Sletch pontificates on gun combat in SC3

[MilitiaJim]

...  The -1AD stuff might tread a little on the toes of the Soldier 6 ability though (so I'd be a bit cautious about it).

Yes.  Between that and "free" threat confirmation it seemed too good, so I split it between Standard and Special NPCs.

(It was not until a bit later that I went and looked at the Soldier list.  Leaving out bonus damage was deliberate.)

[MilitiaJim]

Autofire:  You fire any number of volleys (each consisting of 3 rounds) up to the weapons A(X) value.  Each volley fired gives you a +1 to hit.  You inflict additional damage for each multiple of the weapons recoil value you hit by.  Example: You fire 10 volleys from your 5.56mm AR (cook off the mag), you gain a +10 to hit your target and roll a 27 to hit (in total).  His defense is 14, so you inflict damage three times (beat by 13, not enough for a 4th damage).

Back to this:  It just doesn't work this way.  Dumping a magazine is a pretty good way not to hit anything.  The minus ten for dumping a whole magazine seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between simulation and reality.  Worth noting, IMO, is that large targets like vehicles are Much easier to hit, and dumping a full magazine of 5.56 x 45mm into a car is not doing it or its occupants any good.

...  Ya know, that may be the key difference.  Autofire really is for shooting up vehicles, and bursts are for going after people.  Yes, there are circumstances when you will be better hosing down one person, rather than just pumping in a couple of bursts, but those times are rare outliers that the existing rules cover.

For both an Autofire and a Strafe, I can see Bracing giving more than a +1 bonus.

[Mister Andersen]

What about autofire from a fixed position: the maxim guns from WWI just chewed through human flesh like a hot knife through butter.

How about full autofire adding an unsecured weapon's recoil to a target's defence?

[Sletchman]

The main reason for the bonus is that the chances of hitting something goes up if you throw a wall of lead at your target.  You will be wasting 90% of the mag though, at absolute minimum.

EDIT: That's the big reason I like the bonus, but it occurs to me that maybe the problem here is that it's too high.  What if it were + 1/2 volley number?  (So +5 tops, to unload a 30 round mag.)

For both an Autofire and a Strafe, I can see Bracing giving more than a +1 bonus.

I see Bracing reducing Recoil (rather then increasing ability to hit).  Not sure how much, my first pass would be by 1.  So if you braced with the example weapon you hit with your 2nd and 3rd shots of the burst if you exceed their defence by 4 and 8 (respectively).  Fixed positions maybe reduce more so (for the effect Mr A references).

How about full autofire adding an unsecured weapon's recoil to a target's defence?

That is a very interesting idea.  Something to ponder.

[Sletchman]

Just another thought:

Supressive Fire:  You may target a number of adjacent squares equal to 1/2 the weapons Autofire value [A(X)].  Each square targetted consumes 6 rounds of ammuntions, and any person who occupies these squares before the start of your next initiative must make a Reflex Save (DC 10+1/2 your attack bonus) or suffer the weapons damage.

Example: You target 4 adjacent squares and have an attack bonus of +12 with your M4.  You use 24 rounds of ammo and anybody occupying these squares must make a DC 16 reflex save to avoid being damaged.


Alternate DC = Make an attack roll, deduct recoil.  Might be too high though, but does include bracing and fixed positions automatically.  Just putting that out there.

It's "before your next initiative" to represent that all the round happens at the same time (in theory).

I'd also beef up cover, possibly twice what it is now.  That's just a general observation.

[MilitiaJim]

What about autofire from a fixed position: the maxim guns from WWI just chewed through human flesh like a hot knife through butter.

How about full autofire adding an unsecured weapon's recoil to a target's defence?

The Maxim guns were Braced, "Aimed," and Strafing.

Were I to try and model the fighting in the Western Front's trenches, I would treat a platoon like a vehicle, not a collection of individual people.

The main reason for the bonus is that the chances of hitting something goes up if you throw a wall of lead at your target.

Not particularly.  Each subsequent round drops the chance of any hits at all.  I heard it regularly:  Bradadada! of an AK volley, replied by pak! pak! of single 5.56 shots.  In short order the AK volleys dropped off as the gunmen fell to effective single shots.  Then Ma Deuce started singin':  BAHDUHDUHDUH, and it was over.

When you are going after people, single shots are more effective than bursts.  If you've got heavy weapons, like an M-2 .50 cal heavy machine gun, you can shoot below and around a window from which you just took fire, but that is well besides the point.

[TheTSKoala]

The main reason for the bonus is that the chances of hitting something goes up if you throw a wall of lead at your target.

Not particularly.  Each subsequent round drops the chance of any hits at all.  I heard it regularly:  Bradadada! of an AK volley, replied by pak! pak! of single 5.56 shots.  In short order the AK volleys dropped off as the gunmen fell to effective single shots.  Then Ma Deuce started singin':  BAHDUHDUHDUH, and it was over.

When you are going after people, single shots are more effective than bursts.  If you've got heavy weapons, like an M-2 .50 cal heavy machine gun, you can shoot below and around a window from which you just took fire, but that is well besides the point.

