig.
> Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) | - Porco Rosso
> SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND |
--
Dr Kromm
> OK, the rules modifications are now ruleswise quite done, so I'd very
> much like to hear others' opinions on them (Kromm? You SHOULD know most
> GURPS rules so that You could have some idea what impact these
> modifications would have).
Well, I must confess that I have utterly failed to follow this thread,
having been out of town and away from Usenet news for about two weeks. However,
I shall *try* to reply intelligently, given that I have been summoned by name
to do so :-)
> Each firearm should have a `break point' range, at which maximum hit
> number is 10, ie. the group size has grown to give only 50% chance to
> hit man-sized target.
In other words, past the "break point" range, the chance to hit becomes
Min(figured chance w/o this rule, 10)? OK, this seems reasonable - it reflects
reality well, in any event. That said, I should point out that this rule seems
to be an attempt to represent something that Half Damage Range is *already*
meant to represent. In the existing rules, once you are past HDR, no ACC or Aim
bonuses apply, making aimed shots at long range almost impossible anyway. My
question is whether the proposed new system so much better than the existing
rules as to justify the revision?
Also, there is already a rule (in the Basic Set, I believe) that limits
"random" shots to a 9 or less and the chance of a hit when just blazing away
with an automatic weapon to 6 or less. I would use 9, or even 6, as the chance
to hit after the "break point" range, not 10. This is chiefly so that the rules
will remain consistent. Similarly, I would assume that past the "break point"
range, Hit Location *has* to be rolled randomly, just as for a "lucky hit"
under the rules mentioned above?
> Sights used define the accuracy. Magnifying scopes give +1 per second
> aimed up to the maximum accuracy, while iron sights give full aim in one
> second.
I am not too clear on what you mean here. I agree that telescopic sights
should require a lot of extra time to use properly, but the tradeoff should be
that you get an edge in ACC. In your write-up, this tradeoff is not all that
clear.
> A skill roll is required to get aim bonus, as it is possible for very
> slight movement to throw target out of the sights, especially with
> magnifying scopes.
I like the basic idea, but I would prefer a raw DX roll, which would
represent holding the weapon steady for the shot. Good 'pods and so forth would
modify this roll. I am not convinced that some full-auto-loving maniac who has
Guns (Light Auto) at 20 and who is using his default of 16 to Guns (Rifle)
would have a better chance of properly employing a telescopic sight than would
even a novice sniper who has *bought* the Guns (Rifle) skill at only 14.
Also, I think that a Vision roll should be involved somewhere. Part of the
real reason why GURPS firearms combat breaks down at long range is that all of
the modifiers for things like darkness, range and cover are just penalties to
the Guns skill roll. In reality, you should probably have to make a Vision
roll, minus darkness, range and cover penalties, to even be allowed to make an
aimed shot. A good scope would help a lot on this roll, but it would require
extra time to use.
> All targets get non-conscious dodge for the reason that the target may
> move unexpectedly in the time it takes for the bullet to reach the
> target, so even a perfectly placed shot may miss.
This is what I think the Dodge versus firearms is meant to represent in
the first place. I agree that this point should be made implicitly.
> This should take into account the current movement (NOT basic speed) of
> the target and the flight time of the bullet.
This is a little iffy - see my comments below.
> > > Anyway, it seems indeed that the non-conscious dodge should be at some
> > > level, and I'd give more weight to flight time than current movement. I
> > > counted that a non-conscious dodge would come to about 3-5 range in most
> > > cases (1-3 yds/s movement and flight time of >1s)
If one really wishes to get nit-picky about this, you should also add a
rule to cover *really* close-range gunfights. If someone with iron nerve is "on
to you" and only a yard or two away, he can *actively* make it fairly tough to
get a shot at him. Supposedly, Russian Spetsnaz (sp?) types get actual training
in this area. Then there is also the consideration of special techniques for
movement under fire, such as actively using cover (as opposed to merely
standing behind it) and combining this with irregular movement ("zig-zag"
running). Active or conscious "Dodging" like this needs to be covered as well.
Another point is that, for the sake of a "non-conscious" Dodge, the speed
of predictable movement matters until the bullet leaves the gun. This is
*already* factored into the chance to hit, though. A good sniper leads a moving
target and so forth - and this is what a successful roll to hit with the Guns
skill means.
As I see it, the non-conscious Dodge should really be more of a measure of
the chance that the target moves in an unforseen way with respect to its
movement at the time the shot was taken. A jogger may be harder to lead than a
walking man, but if the sniper makes the Guns roll to hit (which *already*
includes Speed modifiers), then I would assume that he has successfully lead
the target and all that matters now is whether the jogger *or* the walker
suddenly turns, changes speed, stumbles, etcetera. This seems to be more of a
statistical effect that a speed-related one. A jogger is more likely to
stumble, but on the other hand, a walker is more likely to bend over to tie a
shoe.
> Also, it is to be noted that eg. someone standing in a car, waving to
> crowds, turning around, etc. should not have his current move counted as
> that of the car (even if it's moving, say, at move 5+), as the movement
> of the car is very predictable while the movement of the person in it is
> not as predictable (say, -1).
Hm. I would be willing to argue that unless the driver is a real pro, the
car is a high-performance vehicle, the road is smooth and straight and the
sniper has an excellent vantage, the car will bump and jerk around enough that
the sniper will have problems. Cars also have a lot of bits that make it hard
to get a clear shot at the people inside - I think that this is a perfect
example of how a Vision roll would apply. SOP for a car is to use a rocket or
else to hose it down with a lot of fire and shoot the fleeing passengers, is it
not?
----------
I see the issue of firearms combat - especially sniping - as the perfect
opportunity to make use of the Tactics skill.
A sniper should have to roll versus Tactics to properly observe the
target, employ a scope, and locate a perch where the perceived speed of the
target is minimized and where the sun or reflections are least likely to mess
up the shot. Perhaps the Tactics roll would give a -3 to hit for a Critical
Failure (and detection before the sniper gets a shot off, unless he can make a
Stealth roll), a -1 on a failure by 5 or more, a +1 on a success by 5 or more
and a +3 on a Critical Success.
Similarly, someone who is involved in a gunfight or who expects to be shot
at should get an active Dodge roll based on Move and PD, plus/minus modifiers
similar to the ones given above for a Tactics roll, and perhaps the usual +1
for Combat Reflexes. This represents moving unpredictably, using cover and
perhaps even dropping when you see a muzzle flash.
Rules like this bring Tactics into the realm of useful combat skills
(where it should be) and in the process smooth the transition between the
Advanced Combat system and the Mass Combat System (with its "Battle" skill
which is based on the average of your combat skill and your Tactics skill).
-Kromm
--
Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm | E-mail: | 1245 Rue Amherst
(a.k.a. Sean M. Punch) | pu...@ravel.physics.mcgill.ca | Montreal, Quebec
o---------/o\-----------o kr...@io.com | Canada H2L 3K9
/___\ | cx...@musica.mcgill.ca |
GURPS Illuminatus | pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca | Work: (514) 398-6506
and Q&A Meister | | Home: (514) 521-4667
Craig Sawyer
be short (unlike some of the others) :)
the point of the rules is not to muddy the waters too much... the beauty
of the GURPS system. I find the modifications unnecessary... this is
why:...
The 1/2 damage range is quite sufficient for most of the discussion...
you must understand that there are intangibles too high skill...
instinct that allows for extraordinary shots, even in adverse
conditions.. we all probably know someone who does things in a certain
area that seems impossible at first glance, but they simply have the
experience and talent with which to perform at that level....
Anyone who has (as most of the posting people seem to have) had
experience with firearm dynamics realizes that to make it playable you
give up an extreme amount of realism... I think GURPS packs an *amazing*
amount of realism into the number of rules they have for combat.....
'nuff said....
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> OK, the rules modifications are now ruleswise quite done, so I'd very
> much like to hear others' opinions on them (Kromm? You SHOULD know most
> GURPS rules so that You could have some idea what impact these
> modifications would have).
> Current proposal:
> Hmm.. Now that I think more of this, it might be that each range
> category should modify break point by two, as otherwise it'd be
> total of 12 range categories from 5+ to 17+, ie. a multiplication
> by 100 of the range. With every range category modifying this
> break point by two, it'll be total of six range categories, ie.
> a multiplication by 10 of the range, from 5+ to 17+.
Needs some reality checking. I'll get back to you on this later.
> But, can one get full accuracies from a magnifying scope without
> bracing, or just some bonus not full? And still at +1 per second?
For a low power scope, sure. Calls for a cap off some sort, methinks. And
aim bonus might be 1/2Acc first sec. full Acc next and +1 thereafter, +2
oops sorry, I mean plus normal aim time bonuses. Capping off at +3 mag
bonus for non-braced, +6 for braced (these last two are pretty spurious
numbers).