While MJ is spot on.. you can definitely be more effective with single round, that said, at which point are we deviating proficiency from mastery / training?  Take a logistics grunt.  Proficient with the M16, sure.  Would he have more luck trying to use a single round or a small grouping?  Designated Marksmen, Infantry, etc are going to far more capable of making selective shots at range, while taking fire.  But does that designate their proficiency with the style of weapon or more their training with that weapon?

Secondly.  The more we dial into specifics, are we entertaining trading fun for realism?  Decidedly, hiding in a car against 5.56mm is like hiding from a knife behind a peice of loose leaf paper.  But we see it in TV and the movies all the time.  Just food for thought as I read this thread.

(Off hand.  If the Zombies ever come.. everyone break for Militia Jim's house..)

[Sletchman]

While MJ is spot on.. you can definitely be more effective with single round, that said, at which point are we deviating proficiency from mastery / training?  Take a logistics grunt.  Proficient with the M16, sure.  Would he have more luck trying to use a single round or a small grouping?  Designated Marksmen, Infantry, etc are going to far more capable of making selective shots at range, while taking fire.  But does that designate their proficiency with the style of weapon or more their training with that weapon?

Precisely, and that's kind of what I was trying to get at (and you highlighted it better then me, too).  A 30:1 Ratio is pretty damn terrible (and shows that the tactic isn't efficient).  The reason that allied forces don't waste their ammo that way is illustrative of the difference between a low trained NPC (attack II-III) and a mid-level soldier.  The latter is better trained, has marksmanship skill (feats) and doesn't need to waste 29 bullets to make 1 count.

Also perhaps worth keeping in mind - I was more trying to represent a person making rapid bursts in the round, rather then hold the trigger for the entire 6 seconds.  Several quick squeezes sort of thing (and in hindsight should have made that very clear, which I failed to do).


No opinions on the Supressive Fire action?

Secondly.  The more we dial into specifics, are we entertaining trading fun for realism?  Decidedly, hiding in a car against 5.56mm is like hiding from a knife behind a peice of loose leaf paper.  But we see it in TV and the movies all the time.

Personal inclination:  Default level is realistic, but campaign qualties (Holywood Blockbuster or Pulp Action) make it less so.  Or the other way around, either works (Gritty / Deadly Combat makes it more realistic).

[TheTSKoala]

No opinions on the Supressive Fire action?

I do!  Just.. typing replies on a REALLY tiny screen. lol.  I tend to chunk and flip replies into separate topics as I can sometimes lose my point as I type on this confounded device.

Just another thought:

Supressive Fire:  You may target a number of adjacent squares equal to 1/2 the weapons Autofire value [A(X)].  Each square targetted consumes 6 rounds of ammuntions, and any person who occupies these squares before the start of your next initiative must make a Reflex Save (DC 10+1/2 your attack bonus) or suffer the weapons damage.

Example: You target 4 adjacent squares and have an attack bonus of +12 with your M4.  You use 24 rounds of ammo and anybody occupying these squares must make a DC 16 reflex save to avoid being damaged.

I like it with 1 addition and 1 caveat.  Caveat:  The round expenditure may need to be tweaked for balance and I'm not even going to try on that part.    The addition..

[----
Supressive Fire:  You may target a number of adjacent squares equal to 1/2 the weapons Autofire value [A(X)].  Each square targetted consumes 6 rounds of ammuntions, and any person who occupies these squares and takes an action before the start of your next initiative must make a Reflex Save (DC 10+1/2 your attack bonus) or suffer the weapons damage.

Example: You target 4 adjacent squares and have an attack bonus of +12 with your M4.  You use 24 rounds of ammo and anybody occupying these squares must make a DC 16 reflex save to avoid being damaged when they take any action.
----]

The idea being, you're suppressed.  You keep your head down, and don't budge, you're probably not going to get hit.  You poke up and try to get froggy though, all bets are off.

[Krensky]

I'm sure some people here have some practical experience on the effect of suppressing fire, but I always thought it was good place to add some stress damage even if you keep your head down.

[TheTSKoala]

I'm sure some people here have some practical experience on the effect of suppressing fire, but I always thought it was good place to add some stress damage even if you keep your head down.

^ This is definitely QFT.  That'd be a balance / reward Q for people far better at game mechanics.  Granted, you're expending your round and 6+ bullets to basically remove 1+ target from a round of combat (or they get riddled with lead..), would the suppression be 'a little too much'?  I dunno.  But you're definitely right.  Have lead fly all around you at very high rates of speed is a bit unnerving...

(Though.. in that vein of thought.. Government IT assets should impose stress damage.  +1D if outsourced.  +2D if outsourced and is governed by the Navy or DHS.)

[MilitiaJim]

(Off hand.  If the Zombies ever come.. everyone break for Militia Jim's house..)

No, please don't.  I have a tiny apartment, and in the interest of being a "good citizen" I am following my local "laws" and will be using blades on zombies, and any elected types I find...