> > > "unpredictable movemet" fire modifier?
It's in Basic, I'm just too old to remember which edition. I'll check it
when I get back home.
[FLight time and such]
I'll think about the actual figures later on, but I'd like to add that in
GURPS traditions, I think this system should be applicaple to all sorts
of unguided missiles at the limits of their range.
Thus, if Stupendous Man tries to assassinate El Presidente with a javelin
from 1000 yards off the system must reflect the futility off this action
(even though his ST is high enough for the throw, the javelin is still
counted to be moving at thrown weapon speeds, i.e. about 20yds/sec. which
gives a flight time of about 50 seconds. If El Presidente is taking a
leisurely stroll at 3 yds/sec. this will give him time to move in a 150yd
radius, covering an area of roughly 70000 sq.yds. Let's say El Pres is a
big man and covers roughly 5sq.yds. of target area. This will give
5/70000 = 0,00714% hit chance. Hopefully Stupendous Man hasn't forgotten
his precognition lessons...)
--------
Mikko Kurki-Suonio
> > > > "unpredictable movemet" fire modifier?
>
> It's in Basic, I'm just too old to remember which edition. I'll check it
> when I get back home.
Sorry.
1st ed. and 2nd. ed.
I'm really getting too old for this...
Ken Farmer
I know the thread has gone beyond some of this earlier stuff, but I have
a couple of questions from way back then:
Joel Lovell (jwlo...@ibeam.jf.intel.com) wrote:
: >
: > Thus, if you want to shoot 1000yds. you have to sight in the rifle for
: > that range, am I not right? I don't think that's very feasible under
: > any kind of field conditions, maybe excepting prepared sniping
: > positions with a dedicated weapon.
: Not completely true. If you are familiar enough with your rifle, and you
: are good enough, you can make adjustments for field conditions on the
: fly. Marine Corps snipers in World War Two, Korea, and Vietnam can attest
: to that. In fact, the WWII "devil dogs" got their nick name by the Germans
: in the battle for Belleau Woods for their long range deadly sniper fire.
: Those shots were over a 1000 yards. The sniper in vietnam would have
: to "dope in" his rifle with a specific batch of ammo. When that batch
: of ammor was used up, he would have to do it again. The temperature
: changes would not be severe enough to have that much impact. The heat
: of the barrel could affect the shot, the physical condition of the
: shooter would affect it too. The rifles have to be specially made for
: military sniping. The Remington Model 700 with scope by H&H precision is
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a .308 or .30 06 round drop about 10
feet every 100 yards after about 800 yards? If that is the case, and
assuming that in the first world war they didn't have nifty range-finding
glass how could they accurately make shots like that? Unless, perhaps,
they were in a defensive position, and had manually marked off the
distances. Since even professional artillarists are almost unable to
manually determine distances to the 100 yards, how would a sniper know to
set his elevation for 900 yards, 1200 yards or somewhere in between.
Without that, his chance of hitting sounds like a big fat zero.
--
Ken Farmer
kfa...@usa.net
603...@mcimail.com
bo...@angus.mi.org
Manitou Springs, CO
Ismo Peltonen
Dr Kromm (pu...@chopin.Physics.McGill.CA) wrote:
> In article <D1t88...@tower.nullnet.fi> ela...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo
> Peltonen) writes:
> > Each firearm should have a `break point' range, at which maximum hit
> > number is 10, ie. the group size has grown to give only 50% chance to
> > hit man-sized target.
> In other words, past the "break point" range, the chance to hit becomes
> Min(figured chance w/o this rule, 10)? OK, this seems reasonable - it reflects
> reality well, in any event.
Basically that the chance to hit, whatever the skill and accessories
available, at the break point range is 50%, and that at shorter range
the maximum chance to hit should be higher, while at longer ranges it
should be lower.
While GURPS already has 1/2D range, it doesn't address this point well
enough: using a gun with short 1/2D range (like a pistol with 1/2D range
of 150 yds) that doesn't limit the chance to hit so very much for high
skill characters (150<200 yds gives range penalty of -12, and for a
character with skill 24 we'd need 450<700 yds range to drop him to 50%
chance to hit) who have 16- to hit number anyway up to the 1/2D range
due to accuracies etc. (+3 Acc, +3 additional aiming, +1 bracing => +7
with iron sights)
Also, for guns with very long 1/2D range (like some rifles with 1/2D
range over 1000yds) the chance to hit up to the 1/2D range is 16- and
up from that it'll be something like 6- going down (or impossible for
those with lower skill).