Supressive Fire:  ...

I'll take the Koala modification and suggest that PCs use their full attack bonus.  When do you get your bonus up to +12? 

[Sletchman]

I'm sure some people here have some practical experience on the effect of suppressing fire, but I always thought it was good place to add some stress damage even if you keep your head down.

/dies.

That was totally in my mind right up until I typed it, and then I totally forgot.

@TheTSKoala:  I like the any action part, but it'd have to be tied with cover.  Standing in the open and doing nothing shouldn't be a defence against bullets.  I'll have a think about how to word it.  Also have an idea about bullet consumption (see below, but I'm not sure if you mean it should be more rounds/square or less).  The big benefit of tucking ass behind cover is that you get a reflex save boost (again, I'd bost cover's benefits) - so DC16 and you have a +6 from cover means you'll likely pass (not sure if that's enough though).

@Jim: How about we scrap the idea of a bonus/penalty alltogether for a minute.  How do the fundamentals of the rules work for you?  You shoot and you hit by multiples of the weapons recoil value - so it's easier with minimal recoil then it is with lots.  Bracing/Emplacements reduces recoil (making multihits easier).  If we do then the autofire value can be changed into something more multipupose, for example:

Mode:  A(X).  When used for a Strafe or Supressive Fire action the weapon can target a number of adjacent squares up to it's autofire value [A(X)].  When used for an autofire action the weapon can fire a number of volleys up to it's autofire action.  In either case, each square or volley consumes 5 rounds of ammunition, and you may only inflict damage a maximum number of times equal to ammunition consumed.

If inclined, you could even make the X breakdown to a 3 second block - based on the weapons RoF.  Which would allow half action strafe and autofire.

@Reflex vs Attack: For Medium saves vs Medium BAB, Attack bonus pulls ahead at 4th level.  For Good vs Good, it pulls ahead at 5th.  With recoil 5 deducted they won't be ahead of a medium reflex until 9th, or a high until 13th, which isn't actually to bad at raw levels.  You can achieve an unaimed +12 by 8th/9th pretty easily, at which point a DC16 isn't that high.  Having kind of thought it through I really like: Make an attack check, deduct recoil and that's the DC - it'll take a soldier a between 9 and 13 levels without feat support to dominate with it (and even then it's like a +2).

[TheTSKoala]

*puts on his theoretical design hat on*     Caution:  Koalas and attempts to be creative at the same time as doing math lead to the disappearance of the Roanoke Colony.

So.. Krensky and his evil ways of devious intent got me thinking.

Why are we having suppression fire do damage at all?  While that could be the end game, that's not the intent of the action.  It also leads itself to "my stats vs. the world" thinking, as decidedly someone could just ignore suppression if they think they can 'tank' it.

What about.. and.. everyone feel free to edit this as freely as possible as my first drafts are always terrifying..

Suppression Fire:  You may target a number of adjacent squares equal to 1/2 the weapons Autofire value [A(X)].  Each square targetted consumes 6 rounds of ammuntions, and any person who occupies these squares and takes an action before the start of your next initiative must make a Will Save (DC 10+1/2 your attack bonus) or suffer the stress damage equal.

How much stress damage?  Not a clue!  You're lucky that came out of my brain as cleanly as it did.  I dunno.. stress damage = weapon damage?  Heavier the weapon, the more poo-pants inducing they are?

[Sletchman]

I like where you're going with this.  How about this:

Suppressive Fire:  Choose a number of adjacent squares up to the weapons Autofire value [A(X)] and make an attack roll.  Any character occupying the squares who is not in cover before the start of your next initiative take the weapons damage, while any characters occupying the squres who are in cover must make a Will Save with a DC equal to your attack roll - the weapons recoil value or suffer the stress damage equal to the degree by which they failed.  Characters in cover can avoid this will save by not taking any actions this round.

Example: You Supress 3 squres with your tripod mounted SAW (Recoil 3), rolling a 19 for your attack.  In these 3 squares there is an NPC behind a pillar (3/4 cover) and one standing in the open.  If the character in the open doesn't move to cover by the end of his initiative he immediately suffers the weapons damage (if his defence is equal to or less then 19).  If the character behind the pillar acts, he must take a will save (DC16) or suffer stress damage equal to his margin of failure.


The words can certainly be tightened up, but I'm wondering how do people feel about the mechanics?  Basically I like the stress damage, but also think the possibility of being hit (if you're in the open) should be there.  It should be an "oh shit get to cover" effect, which is what I tried to model.  Stress damage could be bumped up to the weapons base damage - to model the big guns = more scary effect (but I do like margin of failure - a hardass is only a little scared, someone with no will might drop a brick).  Made recoil a factor because a low recoil weapon can be kept right next to your head with greater ease then a high recoil one (and thus increase the "oh shit" factor).  So, thoughts?

Won't be on for a while - it's 7.30am here now, so I gotta go out for the day.  At least I had a relatively productive night while not sleeping.  Looking forward to where this ends up by the time I get back home.