> > Sights used define the accuracy. Magnifying scopes give +1 per second
> > aimed up to the maximum accuracy, while iron sights give full aim in one
> > second.
> I am not too clear on what you mean here. I agree that telescopic sights
> should require a lot of extra time to use properly, but the tradeoff should be
> that you get an edge in ACC. In your write-up, this tradeoff is not all that
> clear.
I didn't mean that accuracies for magnifying sights should be lower than
for iron sights, only that while with iron sights the accuracies can be
gained very fast, with magnifying sights it'll take long to gain full
accuracies.
Of course one still would get the higher accuracy due to magnifying
sights (I think +1 for every doubling of magnification compared to iron
sights).
> > A skill roll is required to get aim bonus, as it is possible for very
> > slight movement to throw target out of the sights, especially with
> > magnifying scopes.
> I like the basic idea, but I would prefer a raw DX roll, which would
> represent holding the weapon steady for the shot.
Possibly true, I'll write it down so if I ever get to test these rules
I'll try it both ways.
> Also, I think that a Vision roll should be involved somewhere. Part of
> the real reason why GURPS firearms combat breaks down at long range is
> that all of the modifiers for things like darkness, range and cover are
> just penalties to the Guns skill roll. In reality, you should probably
> have to make a Vision roll, minus darkness, range and cover penalties,
> to even be allowed to make an aimed shot. A good scope would help a lot
> on this roll, but it would require extra time to use.
I remember requiring vision rolls sometimes and having had to make
vision rolls to shoot at things, but indeed, I can't find any rule about
it.
So, adding to the list: a vision roll with appropriate modifiers needs to
be made when it is not obvious that the target can be seen.
> > All targets get non-conscious dodge for the reason that the target may
> > move unexpectedly in the time it takes for the bullet to reach the
> > target, so even a perfectly placed shot may miss.
> This is what I think the Dodge versus firearms is meant to represent in
> the first place. I agree that this point should be made implicitly.
But no one gets dodge against attacks they don't even know about AFAIK..
[...]
NON-CONSCIOUS DODGE:
====================
OK, the most important factor in the non-conscious dodge should be the
flight time of the bullet: in longer time more may happen.
Still, a target moving faster will need make smaller relative change of
speed or direction to make the shot miss completely.
At the very least, I can't see how the reflexes of a person would make
any difference at all unless he also had Danger Sense.
[...]
> A jogger may be harder to lead than a
> walking man, but if the sniper makes the Guns roll to hit (which *already*
> includes Speed modifiers), then I would assume that he has successfully lead
> the target
Basically, at long ranges speed has no effect, whatsoever, unless we're
talking about VERY fast (if we take a range in the midpoint of the
category, eg. 200<(x=250)<300 yds, unless the target moves at least 20%
of the range in a second, the speed doesn't matter), only when we're
talking about near the upper limit of certain range category (say,
295yds), it'll be -1 only.
That means that speed matters only at short ranges. At long ranges the
range table implies that one can easily take the lead required.
[...]
> > Also, it is to be noted that eg. someone standing in a car, waving to
> > crowds, turning around, etc. should not have his current move counted as
> > that of the car (even if it's moving, say, at move 5+), as the movement
> > of the car is very predictable while the movement of the person in it is
> > not as predictable (say, -1).
> Hm. I would be willing to argue that unless the driver is a real
> pro, the car is a high-performance vehicle, the road is smooth and
> straight and the sniper has an excellent vantage, the car will bump and
> jerk around enough that the sniper will have problems. Cars also have a
> lot of bits that make it hard to get a clear shot at the people inside
> - I think that this is a perfect example of how a Vision roll would
> apply. SOP for a car is to use a rocket or else to hose it down with a
> lot of fire and shoot the fleeing passengers, is it not?
I think that if someone is able to 'stand in a car' waving to crowds and
turning around to make it sure that all see him, the car just HAS to
move quite smoothly and slowly, as unless that was the case, the person
would be sitting in there instead of standing.
Of course if the car wasn't open (oh yes, I do think that, too, is
required for people to be able to stand in cars) and it wasn't so
important if the others in the car and near vicinity get hurt, AND it
was possible to get more firepower near the car, something big that
leaves no space for speculation is better.
> I see the issue of firearms combat - especially sniping - as the perfect
> opportunity to make use of the Tactics skill.
Oh yes, I do like Tactics skill. Still, the non-conscious dodge
shouldn't much change with tactics rolls - it's more a matter of flight
time of the bullet, but true, if the character HAS observed the target
well enough and does know his motion patterns well enough, the
non-conscious dodge should be lower than if not (although I'm not sure
observing the target of future assasination is truly within Tactics
skill - I'd rather see it at least partially roleplayed instead).
Also, I can't see how tactics would change the inherent (in)accuracy of
the weapon/shot used. Even here I see more use for Armoury: Guns and
familiarity with sniper rifles than Tactics.
I _DO_ understand that tactics rolls should make difference in locating
a perfect place to shoot from AND get away from afterwards, but that'd
IMHO give shorter range, less cover for the target, and longer time for
the target to be in clear view, AND more time to get away after
shooting, more getaway routes, and so on.
> Similarly, someone who is involved in a gunfight or who expects to be shot
> at should get an active Dodge roll based on Move and PD, plus/minus modifiers
> similar to the ones given above for a Tactics roll, and perhaps the usual +1
> for Combat Reflexes. This represents moving unpredictably, using cover and
> perhaps even dropping when you see a muzzle flash.
But that's not actually non-conscious dodge, that's more conscious
action. That'd give any sniper much, much more penalties, perhaps even
enough to bring him under that 16- hit probability :-) as well.
> Dr Manfred Dieter Kromm | E-mail: | 1245 Rue Amherst
> (a.k.a. Sean M. Punch) | pu...@ravel.physics.mcgill.ca | Montreal, Quebec
> o---------/o\-----------o kr...@io.com | Canada H2L 3K9
> /___\ | cx...@musica.mcgill.ca |
> GURPS Illuminatus | pu...@hep.physics.mcgill.ca | Work: (514) 398-6506
> and Q&A Meister | | Home: (514) 521-4667
--
WILLIAM FRIERSON
>
>So, we should basically have the following things taken into account:
>
> group size determines the maximum possible hit probability,
> and nothing can change that. It's dependant on the gun and shot
> used, and will gradually drop when range goes up.
>
> 1/2D range is the range at which the bullet no more strikes very
> effectively, having lost lots of velocity.
>
> Accuracy will enhance aim, and is dependant on the sights, and
> nothing else.
>
> The larger the magnification, the more likely it is to lose the
> target due to movement - at long range and very high magnification
> even a very small move will throw the aim to nothingness.
>
> Skill determines the normal chance to hit, and is modified by
> aiming. It also determines the chance of keeping the aim on
> moving target at longer ranges with magnifying scopes.
>
> There is always a chance that the target moves unexpectantly
> and the shot misses. This goes up as the range (and thus the
> time it takes for the bullet to reach the target) go up.
>
>Is this about right? Do I get a cookie?
Sounds good to me. There's one thing to remember when talking about snipers.
In a military environemnt, there are sniper *teams*. The sniper, and one or
two spotters. That enables the sniper with a high mag scope to concentrate
on targets spotted by the spotters, who can use lower mag binos with a larger
field of view. And they also provide security for the sniper.
About the Barret .50 cal.: It was used during Desert Storm as an anti-vehicle
weapon, at extreme ranges. I imagine that you could shoot people, but probably
not at ranges in excess of 1200 meters.
An excellent reference supplement is RTG's Edge of the Sword Vol. 1. It
was written by an armorer and covers everything from handguns to heavy
weapons. And it gives group size from a bench for many of the weapons.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WIL...@Aztec.asu.edu
WILLIAM FRIERSON
You've got most of it. The longer barrel allows all the propellant to burn.
Most pistols don't have enough length to allow all the propellant to burn,
resulting in lower velocities.
WILLIAM FRIERSON
In a previous article, qu...@unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) says:
>Actually, the Marines at Bellau Woods were using M1903 bolt-action
>rifles in WW*1*. (No Marine units were used in the ETO of WW2 except
>for the Iceland occupation force.) What the Germans were impressed with
>was not only the range and accuracy of the fire - they had snipers
>with similar capabilities - but the sheer *volume* of on-target fire.
>(Back then, the Marines put a premium on marksmanship.)
I believe that they still put a premium on marksmanship. I'm not
speaking from personal experience (I was a soldier, not a marine).
>Since the M16 and AK series of assault rifles were designed with a
>maximum effective range - as per doctrine - of ~400 meters in mind...
>
The M16a2 with the ss109 round has an effective range of 800 meters. (So
I've been told).